Re: [Vo]:comment on New Energy Times' editorial about MeV/He-4
On Jan 31, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: On Jan 31, 2010, at 1:12 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: I'm encouraged to see that debate concerning the pros and cons of the controversial Widom Larsen theory has started opening up. I expect to seecontroversy. An understatement Steven! 8^) Abd, your analysis of the MeV/He-4 chart looks excellent to me. Nice job! Too bad your quality of response could not have been forthcoming from the authors. When I first saw the graph many months ago I simply assumed there was a misplaced decimal point on the 3.4 kJ number, the low number. I assumed a very low number, if real, would have some kind of explanation, because it disproves the assertion of a constant ratio of energy to 4He. This variability problem is, however, typical of most all repeated cold fusion experiments. Some experiments work and some don't. Until the experiments can be better controlled I think it will not be possible for anyone to credibly assert a fixed excess energy to 4He atom ratio exists. Also, when first I looked at the chart I immediately assumed the background line was there merely to show that the He counts were above background, not that background was *included* in the counts, which makes the chart essentially meaningless for the supposed purpose of showing a constant energy/4He *ratio*. Not only does it obscure the ratios, it shows the total counts to be close to the background counts, and thus with large error bars. When two nearly equal counts are subtracted the difference is a smaller number but the standard deviation becomes larger, so the deviation proportion becomes very large. If I obtained similar data that contradicted my own hypothesis and I were forced by my boss to gloss it over as much as possible I would have done the chart just as the chart was done - with the background counts included so as to make the ratios look more constant, and then not publish the actual numbers. The apparent stonewalling for months by the authors just makes the situation look all the worse. OTOH, we haven't yet heard the other side of the story. As to the rest of the NET story I just simply haven't been able to follow it carefully. It has long seemed to me, the folks asserting fixed E/4He ratios (a) believe it and (b) are credible scientists, but they (c) had formed strong personal opinions that the published data could not yet strongly support. A fixed energy/4He ratio is a logical hypothesis in some cases, but there is not a wealth of consistent and quality data to support the conclusion. In fact the existence of numerous *heavy element transmutation reports* contradicts the possibility of a fixed energy/4He ratio in at least those cases, unless such heavy nuclear reactions are assumed to occur with absolutely *no* energy production. Instead of debating whether there is a fixed (23.8 MeV)/4He ratio, i.e. from: D(D,gamma)He4 23.8 MeV it seems to me far more useful to note what is *not* observed in many experiments, namely 3.27-4.03 MeV energies and corresponding particles that support the common fusion reactions: D(D,p)T 4.03 MeV D(D,n)He3 3.27 MeV Given that high energy protons and neutrons are not observed in accordance with the excess heat, and given that the energy observed in some experiments greatly *exceeds* (4.03) MeV/4He, we can see that conventional fusion is totally out of the question to explain those experiments. Something wonderfully useful is happening, provided it can be harnessed. This is the important information. That there may be bungling of one kind or another, and emotional wrangling over theories with high emotional (and in some cases financial) investments, holds little interest for me. As with the global warming cover-up email flap - the behavior of a hand full of individuals does not change the way the universe works. There is an objective physical reality which is above opinion and independent of human existence. It would be preferable that everyone in the field worked harmoniously toward understanding this reality, and that all human foibles could be set aside. However, if I expected this to happen I would be even more of a crank than I am. Controversy and especially reasoned debate is good and necessary. Debate is indeed a good thing, but personally I don't have time for extended debate of any kind. I'm just throwing in my 2 cents worth here and am leaving it at that. I haven't had time to even read and check out what is being said in various cases. It's good that errors or possibly misleading text in published papers is pointed out, that's important. So true. However, we don't need more polemic that extrapolates from real or merely perceived errors into reprehensibility and blame. If evidence becomes conclusive that
[Vo]:Doing the Bosenova
The RD in the reference below is almost a decade old and comes from the mainstream of physics - (and courtesy of your tax dollars and NIST) and . it can relate to LENR in an unintended way, via the route of what has been called: 1) Temporal or temporary BEC 2) Virtual BEC 3) Quasi BEC 4) And other designations going all the way back to 1989 5) More recently: pycnodeuterium, or deuterium clusters, or ultra-dense deuterium, or Rydberg matter None of these are mentioned here, of course: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/bosenova.htm However, this article could (almost) offer a valid but unintended alternative explanation for LENR via one or more secondary mechanisms, following a BEC excursion - especially if helium-4 were to be seen. It was not, and moreover the energy released is tiny, yet it is the *dynamics* of the BEC which are enticing. A ZPE (Dirac epo field) explanation is also not ruled out, when helium is not found. The main leap of faith is that a process which is proved to happen in very cold conditions, can happen less frequently in a temporal or QM situation - since coldness can be mimicked by other restraints - including time dilation, internal pressurization, magnetic alignment and overvoltage. I have paraphrased the article without changing the content to make it compatible with an alternative view: In a Bose-Einstein condensate, ultra-cold bosons (integer spin) can coalesce into the lowest-energy quantum mechanical state. In effect, they become superimposed on one another, each indistinguishable from the other, creating what has been called a super-atom. In quantum-dynamic terms, the same wave function describes them all. By making a Bose-Einstein condensate and then changing the magnetic field, the researcher can adjust the wavefunction's self-interaction between repulsion and attraction. If the self-interaction is repulsive, all the parts of the wavefunction push each other away. If it is attractive, they all pull towards each other, like gravity. Making the self-interaction mildly repulsive causes the condensate to swell up in a controlled manner, as predicted by theory. However, when the magnetic field is adjusted to make the interaction attractive, dramatic and very unexpected effects are observed. The condensate first shrinks as expected, but rather than gradually clumping together in a tighter mass, there is instead a sudden explosion of atoms outward. This explosion, continues for a few thousandths of a second. Left behind is a small remnant and about half the original atoms seem to have vanished ! in that they are not seen in either the remnant or the expanding explosion. Since the phenomenon looks very much like a tiny supernova, or exploding star, it has been dubbed it a