On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding
> energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is limited to no
> more than about 10 eV ...
>
Is this the energy required for a dislocation? Wouldn't it be h
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:24 AM, David Roberson wrote:
Eric, if the photons were to be emitted in random directions by the excited
> He4, then little kinetic energy would be imparted upon the nucleus.I
> suspect this is what you are referring to.
>
Perhaps; I'm not sure.
I had in mind someth
06, 2014 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion.
Both Rossi and DGT state that nickel isotopes of zero spin will react and
nickel isotopes with non zero spins do not. This is both experimenta
-l
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion.
Both Rossi and DGT state that nickel isotopes of zero spin will react and
nickel isotopes with non zero spins do no
- Original Message -
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion.
Both Rossi and DGT state that nickel isotopes of
o assume that. Crystals like in Pd metal I would consider to be
>>> one QM system as long as long as the ionic chemical bonds hold the atoms
>>> together. The nuclear magnetic moments of a crystal clearly couple with
>>> the electrons in the system. Nano particl
age -
> *From:* Edmund Storms
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Cc:* Edmund Storms
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:49 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
> Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding
> energy
From: Edmund Storms
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Cc: Edmund Storms
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
> Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding
> energy that can exist in a chemical s
-
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding
energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is
nds the trans coupling between nuclei
>>>(HH, HF, FF) is considerably larger than cis coupling.<<<
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christo
> From: Edmund Storms
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Cc: Edmund Storms
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Edmund Storms
ot of any
practical intensity.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Wed, Mar
Mark--
Its hard to keep track of who says what in these threads.
Sorry, Thanks for the correction.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: "MarkI-ZeroPoint"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:52 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
Bob:
It wasn't
am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
I wrote:
If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is
fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion
cores), the 4He daughter would have no or almost no energy.
This
The TSC theory has such a kinetic energy for the alphas identified
Bob.
- Original Message -
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
I wrote:
If an alpha is born
eps that I have omitted.(:-)
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
When alpha particles
On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
> When alpha particles pass through material, a series of nuclear reactions can
> occur that emit radiation. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation is emitted
> as the alpha slows down. Ha
Jones:
I gather I don't really understand what you're getting at. My responses
are designated by 4 embedded asterisks.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> From: Kevin O'Malley
>
> It is fact that LENR is not and cannot be a known fusion
> r
I wrote:
If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is
> fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion
> cores), the 4He daughter would have no or almost no energy.
>
This was stated incorrectly. To the extent that there is binding between
th
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
When alpha particles pass through material, a series of nuclear reactions
> can occur that emit radiation. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation is
> emitted as the alpha slows down. Hagelstrin describes these processes in
> the papers I attac
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
I think there is a large number of particles involved in the fractionation
> of energy resulting from LENR. Otherwise the structure would be damaged so
> as not to produce LENR anymore.
>
I like this line of approach. It reminds me of what Bob H
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Bob Cook wrote:
> I have had a similar notion relative to the Pd-D system. Specifically two
> D come together to form a virtual excited He particle with high spin energy
> that fractionates its high spin energy to electrons and other coupled
> particles to attain
From: Kevin O'Malley
It is fact that LENR is not and cannot be a known fusion
reaction, since it is fact that no known nuclear fusion reaction is gamma
free.
***Isn't Reversible Proton Fusion (RPF) Gamma free? It's
the most common
aks observed
> would be nice to know.
>
> Bob
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Axil Axil
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 5:26 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
> More
>
&
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
More
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf
Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems
We report evidence of photon emission in three experiments with hydrogen
has are in high spin states upon the decomposition of Be-8,
>>>> then small amounts of energy associated with transition from one state to
>>>> the next lower state would never be seen. If many electrons are involved
>>>> in the reaction it seems likely only sma
to
>>> the next lower state would never be seen. If many electrons are involved
>>> in the reaction it seems likely only small energy packets would be
>>> released. The secondary radiation may be missed.
>>>
>>> Why do you imply the secondary radiation should nece
nly small energy packets would be
>> released. The secondary radiation may be missed.
>>
>> Why do you imply the secondary radiation should necessarily be a high
>> energy photon(s)?
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Edmund
--- Original Message -
> From: Edmund Storms
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Cc: Edmund Storms
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2014, at 3:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> Ed, I was not
ion should necessarily be a high
> energy photon(s)?
>
> Bob
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Edmund Storms
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Cc:* Edmund Storms
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:34 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
&
It is fact that LENR is not and cannot be a known fusion reaction, since it
is fact that no known nuclear fusion reaction is gamma free. QED.
