Re: BBC Horizon to feature Taleyarkhan

[thomas malloy]

thomas malloy wrote:
Ed Storms responded'
Once again, we are being treated to one more example of 
exaggeration and BS.  The Taleyarkhan cavitation work is hot 
fusion occurring in bubbles, not cold fusion.

I don't understand how hot fusion in bubbles differs from what the 
other LERN researchers are doing,
LENR describes nuclear reactions made to occur under conditions that 
conflict with all conventional experience and theory, while hot 
fusion in bubbles is normal high-energy fusion.
I've always assumed that any induced nuclear reaction, other than 
lasers in a plasma, was an LENR. Particularly if it involved bubbles 
in a liquid, which I assume was water.


 The rates are very low and the method would not work if power 
output were at commercial levels, yet this work gets attention. In 
contrast, Stringham has caused cold fusion to occur at near 
commercial levels in metals by applying deuterium to the metal 
using cavitation, yet this work is ignored.

It is regrettable that the physics establishment ignores this 
research. OTOH, once commercially feasible amount of energy are 
produced, things will change.
Unfortunately, commercial amounts of energy are impossible using 
this technique.  The amount of energy generated by each bubble is 
just too small.
Interesting observation. I've heard about inducing reactions by sonic 
stimulation of water. You're saying that the energy output for a 
reactions induced by what ever stimulation he was using will never go 
over unity, since you've studied it and I haven't,  I'll take your 
word for it.

I've been reading about the Yuri Popatov's Yusmar machine, which 
AFAIK, produces LENR's in an aquas solution by means of a vortex. 
Heat is a big item with Russians, and electricity costs something 
there too. The fact that he has lots of orders for the machines, 
should tell you something.


We are not being treated to dreams, but to nightmares.

Ever the pessimist
Guilty. In my defense, some times are more consistent with pessimism 
than others. This happens to be one of those times.

Regards,
Ed
I know what you mean.

Re: Evangelical environmentalists

[Grimer]

At 09:20 pm 20-02-05 -0500, you wrote:
>



>I was born on the same day Israel was reborn.  There is surely nothing
>prophetic in that, but it is a curious thing.
>
>Jeff


Maybe there was something "prophetic in that".

As with all prophesies - only time will tell.  8-)

Cheers

Frank Grimer

Domed Craft

[Ed Malone]

Maybe this is off topic a bit. I was curious as of 
why so many of these ufo craft sighted have a dome on the top. Is there any 
significance to this involving propulsion?
 
Ed

Re: Evangelical environmentalists

[revtec]

- Original Message - 
From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: Evangelical environmentalists



> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 5:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: Evangelical environmentalists

> If the Bible is literal truth of the physical reality, then the writers
> at that time would have had to be given knowledge about how the world
> was created and what would happen in the future that no normal man could
> have at that time.  Instead, the Bible contains conflicting statements,
> allegorical descriptions of creation, and predictions of the future that
> can be related to events only after the fact.

Two hundred years before king Cyrus of Persia was born, the prophet Isaiah
foretold by name (44:28 - 45:7) that Cyrus would be the one to release the
Jews from Babylonian captivity in 522 BC.

The prophet Micah, writing around 700 BC  wrote in (5:3) about the birth of
Jesus in Bethlehem.  When the wise men arrived at Herod's palace the scribes
looked it up and told them where to find Him!

King David in Psalm 22 wrote a description of Christ's crucifiction over
1000 years before it happened.

Jesus, when asked to comment on the splendor of the Jewish temple, said "not
one stone shall be left here upon another that shall not be thrown down."
This was said on Tuesday, three days before His crucifiction, and is
recorded in three of the four gospels.  Thirty some years later Titus of
Rome made it happen.  Jerusalem was leveled, The Jewish inhabitants were
relocated, and the nation of Israel was no more.

For the next twenty centuries, scholars, studying the Hebrew texts and the
writings of the apostles, both of which would form the canon of scriptures
known today as the Bible, would be perplexed at all the prophetic statements
regarding the restored nation of Israel.  It was perfectly clear that the
nation of Israel was destroyed beyond any hope of restoration.  That
"certainty" was "proof" for centuries, to many people, that the Bible was
erroneous and unreliable.

But, the unimaginable happened on May 18, 1948 and Israel was once again
established as a nation.  The nearly extinct Hebrew language is once again
spoken in the land.  Ironically, the language of the empire that tried to
destroy the Jews is spoken nowhere!

I was born on the same day Israel was reborn.  There is surely nothing
prophetic in that, but it is a curious thing.

Jeff


>Consequently, no evidence
> exists within the text that the knowledge base of the writers was beyond
> what was known or imagined at the time. As a result, the Bible as the
> literal word of God has to be taken on faith.  The conflict with science
> occurs because science attempts to take nothing on faith.  This is why
> science and religion can never agree.
>
> Regards,
> Ed
> >
> >
> >>What are scientists to make of statements given by religion
> >>based on such evidence?  This is rather like assuming the works of
> >>Aristotle are literally true and should be the basis for science.  How
> >>do Christian scientists deal with this problem?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Nuclear fusion 'put to the test'

[Harry Veeder]

 

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4270297.stm


Nuclear fusion 'put to the test'

It is three years since Professor Rusi Taleyarkhan made the controversial
claim that he had achieved one of the holy grails of science - nuclear
fusion.