Bosenova. The most surprising thing about the Bosenova is that the fundamental physical process behind the explosion is still a mystery. END of paraphrase Hmm .. No, it does not mention fusion as a possibility, but what about the half the original atoms seem to have vanished ? Well the good folks at NIST got so many questions and flak about this provocative claim that they added an addenda and caveat to the article, later: The 'missing' atoms are almost certainly still around in some form, but just not in a form that we can detect them in our current experiment. The two likely possibilities are [mundane] . and do not indicate an energy anomaly. However, and this is my take on the way the story has evolved in the intervening years: the one thing about ZPE that is looming as a current issue, and one which demands more attention than it has ever received is this: ZPE is looking more and more like an energy sink instead of an energy source . . but do not fear vorticians - perhaps it can be both. But if it only operates an energy sink, then even so, as anyone who has followed this emerging viewpoint is aware, an energy sink can be almost as valuable for alternative energy, if not more so - than a true energy source . since we already have an adequate source. It is hidden away in the 300 degree K ambient blackbody field that we are so accustomed to living in (swimming in) - that we seldom look at it as a source. And ironically, it is not a source without the sink. There is a pun in there somewhere (sink or swim?) but I will leave it for the others punsters to take a shot at. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova
At 11:21 AM 2/1/2010, Jones Beene wrote: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/bosenova.htmhttp://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/bosenova.htm Hmm . No, it does not mention fusion as a possibility, but what about the half the original atoms seem to have vanished ? Well the good folks at NIST got so many questions and flak about this provocative claim that they added an addenda and caveat to the article, later: The 'missing' atoms are almost certainly still around in some form, but just not in a form that we can detect them in our current experiment The two likely possibilities are [mundane] and do not indicate an energy anomaly. But the likely possibilities are not mundane, this is what they say: The fate of the missing atoms is still an open question, but the researchers suspect that they wind up either accelerated so greatly that they escape the trap undetected, or perhaps form molecules that are invisible to the detection system. Sure. But ... what is the energy source for the explosion? What would accelerate them so greatly that they would escape the trap undetected. Sure, short of that, molecules that are invisible to the detection system are a possibility, but this also begs the question. To suddenly expand as the atoms do, some sudden release of energy must occur. Sure it's a mystery. Unless it's fusion. With a small condensate, and in the BEC state, any fusion could generate enough energy to disrupt the condensate, immediately. Energetic particles could be created that would, indeed, escape the trap, but it might be only one fusion, very difficult to detect a single event and distinguish it from background unless the experiment was specially set up to do this. The matter in the condensate is pure rubidium 85, with the electrons, and BEC fusion may not act in the ways that are expected from fusion. A compressed BEC is exploding. What is being hypothesized by Takahashi and Kim are essentially compressed BECs. The issue is really if such condensates form at all; my primitive understanding for the Takahashi theory is that the confinement of two deuterium molecules in a single lattice position for an extremely short time produces an equivalent of very high pressure or very low temperature or both. From Takahashi's calculations, the time involved is about a femtosecond before the BEC will fuse with a 100% rate. To my knowledge, nobody has refuted Takahashi's math, and the only problem is the question of whether or not a condensate will form; the presence of two deuterium molecules in a single lattice site would be extraordinarily rare, and so the question becomes How rare? I would say that the condition of double confinement would be highly disruptive to the lattice site, but ... a condensate would be contained with much less pressure all I can do is guess and speculate. Four deuterons, as nuclei, forget it. They can't form the condensate and they would be exerting immense disruptive pressure from Coulomb repulsion. So what might be interesting would be attempts to study the presence of deuterium molecules in the lattice, close to the surface. Not easy to study, I'd think. Maybe even impossible, maybe the only signal we could get from inside the lattice would be a fusion event. We do know that cold fusion is rare, very rare. Fortunately. Wouldn't it have been embarrassing if the University of Utah had vanished in a flash?
[Vo]:Steorn's official Jan. 30th video
Steorn's official January 30th video Proving OverUnity: part 1/2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4Q3Klq5dxM part 2/2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7i7P63IByY Harry __ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
RE: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova
-Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax ... the only problem is the question of whether or not a condensate will form ... Here are citations from Mitchell Swartz, which are not found on the LENR site, in which he finds evidence of BEC formation: Swartz, M.R., Survey of the Observed Excess Energy and Emissions In Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions, Journal Scientific Exploration, ISSN 0892-3310, Vol. 23, Number 4, pp. 419-436, (Winter 2010) Swartz, M.R., Excess Heat and Electrical Characteristics of Type B Anode-Plate High Impedance Phusor-type LANR Devices, Journal Scientific Exploration, ISSN 0892-3310, Vol. 23, Number 4, pp. 491-495, (Winter 2010) I wish I had time to do a complete search of all the literature for other evidence of transitory BEC formation, since so far it is only found in bits and pieces (and you have to know where to look) - but when you put it all together, and Mitchell's work is a good start - then I have the sense that a decent case will be made for this being the operative mechanism. Mitchell documents changes in Pd conductivity (and oscillations preceding excess heat) that point towards a BEC, but of course are not direct proof. If enough of these instances turn up - there will be a better case. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova
On 02/01/2010 01:25 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Unless it's fusion. With a small condensate, and in the BEC state, any fusion could generate enough energy to disrupt the condensate, immediately. Energetic particles could be created that would, indeed, escape the trap, but it might be only one fusion, very difficult to detect a single event and distinguish it from background unless the experiment was specially set up to do this. The matter in the condensate is pure rubidium 85, with the electrons, and BEC fusion may not act in the ways that are expected from fusion. I haven't been following this thread, but... Rubidium-85 ... FUSING? Isn't that endothermic? We way past iron here. I thought you needed something like a supernova to make reactions of that sort go. A compressed BEC is exploding. Not from Rb-Rb fusion, I would think!