***Isn't Reversible Proton Fusion (RPF) Gamma free? It's the most common
fusion event in our solar system. I thought you were the one bringing it
up every
-
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
On Mar 5, 2014, at 3:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed, I was not suggesting that this reaction is the main one, I was m
rather than under the lamppost,
success will be impossible.
Ed Storms
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Edmund Storms
> To: vortex-l
> Cc: Edmund Storms
> Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 5:29 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Coop
wards. I believe some say that your
muscles might tense due to damage of the brain which might be the explanation.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l
Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 5:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
The incommensurability of
On Mar 5, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> From: Edmund Storms
>
> So your argument is that Hagelstein has generated incorrect arguments simply
> to support his own theory.
>
> They may or may not be incorrect, but they are definitely self-serving.
Have you read them? I have and the p
stated. Had
the original proposition been that it was not likely or observed I would have
remained silent.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 5:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
Yes Dave, th
From: Edmund Storms
So your argument is that Hagelstein has generated incorrect arguments simply
to support his own theory.
They may or may not be incorrect, but they are definitely self-serving.
And that no matter what is said about the Takahashi theory, it must be
correct because it
So your argument is that Hagelstein has generated incorrect arguments simply to
support his own theory. And that no matter what is said about the Takahashi
theory, it must be correct because it does not emit strong gamma and it must be
better than my theory. You apparently do not acknowledge any
.
>
> It is important to keep the concept of angular energy and angular momentum
> separate just as with linear momentum and kinetic energy.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Bob Cook
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 5:01 pm
>
les would
>> not be required. I do not believe conservation of angular momentum requires
>> two particles either. And keep in mind that potential energy may be changed
>> to the energy of angular momentum/spin energy in LENR.
>>
>> Bob
>> - Original
;> large difference in masses.Think of a rifle firing a bullet. Most of
>> the energy ends up in the bullet while linear momentum is conserved.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Edmund Storms
>> To: vortex
linear momentum and kinetic energy.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook
To: vortex-l
Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 5:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
Dave--
I think there is a large number of particles involved in the fractionation of
energy resulting
Jones--
Got it, thanks.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: "Jones Beene"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 1:51 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook
I am not familiar with TSC. Can you give a reference?
Bob
ial energy can be converted
> into angular momentum.<
What is the basis for this lack of acceptance?
Bob
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
B
-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook
I am not familiar with TSC. Can you give a reference?
Bob
Go to this page and type "TSC" in the search box. Many good papers
http://lenr-canr.org/
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
Piantelli has seen a 6 MeV proton in a cloud chamber.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:34 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed, the energy can be released in the form of a particle, such as an alpha, and
a gamma ray. Energy and momentum can be conserv
Jones--
I am not familiar with TSC. Can you give a reference?
Bob
- Original Message -
From: "Jones Beene"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 12:45 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook
Jones--
Alph
From: Edmund Storms
Jones, Hagelstein showed that this proposed reaction was not consistent with
what is observed.
We must also realize that Hagelstein is promoting his own theory which is
not consistent with the rest of nuclear physics.
As a result, Takahashi changed his explanation
tex-l
> Cc: Edmund Storms
> Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 4:09 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
> Bob, we are discussing a basic and fundamental concept. The energy
> generated when mass-energy is released requires emission of at least two
> particles for th
>> I note that, if there is no linear momentum to start, two particles would
>> not be required. I do not believe conservation of angular momentum
>> requires two particles either. And keep in mind that potential energy may
>> be changed to the energy of angular moment
energy ends up in the
bullet while linear momentum is conserved.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
Bob, we are discussing a basic and fundamental concept.
ntum to start, two particles would
>> not be required. I do not believe conservation of angular momentum requires
>> two particles either. And keep in mind that potential energy may be changed
>> to the energy of angular momentum/spin energy in LENR.
>>
>> Bob
l Message -
>From:
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 12:37 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
>
>In reply to Bob Cook's message of Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:58:10 -0800:
>Hi,
>[snip]
>> These local vortex formations provide templates
perature.
> The following paper addresses CNT size effects:
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1202/1202.1328.pdf
>
> It was identified by MarkI-zero point two days ago.
>
> Bob
>
> - Original Message - From:
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 12:37
, Mar 5, 2014 4:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
Ed--
You said:
>>Yes, that is what I'm saying. LENR can not result in a single alpha because
>>two particles are required to conserve momentum when energy is released. <<
I note that, if the
There is more than enough evidence to zero in on the prime cause of LENR
both in orthodox science and LENR data. You have not put the work into
utilizing all the data that is available.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>
f angular momentum
> requires two particles either. And keep in mind that potential energy may
> be changed to the energy of angular momentum/spin energy in LENR.
