RE: Re: [Vo]:CF in Physics Today
I appended a conclusion to my original reply from last night. Stephen, thank you for the answer. It appears relativistic velocities like the muon are not as common as I imagined but even these lesser velocities you mention would accumulate into time dilation like the protracted decay of the muon just on a smaller scale. Normally this dilation is intangible as the atoms must exist in a different inertial frame only briefly passing our frame of observation. If we can accept time dilation due to mass acceleration relative to the time axis then we should also allow for the opposite case of a moving time frame relative to a stationary mass. I think this is already the case for equivalent acceleration when a crushproof spacecraft sits on a collapsed star but instead of inhibiting the flow of time like the dead star, the Casimir cavity takes that same sort of inhibition (accumulated pressure) and exhausts it out of a tiny cavity too small to exhaust the reservoir. This creates a steady stream many times faster than the isotropic field it is breaching. My point is this represents a difference in acceleration between inhabitants of the cavity vs outside the cavity such that velocity accumulates -I put velocity in quotes since from our perspective it is time dilation but from the local perspective of the gas atoms inside the cavity it is feeling equivalent acceleration and sees the cavity walls shrinking away into the distance even though its spatial coordinates are unchanged. This makes time dilation tangible in that We can use gas atoms in a stationary catalyst/reactor to exploit this environment. In conclusion the temporal rate of the Casimir cavity by virtue of its vector should be considered immediately relativistic. It doesn't have to achieve a right angle relationship on the scale of C because it is directly altering the time axis. Relative to the isotropic time flow outside the cavity there is an absolute difference in equivalent acceleration meaning that gas atoms diffusing between the 2 frames will experience abrupt changes in time and gravity we refer to as catalytic action (change in Casimir force). Best Regards Fran
RE: [Vo]:comment on Violante data as covered by Steve Krivit
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com If lattice resonance is a factor, then some depth may be required to build up a strong enough resonance effect that the mechanism can operate. (analogous to adding more dipoles to a TV antenna) Hi Robin, Lattice resonance and depth below the surface could be a factor. However, it is also possible that depth is counterproductive for a certain kind of resonance effect - which only works on the surface layer itself, and only with hydrogen. There is a provocative animation on the Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy ... which shows an animated visualization (if you have html tuned on) of the many vibration modes that only operate at the surface layer and probably only operate with a very mobile atom like H or D. Simple diatomic molecules like deuterium, which have only one bond, may stretch and contort at high frequencies, but apparently there are large frequency gaps which are forbidden, leading to either super-radiance or sub-radiance. I have lost the citation from a few weeks ago that claimed that below a threshold of about 10 nm, the expected blackbody frequency is upshifted for nanostructures, in general. If anyone has that cite (site) handy please post it. All of these issues could overlap, based on geometry and super-radiance. In the animation above, the atoms in a CH2 group can vibrate in six different ways: stretching, scissoring, rocking, wagging and twisting. What the animation does not show is the distinct possibility of coherence (semi-coherence) in vibration - such as if these atoms (deuterons) were moving together in a tuning fork analogy. That situation would be expected to self-reinforce. If the actual frequency of vibration were to exceed the blackbody rate at the surface layer, then we might expect it to be coherent. Don't ask me why yet, but it relates to super-radiance and seems to involve atoms that are inactive in the parts of the IR spectrum unless they are stimulated by external agents. I found some published information that hydrogen fits the bill and will not emit in the IR in certain ranges - absent special circumstances. It is Russian and may not be accurate information, since it does not sound logical to me yet. More on that later. Jones
Re: [Vo]:comment on Violante data as covered by Steve Krivit
On 02/08/2010 11:41 AM, Jones Beene wrote: I have lost the citation from a few weeks ago that claimed that below a threshold of about 10 nm, the expected blackbody frequency is upshifted for nanostructures, in general. If I understand you, and if this is true, then it's a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. It's provable by a direct, simple second law argument that all thermal radiators of the same temperature have the same spectrum, with the caveat that radiation is reduced proportionally at frequencies at which the object is reflective or transparent. Here's the argument: When two objects at the same temperature are placed next to each other in a uniformly hot oven (with everything at the same temperature to start with), and a dichroic filter is placed between them, if one radiates more strongly at the filter's peak reflection frequency than the other, their temperatures will change. (The one which radiates more strongly at the mirror's reflection frequency will see more radiation coming in than the other object, and so will get warmer.)
