Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

Iwamura's results are certainly interesting and worthy of replication, and
> there have been replication attempts, some of which appear to have failed
> (or, in a recent case, just published in the CMNS journal, there was an
> apparent transmutation product that was identified as being, instead, a
> molecular ion with similar weight). It's a complicated story that I'm not
> going to research and write about here.
>

Ah, yes.  This reminds me of these slides by Apicella and others:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdf.  A cautionary
tale, indeed.  Thanks for bringing this up.  Do you have any additional
references on this topic, even if you're not following it closely?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[David Roberson]

Could some of he missing energy by escaping by means of neutrinos?  If a new 
unknown reaction is taking place, it might follow entirely unusual pathways.

My two cents worth.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Apr 11, 2012 12:40 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation




On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  
wrote:

 
No, not at all. Where did you get that idea? Heat is not missing, except when 
we look at what would be required to generate the observed levels of helium 
following the W-L pathways. The third missing observable is the levels of 
transmuted elements that would be present as intermediate products, or as end 
products if the helium is produced by alpha emission.

(Which then leaves another problem, hot alphas, which would create other 
observable effects.)



I'm reminded of the cloud chamber anecdote -- I'm hoping some more details will 
turn up in this connection.
 
It's crucial. I know of only one *partial* theory that actually makes 
quantitative predictions, beyond Preparata's expectation of helium, and it's 
not ready for publication.


I definitely appreciate many of the points you raise.  But I think you risk 
putting the cart before the horse, here.  Some of the most important advances 
in physics were made through a conceptual leap of some kind, and only later 
were the quantitative implications worked out.  It's obviously important to 
have good measurements to work with.  But what is needed of a theory is 
something -- anything -- that can be tested.  It seems like too strong a 
statement to say that quantitative predictions are crucial to a theory, at 
least in the early stages.


I should add that while my questions were raised in the context of a thread 
about Widom and Larsen's theory, I don't have the faintest opinion concerning 
the complex formulae that they include in their papers, to the extent that I'm 
in a position to judge these things.  I appreciate their contribution they've 
made in drawing attention to the possibility of neutron flux, even if the 
outlines of what they propose is unlikely or even preposterous.  I'm a 
hobbyist, trying to understand LENR in context of the evidence on the 
transmutations of heavy elements, and I have not seen any good explanation for 
this apart from neutron flux or contamination.


There are some problems associated with the identification of transmutation 
products, and until there is adequate confirmation of results like those of 
Iwamura, it's dangerous to base much on them. Iwamura's results are certainly 
interesting and worthy of replication, and there have been replication 
attempts, some of which appear to have failed (or, in a recent case, just 
published in the CMNS journal, there was an apparent transmutation product that 
was identified as being, instead, a molecular ion with similar weight). It's a 
complicated story that I'm not going to research and write about here.



Perhaps -- but I think we have to err on the side of inclusivity of evidence 
or, as Guenter alluded to, risk selecting away important phenomena that any 
theory will need to explain.  From a purely formal perspective, it is entirely 
possible that there is not one but several different reactions going on under 
the category of LENR.  But this is certainly not a starting point I will depart 
from.


The present mode of academic research, of excluding from consideration anything 
that has not been entered into the official record, is only suitable for legal 
courts and the obtaining of tenure.  It's not the most efficient way of getting 
at the truth by any means, and as I become more and more familiar with academic 
research, I'm grateful not to feel bound by it.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Remote Joule heating in Carbon nanotubes

[David Roberson]

Inductive heating usually requires a time changing current in order to heat the 
nearby conductor.  Maybe the current in this case is more like a series of 
quantum pulses which might have the time varying property required.  A great 
deal of the effect would depend upon the relative magnitude of the current and 
thus the flow characteristics of electrons within.

I assumed that the basic experiment consists of a DC current instead of AC.  AC 
current could certainly be used to generate inductive heating.

The thought occurred to me that the uncertainty principle might allow a portion 
of the electron current to flow within the nearby conductors effectively 
bypassing the nanotube.  If this theory is correct then the effective size of 
the electrons must be such that they extend outside of the tube.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Jojo Jaro 
To: Vortex 
Sent: Tue, Apr 10, 2012 11:22 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Remote Joule heating in Carbon nanotubes


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just some kind of Inductive Heating?  I 
don't see why this would be something new.
 
