[Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron feels (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF
But thermal energy is actual kinetic energy isn't it, so it doesn't resolve the dilemma. Infinite times a short (but finite) period of time would be infinite... no, this is definitely unclear, there must exist a correct, accepted way to compute these things, we just haven't found it yet, and don't have the skills to tell a correct approach from an incorrect one. I don't suppose we have a QM wizard on this list?(*) Regarding the frame of reference, shouldn't it be that of the cathode? We are not just dealing with an isolated pair of deuterons here. The cathode is a major actor in DIESECF, as the target dispenser, cooler and screener, and as a massive anvil, isn't it? Michel (*) I am considering creating a QM self-learning group BTW, anyone interested? - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 5:35 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron feels (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:33:07 +0200: Hi, Robin, Although it seems to make sense, something doesn't fit in your center of mass frame of reference and therefore equal De Broglie wavelengths (DBW) paradigm: in that frame, as you say, when the particles are stationary relative to one another, the DBW is infinite, hence no longer relevant, whereas that distance r1 where the incident d has lost all its initial kinetic energy is precisely where the Li et al paper compares the distance by which it missed (r1-r0) with the DBW, which they don't find infinite but equal to 0.78 Å... But on the other hand, how can the DBW not be infinite if momentum is zero?? Without re-reading their paper, I think you will find that the DBW they calculate is based upon thermal energy. That's fine for a first rough guess, which is why I said it's a rule of thumb. What they mean is that the DBW is *at least* that big, ergo tunneling is possible. It's also possible that they are simply guilty of sloppy thinking. On yet another hand, the DBW seems the right parameter to define the spread of a particle and therefore its capacity to tunnel or be tunneled to... if it's infinite, it's all over the place so tunneling should have 100% probability! No, just possible, not necessarily probable. It's only infinite for a very short period of time. Probability is also determined by confinement time, and at least in the literature, by the cross section of the nuclear reaction. (However IMO, QM probably compounds tunneling probability with the cross section). IOW while I have tried to separate the two, QM usually doesn't. This point is definitely unclear to me, any enlightening welcome. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:Re: Eye of the Gyre
It occurred to me that lateral motion capability of the robotic head of the midwater submerged harvesting sea line (remember the giant worms in Dune? ;) would be a good thing anyway, as it would allow snorting the lines of sargassum, as this seaweed self-organizes in linear slicks as seen on these photos: http://www.physorg.com/news100350969.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070606113421.htm Above photos are in Gulf of Mexico, the only satellite view of sargassum in the Sargasso Sea I have found for now is this detail view of an eddy in the gulf stream: http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=347712 Pointers to wide view photos (sat or aerial) of the weed in the Eye area would be welcome. Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 1:55 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Eye of the Gyre In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:58:17 +0200: Hi, [snip] Good point Richard, neither would I, nor would any robotic platform... Maybe we could envisage sufficient flexibility in the mooring scheme (maybe some kind of semi-dynamic mooring, static most of the time, dynamic=motorized when needed) to move out of the way of the hurricane? [snip] It just needs to be submerged enough to get it out of the way. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Ethanol Al
MF wrote:- I think you guys missed my point. Whether you like it or not, mass media reporters, politicians, and amateur environmentalists *are* the environmental movement in the mind of the public. Their clownish antics will eventually discredit serious environmental efforts Ah! I see what Michael Foster meant now. This is a very significant point. A common smear tactic used is to parade the opinions of the least sensible exponent of any set of ideas as being, it is implied, the view of all. Perhaps Jed knows which logical fallacy this is? If one talks to some drunk redneck in a pub in the heartland (or even the Dime Box!) and gets their political views would this accurately represent the views of the Republican party? (actually, that may have been a poor analogy!!). Even the highest exponents of sustainable environmentalism have to grandstand (or dumb down) to get their point across sometimes. From decades of campaigning, I remember one of the really irritating aspects goes like this. One saw an environmental problem. One wrote to the business or politician who might take action to correct it, explaining the situation, what the dangers were and what could be done to change it. One heard nothing. One wrote again. Nothing. Months or years go by. One tried to get the media interested. Unless what one says is sensational, it is not very newsworthy and they barely publish. Back to the perpetrators. Occasionally one got a stone walling response or even quite unpleasant abuse. Although this never happened to me, others, in other countries, receive death threats or threats of physical violence, often targeted at one's family members. One aims inflatable boats at whaling vessels or organises popular protests using street marches, placards and people dressed up in animal costumes etc etc.The media give one publicity.Well meaning people write to the media deriding this silly tactic and they muse, patronisingly, to their circle that it would have been so much better if the misguided environmentalists had written letters first instead of reducing their credibility with publicity stunts like this. Editorials agree with them. People in pubs sneer. The sad fact is that serious environmental efforts quietly applied behind the scenes are just ignored by the forces we have to contend with who just hire very smart, very well paid, but morally bankrupt people who use sophistry to justify business as usual and doing nothing. Jed Rothwell wrote:- I do not now of any knowledgeable