RE:[Vo]:Doing the Bosenova
Jones Beene said on Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:23:13 -0800 [snip] “The main leap of faith is that a process which is proved to happen in very cold conditions, can happen less frequently in a temporal or QM situation - since coldness can be mimicked by other restraints - including time dilation, internal pressurization, magnetic alignment and overvoltage.” [/snip] Lets not forget spatial confinement and vacuum suppression both of which are present in lattices, skeletal catalysts and Casimir cavities. I include the lattice even though it is nearly isotropic because IMHO it accumulates the “pressure” that rapidly streams out very small cavities and defect apertures creating permanent fields because the geometry is not large enough to “sink” the accumulation. I have been investigating LET recently and think your source and sink are the positive and negative excursions of Lorentz’s Y axis that he calls “stationary ether”. The same thing that the Puthoff atomic model claims keeps orbitals sustained and the same thing Tesla claims that all matter eats. I think virtual particles fill this medium and have a relative “temporal displacement” to our spatial axis that provides our reference of time flow. This reference is modified inside Casimir cavities and catalysts providing reactants with equivalent “displacement” on the time axis while remaining spatially almost stationary from our perspective. The V^2/C^2 relationship defines the Y axis = C = whatever the rate of virtual particles through the spatial axis happens to be. No matter what the rate it will always appear to be C to us drawn on the present layer of the X axis for the same reason a 2d stick figure is unaware of volume. Best Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova
On Feb 1, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Jones Beene wrote: ZPE is looking more and more like an “energy sink” instead of an “energy source” … … but do not fear vorticians – perhaps it can be both. Particle physicists know well the vacuum acts as both a mass/energy source and sink - even at GeV levels. But if it only operates an energy sink, It doesn't. Borrowed mass/energy is part of every weak interaction, because the W-, W+, and Z have huge masses. These are borrowed on short term loan. However, the fact the universe is here indicates that in the right circumstances the vacuum can put mass/energy on a long term loan. I think nature is making long term loans all the time, as noted in: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GravityPairs.pdf and pp 21-24 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GravityPairs.pdf If the latter is correct, then we can possibly do this in a controlled fashion. then even so, as anyone who has followed this emerging viewpoint is aware, an energy sink can be almost as valuable for alternative energy, if not more so - than a true energy source … since we already have an adequate source. It is hidden away in the 300 degree K “ambient” blackbody field that we are so accustomed to living in (“swimming in”) – that we seldom look at it as a source. And ironically, it is not a source without the sink. There is a pun in there somewhere (sink or swim?) but I will leave it for the others punsters to take a shot at. Jones Analogically speaking, since the capacity of the drain matches that of the faucet, the question at hand is how to plug the drain. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence Isn't that endothermic? We way past iron here. I tried to make it very clear that this article, which is quoted in the original posting does not go there - not in any remote way. The article is simply of interest for both the focus on the BEC mechanism itself, which could be important elsewhere, plus the curious fact that some of the condensate was apparently lost. Even with the later clarification and hedging on the lost matter, it is possible that (literally) some atoms were lost to another dimension. After all a BEC consists of many atoms superimposed over each other. That is certainly consistent with some of those atoms being relegated to another dimension, since in our 3-space superimposing of any kind of matter, boson or fermion, is arguably not possible. IOW, no one ever checked for the alternative: storage in other dimensions, because no one has a way to do that yet - so the cop-out is that they are somehow superimposed. When applied to deuterium fusion, the fact that a large gamma ray is apparently lost, but with a balance of energy turning up at much lower frequency (terahertz) - well, that too could be coincidental and not related to a BEC explanation ... but the appeal of it is undeniable, since it can be applied to clear up the missing part of the magic phonon hypothesis. Jones
[Vo]:Boom in electric bicycles / The Front Fell Off
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/business/global/01ebike.html Remember, you read it here first! Also, somewhat off topic, here is a hysterical video from an Australian comedy team, about an actual incident -- an oil spill. The Front Fell Off, which it actually did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova
On 02/01/2010 02:48 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence Isn't that endothermic? We way past iron here. I tried to make it very clear that this article, which is quoted in the original posting does not go there - not in any remote way. Right -- but I was responding to what Abd said: With a small condensate, and in the BEC state, any fusion could generate enough energy to disrupt the condensate ... The matter in the condensate is pure rubidium 85 That juxtaposition of fusion, generate energy, and rubidium 85 doesn't sound right.
RE: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence That juxtaposition of fusion, generate energy, and rubidium 85 doesn't sound right. That's quite true - including the little problem of rubidium not being a boson. OTOH - many things that don't sound right today are merely awaiting a better explanation... to wit, when I got the Storms and Scanlan paper a while back, I was pondering the specific mention of 10 deuterons as a potentially active species ... why 10? Well, there are a number of implications of this, but given that neon is 10Ne20, mostly, then one might suspect that if 10 happened to be a special combination of deuts, then some neon might turn up as ash in experiment ... hmmm ... To make a short story longer, a quick look turns up the curious factoid that between 1910 and 1930, many experimenters (some rather well respected) reported the mysterious appearance of hydrogen, helium and neon appearing in electrical discharge tubes after operation for a while, when none was there initially. This was long before LENR, but many believed it had something to do with nitrogen being transmuted somehow. And there are a number of other mentions of neon in LENR as well, in more recent times. Quite a few, really. Now getting 10 deuterons together at one time to fuse into neon in a gas discharge tube, to the standard thinking of fizzix perfess'nals is beyond being wrong ... not even wrong ... ... yet Sir J.J. Thomson, no slouch in the lab and who was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics and is best known as the discoverer of the electron - described the production of helium and neon during the bombardment of various chemicals with these same cathode rays. As far as I know this finding was never retracted. Go figure. Jones