 

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:


> No, not at all. Where did you get that idea? Heat is not missing, except
> when we look at what would be required to generate the observed levels of
> helium following the W-L pathways. The third missing observable is the
> levels of transmuted elements that would be present as intermediate
> products, or as end products if the helium is produced by alpha emission.
>
> (Which then leaves another problem, hot alphas, which would create other
> observable effects.)
>

I'm reminded of the cloud chamber anecdote -- I'm hoping some more details
will turn up in this connection.


> It's crucial. I know of only one *partial* theory that actually makes
> quantitative predictions, beyond Preparata's expectation of helium, and
> it's not ready for publication.


I definitely appreciate many of the points you raise.  But I think you risk
putting the cart before the horse, here.  Some of the most important
advances in physics were made through a conceptual leap of some kind, and
only later were the quantitative implications worked out.  It's obviously
important to have good measurements to work with.  But what is needed of a
theory is something -- anything -- that can be tested.  It seems like too
strong a statement to say that quantitative predictions are crucial to a
theory, at least in the early stages.

I should add that while my questions were raised in the context of a thread
about Widom and Larsen's theory, I don't have the faintest opinion
concerning the complex formulae that they include in their papers, to the
extent that I'm in a position to judge these things.  I appreciate their
contribution they've made in drawing attention to the possibility of
neutron flux, even if the outlines of what they propose is unlikely or even
preposterous.  I'm a hobbyist, trying to understand LENR in context of the
evidence on the transmutations of heavy elements, and I have not seen any
good explanation for this apart from neutron flux or contamination.

There are some problems associated with the identification of transmutation
> products, and until there is adequate confirmation of results like those of
> Iwamura, it's dangerous to base much on them. Iwamura's results are
> certainly interesting and worthy of replication, and there have been
> replication attempts, some of which appear to have failed (or, in a recent
> case, just published in the CMNS journal, there was an apparent
> transmutation product that was identified as being, instead, a molecular
> ion with similar weight). It's a complicated story that I'm not going to
> research and write about here.
>

Perhaps -- but I think we have to err on the side of inclusivity of
evidence or, as Guenter alluded to, risk selecting away important phenomena
that any theory will need to explain.  From a purely formal perspective, it
is entirely possible that there is not one but several different reactions
going on under the category of LENR.  But this is certainly not a starting
point I will depart from.

The present mode of academic research, of excluding from consideration
anything that has not been entered into the official record, is only
suitable for legal courts and the obtaining of tenure.  It's not the most
efficient way of getting at the truth by any means, and as I become more
and more familiar with academic research, I'm grateful not to feel bound by
it.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Remote Joule heating in Carbon nanotubes

[Harry Veeder]

The article makes it appear as if they stumbled on the effect, but the
abstract (click link at end of article)makes it clear they were
looking for the effect because some new models of joule heating
predicted it.

harry

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just some kind of Inductive
> Heating?  I don't see why this would be something new.
>
>

[Vo]:Remote Joule heating in Carbon nanotubes

[Jojo Jaro]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just some kind of Inductive Heating?  I 
don't see why this would be something new.

Re: [Vo]:Remote Joule heating in Carbon nanotubes

[Harry Veeder]

dare I say it?

cool.

harry

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Mark Iverson  wrote:
> FYI:
>
> http://phys.org/news/2012-04-carbon-nanotubes-weird-world-remote.html
>
>
>
> "This is a new phenomenon we're observing, exclusively at the nanoscale, and
> it is completely contrary to our intuition and knowledge of Joule heating at
> larger scales-for example, in things like your toaster," says first author
> Kamal Baloch, who conducted the research while a graduate student at the
> University of Maryland. "The nanotube's electrons are bouncing off of
> something, but not its atoms. Somehow, the atoms of the neighboring
> materials-the silicon nitride substrate-are vibrating and getting hot
> instead."
>
>
>
> "The effect is a little bit weird," admits John Cumings, an assistant
> professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering who oversaw
> the research project. He and Baloch have dubbed the phenomenon "remote Joule
> heating."
>
>
>
> An Unreal Discovery
>
>
>
> For the UMD researchers, the experience of the discovery was like what you
> or I might have felt, if, on a seemingly ordinary morning, we began to make
> breakfast, only to find certain things happening that seem to violate normal
> reality. The toast is burned, but the toaster is cold. The switch on the
> stove is set to "HI" and the teapot is whistling, but the burner isn't hot.
>
>
>
> Of course, Baloch, Cumings and their colleagus weren't making breakfast in a
> kitchen, but running experiments in an electron microscopy facility at the
> A. James Clark School of Engineering at the University of Maryland.  They
> ran their experiments over and over, and the result was always the same:
> when they passed an electrical current through a carbon nanotube, the
> substrate below it grew hot enough to melt metal nanoparticles on its
> surface, but the nanotube itself seemed to stay cool, and so did the metal
> contacts attached to it.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