[Vo]:When Holraum-Works/If you build it they. . .Kewl
'T'-- *From Holraum to Relativistic-Gravity to Casimir tofrom the Big Bang* Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:50:23 -0500 Subject: Re: FW: [Vo]:The Hohlraum Works From: hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Kewl! Let's build one! *If you build it . . . STAND BACK!: The observation circuitry (especially) for the inititial RD up-boot 'experience' should be all fibre-optic, lensing heavily heat-shielded signal-carrier due to EM interference and the distinct possibility that 'controlled-fusion' should precipitously 'graduate' into WHITE-HOLE STATUS. This would be brief because AexoDarkEnergy Parallel-Spectrum 'tapping' reponds to 'trans-spectrum fluid dynamics' which tends strongly to 'SHUT' the 'breach.' And this is primarily because we are permeated perforce by the relatively much-larger PLASMA-GRAVIONIC field of our 'Planet's' ambient MASS-CENTRIFIC-GRAVIONIC-TENSOR-field equilibrium. (this project would be somewhat likely to accomplish this version of CROSS-SPECTRUM-VORTICULAR DIALATION escalating 'UP' a bit from mere 'fusion'). And for our purposes, 'a bit' is a bunch. . . And this EARTH TENSOR-GRAVIONIC-field 'shutting' effect is DETERMINATE, and exactly the reason why the CERN-HADRON hysteria/paranoia syndrome over the NON-possibility of their creating ROGUE-BLACK-HOLE singularities is BUNK. Hense sketchy 'reports' CERN-HADRON of certain EXPLOSIVE ACCIDENTS which they explained rather lamely and incompletely publicized. . . aka . . . 'red-herring misinformation.' SINGULARITY as a multi-level COSMIC ENERGY-FLOW equilibrium fluid-dynamics is the SYSTEMIC-PROCESS-RULE of physics through-out as Super-M-Brane/SuperGravity models indicate. GRAVITY IS NOT A CONSTANT; but rather, GRAVITY is a relativistic QUANTUM-ENERGY-DENSITY-FLOW 'indicator' of those fractallating Cross-Spectrum M-Brane directional-flow fluid-dynamics. More energy 'density' equals more energy-speed equals hyper-energy-fluidity which is makes said 'greater-energy-density-field' hyper viscous/GRAVIONIC to adjacent relatively 'lesser density energy fields. Higher density 'objects' are literally toroidally-REELING-IN and also toroidally compressing the ADJACENT ENERGY-MEMBRANE SPACE. Greater speed-density overwhelms 'lesser' speed-density via higher-viscosity toroidal-(spindal-like)compression. And because ALL OTHER FOCUSED ENERGY DENSITY 'OBJECTS' are doing likewise WE THUSLY OBSERVE that they are thus ALL PULLING THE SAME SHEET like a tug-of-war the thusly 'PULL TOWARD EACHOTHER' at the GRAVIONIC-TOROIDAL-MASS-ACCUMLATION RATE at the SUM of their INDIVIDUAL RATES. THIS OBSERVATION is NEWTONIAN but with a Super-M-Brane/Super Gravity twist. OF COURSE it 'must' also perforce acknowledge that the Super-M-Brane multi-spectrum/wave-infini-sheet is identifiable as BOTH the UBIQUITOUS AEXO-TACHYON-Speed Carrier Wave, and also definable as Parallel-Adjacent ROOT Aexo-DarkEnergy Space. So in Super-M-Brane/AexoTachyonSpeedCarrierWave/AexoDarkEnergy Space theory, the micro-singularity of all atom's protons taps AexoDarkEnergySpace as a Balanced-Gray-Whole Singularity Electro-Valent-Flow system. And thusly accounting for the SOURCE OF THE PROTON'S/Atom's quantum-energy-density TOROIDAL-GRAVIONIC/CENTRIFIC-DYNAMICS is via BLEED-THROUGH trans-gravionic field tapped from Adjacent-TachyonSpeedWave quasi-DarkEnergy Adjacent-Spectrum AEXOSPACE. VOILA: The Casimir Effect. AND AexoDarkSpace REELING-IN 'itself' TO 'itself' via Atom-Proton Singularity action, and also to 'itself' causing ALL-Mass/Galaxies to our Universe to RACE to the Outer Borders where the HYPER-FRACTALLATING/HyperFluidicSpeedDensity is also REELING in the BAE-Constant/Base Ambient Universe-Energy sheet as a constant FLOW from the BIG BANG/GREAT WHITE HOLE SINGULARITY from AEXOTACHYONWAVE DarkEnergySpace originally forms from a low-density centre inverse/singularity/plasma-breach of a AexoDARKENERGY TOROID de FRACTAL. This is likely REGULAR PROCESS and our ADJACENT UNIVERSES MANY. We could characterize AexoDarkEnergySpace/Spectrum as a 'Current System of HYPER FACTALATING 'Storms/Maelstroms.' whose 'eyes' breed relativistic 'low density-pin-wholes where the Base Energy Level of DarkSpace is 'under-breached' an begins the SYPHON SYSTEM which is the very BIG BAND creating the 'bubble' of our Universe and everything that we subsequently observe as 'Creation.' SPIN-TWIST relative Speed-Density Compression function determines RATE OF GRAVITATIONAL/GRAVIONIC ATTRACTION. And DarkSpace Fractallating 'spin-twist' is beyond imagining nearly hense those MYSTERIOUS DARK ENERGY dynamics that we 'know must-be out-there; and which also we detect in part a la' the 'back-ground-field.' IN SHORT: 'Singularity Equibrium Dynamics' as a massive SYSTEM/Process is the CENTRAL LAW OF THE COSMOS ALL OF ITS PHYSICS. The SYMPTOM of this TransSpectrum/TransDimensional Singularity
