[Vo]:Re:Some fusion reaction tables of possible interest
B, Ag, and C now added to the equation collection: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/B_LENR.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/AgLENR.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/C_LENR.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re:Some fusion reaction tables of possible interest
Nb, Ag, Ta, W, Mo, V, Ba, and U now added to the equation collection: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NbLENR.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/AgLENR.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/TaLENR.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/W_LENR.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/MoLENR.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/V_LENR.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BaLENR.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/U_LENR.pdf The U allows for limited radioactive products. Still amazing how few products are feasible. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
Hi Jones, Sorry for the delay, here is the ref (note it refers to hydrogen, not deuterium, whose heat of adsorption could thus conceivably be the 2 eV per D found by Kitamura for 5 nm particle sizes): JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS 104, 1-16 (1987) Calorimetric Heat of Adsorption Measurements on Palladium I. Influence of Crystallite Size and Support on Hydrogen Adsorption PEN CHOU AND M. ALBERT VANNICE Here is the abstract (some OCR errors may have escaped my scrutiny): A modified differential scanning calorimeter was used to measure integral heats of adsorption of hydrogen, Qad, at 300 K on unsupported Pd powder and on Pd dispersed on SiO2, SiO2-Al2O3, Al2O3, and TiO2. The supports were found to have no significant effect on Qad, and although reduction of Pd/TiO2 samples at 773 K sharply decreased the amount of hydrogen chemisorbed on these samples, the Qad values measured on these samples were comparable to the other catalysts. In contrast, Pd crystallite size had a very pronounced effect on Qad. On all these catalysts the heat of adsorption for hydrogen remained constant at 15 +- 1 kcal mole^-1 as the average Pd crystallite size decreased from 1000 to 3 nm, but it increased sharply as the size dropped below 3 nm. The highest value, 24 kcal mole^-1, was obtained on one of the most highly dispersed samples. Heats of formation of bulk Pd hydride showed a similar behavior, remaining constant at 8.7 +- 1.0 kcal mole^-1 for samples with low Pd dispersions and then increasing noticeably as the crystallite size dropped below 3 nm. Most of this variation in Qad is attributed to changes in the electronic properties of small Pd crystallites because the differences in Qad values reported on single crystal surfaces are not sufficient to explain the enhanced bond strength. Michel 2009/12/30 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: Michel Ø The spread is not large for a given set of conditions. In particular there is one very important (IMHO) point which seems consistently overlooked, not just by you, which is that the binding energy is not the same on the surface (heat of adsorption) as it is in the bulk (heat of absorption). It's much higher on the surface. Interestingly, decreasing the Pd particle size increases the surface binding energy (I can dig up a ref if anyone is interested) which is what the Kitamura work re-discovers IMHO. By all means - we are very interested, since this is really one of the two important points left to be decided. And providing this reference in an unequivocal way (i.e. specifically wrt hydrogen and palladium) would salvage your other comments out of the category of “fishy”. Therefore, we eagerly await your (hopefully authoritative) reference, since the “much higher” surface binding attribute as you claim, is a bit counter-intuitive; and without it we have a compelling set of circumstances for expanding the importance of the putative anomaly – which as Terry opined, might