 If the proton was produced by free neutron decay, an electron would have
> also been produced. These electrons were not seen in the Piantelli’s cloud
> chamber. Could this mean that Piantelli’s reaction is different from the
> neutron centric Brillouin Energy system’s reaction?
>

I was thinking about the cloud chamber -- I believe it was Piantelli's
cloud chamber.  The description I read said that there were all kinds of
particles flying out of the active region.  Is there a good description of
what happened there?  Has there been a systematic attempt to gather further
evidence in this connection?  I believe the system was a Pd/D system.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:In the foodsteps of Jules Verne

[Jarold McWilliams]

I think rail assisted launch is a lot more realistic right now than a space 
elevator.  However, an 80 mile $60 billion tube is too big of a project at this 
point.  A much more feasible approach would be to find a mountain over a mile 
high with the right angle and build it so the g forces are reasonable.  It 
would also be better to use more proven technologies like a rocket sled or 
pneumatic system rather than maglev to start off with.  You can eliminate the 
first stage of the rocket if you can get it to about mach 1.  About 1/3 of fuel 
on a rocket is used just to get to mach 1.  The goals and risk of this plan are 
way too high right now.  It makes more sense to start small to test the 
feasibility, then we can start on a megaproject for space flight.  
On Apr 10, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

> How about $40/kg cargo into LEO? This tech could have vastly larger capasity 
> and speed than with Space Elevator. And it is a little bit cheaper, well in 
> reach of current engineering and does not require exotic nanomaterials that 
> do not exist in required scale nowhere near in the future if never.
> Holiday in the stars: Space train could send four million people a year into 
> orbit by 2032
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2113668/Space-holidays-Space-train-send-million-people-year-orbit-2032.html
> 
> 
> —Jouni

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[Guenter Wildgruber]

pagnucco,
some philosophical
musings:

The blind man-metaphor seems about  right.

LENR raised a lot
of questions for me.
Even the
blasphemical question  of the identity of atoms, which is a hypothesis,
based on statistical measures.
No individual atom
has ever been weighed precisely.
It is a statistical
average. Nothing more.
The precision of
physical constants invariably stems from ensemble -means PLUS a mathematical
construct of  interrelationships, which maybe precise to the n-th degree,
but only as a statistical mean.
Engineers naturally
talk about FITs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_rate ), which seems to
be completely alien to physicists, who are mired in mathematical rigidity.
Maybe they need a
bit of help?


Mathematically
inclined physicists ofcourse deny that idea of variability  in their
fundamentals outright and violently.
The law of identity
binds them together with the mathematicians.
Common engineering
experience says, that identity is only an approximation.
Only Whitehead, the
eminent logician, dared to challenge that from the other side.
Like the LENR crowd
he has been silenced, never refuted.
As an engineer I am
more tolerant.
Maybe matter is
more dirt-like, and not a mathematically precise entity.
Heisenberg maybe
was somehow in the middle.
The concept of
Heisenberg uncertainty later on was transformed into Quantum-voodoo, which is
not really convincing.
But, as said, I am
just a dumb engineer, hoping to be educated by the big-heads sometime, who seem
to know it all.
Pity is, some of
them got insane. (Goedel)


(No, I am not
Rossi)
Guenter
 


 Von: "pagnu...@htdconnect.com" 
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 0:07 Mittwoch, 11.April 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
 
First, I have to say I am not sure Piantelli's observations are real.
Maybe he had faulty instruments.  But, if he did see protons, and they
were from decaying neutrons (sequestered in some decay-attenuating niche),
then, he should have seen electrons (and probably some X-rays), I think.

But, recall, in Otto Reifenschweiller's experiments -

-- "Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles"
    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwreducedrad.pdf
-- "Cold Fusion and Decrease of Tritium Radioactivity"
    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwcoldfusion.pdf
-- "About the possibility of decreased radioactivity of heavy nuclei"
    http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=512913

- he saw a suppression of both electron beta-particle and x-ray emissions.
In one of his papers (I'm not sure if it's in the above), he claims that
reduction is strongest when the titanium nano-crystals form colloidal
chains - which, I believe, can promote plasmon propagation.  Maybe high
momentum plasma electrons can stop beta-particles, but not massive
protons.