>
> Bob
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Edmund Storms
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Cc:* Edmund
momentum/spin energy in LENR.
>
> Bob
> - Original Message -
> From: Edmund Storms
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Cc: Edmund Storms
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 12:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2014, at 12
nt: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
On Mar 5, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
From: Edmund Storms
Jones, bremsstrahlung or "slowing down radiation" is not
produced by photons.
Who said it was?
I
On Mar 5, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Cook
>
> Jones--
>
>> Alphas would not produce Bremstrallung, if they gain no kinetic energy in
> being produced. Energy in the form of angular momentum would not produce
> the B word.
>
> Bob- That much
-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook
Jones--
> Alphas would not produce Bremstrallung, if they gain no kinetic energy in
being produced. Energy in the form of angular momentum would not produce
the B word.
Bob- That much is almost true, but you overlook the 800 pound gorilla in the
corne
In reply to Bob Cook's message of Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:58:10 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
> These local vortex formations provide templates upon which the solitons will
> condense. These quantum cavities absorbed both gamma radiation from nuclear
> reactions and infrared radiation from the reactor structure
On Mar 5, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> From: Edmund Storms
>
> Jones, bremsstrahlung or "slowing down radiation" is not
> produced by photons.
>
> Who said it was?
I'm not answering a claim. I'm simply giving information. You brought up
photons by talk
t: RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
From: Edmund Storms
Jones, bremsstrahlung or "slowing down radiation" is not
produced by photons.
Who said it was? You brought up photons. I asked for adequate
documentation
of intense photon emission - and am still waiting.
This is ge
From: Edmund Storms
Jones, bremsstrahlung or "slowing down radiation" is not
produced by photons.
Who said it was? You brought up photons. I asked for adequate documentation
of intense photon emission - and am still waiting.
This is generated by
:04 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
From: Bob Cook
There are nuclear events that occur without emission of gammas. The decay of
Ni-59 is an example. What's different in Ni-59 with respect to most other
radioactive decay?
Bob - It is not gammas
Jones, bremsstrahlung or "slowing down radiation" is not produced by photons.
This is generated by energetic electrons or particles such as alpha emission.
LENR produces neither kind of radiation. Therefore, bremsstrahlung is not an
issue because all the mass-energy is dissipated as photons. The
From: Bob Cook
There are nuclear events that occur without emission of gammas. The decay of
Ni-59 is an example. What's different in Ni-59 with respect to most other
radioactive decay?
Bob - It is not gammas alone which are absent in LENR - but gammas and
bremsstrahlung… which of co
particle. The spin coupling to the electronic
structure is the unknown sauce.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Bob Cook
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
Eric--
You wrote:
> I hav
ch 05, 2014 8:21 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
From: Eric Walker
This working assumption (of a known fusion reaction) is not justifiable by
facts, logic or common sense.
Sure. That's you're opinion. You're entitled to an opini
pared to the starting material.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
No, it’s not opinion when
From: Bob Cook
The definition of gamma emission is cropping up again. Jones I assume you
mean any electromagnetic radiation that stems from a nuclear transition of
some sort.
The trend in science, and even in physics, is to avoid the origin, since it
cannot always be known, and to use
momentum with near by nuclei, but are not part of the
nuclei.
Bob
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
On Mar 5, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
From: E
From: Edmund Storms
LENR emits photons. These photons are not as energetic as those produced by
many normal nuclear reactions, hence most do not escape the apparatus.
Where is the documented proof and spectra of these photons?
Eric,
Again, I apologize for any inference that this is personal or related precisely
to your prior post. My comment was intended to show only that:
1)LENR is NOT a known nuclear fusion reaction since all known fusion
reactions produce gamma radiation.
2)Since there is a novel r
On Mar 5, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
> From: Eric Walker
>
> This working assumption (of a known fusion reaction) is not justifiable by
> facts, logic or common sense.
>
> Sure. That's you're opinion. You're entitled to an opinion.
>
> Sorry to have made this blanket statement
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
> No, it’s not opinion when 100% of the available proof is on your side.
>
That's a pretty strong assessment of the merits of your position. :)
> It is fact that LENR is not and cannot be a known fusion reaction, since
> it is fact that no
From: Eric Walker
This working assumption (of a known fusion reaction) is not justifiable by
facts, logic or common sense.
Sure. That's you're opinion. You're entitled to an opinion.
Sorry to have made this blanket statement in regard to your prior post
specifically, Eric, since it
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
From: Eric Walker
>
> * This is yet another reason, one of many - why consideration of all
> the evidence, giving no preference to Pd-D, points to many different routes
> to gain in LENR.