[Vo]:Super-radiance 2.0 Was: comment on Violante data
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence Jones Beene wrote: I have lost the citation from a few weeks ago that claimed that below a threshold of about 10 nm, the expected blackbody frequency is upshifted for nanostructures, in general. SAL: If I understand you, and if this is true, then it's a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. No, not if other parts of the structure compensate, so that the net energy is unchanged. IOW sub-radiance compensates for super-radiance so that net energy is conserved. This what Brian Ahern calls energy localization. It is usually a surface effect, and that is due to nanostructure. This all goes back to simulations done by Fermi, Pasta and Ulam on one of the first supercomputers at LANL. According to Brian, they simulated a one-dimensional array of masses connected by ideal springs obeying Hooke's Law. They gave the system x-amount of vibrational energy and then followed oscillators over time. The simulation showed that all of the masses got the same amount of vibrational energy. This was important as it verified one of the most basic tenets of statistical Thermodynamics. However, this is NOT the end of story, and they quickly found exceptions to the rule. Ulam changed the equation from F = -k1X to F = -k1x + k2X*2. He kept the constant k2 small so that he was adding only a small nonlinear component. Surprisingly, even a small amount of nonlinearity caused the energy to become highly localized. A small number of the masses went into permanent large amplitude oscillations and the remaining masses became 'vibrationally cold'. Note: there is no violation of CoE - at least not until abnormally large vibrations are able to cause another reaction - such as LENR (possibly). Later all of this was picked up in the context of LENR by Preperata and has been called DPSR = Dicke-Preparata Super-radiance. Robert Dicke is the original genius behind it all, prior to LENR. Here is an earlier posting on vortex (which you commented on, so don't say you never heard of it :) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg22621.html There's another argument (from Brian): When two objects with different surface characteristics are placed next to each other in a uniformly hot oven and a dichroic filter is placed between them, if one radiates more strongly at the filter's peak reflection frequency than the other, their relative temperatures will change. (The one which radiates more strongly at the mirror's reflection frequency will see more radiation coming in than the other object, and so will get warmer.) You can analogize that to a single layered material with a surface that has greater vibrational mobility. But alas, I still have not found the paper in question, but am still looking. Here is one that is close: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0953-8984/15/7/308 Jones
Re: [Vo]:Super-radiance 2.0 Was: comment on Violante data
On 02/08/2010 01:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence Jones Beene wrote: I have lost the citation from a few weeks ago that claimed that below a threshold of about 10 nm, the expected blackbody frequency is upshifted for nanostructures, in general. SAL: If I understand you, and if this is true, then it's a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. No, not if other parts of the structure compensate, so that the net energy is unchanged. Your description makes this sound like a local surface phenomenon. In that case, I can coat the whole thing with identical nanoparticles, and the argument that other parts of the structure will somehow compensate is nulled out. I suspect the answer's actually somewhat simpler: Small particles are invisible to wavelengths which are on