possibly be related to nascent hydrogen. The next issue, of course, is whether or not the 2 eV per atom loading heat of Kitamura is accurate and reproducible by others. That is where I suspect the problem will be found. Side note: as many of us are aware, hydrogen comes off of bulk palladium easily enough that it can be, and once was, once used as a cigarette lighter (which presumably did not require much input to ignite – other than a spark) but was surely an expensive indulgence. As I recall – and a brief googling confirms, the so-called Doebereiner cigarette lighter from the 1800’s was used by early CF skeptics to explain away the excess heat of the PF effect, since it apparently got quite hot following a hydrogen recharge. Problem is – they apparently never checked the complete thermodynamic balance of the Doebereiner effect … at least there is no record of that which I can find. Is it presumptive to suggest, given Kitamura, that the very same effect used by skeptics to try to disprove CF could instead point to another, and perhaps more usable anomaly? Nah, probably not. But it would be one great way to convert palladium into irony ;-) Jones
RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
Michel, This is a very interesting paper, especially in the date - but can you explain how it supports the thesis of increased surface binding in two-way thermodynamic balance, with the heat of adsorption? Yes, the phrase enhanced bond strength is used, but it does not seem to follow logically from the results presented, that this is proved to be reciprocal bond strength. I agree that going to a smaller particle size increases the heat of adsorption, and that at the same time, the surface area increases, but the specific point in question (for alternative energy) is the possibility of asymmetry between the two, such that CoE is violated. Instead, it seems that the *presumption* of CoE is what is being used to support the argument that it is balanced, instead of actual proof. Don't get me wrong - it may be balanced. CoE is a strong presumption. But is it specifically shown in this paper? It is great to find that Kitamura's heat results are pre-approved back in 1987, so to speak, but that that does not really address the issue of an asymmetry at the nano level, does it? Plus, don't overlook that this 3 nm particle size is coincidentally near the peak of the Casimir force active geometry, so there is an underlying factor of importance which would tend to merit an exact thermodynamic study. Have you seen the Haisch/Moddell patent? In fact the reason that the Doebereiner cigarette lighter example was mentioned in the earlier post was to show that a fully complete study is absent in the record (or else I missed it). Early CF skeptics used the heat of adsorption (and perhpas this same paper) to explain away the putative excess heat of the PF effect (since the lighter apparently got quite hot following a hydrogen recharge). However, the precise thermodynamic balance was apparently never demonstrated - simply presumed. At the nano level, there could be a tiny, iterative in-out asymmetry at or near the surface binding layer - (which operates at the IR frequency range) such that a tiny consecutive imbalance is additive for net excess heat. That would be the fabled ZPE pump - which admittedly may be only a fable, but we need to leave open the possibility until a complete accounting is performed. This gives me one more opportunity to Pun the skeptical presumptiveness of the mainstream in 1989, which may have served to transmute palladium into irony ;-) Jones -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian Hi Jones, Sorry for the delay, here is the ref (note it refers to hydrogen, not deuterium, whose heat of adsorption could thus conceivably be the 2 eV per D found by Kitamura for 5 nm particle sizes): JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS 104, 1-16 (1987) Calorimetric Heat of Adsorption Measurements on Palladium I. Influence of Crystallite Size and Support on Hydrogen Adsorption PEN CHOU AND M. ALBERT