Guenter points out that there's a lot of intramural squabbling, and that
perhaps several phenomena coexist.

Maybe none exist.
or - maybe we are watching the Indian "Blind men and an elephant" story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant





Axil Axil wrote:

> If the proton was produced by free neutron decay, an electron would have
> also been produced. These electrons were not seen in the Piantelli’s cloud
> chamber. Could this mean that Piantelli’s reaction is different from the
> neutron centric Brillouin Energy system’s reaction?
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM,  wrote:
>
>> It would be interesting to know if some of these (and maybe other
>> "bursty")
>> phenomena were due to self-sustaining generation of micro-fractures -
>> i.e., some kind of tipping into a phase transition.
>>
>> Also, it would interesting to know if the protons seen long after energy
>> production stops in Piantelli's experiments are due to neutron decays.
>>
>> BTW, Godes of Brillouin has made some new remarks:
>>
>>
>> http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/robert-godes-of-brillouin-energy-comments-on-lenr-research/
>>
>> Axil Axil wrote:
>> > I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator of
>> the
>> > possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion.  Some systems show life
>> > after death and others do not; Rossi…yes, the Brillouin Energy
>> system…no.
>> > A
>> > single cause should show the same type of behavior.
>> >
>> > What does (Lattice Energy LLC)  theory state in explanation of this
>> “life
>> > after death” behavior?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM,  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation
>> entitled
>> >> -
>> >> "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)
>> >> New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning" - at -
>> >> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen
>> >>
>> >> He presents evidence that electrons and protons in
>> coherent/collective
>> >> motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused,
>> >> can
>> >> form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events

[Vo]:Remote Joule heating in Carbon nanotubes

[Mark Iverson]

FYI:

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-carbon-nanotubes-weird-world-remote.html

 

"This is a new phenomenon we're observing, exclusively at the nanoscale, and
it is completely contrary to our intuition and knowledge of Joule heating at
larger scales-for example, in things like your toaster," says first author
Kamal Baloch, who conducted the research while a graduate student at the
University of Maryland. "The nanotube's electrons are bouncing off of
something, but not its atoms. Somehow, the atoms of the neighboring
materials-the silicon nitride substrate-are vibrating and getting hot
instead."

 

"The effect is a little bit weird," admits John Cumings, an assistant
professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering who oversaw
the research project. He and Baloch have dubbed the phenomenon "remote Joule
heating."

 

An Unreal Discovery

 

For the UMD researchers, the experience of the discovery was like what you
or I might have felt, if, on a seemingly ordinary morning, we began to make
breakfast, only to find certain things happening that seem to violate normal
reality. The toast is burned, but the toaster is cold. The switch on the
stove is set to "HI" and the teapot is whistling, but the burner isn't hot.

 

Of course, Baloch, Cumings and their colleagus weren't making breakfast in a
kitchen, but running experiments in an electron microscopy facility at the
A. James Clark School of Engineering at the University of Maryland.  They
ran their experiments over and over, and the result was always the same:
when they passed an electrical current through a carbon nanotube, the
substrate below it grew hot enough to melt metal nanoparticles on its
surface, but the nanotube itself seemed to stay cool, and so did the metal
contacts attached to it.

 

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[pagnucco]

First, I have to say I am not sure Piantelli's observations are real.
Maybe he had faulty instruments.  But, if he did see protons, and they
were from decaying neutrons (sequestered in some decay-attenuating niche),
then, he should have seen electrons (and probably some X-rays), I think.

But, recall, in Otto Reifenschweiller's experiments -

-- "Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles"
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwreducedrad.pdf
-- "Cold Fusion and Decrease of Tritium Radioactivity"
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwcoldfusion.pdf
-- "About the possibility of decreased radioactivity of heavy nuclei"
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=512913

- he saw a suppression of both electron beta-particle and x-ray emissions.
In one of his papers (I'm not sure if it's in the above), he claims that
reduction is strongest when the titanium nano-crystals form colloidal
chains - which, I believe, can promote plasmon propagation.  Maybe high
momentum plasma electrons can stop beta-particles, but not massive
protons.

Guenter points out that there's a lot of intramural squabbling, and that
perhaps several phenomena coexist.