>
> Sure… My working
From: Eric Walker
* This is yet another reason, one of many - why consideration of all
the evidence, giving no preference to Pd-D, points to many different routes
to gain in LENR.
Sure… My working assumption is that both NiH a
That just the CMFV theory of fusion.
- Original Message -
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
Here is my take on nickel and the Curie temperature.
First, the Ni/H reactor will not work w
It might be correct to say that there is one basic cause with many possible
effects.
Take the acceleration in the decay of radioactive isotopes. Such an effect
is a hard one to explain.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:27 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:27 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
> In his Arata replication, Ahern found that an alloy of mostly nickel
> with less than 10% Pd takes up more hydrogen than Pd alone.
>
This is interesting. But now we're talking about an Ni-Pd alloy, and
neither Ni nor Pd. Perhaps there is a
Here is my take on nickel and the Curie temperature.
First, the Ni/H reactor will not work well if its operating temperature is
below the Curie temperature. A cold reactor will radiate gamma rays.
At low temperatures, the nuclear reaction is not part of the magnetic based
positive feedback loop a
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 4 Mar 2014 16:54:13 -0500:
Hi,
It seems I got the magnitudes reversed.
However consider the following:-
Below the Curie Temperature Ni behaves as a Ferromagnetic material, and
increases the field strength when a current is applied, as it's magnetic domai
DGT:
"After each triggering duty cycle (the triggering sequences producing
excess heat), the magnetic fields at ~18 cm from the reactor at all three
locations rose from ~0.6 Tesla to ~1.6 Tesla (DC peak) during each reaction
period. Such anomalous peak signals were maintained for approximately 3-4
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 2 Mar 2014 13:23:09 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
I was under the impression that DGT started with a 1 Tesla field that they
created themselves, and that the experiment itself increased this to 1.6 T. IOW
a 60% increase. It is common for ferromagnetic materials to incr
Good start on a list. It is clear that the two isotopes are so very
different in nuclear properties that they should be considered different
elements- yet the chemical properties are identical or similar - so the
profound nuclear differences are masked by chemical similarity.
To add: one nucleu
nd Storms
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 7:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
>
> On Mar 4, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Bob Cook wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> From the experiments on NiH it seems that it is pretty difficult to get
>> protium inside
bject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
On Mar 4, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Bob Cook wrote:
From the experiments on NiH it seems that it is pretty difficult to get
protium inside the lattice--unlike Pd. This seems to point to surface
reactions for Ni and bulk reaction fo
knowledge of that clearly pertain to behavior separating these
isotopes.
Thanks,
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l
Sent: Tue, Mar 4, 2014 9:28 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
From:Eric Walker
Wikipedia has adiscussion
With palladium, deuterium serves two functions. It produces NAE by cracking
it and it also provides a surface dielectric SPP cover the permeates the
cracks.
Any deuterium that penetrates deeply into the lattice is lost to the
reaction.
With NiH, the NAE is premade, or produced in an ongoing p
On Mar 4, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Bob Cook wrote:
>
>
> From the experiments on NiH it seems that it is pretty difficult to get
> protium inside the lattice--unlike Pd. This seems to point to surface
> reactions for Ni and bulk reaction for Pd.
>
> Bob
Bob, all the evidence shows that the nu
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 6:27 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
From: Eric Walker
Wikipedia has a discussion of Nickel hydride with several references to
recent papers.
I'm thinking more in relative terms -- I believe it takes quite a lot
From: Eric Walker
Wikipedia has a discussion of Nickel hydride with several references to recent
papers.
I'm thinking more in relative terms -- I believe it takes quite a lot of energy
to dissolve hydrogen into nickel in comparison to the relative ease with which
hydrogen dissolves int
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
Wikipedia has a discussion of Nickel hydride with several references to
> recent papers.
>
I'm thinking more in relative terms -- I believe it takes quite a lot of
energy to dissolve hydrogen into nickel in comparison to the relative ease
with whi
Eric --
Wikipedia has a discussion of Nickel hydride with several references to recent
papers.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
On Sun, Mar 2, 20
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:32 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> Actually, I find it difficult to understand how the material [nickel]
> would be able to breathe well enough to allow entry of the fresh hydrogen
> and exit of the ash needed to supply the intense power. With that thought
> in mind, does
day, March 03, 2014 9:10 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
> You are describing the molten salt reactor where the U235 and the coolant
> are mixed together. In this type of reaction, the connection between heat
> and reactivity is tight... almost microscop
: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
You are describing the molten salt reactor where the U235 and the coolant are
mixed together. In this type of reaction, the connection between heat and
reactivity is tight... almost microscopic. On the other hand, It takes a lot of
time for the hea
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