[Vo]:comment on Violante data as covered by Steve Krivit
I'm correcting this comment as to the Violante data using more accurate numbers as provided by Violante and inferred from that. The substance of this remains the same. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/34/345revisions.shtml We have learned, through a better understanding of their paper, that the authors did not perform calorimetry. Rather, they used the helium measurements to back-calculate the excess heat they would have expected from the amount of helium they measured, assuming the hypothesis of a D+D 4He + 23.8 MeV (heat) reaction. That statement appears to be radically incorrect. If it were true, the green dots would be right on the helium actually measured! You have misunderstood the chart, and you are directly contradicting the article. The chart plots, for three experiments, the numbers of helium atoms found, with error bars. This is total helium, and it appears that background helium is included. There are, however, some problems with the presentation. On the one hand, the experiment that shows a green dot on the money, is the noisiest point, it's actually a low excess helium measurement, obscured by plotting total helium including background. I doubt that the intention was obfuscation, though, rather it seems a bit sloppy to me. But it was only a conference paper! You state that they did not perform calorimetry. On the contrary, they describe their calorimetry in the paper, http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2005/2005Apicella-SomeResultsAtENEA.pdf, in detail, and they give the data in the text, and I have converted to MeV using the NASA energy calculator at http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/Tools/energyconv/energyConv.pl Laser 2: 23.5 kJ, 1.47 x 10^17 MeV Laser 3: 3.4 kJ, 2.12 x 10^16 MeV Laser 4: 30.3 kJ, 1.89 x 10^17 MeV If we expect 24 MeV/He-4, these figures would translate to Laser 2: 0.612 x 10^16 atoms Laser 3: 0.088 x 10^16 atoms Laser 4: 0.787 x 10^16 atoms If background is to be added, 0.55 x 10^16 per the chart (and from Violante direct data), this becomes expected measurement: Laser 2: 1.162 x 10^16 atoms Laser 3: 0.638 x 10^16 atoms Laser 4: 1.337 x 10^16 atoms And these are the green dot positions (read from the chart): Laser 2: 1.20 x 10^16 atoms Laser 3: 0.72 x 10^16 atoms Laser 4: 1.27 x 10^16 atoms It appears that they took the energy, divided it by 24 MeV/He4, and plotted that as the green dots for reference. However, the positions aren't exact, so they have made some approximation or there is some other factor they have not disclosed. Nevertheless, the green dots are *approximately* what they say they are: measured energy converted to expected helium at 24 MeV. (Note that Violante does acknowledge some sloppiness in the plots, but this does not greatly affect the presentation.) For reference, here is the helium data taken from the chart: Laser 2: 0.80 x 10^16 to 0.97 x 10^16 atoms, increase over background: 0.245 - 0.415 x 10^16, midpoint 0.330 Laser 3: 0.68 x 10^16 to 0.79 x 10^16 atoms, increase over background: 0.125 - 0.235 x 10^16, midpoint 0.180 Laser 4: 0.94 x 10^16 to 1.18 x 10^16 atoms, increase over background: 0.385 - 0.625 x 10^16, midpoint 0.505 Numbers reported by Violante in correspondence with Krivit, helium atoms, increase over background: Laser 2: 0.35 x 10^16 Laser 3: 0.10 x 10^16 Laser 4: 0.50 x 10^16 Calculated Q factors from the energy/helium (from my reading of the chart): Laser 2: 35 - 60 MeV, midpoint 45 MeV Laser 3: 9 - 17 MeV, midpoint 12 MeV Laser 4: 30 - 49 MeV, midpoint 37 MeV Laser 3 certainly looks like an outlier. From the better data provided by Violante: Laser 2: 42 MeV Laser 3: 21 MeV Laser 4: 38 MeV I'd have been much happier with statements of the actual measured values, or series of values, but this kind of specific and detailed data is often omitted. The round numbers are very clearly claimed. Then there are the green dots. These are not presentations of raw data, but of the raw energy data (stated explicitly as numbers) interpreted as helium on the hypothesis of 24 MeV/He-4. But there is an unfortunate problem. They do not state how they correlate measured helium with total helium, and they are not clear on whether or not the data in the chart is measured helium including background, the caption implies that it is the increase, but the caption could be interpreted merely to indicate that an increase over background is shown, and, from the calculations above, the figures are for total helium, i.e., background plus increase. However, the variation in the background is not stated. Do the error bars include that? It is quite unfortunate that they did not present the data clearly! They did do calorimetry, they are explicit about that. Those are the measured energy figures given, and those figures were not simply extrapolated from helium measured as you claimed: were it so, the green dots would be meaningless, but they also
Re: [Vo]:comment on Violante data as covered by Steve Krivit
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I'm correcting this comment as to the Violante data using more accurate numbers as provided by Violante and inferred from that. Provided where? When? To you in private correspondence, or did you find the data elsewhere? I can poke around and see if I have some unpublished data . . . - Jed
[Vo]:copy of Letter to New Energy Times, and what was published
re http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/34/343inexplicableclaims.shtml You report that Violante wrote: For the three points in the plot, we have: 0.35E+16, very close to 0.1E+16 (not well drawn in the plot) and 0.50 E+16 atoms respectively He had answered your question, but you asked again, and he responded: In terms of new atoms the result is an amount of He[lium] ranging from 1E+15 up to 5e+15 atoms. And you were astonished: This writer responded to Violante, reminding him that he had, since 2004, represented the measurements of helium-4 atoms from this series of experiments in the range of E+16 and that now he was stating to this reporter that his group had measured helium-4 atoms only in the range of E+15 atoms. This sudden change an entire order of magnitude smaller is inexplicable, given that the authors have not announced any errors or retractions about this graph in the last six years. New Energy Times asked Violante one additional question: Is there any comment you would like to make [...] about your published representations of this experiment to the scientific community? As we went to press, New Energy Times had received no response from Violante. Steve, the two sets of figures are identical values. The low value is reported first as 0.1E+16, which is 0.1 x 10^`6, and then as 1E+15, or 1 x 10^15. These are the same numbers. It's not surprising that Violante did not respond! This is, unfortunately, only one of many errors in the set of articles. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax http://lomaxdesign.com/coldfusion Krivit published this and a response: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?feed=rss2p=113 By: sbkrivit Monday, February 01, 2010 3:01 AM Received via e-mail: In Inexplicable D-D Cold Fusion Claims From Italy you wrote that Violante restated his claims an entire order of magnitude smaller. This is incorrect. 1E+15 is the same as 0.1E+16. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Northampton, Mass. http://lomaxdesign.com/coldfusion (Archive copy Cold Fusion Kit) [Ed: New Energy Times thanks Lomax for this correction. We made three attempts to get a clear answer from Vittorio Violante to our question about the specific values of helium measured by his group. In his second response, Violante gave us values expressed in E+16. In his third response, Violante gave us values expressed in E+15. On receipt of this third response, we failed to notice that he had moved the decimal point, and we were thus led to believe there was an order of magnitude difference in what he was stating. However, our mathematical error has no bearing on the significant misrepresentation by Violante's group (see our Fig. 2 in the article.)] And I now comment on this. Krivit made attempts to get a clear answer, sure, but got clear answers and did not recognize them. He was also not asking the questions that would have been asked to truly clear up problems with the paper. For example, as a question, How did you obtain the '24 MeV' 'expected' positions on the graph? Had he asked that question, he would have probably gotten the answer: I divided the energy found by calorimetry by the value of 24 MeV/He-4, and then added the known background of 0.55 x 10^16 atoms. We don't have Krivit's actual correspondence nor Violante's replies, except for a few exerpts from later communications. Thus we are completely dependent upon Krivit for his judgment of Violante's alleged evasiveness. Krivit states The authors intended this slide to support their claim of reasonable experimental agreement with the prediction of the D-D cold fusion reaction. Given that the paper does not make that claim, this is mind-reading, and one of the problems with mind-reading is that we tend to read what we expect. Nevertheless, the paper does show reasonable agreement with what would be expected from d-d fusion, except for the obvious fact that simple d-d fusion is hardly considered a reasonable hypothesis by anyone. What is more to the point is a hypothesis that the fuel for whatever is going on is deuterium and the principal ash is helium, and, no matter what intermediaries exist, or what mechanism, and unless significant other products exist, the 24 MeV Q factor would be expected. Krivit states in his piece: On Jan. 25, 2010, this writer e-mailed Violante and asked for the measured values of helium produced from experiment C2. We received a confusing answer. On Jan. 25, 2010, this writer again e-mailed Violante, asking, What is the amount of helium produced from Laser 2, 3 and 4 experiments? Basic problem: helium produced isn't measured. It is calculated, at least in this case, where no steps were described to exclude background helium already present in the experimental apparatus. What the chart showed was actual measurements, not helium produced. The label was slightly misleading, but a cursory examination of the data, and in particular, the
[Vo]:holocene Clovis culture impact disaster? expert Vance T Holliday talk 5:30 pm Monday Feb 1 $ 12 at Hotel Santa Fe, Paseo de Peralta at Cerrillos Road -- many impact air bursts near Odessa crater:
holocene Clovis culture impact disaster? expert Vance T Holliday talk 5:30 pm Monday Feb 1 $ 12 at Hotel Santa Fe, Paseo de Peralta at Cerrillos Road -- many impact air bursts near Odessa crater: Rich Murray 2010.02.01 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.htm Monday, February 1, 2010 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/39 _ [ Note: Third Meteor Night, 7 pm Tuesday Feb 2, SF Complex ] http://www.southwestseminars.org/SouthwestSeminars.org/Ancient_Sites_2010.html 466-2775 http://www.argonaut.arizona.edu/holliday.htm http://www.argonaut.arizona.edu/history.htm http://www.sott.net/articles/show/198948-Absence-of-Evidence-for-a-Meteorite-Impact-Event-13-000-Years-Ago http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21505 free full text François S. Paquay, Greg Ravizza, Steven Goderis, Philippe Claeys, Steven Goderis, Frank Vanhaeck, Matthew Boyd, Todd A. Surovell, Vance T. Holliday, C. Vance Haynes, Jr. Absence of geochemical evidence for an impact event at the Bolling - Allerod/Younger Dryas transition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2009 presented at the American Geophysical Union Fall 2009 Meeting in San Francisco. Wednesday December 16th, 2:52 PM -- 3:04 PM, Room 2006 Moscone West Just now, on Google Earth I found: 31.7126 -102.5230 .933 km el SW of Odessa crater many small shallow white and dark craters nearby 31.5932 -102.4573 .837 km el 15 km field of white deposits in oil field -- near surface Holocene air bursts of ice comet fragments? 31.2119 -102.3476 .722 km el 25 km size air burst? 31.3667 -102.6734 .731 km el 7 km air burst? 31.4865 -102.6612 .777 km el 5 km air burst? South end of a long string of many large fields 31.6338 -102.8652 .826 km el 31.9087 -102.9922 .900 km el http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odessa_Meteor_Crater The Odessa Meteor Crater is a meteorite crater in the southwestern part of Ector County, southwest of the city of Odessa, Texas, United States. It is located approximately 3 miles (5 km) south of I-20 at FM 1936 south.[1] This is one of two impact crater sites found in Texas, the other being the much larger and older Sierra Madera crater. The Handbook of Texas Online describes the Odessa meteor crater as the largest of several smaller craters in the immediate area that were formed by the impact of thousands of octahedrites (an iron metallic type) that fell in prehistoric times.[2] The web site of the University of Texas of the Permian Basin (UTPB, Center for Energy and Economic Diversification [CEED]), identifies five craters at the Odessa site and shows a distribution map of the meteorite fragments recovered from the area.[3] The recoveries have generally come from an area to the north and northwest of the main crater site, with only a few found to the south. They indicate that the structure of the main crater, because it was one of the earliest to be recognized and studied, is now used to name similar impact sites on a worldwide basis. Over 1500 meteorites have been recovered from the surrounding area over the years, the largest of which weighed approximately 300 pounds (135 kg), but excavations in the main crater confirm that there is no meteorite mass underground and probably never has been. The site has been designated as a National Natural Landmark by the National Park Service, and a small information area and nature trail has been set up on-site for a self-guided tour. It is 168 meters (~550 feet) in diameter and the age is estimated to be around 63,500 years (Pleistocene or younger).[4] The crater is exposed to the surface, and was originally about 100 feet (30 meters) deep. Due to subsequent infilling by soil and debris, the crater is currently 15 feet (5 meters) deep at its lowest point, which provides enough relief to be visible over the surrounding plains, but does not offer the dramatic relief found at the more famous Meteor Crater in Arizona. Still, the site offers an excellent opportunity to view a relatively uncommon impact feature close to a major transportation artery near a major city. References 1. Odessa. Earth Impact Database. University of New Brunswick. Retrieved 2008-12-30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Impact_Database 2. Smith, Julia Cauble. Meteor crater at Odessa. Handbook of Texas Online. Retrieved 5 November 2009. http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/MM/rym1.html http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/2372.pdf 3. Anonymous. Meteor Impact Structures. Center for Energy Economic Diversification, The University of Texas of the Permian Basin. Retrieved 5 November 2009. http://ceed.utpb.edu/geology-resources/west-texas-geology/meteor-impact-structures/ 4. Holliday, V.T., Kring, D.A., Mayer, J.H. and Goble, R.J. 2005. Age and effects of the Odessa meteorite impact, western Texas, USA. Geology 33(12):945-948. http://www.netwest.com/virtdomains/meteorcrater/history.htm The shower was composed of many