Maybe none exist.
or - maybe we are watching the Indian "Blind men and an elephant" story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant





Axil Axil wrote:

> If the proton was produced by free neutron decay, an electron would have
> also been produced. These electrons were not seen in the Piantelli’s cloud
> chamber. Could this mean that Piantelli’s reaction is different from the
> neutron centric Brillouin Energy system’s reaction?
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM,  wrote:
>
>> It would be interesting to know if some of these (and maybe other
>> "bursty")
>> phenomena were due to self-sustaining generation of micro-fractures -
>> i.e., some kind of tipping into a phase transition.
>>
>> Also, it would interesting to know if the protons seen long after energy
>> production stops in Piantelli's experiments are due to neutron decays.
>>
>> BTW, Godes of Brillouin has made some new remarks:
>>
>>
>> http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/robert-godes-of-brillouin-energy-comments-on-lenr-research/
>>
>> Axil Axil wrote:
>> > I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator of
>> the
>> > possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion.  Some systems show life
>> > after death and others do not; Rossi…yes, the Brillouin Energy
>> system…no.
>> > A
>> > single cause should show the same type of behavior.
>> >
>> > What does (Lattice Energy LLC)  theory state in explanation of this
>> “life
>> > after death” behavior?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM,  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation
>> entitled
>> >> -
>> >> "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)
>> >> New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning" - at -
>> >> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen
>> >>
>> >> He presents evidence that electrons and protons in
>> coherent/collective
>> >> motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused,
>> >> can
>> >> form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events.
>> >>
>> >> Slides 18-20 ("Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires and lightning
>> I-III")
>> >> review the very old (1922) controversy between Wendt and Rutherford
>> on
>> >> whether large current pulses through tungsten wires could induce
>> >> transmutations. (See preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf).
>> >>
>> >> Wendt, using intense current pulses of strongly inductively coupled
>> >> electrons, saw transmutations, whereas Rutherford, using a sparse
>> beam
>> >> of
>> >> uncoupled high velocity electrons, saw none.  Rutherford's eminence
>> >> trumped Wendt's more modest reputation.
>> >>
>> >> Now, this cannot be a difficult, nor expensive, experiment to
>> reproduce
>> >> -
>> >> using Wendt's procedure, not Rutherford's.
>> >>
>> >> Has anyone tried to reproduce it?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[Jed Rothwell]

On 4/10/2012 4:39 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

Defkalion on their forum gave a similar explanation,
talking about the heat caused by H2 breaking before loading and, 
recombination after degasing...


It can't possibly be recombination! Both the power and energy far 
exceeds that in many cases, as Fleischmann pointed out.


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

In heat after death, the deuterium gradually comes to the surface. It is 
"presented" to the surface, as electrochemists say. This surface is 
undergoing cold fusion because it happens to be ideal nuclearactive 
material. The deuterons leaking out join into the reaction, just as 
deuterons being pushed in during electrolysis does.


I am assuming the reaction occurs at surface layers, rather than in the 
bulk. Fleischmann thinks it happens in the bulk. He used to, anyway. 
Most people disagree.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:01 PM 4/10/2012, Axil Axil wrote:

I am interested in the “life after death” 
phenomena as an indicator of the possibility of 
multiple causes of cold fusion.  Some systems 
show life after death and others do not; 
Rossi…yes, the Brillouin Energy system…no. A 
single cause should show the same type of behavior.


Not necessarily. A "single cause" may exist in various states of "setup."

First of all, what is "heat after death"? The 
term was developed to name the phenomenon 
sometimes observed, that a Fleischmann-Pons cell, 
which is maintained at high loading by continuous 
electrolysis, shows anomalous heat -- even 
increasing -- *after* the electrolysis current is 
shut off -- or the cell has boiled dry, or has 
used up its heavy water, in some cases, so that the current stops.


HAD tells us little about the mechanism for 
generating excess power, only that it obviously 
doesn't depend on continued electrolysis, per se. 
This appears to contradict the finding that XP 
directly varies with current density, but that 
finding may be indirect, i.e., based on a 
variation with deuterium loading or flux.


However, deuterium loading will decline as the 
deuterium escapes. The process of escape, the 
resulting deuterium flux, could explain the 
process as well. That is, the long-term general 
suspicion has been that triggering the reaction 
is enhanced by movement of the deuterium. In or out!


HAD doesn't mean much with gas-loading work, 
unless a gas-loaded cell is being heated to be 
elevated in temperature. (That would be the case 
with Rossi, but certainly not with all gas-loaded results.)


What does (Lattice Energy LLC)  theory state in 
explanation of this “life after death” behavior?