the order of the particle size or longer. Consequently, nanostructures don't just cease to radiate at long wavelengths -- they also become transparent to those wavelengths. And that's all that's needed to avoid a second law violation. IOW sub-radiance compensates for super-radiance so that net energy is conserved. This what Brian Ahern calls energy localization. It is usually a surface effect, and that is due to nanostructure. This all goes back to simulations done by Fermi, Pasta and Ulam on one of the first supercomputers at LANL. According to Brian, they simulated a one-dimensional array of masses connected by ideal springs obeying Hooke's Law. They gave the system x-amount of vibrational energy and then followed oscillators over time. The simulation showed that all of the masses got the same amount of vibrational energy. This was important as it verified one of the most basic tenets of statistical Thermodynamics. However, this is NOT the end of story, and they quickly found exceptions to the rule. I'm not going to pretend I can follow the reasoning here. Sorry... Ulam changed the equation from F = -k1X to F = -k1x + k2X*2. He kept the constant k2 small so that he was adding only a small nonlinear component. Surprisingly, even a small amount of nonlinearity caused the energy to become highly localized. A small number of the masses went into permanent large amplitude oscillations and the remaining masses became 'vibrationally cold'. Note: there is no violation of CoE – at least not until abnormally large vibrations are able to cause another reaction – such as LENR (possibly). Later all of this was picked up in the context of LENR by Preperata and has been called DPSR = Dicke-Preparata Super-radiance. Robert Dicke is the original genius behind it all, prior to LENR. Here is an earlier posting on vortex (which you commented on, so don't say you never heard of it :) _http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg22621.html_ There's another argument (from Brian): The text you quote here is very slightly paraphrased version of what I said in the post to which you're responding, up to and including the placement of the parentheses. Since I typed that in off the top of my head, as a paraphrase of something I'd said previously on one of my web pages (which was also off the top of my head, quoting nobody else) I find it surprising to read that the following text originated with Brian Ahern. Seems like a remarkable coincidence. When two objects with different surface characteristics are placed next to each other in a uniformly hot oven and a dichroic filter is placed between them, if one radiates more strongly at the filter's peak reflection frequency than the other, their relative temperatures will change. (The one which radiates more strongly at the mirror's reflection frequency will see more radiation coming in than the other object, and so will get warmer.) Now the next sentence, which seems to have been appended to my words, is not from me, and in fact I don't understand it. You can analogize that to a single layered material with a surface that has greater vibrational mobility. But alas, I still have not found the paper in question, but am still looking. Here is one that is close: _http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0953-8984/15/7/308_ Jones
RE: [Vo]:Super-radiance 2.0 Was: comment on Violante data
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence I'm not going to pretend I can follow the reasoning here. Sorry... Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. If it helps to slake your thirst for nano-insight on this subject, here is the same story from a different slant - the breakdown of Planck's law at the nanoscale: http://www.physorg.com/news168101848.html http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=11917.php For the first time, however, MIT researchers have achieved this feat, and determined that the heat transfer can be 1,000 times greater than [Planck's] law predicts. Note: no one suggests a violation of CoE, and therefore greater emission on the nano-structured surface (superradiance) will be compensated elsewhere. That can't be too difficult to grasp, once you get past the false belief that Planck's law is really a Law, instead of a general observation that proved correct within the limitations of its relevant time frame.