Re: [Vo]:copy of Letter to New Energy Times, and what was published
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Nevertheless, the paper does show reasonable agreement with what would be expected from d-d fusion, except for the obvious fact that simple d-d fusion is hardly considered a reasonable hypothesis by anyone. What is more to the point is a hypothesis that the fuel for whatever is going on is deuterium and the principal ash is helium, and, no matter what intermediaries exist, or what mechanism, and unless significant other products exist, the 24 MeV Q factor would be expected. This is well expressed. It is the point I have been trying to make for many years, often to no avail. Basic rule of interpretation of incomplete messages: assume that they are mostly right, look for the explanation that maximizes rightness. This is especially true when the text is not written by a native speaker of language. It even applies to graphs and other presentations of date, even without words. You would be surprised how many differences there are in mathematical notation and customary presentation methods there are between the U.S. and Japan for example. There are big differences and small ones. The small ones are apt to cause more misunderstandings than the big ones, because people do not realize they are there. There are also authors such as Arata who use old notation and some idiosyncratic notation I have never seen elsewhere. For example, he and one Japanese publisher I encountered many years ago tends to put units in square brackets: 1 [kg] 14 [MeV] Arata is a genius -- I am more and more impressed by his latest work. But he does not communicate well! He uses all kinds of weird typographic symbols such as letters with circles around them. The late Akira Kawasaki and I agreed that Arata's notation and symbols are confusing as heck, and his Japanese text is as confusing as his English. You would be surprised how confusing misleading language differences can be, even in daily personal life. See Jake Adelstein, Tokyo Vice p. 63 for details: http://www.amazon.com/Tokyo-Vice-American-Reporter-Police/dp/0307378799 Since I am stickler for proprieties I shall say no more, but you can Search inside! for the text: this lends itself to the joke . . . (I can't wait to read this book in Japanese.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steorn's official Jan. 30th video
I smell a scam. Compute compute Eye Kearumba. The one way to prove over unity is to get rid of the battery. Replace the battery with a capacitor to supply a few seconds of storage if necessary and close the loop. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:copy of Letter to New Energy Times, and what was published
At 06:59 PM 2/1/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Nevertheless, the paper does show reasonable agreement with what would be expected from d-d fusion, except for the obvious fact that simple d-d fusion is hardly considered a reasonable hypothesis by anyone. What is more to the point is a hypothesis that the fuel for whatever is going on is deuterium and the principal ash is helium, and, no matter what intermediaries exist, or what mechanism, and unless significant other products exist, the 24 MeV Q factor would be expected. This is well expressed. It is the point I have been trying to make for many years, often to no avail. Thanks. Eventually, they come around, Jed. For an unfortunate few, they die first. A hazard we all face, sooner or later. Basic rule of interpretation of incomplete messages: assume that they are mostly right, look for the explanation that maximizes rightness. This is especially true when the text is not written by a native speaker of language. It even applies to graphs and other presentations of date, even without words. You would be surprised how many differences there are in mathematical notation and customary presentation methods there are between the U.S. and Japan for example. There are big differences and small ones. The small ones are apt to cause more misunderstandings than the big ones, because people do not realize they are there. Right. With the assumption, one will continue digging, and only when exploration is thorough, there have been multiple efforts, including consultations with others, does it start to become reasonable to even think of obfuscation. I've been pretty frank about Stoern, because it became clear to me that they weren't trying to make it all clear. Indeed, they are really pretty open about that, if you just think! They don't want you to know what they are doing if you don't pay them the developer fee! How the hell do they expect to make money if they just give the ideas and the exact procedures and results away! And then I was not thrilled to see Larsen basically acknowledging that the understanding they have is proprietary. Big red flag. He's not going to explain it to us unless we pay him, and probably with even more restrictions than that. Down this road we have already seen many go, and what happened to them? Sure, someday, someone *might* be quite legitimate, who follows this business model. But I'm not holding my breath. None of this means that W-L theory is wrong, but it sure doesn't mean it's right. There are also authors such as Arata who use old notation and some idiosyncratic notation I have never seen elsewhere. For example, he and one Japanese publisher I encountered many years ago tends to put units in square brackets: 1 [kg] 14 [MeV] Arata is a genius -- I am more and more impressed by his latest work. But he does not communicate well! He uses all kinds of weird typographic symbols such as letters with circles around them. The late Akira Kawasaki and I agreed that Arata's notation and symbols are confusing as heck, and his Japanese text is as confusing as his English. To me, I'm sure, *much more confusing*! You would be surprised how confusing misleading language differences can be, even in daily personal life. See Jake Adelstein, Tokyo Vice p. 63 for details: http://www.amazon.com/Tokyo-Vice-American-Reporter-Police/dp/0307378799 Since I am stickler for proprieties I shall say no more, but you can Search inside! for the text: this lends itself to the joke . . . (I can't wait to read this book in Japanese.) Cool. That is a fabulous joke about Japanese-American couples, I doubt that I will ever forget it. I won't reveal your secret Jed, others will just have to look for themselves. His girlfriend was right, though. He'd have made a bad husband, guaranteed, she'd have been unhappy. There was no actual misunderstanding here, though, this was just an excuse to share the joke with us. They knew what the words meant. Thanks, though. As to the book, I can't wait to read it in English. Stupid search ends each excerpt just when it's getting really juicy!
Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova
On 02/01/2010 04:25 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence That juxtaposition of fusion, generate energy, and rubidium 85 doesn't sound right. That's quite true - including the little problem of rubidium not being a boson. OTOH - many things that don't sound right today are merely awaiting a better explanation... to wit, when I got the Storms and Scanlan paper a while back, I was pondering the specific mention of 10 deuterons as a potentially active species ... why 10? Well, there are a number of implications of this, but given that neon is 10Ne20, mostly, then one might suspect that if 10 happened to be a special combination of deuts, then some neon might turn up as ash in experiment ... hmmm ... To make a short story longer, a quick look turns up the curious factoid that between 1910 and 1930, many experimenters (some rather well respected) reported the mysterious appearance of hydrogen, helium and neon appearing in electrical discharge tubes after operation for a while, when none was there initially. This was long before LENR, but many believed it had something to do with nitrogen being transmuted somehow. And there are a number of other mentions of neon in LENR as well, in more recent times. Quite a few, really. This seems pretty unlikely at first glance. This is a hot fusion environment -- exposing loose atoms to a particle beam. And the energy levels seem just a bit too low to get much done that way. Yes, of course Farnrsworth got something like that to work but it took a lot more cleverness than just blasting away with an electron beam. How did they detect the helium and neon? No mass spec back then, right? Spectral emission lines from the tube, or what? Has anyone tried to repro these results in the last few decades? Now getting 10 deuterons together at one time to fuse into neon in a gas discharge tube, to the standard thinking of fizzix perfess'nals is beyond being wrong ... not even wrong ... A 10-way collision -- yeah, I'd say that sounds pretty unlikely. ... yet Sir J.J. Thomson, no slouch in the lab and who was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics and is best known as the discoverer of the electron - described the production of helium and neon during the bombardment of various chemicals with these same cathode rays. But cathode rays are just loose electrons, typically with an energy of a few tens of kev or less. Where do the deuterons come in? As far as I know this finding was never retracted. Go figure. Jones
Re: [Vo]:holocene Clovis culture impact disaster? expert Vance T Holliday talk 5:30 pm Monday Feb 1 $ 12 at Hotel Santa Fe, Paseo de Peralta at Cerrillos Road -- many impact air bursts near Odessa cra
If this is what I think it is, it's very cool, and also moderately well documented and reasonably well known (at least in some circles). If I haven't got this mixed up with something else, this is the event which is believed (by some) to have reset the carbon 14 clocks in a lot of material in North America, making C14 dates dubious at best for a lot of Native American artifacts. (However, please note, this doesn't do the Young Earthers any good -- the C14 dates which were bashed all read *younger* than they should. IOW things may be older than they appear.) On 02/01/2010 05:59 PM, Rich Murray wrote: holocene Clovis culture impact disaster? expert Vance T Holliday talk 5:30 pm Monday Feb 1 $ 12 at Hotel Santa Fe, Paseo de Peralta at Cerrillos Road -- many impact air bursts near Odessa crater: Rich Murray 2010.02.01 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.htm Monday, February 1, 2010 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/39 _ [ Note: Third Meteor Night, 7 pm Tuesday Feb 2, SF Complex ] http://www.southwestseminars.org/SouthwestSeminars.org/Ancient_Sites_2010.html 466-2775 http://www.argonaut.arizona.edu/holliday.htm http://www.argonaut.arizona.edu/history.htm http://www.sott.net/articles/show/198948-Absence-of-Evidence-for-a-Meteorite-Impact-Event-13-000-Years-Ago http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21505 free full text François S. Paquay, Greg Ravizza, Steven Goderis, Philippe Claeys, Steven Goderis, Frank Vanhaeck, Matthew Boyd, Todd A. Surovell, Vance T. Holliday, C. Vance Haynes, Jr. Absence of geochemical evidence for an impact event at the Bolling - Allerod/Younger Dryas transition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2009 presented at the American Geophysical Union Fall 2009 Meeting in San Francisco. Wednesday December 16th, 2:52 PM -- 3:04 PM, Room 2006 Moscone West Just now, on Google Earth I found: 31.7126 -102.5230 .933 km el SW of Odessa crater many small shallow white and dark craters nearby 31.5932 -102.4573 .837 km el 15 km field of white deposits in oil field -- near surface Holocene air bursts of ice comet fragments? 31.2119 -102.3476 .722 km el 25 km size air burst? 31.3667 -102.6734 .731 km el 7 km air burst? 31.4865 -102.6612 .777 km el 5 km air burst? South end of a long string of many large fields 31.6338 -102.8652 .826 km el 31.9087 -102.9922 .900 km el http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odessa_Meteor_Crater The Odessa Meteor Crater is a meteorite crater in the southwestern part of Ector County, southwest of the city of Odessa, Texas, United States. It is located approximately 3 miles (5 km) south of I-20 at FM 1936 south.[1] This is one of two impact crater sites found in Texas, the other being the much larger and older Sierra Madera crater. The Handbook of Texas Online describes the Odessa meteor crater as the largest of several smaller craters in the immediate area that were formed by the impact of thousands of octahedrites (an iron metallic type) that fell in prehistoric times.[2] The web site of the University of Texas of the Permian Basin (UTPB, Center for Energy and Economic Diversification [CEED]), identifies five craters at the Odessa site and shows a distribution map of the meteorite fragments recovered from the area.[3] The recoveries have generally come from an area to the north and northwest of the main crater site, with only a few found to the south. They indicate that the structure of the main crater, because it was one of the earliest to be recognized and studied, is now used to name similar impact sites on a worldwide basis. Over 1500 meteorites have been recovered from the surrounding area over the years, the largest of which weighed approximately 300 pounds (135 kg), but excavations in the main crater confirm that there is no meteorite mass underground and probably never has been. The site has been designated as a National Natural Landmark by the National Park Service, and a small information area and nature trail has been set up on-site for a self-guided tour. It is 168 meters (~550 feet) in diameter and the age is estimated to be around 63,500 years (Pleistocene or younger).[4] The crater is exposed to the surface, and was originally about 100 feet (30 meters) deep. Due to subsequent infilling by soil and debris, the crater is currently 15 feet (5 meters) deep at its lowest point, which provides enough relief to be visible over the surrounding plains, but does not offer the dramatic relief found at the more famous Meteor Crater in Arizona. Still, the site offers an excellent opportunity to view a relatively uncommon impact feature close to a major transportation artery near a major city. References 1. Odessa. Earth Impact Database. University of New Brunswick. Retrieved 2008-12-30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Impact_Database 2. Smith, Julia