Since then, he has grown tired of the scepticism of his fellow scientists.

"My lab has been audited, my instruments have been audited, my books have
been audited, the data speaks for itself.


"The data has to speak for itself - I mean how can I answer that I know
absolutely 100% sure that it is what I think it is? I just have to look at
the data and the data have been looked at very carefully.

"In the history of publication I probably will not be able to find one that
has gone through this level of scrutiny - if you do, let me know," he said.

Sonoluminescence

Nuclear fusion is nature's atomic power - it is what powers the Sun and, if
it can be made to happen here on Earth on a large enough scale, it promises
to solve all of mankind's energy problems in one go.

It would be clean, last for ever and create no long-term nuclear waste. And
Rusi Taleyarkhan claims to have achieved it using simple sound waves.

His breakthrough is based on something called sonoluminescence. It is a
process that transforms sound waves into flashes of light, focusing the
sound energy into a tiny flickering hot spot inside a bubble.

It has been nicknamed "the star in a jar" by researchers in the field.

The star in a jar effortlessly reaches temperatures of tens of thousands of
degrees, which is hotter than the surface of the Sun. It was able to do all
this by simply focusing the energy of the sound wave into a tiny hot spot.


In order to get fusion, temperatures inside the bubble had to be in the
region of 10 million degrees. It seemed improbable that the tiny hot spots
could be this hot. But if they were - or if a way could be found to make
them so - then a new route to nuclear fusion would be opened up.

In 1999, the US government made some research funds available and across
America a few laboratories started to explore ways to try to turn their star
in a jar into fusion. And Rusi Taleyarkhan got there first.

But there was one major criticism of Rusi Taleyarkhan's work.

When fusion takes place, particles called neutrons are given off. These are
considered by scientists to be the key signature of nuclear fusion - but
measuring neutrons on a small, laboratory scale had proven notoriously
difficult in the past because neutrons also occur naturally in the Earth's
environment.

Professor Taleyarkhan was also using them in part of his experiment. Many
scientists were unconvinced that Rusi Taleyarkhan's neutron detection was as
accurate as it needed to be to prove such a big claim.

To try to get to the bottom of the issue, the experiment was re-run by Mike
Saltmarsh and Dan Shapiro, colleagues of Taleyarkhan's at the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. But, when they repeated the experiment, they couldn't
find any evidence of fusion.

"If there had been fusion going on at the sort of rate that Taleyarkhan's
paper was claiming we should have seen an enormous increase in the neutron
detection and we didn't," said Mike Saltmarsh.

Scientific stalemate

Most of the key figures in the field lined up on the side of Mike Saltmarsh
but they could not dispute that Rusi Taleyarkhan had found what he said he
had found. It seemed to be a scientific stalemate.


Then two years later, in March 2004, Rusi Taleyarkhan came out with a new
paper, showing even more fusion and more neutrons. This paper was thoroughly
reviewed and published in another respected journal.

But some sceptics still were not satisfied.

Nuclear fusion from sound waves would be a huge scientific breakthrough. But
to be convinced of it, many scientists wanted to see better evidence;
evidence that was absolutely incontrovertible.

They wanted to look very carefully at the timing of the neutrons to see just
how closely they were related to the flashes of light.

If they occurred at the exact same time, they would finally be convinced
that fusion was taking place. The question was - just how exact did the
measurements need to be?

Unique experiment

The sceptics wanted to time it with incredible accuracy - that of a
nanosecond, or a billionth of a second. This was one measurement that,
though possible to do, still had not been carried out by Rusi Taleyarkhan
and his team.

The BBC Horizon programme decided to try to sort out the issue once and for
all. It commissioned an independent team led by Seth Putterman to conduct a
unique experiment.

Working from the instructions set out in Rusi Taleyarkhan's paper, it
assembled the same key scientific conditions necessary to create nuclear
fusion from sonoluminescence.

But to see if it could find fusion, we measured the neutrons and the flashes
of light simultaneously with nanosecond accuracy, something that had never
been done before.

Recording data nanosecond by

Re: BBC Horizon to feature Taleyarkhan

[Edmund Storms]

thomas malloy wrote:
Ed Storms responded'
Once again, we are being treated to one more example of exaggeration 
and BS.  The Taleyarkhan cavitation work is hot fusion occurring in 
bubbles, not cold fusion.

I don't understand how hot fusion in bubbles differs from what the other 
LERN researchers are doing,
LENR describes nuclear reactions made to occur under conditions that 
conflict with all conventional experience and theory, while hot fusion 
in bubbles is normal high-energy fusion.

 The rates are very low and the method would not work if power output 
were at commercial levels, yet this work gets attention. In contrast, 
Stringham has caused cold fusion to occur at near commercial levels in 
metals by applying deuterium to the metal using cavitation, yet this 
work is ignored.