VANNICE Here is the abstract (some OCR errors may have escaped my scrutiny): A modified differential scanning calorimeter was used to measure integral heats of adsorption of hydrogen, Qad, at 300 K on unsupported Pd powder and on Pd dispersed on SiO2, SiO2-Al2O3, Al2O3, and TiO2. The supports were found to have no significant effect on Qad, and although reduction of Pd/TiO2 samples at 773 K sharply decreased the amount of hydrogen chemisorbed on these samples, the Qad values measured on these samples were comparable to the other catalysts. In contrast, Pd crystallite size had a very pronounced effect on Qad. On all these catalysts the heat of adsorption for hydrogen remained constant at 15 +- 1 kcal mole^-1 as the average Pd crystallite size decreased from 1000 to 3 nm, but it increased sharply as the size dropped below 3 nm. The highest value, 24 kcal mole^-1, was obtained on one of the most highly dispersed samples. Heats of formation of bulk Pd hydride showed a similar behavior, remaining constant at 8.7 +- 1.0 kcal mole^-1 for samples with low Pd dispersions and then increasing noticeably as the crystallite size dropped below 3 nm. Most of this variation in Qad is attributed to changes in the electronic properties of small Pd crystallites because the differences in Qad values reported on single crystal surfaces are not sufficient to explain the enhanced bond strength. Michel 2009/12/30 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: Michel Ø The spread is not large for a given set of conditions. In particular there is one very important (IMHO) point which seems consistently overlooked, not just by you, which is that the binding energy is not the same on the surface (heat of adsorption) as it is in the bulk (heat of absorption). It's much higher on the surface. Interestingly, decreasing the Pd particle size increases the surface binding energy (I can dig up a ref if anyone is interested) which is what the Kitamura work re-discovers IMHO. By all means - we are very interested, since this is really one of the two important points left to be decided. And providing this reference in an unequivocal way (i.e.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn Replication
On 01/01/2010 12:59 PM, William Beaty wrote: On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: An ideal toroidal coil has no external field -- symmetry and simple arguments regarding the curl of the B field show that it's got to be null outside the torus. In particular, any loop around the outside of the torus must have zero net B field (if we integrate it around the loop) Yep, that's exactly it. After a little more thought I realized I have no idea what the Steorn toroidal magnetic cores have for a B field. Anybody got a link to a picture, or could someone who knows how the field is shaped sketch it? B field lines are always loops but the field loops from a permanent magnet *must* intersect the material of the magnet (or be knotted around the magnet like the loops around a solenoid), so the field of a toroidal magnet can't be doughnut rings around the outside of the torus, as one might tend to imagine it. So, what *is* the shape of the field? And how can a toroidal coil wrapped around the core, which necessarily has a very different field shape (lines not even close to parallel to the field lines of the magnetic core), quench the field of the core? My presumption is that the effect of the coil's field on the core is to rotate its field so that it's parallel to the coil's field, at which point the field of the magnet, like the field of the coil, becomes invisible outside the torus. But that's really just a wild guess, based on bits and pieces of what Bill Beaty has said about toroidal core saturation.
[Vo]:Re:Some fusion reaction tables of possible interest