[Vo]:Liquid Glass
This sounds very cool. http://www.physorg.com/news184310039.html Ron
Re: [Vo]:Super-radiance 2.0 Was: comment on Violante data
On 02/08/2010 03:38 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence I'm not going to pretend I can follow the reasoning here. Sorry... Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. If it helps to slake your thirst for nano-insight on this subject, here is the same story from a different slant - the breakdown of Planck's law at the nanoscale: http://www.physorg.com/news168101848.html http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=11917.php For the first time, however, MIT researchers have achieved this feat, and determined that the heat transfer can be 1,000 times greater than [Planck's] law predicts. Note: no one suggests a violation of CoE, CoE has *nothing* to do with the issues here. CoE is first law. We're talking about second law. and therefore greater emission on the nano-structured surface (superradiance) will be compensated elsewhere. Jones, you snipped all but the bit where I said I didn't understand the analogy with oscillators. (Do you understand it?) In any event it's an analogy, nothing more, and doesn't directly address the issue of blackbody radiation and second law violations. In particular, you snipped this question: How do you propose to compensate the alleged violation by subradiance elsewhere if an object is uniformly coated with nanoparticles? Where is elsewhere? Do you know the answer? You also snipped the observation that nanoparticles won't radiate long wavelengths, but also won't absorb them, so a surface consisting of nanoparticles will be transparent to long wavelengths. Did you overlook that, or dismiss it? You also snipped the bit where I questioned your apparent attribution of my argument (very slightly paraphrased) to someone else. Did you overlook that? That can't be too difficult to grasp, once you get past the false belief that Planck's law is really a Law, instead of a general observation that proved correct within the limitations of its relevant time frame. As you may not have noticed, I wasn't quoting Planck's law. Rather, I gave the argument, based directly on the second law of thermodynamics, which you attributed to Brian Ahern. The conclusion is that if you can make a surface which radiates a different spectrum from a normal blackbody, but is none the less not transparent or reflective at the missing wavelengths, then you can build a perpetual motion machine of the second kind using that surface. Do you understand that?
Re: [Vo]:Super-radiance 2.0 Was: comment on Violante data
I think you may be confusing two effects here. On 02/08/2010 01:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence Jones Beene wrote: I have lost the citation from a few weeks ago that claimed that below a threshold of about 10 nm, the expected blackbody frequency is upshifted for nanostructures, in general. This is to say the spectrum shifts -- the spectrum of a mass of nanoparticles won't be a BB spectrum. SAL: If I understand you, and if this is true, then it's a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. No, not if other parts of the structure compensate, so that the net energy is unchanged. IOW sub-radiance compensates for super-radiance ... As far as I can tell, super-radiance is something quite different from a spectrum shift. It has to do with stronger radiation than predicted for a blackbody, typically for a short period of time due to special circumstances. A laser may provide an example of this. My comments all addressed the issue of a BB spectrum shift, and were not related to superradiance.
Re: [Vo]:comment on New Energy Times' editorial about MeV/He-4
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:44:23 -0500: Hi, [snip] This was not an MeV/He-4 chart, actually, and it was not, contrary to Krivit's assertions, used to prove the 24 MeV correlation. What the paper was asserting was that there was a correlation between excess heat and He-4, and this was merely recent (in 2004) confirmation of it. [snip] BTW 24 MeV is not necessarily a sign of DD fusion to He4. In that reaction two D's fuse to create He4, releasing 23.8 MeV, so the energy release is about 6 MeV / nucleon. However that is typical of almost all fusion reactions because the binding energy of most nuclei is on the order of 6 MeV / nucleon. Hence almost any fusion reaction involving D will release about 10-12 MeV / D. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:Super-radiance 2.0 Was: comment on Violante data