environmental scientists in favor of ethanol. Some amateur environmentalists and politicians favor it and I don't like Gore and never did, especially with regard to things like ethanol. Gore is much better than he is currently being painted by the black propaganda. Unfortunately, in America, many seem to think as if America and American values are not only the centre of the world/universe, but that they actually ARE the centre of the world/universe. Somehow, to the good ole boys, the whole of the rest of the world seems to be only a faint and shadowy area of little significance except if it conflicts with the American way. Gore is probably the U.S.A's most important PUBLICIST for the environmental problems that the world faces and I am sick of hearing the mindless criticisms of his film An inconvenient truth. These largely consist of criticisms of the total accuracy of a few bits of the science and scientific interpretation in the film coupled with Gore's political way out of the crisis. As anyone who remembers, for example, Kirk Shanahan's endless and nit-picky objections to the basic calorimetry evidence for excess heat in CF cells early on in the field's history should realise, it is not possible to present a film of this nature to scientists or scientifically minded critics without someone being unhappy about some inaccuracies, imagined or otherwise. As the Gore presented film was aimed at making the GENERAL public aware of the potential dangers and broad scientific viewpoint on the subject (as it clearly was), then OF COURSE there will be simplifications and areas seen as inaccurate or not accurate enough. To have presented a perfect case was impossible - even a slightly less than perfect scientific case would have taken literally years. People can't sit on a cinema seat that long. Implicit in criticisms of the film is a view that decisions as to the repercussions of the threat of climate change etc should be left to the professionals who feel like they understand the issues. Bollocks! Reasonably aware laymen are perfectly capable of understanding the basic facts, theory and dangers and coming to a rational decision. It is the ego challenged vanity of some scientists which leads them to believe that they should be trusted as being some sort of great Einsteinian genius leader, who the rest of us should look up to, whilst accepting their dubious, value judgment
[Vo]:Segway is SO last season
Dean Kamen announces his all singing, all dancing, water purifying, power generating Stirling engine system... http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news4.24.08d.html
[Vo]:BLP's problem
Having missed the recent hydrino thread, let me add one observation (which is almost as redundant as some of Randy's 'ground states') The good news: this recently peer reviewed and published paper shows convincing calorimetry evidence of excess power from hydrogen (OU). Water Bath Calorimetry on a Catalytic Reaction of Atomic Hydrogen Mills et al. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 32, (2007), 42584266. The bad news: After 19 years of trying, and this being the latest and greatest: i.e. the featured paper on Mills' website (presumably if there were better evidence, it would be presented there instead of this one)... yet... ... the excess power shown is both small in watts and is only 28.5% more than the input power. Using water bath calorimetry, an excess power of 2.85 W was measured with Sr and Ar as catalysts, compared with controls (10 watts input) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL_udi=B6V3F-4PCH46R-2_user=10_rdoc=1_fmt=_orig=search_sort=dview=c_acct=C50221_version=1_urlVersion=0_userid=10md5=270f9bc7aaa53437e1723d1380224b99 What makes this particularly damning from a comparative standpoint vis-a-vis LENR is that the control is defined as no catalyst present AND no hydrogen present. Translation: there will be some OU with hydrogen alone (since it is self-catalyzing according to Mills) The cynics out there should be justifiably irritated that after burning through many millions of dollars and nearly 20 years of time, the OU demonstrated by BLP in this featured paper, is still FAR less than what is routinely seen and reported from a variety of international experimenters, in LENR calorimetry. For instance, McKubre reported at ICCF13 on results from a joint research project with Energetics Technology, ENEA, and SRI where roughly 60% excess heat was produced. Swartz has seen and reported a far greater (percentage-wise) excess than this figure. OK neither is not going to solve the energy crisis without another breakthrough and/or without scaling-up significantly- but OTOH the LENR results are routinely over double what Mills is showing, and with probably $40 million less money having been spent to do it... PLUS in the McKubre results, the excess heat was accompanied by He4 production in good correlation. More evidence that is hard to dispute. Now admittedly, other observers like Mike C. will be able to but a different 'spin' on this comparison, but the reported facts speak for themselves - with the result that two sad things about this state of affairs emerge, from one independent perspective (neutral or trying hard to be neutral): 1) the company with most of the money, and possibly the best theory, refuses to use deuterium, which is more reactive. 2) the hydrino theory may be involved as a precursor step which allows two deuterons to fuse into He4 IOW - Mills could be so right that he is wrong... but we will likely never know. ... so right as to be wrong ... vanity of vanities, saith the preacher ... makes one ill at the stomach... Jones
[Vo]:Senate candidate calls for cold fusion research
See: http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/109/story/142906.html Quotes: Pennacchio, Andrews push energy issues TRENTON - With escalating gasoline and energy costs, two of New Jersey's five U.S. Senate candidates have made the cost of powering our lives an issue in the upcoming election. Republican candidate and state Sen. Joseph Pennacchio, D-Morris, Passaic, said on his campaign Web site that he dedicated his campaign as well as his time as state senator to securing energy independence within a decade. . . . Pennacchio said American leaders should have pushed for alternative fuels following the 1973 oil crisis, writing 17 years ago, How much longer can the United States be held hostage to foreign oil cartels? He also called for research into cold fusion, a tantalizingly unproven theory of nuclear reaction at about room temperature and standard atmospheric pressure. . . .