I haven't been able to figure out what they say 
about "Heat *before* death." They are proposing a 
mechanism not previously seen, and without any 
evidence for the mechanism itself. It's purely 
"Well, if Magic could happen, then the mystery of cold fusion is explained."


Fine. If "Magic" can happen. Can it? I don't see 
specific predictions in the W-L papers, only 
masses of speculations and possibilities (or 
impossibilities!) asserted as if they were fact.


I don't see any considerations of rate, and rate 
is crucial. Fusion can happen at room 
temperature, you know. The only problem is *rate*! Way silly low.


By ignoring rate considerations, then, once they 
get us to accept that neutrons can form, they 
then can assert a whole series of reactions, and 
you don't notice the rate problem. Even so, they 
need to invent a perfect gamma shield. They 
actually patented it, I just read the patent.


http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/us-patent-7893414-b2

There is no coverage of any experimental evidence 
that gamma shielding actually occurs, no 
described demonstration or operating parameters or characteristics.


Just assertion without evidence. That patent is 
full of utterly irrelevant information.


The "preferred embodiments," as far as I can 
tell, do not describe how to build a working 
model. They seem to assume that metal hydrides will "just do it."


Interestingly, they predict reaction enhancement 
by laser stimulation at resonant frequencies. But 
they don't specify the frequencies. That way, 
they can then claim that any stimulation effect was "predicted" by them.


I see no sign that they actually built the device 
they have patented. Amazing, isn't it, that CF 
patents have generally been banned, but this 
patent was allowed. Did CF patents depend on a 
particular theory of operation? Very strange. 

Re: [Vo]:STS-115 Unknown Objects

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:22 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:

> Seriously, what could 'TH' stand for in this context?

>From wikipedia:

Air traffic control
This phrase has since been used by civilian pilots in response to
traffic advisories provided by air traffic controllers (ATC). The
pilot's response "Tally" or "Tally-ho" tells air traffic controllers
that the pilot has seen the air traffic in question. For example:
ATC: "Airport Name , Tower , Aircraft Call Sign / ID, traffic at two
o'clock, seven miles, a Boeing 737, west-bound, at 4000 feet."
Pilot: "Heathrow Tower, Tally-ho."
While in common use, this phrase is not in the official FAA
Pilot-Controller Glossary. This use is contrary to the use by military
pilots, who would not call "tally" on an aircraft they did not intend
to kill. The proper response to a traffic call issued by ATC is
"traffic in sight."



My guess is that a ground source spotted the unidentifieds on either
radar or a telescope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris

A late "Tally-ho" would mean that it got close very quickly.  Also,
from the relative motion, these objects are traveling independently
and possibly under their own power.

Sure looks suspicious to me.

But, I used to be a moderator for MUFON on the old CompuServe
"Encounters" forum.  :-)

T

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[Guenter Wildgruber]

'life-after-death' is probably not an apt term.

to me it is more of a post-mortem analysis, ie analyzing the reactant after the 
process has stopped.

Higher order transmutations or not.

As to the basics of the effect, it becomes increaingly clera to me, that
a) this is a grid-effect
b) that irregular/'dirty'  grids perform better.

If one considers Piantelli as someone worth listening to--
he says:
---No catalyst is necessary. The trick is in the preparation of the nickel.---

This makes the effect all the more theoretically difficult/intractable.
But Pinatelly says, he has a theory.
But I probably will not believe it.
And this is independent of whether his reactor works or not.
In the best case Pinatelli proves his own pudding, and not all sorts of 
puddings out there, so to say.

I think Miley got it best up to now, but the classical Coulomb-barrier still 
holds, even in his theory.
So there must be something else, which is more fundamental.





 Von: Jed Rothwell 
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 22:00 Dienstag, 10.April 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
 

Axil Axil  wrote:


I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator
of the possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion.

I do not think life after death is significant. I think the causes are 
prosaic. With bulk material, it is caused by highly loaded Pd samples that 
gradually degas. With powder, it is the only kind of cold fusion you can have.

 
  Some systems show life after death and others
do not; Rossi…yes, the Brillouin Energy system…no.

The difference is probably the size of the particles and the amount they can 
absorb.

There is no particular advantage to life after death. It is like a dirty ICE 
engine that keeps running for a moment after you cut the ignition.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:In the foodsteps of Jules Verne

[Robert Lynn]

No chance.  Requires massive budget, and technology that isn't yet
available. Electromagnetic catapults have never achieved the high
velocities required, not to mention the mega-engineering to create a
track 100's of km long that is levitated >20km above the earth by a
huge magnetic field, and yet is light enough to accelerate a capsule
with GW of power.