Stephen It's clear that you are trying to re-characterize a mistaken understanding on your part, in order to try to win an argument that can only be won if you get to rephrase it your own terms. For instance: CoE has *nothing* to do with the issues here. CoE is first law. We're talking about second law. Wrong. We're talking about super-radiance, Stephen. I never mentioned the second law, and I started the thread. Why do you think that this has relevance to super-radiance? Do you understand what super-radiance is about? Let me give you a hint or what it is not: it is not about an ongoing thermodynamic system or process. and therefore greater emission on the nano-structured surface (superradiance) will be compensated elsewhere. In particular, you snipped this question: SL: How do you propose to compensate the alleged violation by subradiance elsewhere if an object is uniformly coated with nanoparticles? Where is elsewhere? ... Do you know the answer? Yes and I mentioned it clearly. The answer is subradiance, but one cannot be permitted to define a hypothetical situation in a way that will only allow one factor to be operational, without the other and then expect that it will represent reality in any relevant way. Again you seem to be trying to convert a feature of a system into the whole system. Do you see the logical error? SL: You also snipped the observation that nanoparticles won't radiate long wavelengths, but also won't absorb them, so a surface consisting of nanoparticles will be transparent to long wavelengths. Did you overlook that, or dismiss it? I dismissed it ! at least to the extent that long is defined as something outside the range of blackbody radiation (terahertz to far microwave). Nanoparticles will absorb and emit radiation at wavelengths that are many times their diameter - well up into the microwave range. But if you want to define long as something else unrelated to heat, then that is symptomatic of exactly the problem we are having. You seem to be trying to tailor a partially flawed understanding, post hoc, for the only apparent purpose of trying to win an argument based on a straw-man invention that was never proposed. SL: You also snipped the bit where I questioned your apparent attribution of my argument (very slightly paraphrased) to someone else. Did you overlook that? I have no idea what you are talking about. SL: The conclusion is that if you can make a surface which radiates a different spectrum from a normal blackbody, but is none the less not transparent or reflective at the missing wavelengths, then you can build a perpetual motion machine of the second kind using that surface. That is the false straw-man argument. You must know that, so why do you persist? It is false, for one thing, because of the assumption that heat can only be transferred by radiation. It is false for a second reason in that it tries to extend a short term or instantaneous effect into an ongoing process. Do you understand that this is not about an ongoing process, per se? It is about a type of radiation effect that was relatively unknown until Robert Dicke got involved. Yes, it might eventually lead to a way to accelerate LENR and yes, that could connote a type of perpetual motion machine of the second kind to some observers, even though you and I know that if a nuclear reaction is taking place - there could be a limited type of perpetual motion without a violation of any thermodynamic law or interpretation. I understand how you are trying to warp the very relevant finding into something that it was never intended to be. The why is what I do not understand. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Super-radiance 2.0 Was: comment on Violante data
On Feb 8, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence I'm not going to pretend I can follow the reasoning here. Sorry... Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. If it helps to slake your thirst for nano-insight on this subject, here is the same story from a different slant - the breakdown of Planck's law at the nanoscale: http://www.physorg.com/news168101848.html http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=11917.php For the first time, however, MIT researchers have achieved this feat, and determined that the heat transfer can be 1,000 times greater than [Planck's] law predicts. This statement strikes me as rather nonsensical. Why would anyone expect near field effects, virtual photon exchange, to operate in the same manner as far field effects, photon exchange? Note: no one suggests a violation of CoE, and therefore greater emission on the nano-structured surface (superradiance) will be compensated elsewhere. That can't be too difficult to grasp, once you get past the false belief that Planck's law is really a Law, instead of a general observation that proved correct within the limitations of its relevant time frame. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Super-radiance 2.0 Was: comment on Violante data
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence My comments all addressed the issue of a BB spectrum shift, and were not related to superradiance. Aha. I see, this is a miscommunication more than just being argumentative. I'll take that as an unintended apology, since you must have noticed the subject heading :) Jones
Re: [Vo]:Super-radiance 2.0 Was: comment on Violante data
On 02/08/2010 05:01 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Stephen It's clear that you are trying to re-characterize a mistaken understanding on your part, in order to try to win an argument that can only be won if you get to rephrase it your own terms. Totally false. For instance: CoE has *nothing* to do with the issues here. CoE is first law. We're talking about second law. Wrong. We're talking about super-radiance, Stephen. I never mentioned the second law, and I started the thread. You talked about upshifting the spectrum of a radiator. That is what I was responding to.