[Vo]:Toshiba Bettery
The SCiB is finally in production: http://www3.toshiba.co.jp/sic/english/scib/index3.htm *And* they have the guts to list BEV and PHEV as applications. Terry
Re: [Vo]:BLP's problem
- Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] Having missed the recent hydrino thread, let me add one observation (which is almost as redundant as some of Randy's 'ground states') The good news: this recently peer reviewed and published paper shows convincing calorimetry evidence of excess power from hydrogen (OU). Water Bath Calorimetry on a Catalytic Reaction of Atomic Hydrogen Mills et al. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 32, (2007), 4258-4266. Good that has finally been published. It is appropriate for the Vortex audience as it deals with calorimetry, familiar to this forumn. The bad news: After 19 years of trying, and this being the latest and greatest: i.e. the featured paper on Mills' website (presumably if there were better evidence, it would be presented there instead of this one)... yet... I don't know what Jones is looking at. I just checked the website and the featured item is the solid fuel reactor. In the paper Jones cites, water bath calorimetry is quite incidental. The essential item is These hydrogen plasmas called resonant transfer- or rt-plasmas were observed to form at low temperatures (e.g. and extraordinary low field strengths of about 1-2 V/cm when argon and strontium were present with atomic hydrogen. In other papers, the fact that a plasma is sustained with Sr and Ar as catalysts at low field strength is suggested as a novel light source, not a heat source. ... the excess power shown is both small in watts and is only 28.5% more than the input power. Using water bath calorimetry, an excess power of 2.85 W was measured with Sr and Ar as catalysts, compared with controls (10 watts input) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL_udi=B6V3F-4PCH46R-2_user=10_rdoc=1_fmt=_orig=search_sort=dview=c_acct=C50221_version=1_urlVersion=0_userid=10md5=270f9bc7aaa53437e1723d1380224b99 What makes this particularly damning from a comparative standpoint vis-a-vis LENR is that the control is defined as no catalyst present AND no hydrogen present. Translation: there will be some OU with hydrogen alone (since it is self-catalyzing according to Mills) The abstract is poorly worded: with Sr+ and Ar+ as catalysts and atomic hydrogen as a reactant, compared with controls with no hydrogen and no catalyst present.. If one leaves out the H, Sr and Ar, there is nothing left. The cynics out there should be justifiably irritated that after burning through many millions of dollars and nearly 20 years of time, the OU demonstrated by BLP in this featured paper, is still FAR less than what is routinely seen and reported from a variety of international experimenters, in LENR calorimetry. As I said above Jones is missing the important feature, which is not heat. The best paper on the water bath calorimetry is Water Bath Calorimetric Study of Excess Heat Generation in Resonant Transfer Plasmas J. Phillips, R. Mills, X. Chen Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 96, No. 6, (2004) pp. 3095-3102. Here the excess power is in the tens of watts for a variety of catalysts, with a detailed analysis of the setup and calorimetry. Note that the publication date is 2004. For instance, McKubre reported at ICCF13 on results from a joint research project with Energetics Technology, ENEA, and SRI where roughly 60% excess heat was produced. Swartz has seen and reported a far greater (percentage-wise) excess than this figure. OK neither is not going to solve the energy crisis without another breakthrough and/or without scaling-up significantly- but OTOH the LENR results are routinely over double what Mills is showing, and with probably $40 million less money having been spent to do it... Jones, please, you are serioulsy out of date with Mills' work. Read very carefully the New Energy Source on the first page of the website, and follow down the links. PLUS in the McKubre results, the excess heat was accompanied by He4 production in good correlation. More evidence that is hard to dispute. Now admittedly, other observers like Mike C. will be able to but a different 'spin' on this comparison, but the reported facts speak for themselves - with the result that two sad things about this state of affairs emerge, from one independent perspective (neutral or trying hard to be neutral): Apples and oranges, no spin. Only careful observation of Mills's work, which Jones has not done here. The reports exist in context and can be misinterpreted out of context. 1) the company with most of the money, and possibly the best theory, refuses to use deuterium, which is more reactive. No refusal. Deuterium has been used in one or two experiments to show that certain spectral lines shift and are therefore not artifacts. The energy comes from the electron orbit, not the the nucleus. Hydrogen works fine, and there is a lot more of it. 2) the hydrino theory may be involved as a precursor step which allows two deuterons to fuse into He4 This may happen. It has
Re: [Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron feels (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:28:56 +0200: Hi, [snip] But thermal energy is actual kinetic energy isn't it, so it doesn't resolve the dilemma. There is no dilemma to resolve. Infinite times a short (but finite) period of time would be infinite... no, this is definitely unclear, there must exist a correct, accepted Infinite DBW does not imply infinite chance of a reaction. If you look at QM texts, you will see that the DBW is mostly used in hand waving mode. One of the reasons for this is that it is frame dependent, and hence has an infinite number of different values concurrently, depending on the frame of reference (just like kinetic energy or magnetic field energy - because it is based on velocity, which is of course frame dependent). way to compute these things, we just haven't found it yet, and don't have the skills to tell a correct approach from an incorrect one. I don't suppose we have a QM wizard on this list?(*) Regarding the frame of reference, shouldn't it be that of the cathode? We are not just dealing with an isolated pair of deuterons here. The cathode is a major actor in DIESECF, as the target dispenser, cooler and screener, and as a massive anvil, isn't it? If you have one of the particles stuck on the cathode, then the frame of the cathode and that particle are nearly identical. Nevertheless the proper frame should still be the CMF. Charles Cagle is AFAIK the only person on Earth that has figured this out so far. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Ethanol Al