A far better option is to put $10billion into developing Skylon
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/downloads/SKYLON_User_%20Manual_rev1%5B3%5D.pdf
a fully reusable space plane that is air breathing to Mach 5 and you
could ultimately get launch costs down to $100/kg after 10-20 years of
gradual reliability improvement without requiring any magic or
unrealistic technology.  These guys are quite far along in their
development, and hope to be flying an engine demonstrator in next few
years.

SpaceX is also targeting a fully reusable system, and have a pretty
workable plan with fly-back boosters that will probably get launch
prices down to <$1000/kg in the next few years (and put their
competitors out of business barring those that are government
subsidised)

Alternatively gun launchers like http://quicklaunchinc.com/ or ram
acclerators 
http://www.tbfg.org/papers/Ram%20Accelerator%20Technical%20Risks%20ISDC07.pdf
can actually achieve the velocities required for investments of <$1
billion.  And could be scaled up to large sizes quite cheaply by
floating them in the Marianas trench, though accelerations are still
too high for humans they could drop orbital costs at least as low as
any other proposal.

2012/4/10 Jouni Valkonen :
> How about $40/kg cargo into LEO? This tech could have vastly larger capasity
> and speed than with Space Elevator. And it is a little bit cheaper, well in
> reach of current engineering and does not require exotic nanomaterials that
> do not exist in required scale nowhere near in the future if never.
>
> Holiday in the stars: Space train could send four million people a year into
> orbit by 2032
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2113668/Space-holidays-Space-train-send-million-people-year-orbit-2032.html
>
>
> —Jouni

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[Axil Axil]

If the proton was produced by free neutron decay, an electron would have
also been produced. These electrons were not seen in the Piantelli’s cloud
chamber. Could this mean that Piantelli’s reaction is different from the
neutron centric Brillouin Energy system’s reaction?






On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM,  wrote:

> It would be interesting to know if some of these (and maybe other "bursty")
> phenomena were due to self-sustaining generation of micro-fractures -
> i.e., some kind of tipping into a phase transition.
>
> Also, it would interesting to know if the protons seen long after energy
> production stops in Piantelli's experiments are due to neutron decays.
>
> BTW, Godes of Brillouin has made some new remarks:
>
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/robert-godes-of-brillouin-energy-comments-on-lenr-research/
>
> Axil Axil wrote:
> > I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator of
> the
> > possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion.  Some systems show life
> > after death and others do not; Rossi…yes, the Brillouin Energy system…no.
> > A
> > single cause should show the same type of behavior.
> >
> > What does (Lattice Energy LLC)  theory state in explanation of this “life
> > after death” behavior?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM,  wrote:
> >
> >> Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation entitled
> >> -
> >> "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)
> >> New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning" - at -
> >> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen
> >>
> >> He presents evidence that electrons and protons in coherent/collective
> >> motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused,
> >> can
> >> form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events.
> >>
> >> Slides 18-20 ("Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires and lightning I-III")
> >> review the very old (1922) controversy between Wendt and Rutherford on
> >> whether large current pulses through tungsten wires could induce
> >> transmutations. (See preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf).
> >>
> >> Wendt, using intense current pulses of strongly inductively coupled
> >> electrons, saw transmutations, whereas Rutherford, using a sparse beam
> >> of
> >> uncoupled high velocity electrons, saw none.  Rutherford's eminence
> >> trumped Wendt's more modest reputation.
> >>
> >> Now, this cannot be a difficult, nor expensive, experiment to reproduce
> >> -
> >> using Wendt's procedure, not Rutherford's.
> >>
> >> Has anyone tried to reproduce it?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[Guenter Wildgruber]

this is an essential point.

Good-mannered versus bad-mannered LENR.

I keep repeating myself.

I'm not not a an nuclear physicist, but do not need to be one.
This is a question of reasoning


There are several theories for the good-mannered category.
Say Godes and Piantelli and  W-L.

Piantelli is a current case:
...

Piantelli has a theory that doesn’t require exotic reactions, but 
can be explained using known physics and mathematics. A semi-complete 
theory has been provided to the University of Siena and will be 
published shortly. The complete theory will probably be disclosed after 
the first commercial units have been sold.
...
http://e-catsite.com/2012/04/09/italian-lenr-workshop-april-10-14/

Fine.