It is regrettable that the physics establishment ignores this research. 
OTOH, once commercially feasible amount of energy are produced, things 
will change.
Unfortunately, commercial amounts of energy are impossible using this 
technique.  The amount of energy generated by each bubble is just too 
small.

We are not being treated to dreams, but to nightmares.

Ever the pessimist
Guilty. In my defense, some times are more consistent with pessimism 
than others. This happens to be one of those times.

Regards,
Ed

Re: BBC Horizon to feature Taleyarkhan

[Steven Krivit]

Thomas,
I don't understand how hot fusion in bubbles differs from what the other 
LERN researchers are doing,
I've written about this in detail in my book, and also in part, in two 
articles in the New Energy Times newsletter #8
http://newenergytimes.com/news/8.htm . Search on "bubble" and "sonofusion."

Steve 

Re: BBC Horizon to feature Taleyarkhan

[thomas malloy]

Ed Storms responded'
Once again, we are being treated to one more example of exaggeration 
and BS.  The Taleyarkhan cavitation work is hot fusion occurring in 
bubbles, not cold fusion.
I don't understand how hot fusion in bubbles differs from what the 
other LERN researchers are doing,

 The rates are very low and the method would not work if power 
output were at commercial levels, yet this work gets attention. In 
contrast, Stringham has caused cold fusion to occur at near 
commercial levels in metals by applying deuterium to the metal using 
cavitation, yet this work is ignored.
It is regrettable that the physics establishment ignores this 
research. OTOH, once commercially feasible amount of energy are 
produced, things will change.

We are not being treated to dreams, but to nightmares.
Ever the pessimist

Wikipedia

[John Steck]

Vorts,
My apologies if this isn't new to everyone, but just stumbled across
Wikipedia.  It's an open source encyclopedia project.  Anyone and everyone
is invited to contribute and edit sections.  It's an honor system that
relies on volunteer subject matter champions to maintain sections they are
most interested in.  There is a nice article about it in the current issue
of Wired magazine (March 2005).  Since we have our fair share of 'experts'
on this list, this might be something many here might want to actively
participate in.  Interestingly enough, there seems to be no restrictions on
what you can contribute.  You can publish a whole category if you want.

This is what they have for "Cold Fusion":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

-john


~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~
  John Steck
  High Impact Product Development Services
  DESIGN - ENGINEERING - MANUFACTURING - MARKETING
~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~

 Quality is never an accident; it is always the
 result of high intention, sincere effort,
 intelligent direction, and skillful execution.

Re: anomalies on Iapetus

[George Baldwin]

Sirs,

Whilst a collision is a possibility, a collision of such an exactitude is,
in my humblest opinion, of infinitesimal likelihood.

If the following suggestion is old hat, I beg your forgiveness and plead
technical problems and diminishing lucidity:

Should the said body have a  thin hard crust covering deep softer material
it could be that at some point gravity has induced enough stress for half
the surface
to collapse slightly inward,  the effect being similar to badly fitting the
two halves of
a child's tin globe together -  one half sliding inside the other, producing
a shape that is
close to a sphere in some areas and Iapetusesque elsewhere.

Salutations,

GB

- Original Message -
From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: anomalies on Iapidus


> Fairly nconsequential correction follows:
>
> The collision velocity of the two initial impactors will be
conservatively:
>
>
>V = (2 G M/(R))^0.5
>V = (2 G (4.7x10^20 kg)/(730 km))^0.5
>V = 293 m/s
>
> So the energy E converted to heat is:
>
>E = 2 * .5 m*V^2 = (4.7x10^20 kg)(293 m/s)^2 = 4x10^25 J
>
> Thus the heat per gram H is:
>
>H = E/(2*m) = (4x10^25 J)/(4.7x10^20 kg) = 43 J/g< note
correction
>
>H = 10 cal/g
>
> which is not a lot of heat to dissipate, so this could simply result in
> increased temperature, or as you noted, be dissipated by ice.  Even 4
times
> that number will not produce much incremental temperature.  If it has the
> heat capacity of water that is only about 40 deg. C., not enough to boil
> water starting from 0 deg. C ice.
>
> Iapetus is so small one has to wonder how enough energy is developed to
> smush two bodies together to make it one spherical body.  Looks like the
> three body theory is not even necessary, unless I have a computation
error.
> Iapetus is not very dense, or very big.
>
> See:
>
>   
>
>
> At 11:23 AM 2/19/5, revtec wrote:
> >293 m/s is 649 mph!  The heat of collision would be intense and localized
> >for planetary sized bodies.  The 8.6 J/g, if correct, is not evenly
> >distributed.  In the area of contact, billions of tons of material would
be
> >heated to incandesence.
> >
> >Jeff
>
>
> Well, you shoot a bullet at that speed and it will not warm up itself or
> the target much due to the collision.  It has lots of momentum and
> destructive power well focused, but not much heat.  What you say about the
> heat being concetrated at the surface is certainly true, and that can
> account for the ridge, but the bulk of the masses should remain solid.
> Very strange.
>
> Regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
>
>