The full picture has not yet emerged. The reactions in which the deflated electron binding energy exceeds the fusion energy are high probability candidates for weak reactions, due to the longevity of the initial fused nucleus, and the prolonged presence of the electrons. The electrons decrease the stability of the neutrons, thus enhancing the probability of neutron beta decay. In some cases the probability of electron capture is also increased. Most important to confirmation of the deflation fusion theory, reactions with very negative net energy (in brackets), but positive fusion energy, are the best candidates for strange exchange reactions and K0 production. These heavy LENR reactions are fostered by use of extreme magnetic field gradients, which can be imposed by ambient fields, or better by powerful coherent EM radiation. Some examples of such reactions are: 90Zr40 + D -- 71Ga31 + 21Ne10 + 00.236 MeV [-11.772 MeV] ( 1 ) 90Zr40 + D -- 91Zr40 + 1H1 + 4.970 MeV [-7.038 MeV] ( 2 ) 90Zr40 + 2 D -- 68Zn30 + 26Mg12 + 23.722 MeV [-0.720 MeV] ( 9 ) 90Zr40 + 2 D -- 70Zn30 + 24Mg12 + 20.996 MeV [-3.446 MeV] ( 10 ) 90Zr40 + 2 D -- 71Ga31 + 23Na11 + 17.170 MeV [-7.272 MeV] ( 11 ) 90Zr40 + 2 D -- 72Ge32 + 22Ne10 + 18.113 MeV [-6.329 MeV] ( 12 ) 90Zr40 + 2 D -- 73Ge32 + 21Ne10 + 14.533 MeV [-9.909 MeV] ( 13 ) 90Zr40 + 2 D -- 74Ge32 + 20Ne10 + 17.968 MeV [-6.474 MeV] ( 14 ) 90Zr40 + 2 D -- 75As33 + 19F9 + 12.024 MeV [-12.418 MeV] ( 15 ) 90Zr40 + 2 D -- 76Se34 + 18O8 + 13.538 MeV [-10.904 MeV] ( 16 ) 90Zr40 + 2 D -- 77Se34 + 17O8 + 12.911 MeV [-11.531 MeV] ( 17 ) 90Zr40 + 2 D -- 78Se34 + 16O8 + 19.266 MeV [-5.176 MeV] ( 18 ) 90Zr40 + 2 D -- 79Br35 + 15N7 + 13.470 MeV [-10.972 MeV] ( 19 ) 90Zr40 + 2 D -- 82Kr36 + 12C6 + 18.092 MeV [-6.350 MeV] ( 20 ) 90Zr40 + 2 D -- 90Zr40 + 4He2 + 23.847 MeV [-0.595 MeV] ( 21 ) 90Zr40 + 2 D -- 91Zr40 + 3He2 + 10.464 MeV [-13.978 MeV] ( 22 ) 90Zr40 + 2 D -- 93Nb41 + 1H1 + 17.423 MeV [-7.019 MeV] ( 23 ) 90Zr40 + 2 D -- 94Mo42 + 25.914 MeV [1.472 MeV] ( 24 ) 42Ca20 + D -- 40K19 + 4He2 + 5.699 MeV [-1.979 MeV] ( 26 ) 42Ca20 + D -- 43Ca20 + 1H1 + 5.708 MeV [-1.970 MeV] ( 27 ) 46Ti22 + D -- 47Ti22 + 1H1 + 6.653 MeV [-1.552 MeV] ( 1 ) 46Ti22 + 2 D -- 26Mg12 + 24Mg12 + 12.293 MeV [-4.629 MeV] ( 3 ) 46Ti22 + 2 D -- 27Al13 + 23Na11 + 8.872 MeV [-8.051 MeV] ( 4 ) 46Ti22 + 2 D -- 28Si14 + 22Ne10 + 11.662 MeV [-5.261 MeV] ( 5 ) 46Ti22 + 2 D -- 29Si14 + 21Ne10 + 9.772 MeV [-7.151 MeV] ( 6 ) 46Ti22 + 2 D -- 30Si14 + 20Ne10 + 13.621 MeV [-3.302 MeV] ( 7 ) 46Ti22 + 2 D -- 31P15 + 19F9 + 8.074 MeV [-8.849 MeV] ( 8 ) 46Ti22 + 2 D -- 32S16 + 18O8 + 8.944 MeV [-7.979 MeV] ( 9 ) 46Ti22 + 2 D -- 33S16 + 17O8 + 9.541 MeV [-7.382 MeV] ( 10 ) 46Ti22 + 2 D -- 34S16 + 16O8 + 16.814 MeV [-0.109 MeV] ( 11 ) 46Ti22 + 2 D -- 35Cl17 + 15N7 + 11.057 MeV [-5.865 MeV] ( 12 ) 46Ti22 + 2 D -- 38Ar18 + 12C6 + 16.861 MeV [-0.062 MeV] ( 13 ) 46Ti22 + 2 D -- 39K19 + 11B5 + 7.285 MeV [-9.638 MeV] ( 14 ) 46Ti22 + 2 D -- 40K19 + 10B5 + 3.630 MeV [-13.293 MeV] ( 15 ) 46Ti22 + 2 D -- 46Ti22 + 4He2 + 23.847 MeV [6.924 MeV] ( 16 ) 46Ti22 + 2 D -- 47Ti22 + 3He2 + 12.146 MeV [-4.776 MeV] ( 17 ) Zr is most interesting because both Zr + D reactions are weak reaction candidates. All the above kinds of candidate reactions must be re-worked to include weak reaction prospects. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re:Some fusion reaction tables of possible interest
Oxygen should not be overlooked as a powerful weak reaction candidate: 16O8 + D -- 14N7 + 4He2 + 3.111 MeV [-1.026 MeV] ( 1 ) 16O8 + D -- 17O8 + 1H1 + 1.919 MeV [-2.218 MeV]( 2 ) 16O8 + 2 D -- 14N7 + 6Li3 + 4.585 MeV [-4.402 MeV] ( 3 ) 16O8 + 2 D -- 17O8 + 3He2 + 7.412 MeV [-1.575 MeV] ( 5 ) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
Nice post Jones, I totally agree with your points and regarding CoE, ask Vorticians to keep an open mind towards a relativistic solution as an escape . Fran
[Vo]:Re:Some fusion reaction tables of possible interest