In reply to Nick Palmer's message of Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:14:01 +0100: Hi, [snip] The sad fact is that serious environmental efforts quietly applied behind the scenes are just ignored by the forces we have to contend with who just hire very smart, very well paid, but morally bankrupt people who use sophistry to justify business as usual and doing nothing. Which is why the solutions that have the best chance are those which result in a financial benefit to the perpetrator. IOW it doesn't just have to be cleaner, it also has result in a larger profit. Nothing works as a motivator like enlightened self interest. Unfortunately such solutions are usually very difficult to think of, and require great ingenuity. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Toshiba Bettery
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:25:12 -0400: Hi, [snip] The SCiB is finally in production: http://www3.toshiba.co.jp/sic/english/scib/index3.htm High power density even equal to that of a capacitor Unfortunately capacitors have lousy power density. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron feels (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF
Forgive my obstinacy Robin, but admitting the proper frame should be the CMF, shouldn't this be the CMF of all particles involved, i.e. including those of the Pd anvil? After all, the target is not really D, but Pd(n)D, isn't it? And who is Charles Cagle? hand waving mode: quite appropriate for a wavelength ;) Frame dependence of kinetic energy...good point... maybe we must use an inertial frame for COE (KE+PE=constant) to be applicable, which BTW points again to including the cathode for the center of mass frame, the CMF of just the two deuterons is decelerated at impact time isn't it, so you can't do proper physics in that frame. Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron feels (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:28:56 +0200: Hi, [snip] But thermal energy is actual kinetic energy isn't it, so it doesn't resolve the dilemma. There is no dilemma to resolve. Infinite times a short (but finite) period of time would be infinite... no, this is definitely unclear, there must exist a correct, accepted Infinite DBW does not imply infinite chance of a reaction. If you look at QM texts, you will see that the DBW is mostly used in hand waving mode. One of the reasons for this is that it is frame dependent, and hence has an infinite number of different values concurrently, depending on the frame of reference (just like kinetic energy or magnetic field energy - because it is based on velocity, which is of course frame dependent). way to compute these things, we just haven't found it yet, and don't have the skills to tell a correct approach from an incorrect one. I don't suppose we have a QM wizard on this list?(*) Regarding the frame of reference, shouldn't it be that of the cathode? We are not just dealing with an isolated pair of deuterons here. The cathode is a major actor in DIESECF, as the target dispenser, cooler and screener, and as a massive anvil, isn't it? If you have one of the particles stuck on the cathode, then the frame of the cathode and that particle are nearly identical. Nevertheless the proper frame should still be the CMF. Charles Cagle is AFAIK the only person on Earth that has figured this out so far. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:Re: BLP's problem
Jones wrote: the excess power... is only 28.5% more than the input power But Jones, 28.5%, if verified, would be a revolution. Even 2.85%! Michel - Original Message - From: Mike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:03 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's problem - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] Having missed the recent hydrino thread, let me add one observation (which is almost as redundant as some of Randy's 'ground states') The good news: this recently peer reviewed and published paper shows convincing calorimetry evidence of excess power from hydrogen (OU). Water Bath Calorimetry on a Catalytic Reaction of Atomic Hydrogen Mills et al. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 32, (2007), 4258-4266. Good that has finally been published. It is appropriate for the Vortex audience as it deals with calorimetry, familiar to this forumn. The bad news: After 19 years of trying, and this being the latest and greatest: i.e. the featured paper on Mills' website (presumably if there were better evidence, it would be presented there instead of this one)... yet... I don't know what Jones is looking at. I just checked the website and the featured item is the solid fuel reactor. In the paper Jones cites, water bath calorimetry is quite incidental. The essential item is These hydrogen plasmas called resonant transfer- or rt-plasmas were observed to form at low temperatures (e.g. and extraordinary low field strengths of about 1-2 V/cm when argon and strontium were present with atomic hydrogen. In other papers, the fact that a plasma is sustained with Sr and Ar as catalysts at low field strength is suggested as a novel light source, not a heat source. ... the excess power shown is both small in watts and is only 28.5% more than the input power. Using water bath calorimetry, an excess power of 2.85 W was measured with Sr and Ar as catalysts, compared with controls (10 watts input) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL_udi=B6V3F-4PCH46R-2_user=10_rdoc=1_fmt=_orig=search_sort=dview=c_acct=C50221_version=1_urlVersion=0_userid=10md5=270f9bc7aaa53437e1723d1380224b99 What makes this particularly damning from a comparative standpoint vis-a-vis LENR is that the control is defined as no catalyst present AND no hydrogen present. Translation: there will be some OU with hydrogen alone (since it is self-catalyzing according to Mills) The abstract is poorly worded: with Sr+ and Ar+ as catalysts and atomic hydrogen as a reactant, compared with controls with no hydrogen and no catalyst present.. If one leaves