Re: [Vo]:comment on New Energy Times' editorial about MeV/He-4
At 04:55 PM 2/8/2010, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:44:23 -0500: Hi, [snip] This was not an MeV/He-4 chart, actually, and it was not, contrary to Krivit's assertions, used to prove the 24 MeV correlation. What the paper was asserting was that there was a correlation between excess heat and He-4, and this was merely recent (in 2004) confirmation of it. [snip] BTW 24 MeV is not necessarily a sign of DD fusion to He4. Well, it's not an exclusive sign, let's put it that way. It's remarkable, though, if that is the actual Q factor. What people like McKubre have said about the results is that they are consistent with 23.8 MeV, the expectd Q factor for reactions starting with deuterium and ending with helium In that reaction two D's fuse to create He4, releasing 23.8 MeV, so the energy release is about 6 MeV / nucleon. However that is typical of almost all fusion reactions because the binding energy of most nuclei is on the order of 6 MeV / nucleon. Hence almost any fusion reaction involving D will release about 10-12 MeV / D. I have no quarrel with that. However, what's interesting here is that we know helium is being produced. Interesting to see what Huizenga said about Bush and Lagowski's results back in roughly 1991. He claimed that the there was not enough helium to explain the energy. But that, of course, would have assumed that all the helium was being measured, and, as well, that there were no other reactions. Obviously, Huizenga was indeed paying attention to further research, but busy inventing reasons why the results were impossible. He was upset that Bush and Lagowski didn't look for gamma rays. As if that mattered. It was already known that there wasn't enough gamma radiation to be significant, nor enough neutrons, etc. Quite obviously, the reaction was not straight, ordinary, brute-force hot fusion, so playing up expected hot fusion signatures was, by this time, thoroughly obtuse. Anyway, I saw this in an old Science News article. So I decided to look in Huizenga's book, Cold Fusion, which was, after all, published after this. His Epilogue, p. 243: The invited paper by Miles, Bush, et al. made the most spectacular claim at the conference. It was reported that, The amount of helium [4He] detected correlated approximately with the amount of excess heat and was within an order of magnitude of the theoretical estimate of helium production based upon fusion of deuterium to form 4He. This claim has been published elsewhere by Miles, Bush, et al., [J. Electroanal. Chem. 304 271 (1991); 346 99 (1993)] and I have commented on it previously ( see pp. 136 and 212). If it were true that 4He was produced from room-temperature fusion in amounts very nearly commensurate with excess heat, one of the great puzzles of cold fusion would have been solved! However, as is the case with so many cold fusion claims, this one is unsubstantiated and conflicts with other well-established experimental findings. First, the failure of Miles, Bush, et al. to detect 3He in their experiments requires that the branching ratio of 4He/3He from D+D cold fusion be increased by a facgtor of more than a hundred million compared to low-energy (=2 keV) and muon-catalyzed fusion (a type of cold fusion). Hence, it is highly likely that the 4He is a contaminant from the atmosphere. In accition, if 4He is produced in the amount claimed (for earlier claimw of 4He, see Chapter VIII, Part B), it must be accompanied by large intensities (in fact, lethal intensities) of the associated 23.8 MeV gamma ray. Only when the 23.8 MeV gamma rays are observed on-line, can one be sure that the 4He is produced by fusion and is not an artifact. Finally, the 23.8 MeV gamma ray transfers essentially all of the D=D - 4He + gamma reaction energy outside the cell and destroys the relationship between the helium production and the excess heat based on the assumption that all the reaction energy stays inside the cell. More recently, Miles, Bush et al reported that they can produce neither excess power nor 4He from their electrolysis experiments (Abstracts of the Third International Conference, p. 93) Beautiful, John. Too bad you aren't still cogent enough to understand what you did. If, indeed, you ever were. He discounted experimental results on the basis that they did not match a theory that it was D-D fusion of the kind he was familiar with. And it wasn't! If there is any 3He produced, or gamma rays, it's very little. He-4 is produced, and the report that he said must be artifact didn't claim that it was fusion. It claimed that the helium was correlated with the excess heat, and that it was within an order of magnitude of what D-D fusion would produce if it formed 4He. And that is not only true, but it's been much more closely confirmed. And, obviously, if the energy did not escape in the form of gamma rays, but
Re: [Vo]:Super-radiance 2.0 Was: comment on Violante data
On 02/08/2010 05:10 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence My comments all addressed the issue of a BB spectrum shift, and were not related to superradiance. Aha. I see, this is a miscommunication more than just being argumentative. I'll take that as an unintended apology, since you must have noticed the subject heading :) Ah, no, I didn't really read the subject line, I skipped right to the first paragraph; all that actually caught my eye was the bit about upshifting the spectrum. What I overlooked was the fact that the rest of the message dealt execlusively with superradiance, and no further mention of the spectrum shift was made. So, I'm sorry, Jones, I guess I pretty well missed the point of the post. In any case I had no intention of using sophistry to cover a mistake -- if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, and if I'm confused (as I often am), well, too bad for me. In any case superradiance is interesting, if confusing, and I wasn't aware of it before chasing your references; thanks. And some time after the fact I finally realized why you were talking about CoE, while all I was thinking of was the Second Law, which is, of course, the law which says all blackbodies have the same spectrum. Sorry again for the confusion.