The recent examination of deflation fusion scenarios indicate high voltage Zr electrolysis in the blue-green glow range may be useful to look for weak reactions and strange matter creation. I have run Zr electrode pairs in AC electrospark experiments at over 400 V. The breakdown voltage for conditioned electrodes was observed to be in the 280-320 V range. It is important to never exceed breakdown voltage to run in the glow range. It is important to slowly condition Zr so as to avoid going into the electrospark range and thus destroying the Zr electrodes. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GlowExper.pdf For an example of what not to do, i.e. push power before conditioning so as to go into an electrospark range, instead of a glow range, and destroy the ZrO surface by perforating it, see: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/OrangeGlow.pdf A useful electrolyte might be obtained using either saturated pickling lime, i.e. CaO, or boric acid. Alternating between acidic and basic electrolytes may be useful for long term running. Current can be controlled using a two cells in series system, one with low conductivity to act only as a resister, that resistance varied by adding salts, the other being the live cell. Glow activity, as well as LENR, may produce UV or EUV. Dyes, such as fluorescein or rhodamine 6G, may be useful for observing or photographing active areas, and developing a conditioning protocol. After long running in a glow regime, the Zr electrodes can be heated in a vacuum as a HV anode, in order to emit atoms for accelerating to a target at voltages of 10 keV or more. If high energy reactions are observed in the target are then this wold be a possible indication of strange matter creation. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura
Here is a recent SciNews article which gives hope that Casimir cycling for gain is ultimately doable: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210153657.htm ... indicating at least that some high-priced brain power at DoE and Argonne believe that Casimir attraction can be manipulated into repulsion. That would be the key to finding a useable asymmetry in the heat of adsorption, at this geometric level. It could be as simple as rapidly cycling an electric field, in which the nanoparticles are place with hydrogen ... As characteristic device dimensions shrink to the nanoscale, the effects of the attractive Casimir force becomes more pronounced making very difficult to control nano-devices. This is a technological challenge that need to be addressed before the full potential of NEMS devices can be demonstrated, ... The goal is to not only limit its attractive properties, but also to make it repulsive. -Original Message- From: Frank I totally agree with your points and regarding CoE, ask Vorticians to keep an open mind towards a relativistic solution as an escape . Fran
Re: [Vo]:Personal:Little help with UFO sighting?
I wrote: If the object was ever in a direction approximately due north or south of you, i.e. on a line perpendicular to the sunset location, then the altitude h I provided fairly closely applies to the object for that time t in the table. If it was mainly east or west then another calculation is needed. I would say anything above 100,000 feet, or 18.9 miles, was probably not a military jet, and certainly not a passenger jet. That altitude h corresponds to about 22 minutes after surface darkness - to whatever degree such darkness needs to be defined. From experience there, I know it gets dark pretty fast in Hawaii after sunset - especially compared to here - where sunsets can take a very long time. 8^) If you observed the object an hour after sunset then I'd say it was well past the 22 minutes after darkness mark. A general compass direction thus may be sufficient information for a definitive answer. That far after sunset, an hour, taken even alone, is a pretty strong indication it was not an airplane. I overlooked the fact that if the object were to the east of you then the umbra plane would be even higher. It is only when the object was to the west of you that there can be any doubt at all. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Personal:Little help with UFO sighting?
A Falcon project remnant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Force_Application_and_Launch_from_Continental_United_States#FALCON http://tinyurl.com/ydsfv7r Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