out the H, Sr and Ar, there is nothing left. The cynics out there should be justifiably irritated that after burning through many millions of dollars and nearly 20 years of time, the OU demonstrated by BLP in this featured paper, is still FAR less than what is routinely seen and reported from a variety of international experimenters, in LENR calorimetry. As I said above Jones is missing the important feature, which is not heat. The best paper on the water bath calorimetry is Water Bath Calorimetric Study of Excess Heat Generation in Resonant Transfer Plasmas J. Phillips, R. Mills, X. Chen Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 96, No. 6, (2004) pp. 3095-3102. Here the excess power is in the tens of watts for a variety of catalysts, with a detailed analysis of the setup and calorimetry. Note that the publication date is 2004. For instance, McKubre reported at ICCF13 on results from a joint research project with Energetics Technology, ENEA, and SRI where roughly 60% excess heat was produced. Swartz has seen and reported a far greater (percentage-wise) excess than this figure. OK neither is not going to solve the energy crisis without another breakthrough and/or without scaling-up significantly- but OTOH the LENR results are routinely over double what Mills is showing, and with probably $40 million less money having been spent to do it... Jones, please, you are serioulsy out of date with Mills' work. Read very carefully the New Energy Source on the first page of the website, and follow down the links. PLUS in the McKubre results, the excess heat was accompanied by He4 production in good correlation. More evidence that is hard to dispute. Now admittedly, other observers like Mike C. will be able to but a different 'spin' on this comparison, but the reported facts speak for themselves - with the result that two sad things about this state of affairs emerge, from one independent perspective (neutral or trying hard to be neutral): Apples and oranges, no spin. Only careful observation of Mills's work, which Jones has not done here. The reports exist in context and can be misinterpreted out of context. 1) the company with most of the money, and possibly the best theory, refuses to use deuterium, which is more reactive.
Re: [Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron feels (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:37:48 +0200: Hi, [snip] Forgive my obstinacy Robin, but admitting the proper frame should be the CMF, shouldn't this be the CMF of all particles involved, i.e. including those of the Pd anvil? After all, the target is not really D, but Pd(n)D, isn't it? This depends on just how stuck the D is to the anvil. Initially at large separation distances that will be true, however as the force of repulsion created by the approaching D increases it will eventually dislodge the stuck D, after which, it is no longer true. (Assuming the fast D had enough kinetic energy to dislodge the stuck D). And who is Charles Cagle? http://www.singtech.com/ hand waving mode: quite appropriate for a wavelength ;) Frame dependence of kinetic energy...good point... maybe we must use an inertial frame for COE (KE+PE=constant) to be applicable, No, COE is valid for any frame of reference, as long as you stick to the frame of reference you have chosen. which BTW points again to including the cathode for the center of mass frame, the CMF of just the two deuterons is decelerated at impact time isn't it, so you can't do proper physics in that frame. You only need to take snapshots, and assume that the functions are monotonic. (not true at the moment of dislodgement). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron feels (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF
But the moment right before dislodgement, when the deuteron pair experiences considerable deceleration, is precisely when we would expect fusion isn't it? So I still believe we must use the CMF of the whole system under study. Similar to a hammer-nut-anvil system, if we leave the anvil out of the equation the nut will never be broken. I am pretty sure that COE is not valid in an accelerated frame of reference BTW, except maybe in special cases. Consider a single particle in uniform motion (constant K.E.) in an inertial frame, it will see its speed and therefore its K.E. change in an accelerated frame, so COE isn't verified. Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:11 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron feels (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:37:48 +0200: Hi, [snip] Forgive my obstinacy Robin, but admitting the proper frame should be the CMF, shouldn't this be the CMF of all particles involved, i.e. including those of the Pd anvil? After all, the target is not really D, but Pd(n)D, isn't it? This depends on just how stuck the D is to the anvil. Initially at large separation distances that will be true, however as the force of repulsion created by the approaching D increases it will eventually dislodge the stuck D, after which, it is no longer true. (Assuming the fast D had enough kinetic energy to dislodge the stuck D). And who is Charles Cagle? http://www.singtech.com/ hand waving mode: quite appropriate for a wavelength ;) Frame dependence of kinetic energy...good point... maybe we must use an inertial frame for COE (KE+PE=constant) to be applicable, No, COE is valid for any frame of reference, as long as you stick to the frame of reference you have chosen. which BTW points again to including the cathode for the center of mass frame, the CMF of just the two deuterons is decelerated at impact time isn't it, so you can't do proper physics in that frame. You only need to take snapshots, and assume that the functions are monotonic. (not true at the moment of dislodgement). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's problem