[Vo]:Fwd: An Incoherent Explanation of LENR
E-mail from Stephen Lawrence, edited letter from Lomax and correction posted last night to NET blog comments: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=113#comments
Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova
At 02:25 PM 2/1/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 02/01/2010 01:25 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Unless it's fusion. With a small condensate, and in the BEC state, any fusion could generate enough energy to disrupt the condensate, immediately. Energetic particles could be created that would, indeed, escape the trap, but it might be only one fusion, very difficult to detect a single event and distinguish it from background unless the experiment was specially set up to do this. The matter in the condensate is pure rubidium 85, with the electrons, and BEC fusion may not act in the ways that are expected from fusion. I haven't been following this thread, but... Rubidium-85 ... FUSING? Isn't that endothermic? We way past iron here. Could be. Any experimental data? Specific to Rubidium-85? I thought you needed something like a supernova to make reactions of that sort go. Uh, there might not be any other way to make that reaction go. The nucleus would be highly neutron-deficient? Anyone know what it would do? I certainly don't know! A compressed BEC is exploding. Not from Rb-Rb fusion, I would think! Okay, another idea? The reaction might indeed be endothermic but still generate disruptive forces. I'm just trying to think outside the box here, a bit, and my real interest, of course, is in what would happen with deuterium under similar conditions, if this could indeed be done with deuterium Might not be possible at all. I can't assert that some impurity is there. But What if in the condensate, there is a rearrangement, and some electrons get absorbed by protons. That would convert the nuclei to a lower atomic number, and the nuclei would then have a positive charge and would repel each other, hence the explosion. They might also become undetectable. It wouldn't be fusion, as we ordinarily think of it, but it would be a nuclear reaction. The energy balance I don't care to try to calculate! And there are dozens of ways for me to be wrong and only a slim chance that my blathering makes any sense at all. Caveat emptor. At least with this discussion! I'm here to learn, mostly, not to impress anyone.
Re: [Vo]:Steorn's official Jan. 30th video
At 07:11 PM 2/1/2010, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I smell a scam. Compute compute Eye Kearumba. The one way to prove over unity is to get rid of the battery. Replace the battery with a capacitor to supply a few seconds of storage if necessary and close the loop. Ah, but they will respond that they can't get the generator to generate enough energy, that they are only over unity when all the heat dissipation is considered. I did finally look at most of the final proof video. I'll note that in the last part (part 3 in the videos independently put up), one of their replicators identifies himself as such and points out that when Stoern has just presented isn't likely to convince anyone, and he asks for the people present to show their hands if they saw something that convinced them. The camera didn't show any response, but Sean quickly shut him up, said that, obviously, he disagreed, and they should have a discussion later. I didn't see anything remotely convincing. It's all assertions with evidence that is very incompletely disclosed and quite fraught with possible interpretation errors. The oscilloscope traces don't show anything but an integrated energy removed by the pickup coil, which we already know would take place. I.e., if there is something accelerating the rotor, it must be possible to extract energy, and if it is extracted, it will accumulate. To understand this and to be meaningful, we would need to know *how much* energy is being accumulated. Not shown. What are the units in the display? I didn't see it. It's a calculated display, must be. But all they were measuring is current. To convert that to energy, we'd need to know more. It was shorted. Frankly, I don't know how to calculate dissipation in that from current alone! And then we'd need to know the exact energy balance in the toroids and that circuit. Without the kind of capacitor bank that's been suggested, there is no clear measure of that, it's extremely difficult to determine the energy extracted from a battery during the process, the voltage doesn't change much. With a high capacitance, the voltage would change enough to measure the actual reduction in stored energy, and this would be independent of waveform. With a complex waveform with high-current spikes, very difficult to calculate dissipated energy from voltage and current, which is what they claim they are doing, but they did not actually show the calculations. It would only take a small error to cover up enough energy loss to the rotor to make it accelerate a little with each cycle. That they are using very low-friction bearings (magnetic bearings) indicates that they need the ability to accumulate very small amounts of energy in the rotor kinetic energy. In any case, they are claiming that the experiment in front of us in the video is running at over 300% efficiency. They claim that the battery energy is entirely dumped as heat, and they might even be measuring that as *substantially* true. But to be sure that it is *actually* true, they would need very precise measurements and calculations and I don't see any sign that they are doing what could be adequate. Hence having a way to determine actual input energy would be crucial. And then to determine actual heat dissipation would be as well. Again, while this isn't trivial, necessarily, it's not all that difficult. The two measurements, if they appear to be equal, would establish an upper bound for whatever energy might be dumped into the rotor. I.e., if, say, the capacitor loss in voltage, calibrated, indicated 1.000 watts input, plus or minus 1 milliwatt, and heat was found at the same level with the same error, we'd have an upper bound of 2 milliwatts or so (I'm not doing the actual calculations, and it's not important that this be exact, because *they are claiming that the rotor would be collecting two watts if the efficiency is 300%). Then we'd want a measure of the energy being accumulated by the rotor, and there are a number of simple ways to approach that. I suggested a pickup coil, which is what they actually used, but instead of shorting it -- which gives us far less information, far more difficult to interpret, what would be done is to set the resistance in series with the coil to a value that just keeps the rotor from accelerating, at some speed deemed efficient, to be fair. Then the voltage across the resistance and the current through the resistance would tell us power output directly, at the same time as we could measure power input. (Do I have it right that if there is a pickup coil connected to a resistor, the power dissipated in the resistor will equal that dissipated in the coil? Seems to me that it would be. Same voltage, same current, same power as I*R.) This could, then, be a quite direct measure of output power vs. input power, and conversion efficiency would not enter into it. The conversion from rotary energy in the rotor
[Vo]:Roald Hoffmann poem
http://www.roaldhoffmann.com/pn/modules/Downloads/docs/ An_Unusual_State_of_Matter.pdf http://tinyurl.com/ykmwoxe Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