In these experiments, BLP measures the power into the cell and the developed heat by water bath calorimetry. Basically, the cell is submerged in an insulated fishtank with precision thermometry and a stirrer. This demonstrates an effect but there is not enough power gain to close the loop and run the system self sustained. But that *is not* the point here. The plasma is brilliant and can be sustained by a few volts. So there is a possibility of a new class of light sources with very low input power. Lots of clever engineering is needed to realize this potential. This and other papers are bricks in a legal foundation for BLP patents, showing reduction practice and utility. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 6:55 PM Subject: [Vo]:Re: BLP's problem Jones wrote: the excess power... is only 28.5% more than the input power But Jones, 28.5%, if verified, would be a revolution. Even 2.85%! Michel - Original Message - From: Mike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:03 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's problem - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] Having missed the recent hydrino thread, let me add one observation (which is almost as redundant as some of Randy's 'ground states') The good news: this recently peer reviewed and published paper shows convincing calorimetry evidence of excess power from hydrogen (OU). Water Bath Calorimetry on a Catalytic Reaction of Atomic Hydrogen Mills et al. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 32, (2007), 4258-4266. Good that has finally been published. It is appropriate for the Vortex audience as it deals with calorimetry, familiar to this forumn. The bad news: After 19 years of trying, and this being the latest and greatest: i.e. the featured paper on Mills' website (presumably if there were better evidence, it would be presented there instead of this one)... yet... I don't know what Jones is looking at. I just checked the website and the featured item is the solid fuel reactor. In the paper Jones cites, water bath calorimetry is quite incidental. The essential item is These hydrogen plasmas called resonant transfer- or rt-plasmas were observed to form at low temperatures (e.g. and extraordinary low field strengths of about 1-2 V/cm when argon and strontium were present with atomic hydrogen. In other papers, the fact that a plasma is sustained with Sr and Ar as catalysts at low field strength is suggested as a novel light source, not a heat source. ... the excess power shown is both small in watts and is only 28.5% more than the input power. Using water bath calorimetry, an excess power of 2.85 W was measured with Sr and Ar as catalysts, compared with controls (10 watts input) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL_udi=B6V3F-4PCH46R-2_user=10_rdoc=1_fmt=_orig=search_sort=dview=c_acct=C50221_version=1_urlVersion=0_userid=10md5=270f9bc7aaa53437e1723d1380224b99 What makes this particularly damning from a comparative standpoint vis-a-vis LENR is that the control is defined as no catalyst present AND no hydrogen present. Translation: there will be some OU with hydrogen alone (since it is self-catalyzing according to Mills) The abstract is poorly worded: with Sr+ and Ar+ as catalysts and atomic hydrogen as a reactant, compared with controls with no hydrogen and no catalyst present.. If one leaves out the H, Sr and Ar, there is nothing left. The cynics out there should be justifiably irritated that after burning through many millions of dollars and nearly 20 years of time, the OU demonstrated by BLP in this featured paper, is still FAR less than what is routinely seen and reported from a variety of international experimenters, in LENR calorimetry. As I said above Jones is missing the important feature, which is not heat. The best paper on the water bath calorimetry is Water Bath Calorimetric Study of Excess Heat Generation in Resonant Transfer Plasmas J. Phillips, R. Mills, X. Chen Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 96, No. 6, (2004) pp. 3095-3102. Here the excess power is in the tens of watts for a variety of catalysts, with a detailed analysis of the setup and calorimetry. Note that the publication date is 2004. For instance, McKubre reported at ICCF13 on results from a joint research project with Energetics Technology, ENEA, and SRI where roughly 60% excess heat was produced. Swartz has seen and reported a far greater (percentage-wise) excess than this figure. OK neither is not going to solve the energy crisis without another breakthrough and/or without scaling-up significantly- but OTOH the LENR results are routinely over double what Mills is showing, and with probably $40 million less money having been spent to do it... Jones, please, you are serioulsy out of date with Mills' work. Read very carefully the New Energy Source on
[Vo]:Re: BLP's problem
Demonstrating an overunity effect, and having it replicated, should be all that matters for them at this point. Closing the loop would be better of course, but not indispensable, and of course would require at least 1000% excess. I am sure Ed would be happy with a reproducible 28.5% excess, wouldn't you Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Mike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's problem In these experiments, BLP measures the power into the cell and the developed heat by water bath calorimetry. Basically, the cell is submerged in an insulated fishtank with precision thermometry and a stirrer. This demonstrates an effect but there is not enough power gain to close the loop and run the system self sustained. But that *is not* the point here. The plasma is brilliant and can be sustained by a few volts. So there is a possibility of a new class of light sources with very low input power. Lots of clever engineering is needed to realize this potential. This and other papers are bricks in a legal foundation for BLP patents, showing reduction practice and utility. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 6:55 PM Subject: [Vo]:Re: BLP's problem Jones wrote: the excess power... is only 28.5% more than the input power But Jones, 28.5%, if verified, would be a revolution. Even 2.85%! Michel - Original Message - From: Mike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:03 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's problem - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] Having missed the recent hydrino thread, let me add one observation (which is almost as redundant as some of Randy's 'ground states') The good news: this recently peer reviewed and published paper shows convincing calorimetry evidence of excess power from hydrogen (OU). Water Bath Calorimetry on a Catalytic Reaction of Atomic Hydrogen Mills et al. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 32, (2007), 4258-4266. Good that has finally been published. It is appropriate for the Vortex audience as it deals with calorimetry, familiar to this forumn. The bad news: After 19 years of trying, and this being the latest and greatest: i.e. the featured paper on Mills' website (presumably if there were better evidence, it would be presented there instead of this one)... yet... I don't know what Jones is looking at. I just checked the website and the featured item is the solid fuel reactor. In the paper Jones cites, water bath calorimetry is quite incidental. The essential item is These hydrogen plasmas called resonant transfer- or rt-plasmas were observed to form at low temperatures (e.g. and extraordinary low field strengths of about 1-2 V/cm when argon and strontium were present with atomic hydrogen. In other papers, the fact that a plasma is sustained with Sr and Ar as catalysts at low field strength is suggested as a novel light source, not a heat source. ... the excess power shown is both small in watts and is only 28.5% more than the input power. Using water bath calorimetry, an excess power of 2.85 W was measured with Sr and Ar as catalysts, compared with controls (10 watts input) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL_udi=B6V3F-4PCH46R-2_user=10_rdoc=1_fmt=_orig=search_sort=dview=c_acct=C50221_version=1_urlVersion=0_userid=10md5=270f9bc7aaa53437e1723d1380224b99 What makes this particularly damning from a comparative standpoint vis-a-vis LENR is that the control is defined as no catalyst present AND no hydrogen present. Translation: there will be some OU with hydrogen alone (since it is self-catalyzing according to Mills) The abstract is poorly worded: with Sr+ and Ar+ as catalysts and atomic hydrogen as a reactant, compared with controls with no hydrogen and no catalyst present.. If one leaves out the H, Sr and Ar, there is nothing left. The cynics out there should be justifiably irritated that after burning through many millions of dollars and nearly 20 years of time, the OU demonstrated by BLP in this featured paper, is still FAR less than what is routinely seen and reported from a variety of international experimenters, in LENR calorimetry. As I said above Jones is missing the important feature, which is not heat. The best paper on the water bath calorimetry is Water Bath Calorimetric Study of Excess Heat Generation in Resonant Transfer Plasmas J. Phillips, R. Mills, X. Chen Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 96, No. 6, (2004) pp. 3095-3102. Here the excess power is in the tens of watts for a variety of catalysts, with a detailed analysis of the setup and calorimetry. Note that the publication date is 2004. For instance, McKubre reported at ICCF13 on results from a joint
[Vo]:Re: Toshiba Bettery
Indeed, the SCiB specs here http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2007_12/pr1101.htm indicate ~20 Kg/kWh, so that a 50kWh battery (energy claimed by EESTOR) would weigh ~1000Kg (instead of 50Kg claimed by EESTOR IIRC) Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Toshiba Bettery In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:25:12 -0400: Hi, [snip] The SCiB is finally in production: http://www3.toshiba.co.jp/sic/english/scib/index3.htm High power density even equal to that of a capacitor Unfortunately capacitors have lousy power density. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's problem
BLP has many papers demonstrating an OU effect by this definition. It [water bath calorimetry] has been witnessed by non-BLP scientists, including a team from Rowan University in connection with a project for NASA. Phillips, the senior author on the referenced paper, is a Distinguished Professor the Ferris [national] laboratory of the U of New Mexico, and very competent in calorimetry as will be evident upon reading his paper. For the hypercritical, any paper whose authorship has the faintest relationship to Mills or BLP is automatically suspect, as is any demonstration on BLP turf or Mills' consultation. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:26 PM Subject: [Vo]:Re: BLP's problem Demonstrating an overunity effect, and having it replicated, should be all that matters for them at this point. Closing the loop would be better of course, but not indispensable, and of course would require at least 1000% excess. I am sure Ed would be happy with a reproducible 28.5% excess, wouldn't you Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Mike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's problem In these experiments, BLP measures the power into the cell and the developed heat by water bath calorimetry. Basically, the cell is submerged in an insulated fishtank with precision thermometry and a stirrer. This demonstrates an effect but there is not enough power gain to close the loop and run the system self sustained. But that *is not* the point here. The plasma is brilliant and can be sustained by a few volts. So there is a possibility of a new class of light sources with very low input power. Lots of clever engineering is needed to realize this potential. This and other papers are bricks in a legal foundation for BLP patents, showing reduction practice and utility. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 6:55 PM Subject: [Vo]:Re: BLP's problem Jones wrote: the excess power... is only 28.5% more than the input power But Jones, 28.5%, if verified, would be a revolution. Even 2.85%! Michel - Original Message - From: Mike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:03 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP's problem - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] Having missed the recent hydrino thread, let me add one observation (which is almost as redundant as some of Randy's 'ground states') The good news: this recently peer reviewed and published paper shows convincing calorimetry evidence of excess power from hydrogen (OU). Water Bath Calorimetry on a Catalytic Reaction of Atomic Hydrogen Mills et al. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 32, (2007), 4258-4266. Good that has finally been published. It is appropriate for the Vortex audience as it deals with calorimetry, familiar to this forumn. The bad news: After 19 years of trying, and this being the latest and greatest: i.e. the featured paper on Mills' website (presumably if there were better evidence, it would be presented there instead of this one)... yet... I don't know what Jones is looking at. I just checked the website and the featured item is the solid fuel reactor. In the paper Jones cites, water bath calorimetry is quite incidental. The essential item is These hydrogen plasmas called resonant transfer- or rt-plasmas were observed to form at low temperatures (e.g. and extraordinary low field strengths of about 1-2 V/cm when argon and strontium were present with atomic hydrogen. In other papers, the fact that a plasma is sustained with Sr and Ar as catalysts at low field strength is suggested as a novel light source, not a heat source. ... the excess power shown is both small in watts and is only 28.5% more than the input power. Using water bath calorimetry, an excess power of 2.85 W was measured with Sr and Ar as catalysts, compared with controls (10 watts input) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL_udi=B6V3F-4PCH46R-2_user=10_rdoc=1_fmt=_orig=search_sort=dview=c_acct=C50221_version=1_urlVersion=0_userid=10md5=270f9bc7aaa53437e1723d1380224b99 What makes this particularly damning from a comparative standpoint vis-a-vis LENR is that the control is defined as no catalyst present AND no hydrogen present. Translation: there will be some OU with hydrogen alone (since it is self-catalyzing according to Mills) The abstract is poorly worded: with Sr+ and Ar+ as catalysts and atomic hydrogen as a reactant, compared with controls with no hydrogen and no catalyst present.. If one leaves out the H, Sr and Ar, there is nothing left. The cynics out there should be justifiably irritated that after burning through many millions of dollars and nearly 20 years of time, the OU
[Vo]:Re: Toshiba Bettery
Good point, I think you're right Stephen, but they probably want people to get it wrong, as I did too, because in fact they don't have a good _energy_ density, see my previous post in this thread and actual tech specs at the bottom of: http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2007_12/pr1101.htm which is a pity as it seems quite good otherwise (lifetime 3000 cycles!) Michel - Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 4:04 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Toshiba Bettery Robin, I thought what you did when I first looked at their page -- but then I stared at the page for a while and poked around on their site a bit and it turned out what they were saying made sense after all. Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:25:12 -0400: Hi, [snip] The SCiB is finally in production: http://www3.toshiba.co.jp/sic/english/scib/index3.htm High power density even equal to that of a capacitor Unfortunately capacitors have lousy power density. Not exactly; capacitors have lousy ENERGY density. Energy isn't power, of course, but sloppy usage is so common we tend to expect it. As it turns out Toshiba has indeed kept the definitions of power and energy straight, and they said exactly what they intended to say. If you dig around on the site, you'll find that they use Power density to mean how much power can be sourced as a function of the mass of batteries in use. On this page: http://www3.toshiba.co.jp/sic/english/scib/detail.htm they show a scatter plot with power density in W/kg on the Y axis and energy density in Wh/kg on the X axis, and they put capacitors, their new battery, NiMH, and Li batteries on the plot to show their performance. The illustration is here: http://www3.toshiba.co.jp/sic/english/scib/image/feature3.gif The plot makes it clear that what they're saying is that their /energy/ density is that of a battery, but their /power/ density is comparable to a large capacitor. They don't give any numbers, though; it's just marketing slides. But at least the axes make sense. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: HUP-spread-out electron feels (and thus Coulomb-screens?) like a point charge... - T.GIF
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:57:05 +0200: Hi, [snip] But the moment right before dislodgement, when the deuteron pair experiences considerable deceleration, is precisely when we would expect fusion isn't it? So I still believe we must use the CMF of the whole system under study. Similar to a hammer-nut-anvil system, if we leave the anvil out of the equation the nut will never be broken. Now we are back to stickiness again. The energy with which D is lodged in the anvil is going to be a fraction of an eV at best. Unless the approaching D has much much more than this, there isn't going to be an adequately close approach anyway. This is akin to conventional fusion, and you need something on the order of 1000-5000 eV to get results. Compared to this, the fraction of an eV of sticking energy is meaningless. IOW it's more a fog than an anvil. I am pretty sure that COE is not valid in an accelerated frame of reference BTW, except maybe in special cases. Consider a single particle in uniform motion (constant K.E.) in an inertial frame, it will see its speed and therefore its K.E. change in an accelerated frame, so COE isn't verified. My mistake. I should have said all inertial frames, not all frames. (I normally don't think about accelerated frames - hurts my brain). ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Toshiba Bettery
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:04:22 -0400: Hi, [snip] High power density even equal to that of a capacitor Unfortunately capacitors have lousy power density. Not exactly; capacitors have lousy ENERGY density. Energy isn't power, of course, but sloppy usage is so common we tend to expect it. As it turns out Toshiba has indeed kept the definitions of power and energy straight, and they said exactly what they intended to say. You are correct. I finally fell into the trap myself. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Toshiba Bettery
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:04:22 -0400: Hi, [snip] performance. The illustration is here: http://www3.toshiba.co.jp/sic/english/scib/image/feature3.gif The plot makes it clear that what they're saying is that their /energy/ density is that of a battery, but their /power/ density is comparable to a large capacitor. ...and not even a bad battery at that. Somewhere between NiMH and Li. From their specs. page:- 2.4 V, 4.2 Ah, 150 gm - 0.067 kWh/kg which is about 40% better than a lead acid battery. One thing I don't see mentioned is price. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