Problem is, You have a set of evidence, and fit YOUR theory to YOUR evidence.
It is the same with Godes.

But what is accepted evidence? Are You free to choose, what evidence is, what 
sloppy science, what delusion, what fraud?
Well. Seems, even scientists need some commonsense to decide upon such senible 
questions.

As someone coming from the engineering side, I call theory-building on a 
singular set of evidence OVERFITTING, which means, that such a normally theory 
explains ONES OWN set of evidence, but not the SPECTRUM of evidence, which 
includes, in the case of LENR, up to now, higher order transmutations, which 
are NOT included in any theory of Good-mannered LENR, which concentrates on  
He-X-production, and stops there.

The question of higher order transmutations is mainly ignored.

The LENR-crowd deplores the stubborn orthodoxy, on the other hand the 
'good-mannered-LENR'-crowd ignores 'extremists' like LeClair and other evidence 
of 'bad-mannered LENR'..

Why?
Because no remotely acceptable theory exists for the 'bad' case--
(at least to my knowledge)

Therefore: what must not exist, does not exist.

Guenter



 Von: "pagnu...@htdconnect.com" 
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 21:33 Dienstag, 10.April 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation
 
It would be interesting to know if some of these (and maybe other "bursty")
phenomena were due to self-sustaining generation of micro-fractures -
i.e., some kind of tipping into a phase transition.

Also, it would interesting to know if the protons seen long after energy
production stops in Piantelli's experiments are due to neutron decays.

BTW, Godes of Brillouin has made some new remarks:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/robert-godes-of-brillouin-energy-comments-on-lenr-research/

Axil Axil wrote:
> I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator of the
> possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion.  Some systems show life
> after death and others do not; Rossi…yes, the Brillouin Energy system…no.
> A
> single cause should show the same type of behavior.
>
> What does (Lattice Energy LLC)  theory state in explanation of this “life
> after death” behavior?
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM,  wrote:
>
>> Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation entitled
>> -
>> "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)
>> New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning" - at -
>> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen
>>
>> He presents evidence that electrons and protons in coherent/collective
>> motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused,
>> can
>> form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events.
>>
>> Slides 18-20 ("Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires and lightning I-III")
>> review the very old (1922) controversy between Wendt and Rutherford on
>> whether large current pulses through tungsten wires could induce
>> transmutations. (See preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf).
>>
>> Wendt, using intense current pulses of strongly inductively coupled
>> electrons, saw transmutations, whereas Rutherford, using a sparse beam
>> of
>> uncoupled high velocity electrons, saw none.  Rutherford's eminence
>> trumped Wendt's more modest reputation.
>>
>> Now, this cannot be a difficult, nor expensive, experiment to reproduce
>> -
>> using Wendt's procedure, not Rutherford's.
>>
>> Has anyone tried to reproduce it?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[Alain Sepeda]

Defkalion on their forum gave a similar explanation,
talking about the heat caused by H2 breaking before loading and,
recombination after degasing...


2012/4/10 Jed Rothwell 

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>  I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator of
>> the possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion.
>>
>
> I do not think life after death is significant. I think the causes are
> prosaic. With bulk material, it is caused by highly loaded Pd samples that
> gradually degas. With powder, it is the only kind of cold fusion you can
> have.
>
>
>
>>   Some systems show life after death and others do not; Rossi…yes, the
>> Brillouin Energy system…no.
>>
>
> The difference is probably the size of the particles and the amount they
> can absorb.
>
> There is no particular advantage to life after death. It is like a dirty
> ICE engine that keeps running for a moment after you cut the ignition.
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:STS-115 Unknown Objects

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

At about 6:10-6:20 into the video, the astronaut makes the following
statement when referring to two of the objects:
   "...they're the ones we had the late 'Tally-Ho' on..."

Tally-Ho?  Must be NASA-speak for "Nothing important, just another 'visitor'
spacecraft sighting"!
:-)

Seriously, what could 'TH' stand for in this context?

-Mark  


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:STS-115 Unknown Objects

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981250151

Jump the vid to 4:45 when the crew PTZs to the unidentified objects.
Interesting is the look on the faces of the flight director and others at
the end of the vid just prior to the daily briefing.

T

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator of the
> possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion.
>

I do not think life after death is significant. I think the causes are
prosaic. With bulk material, it is caused by highly loaded Pd samples that
gradually degas. With powder, it is the only kind of cold fusion you can
have.



>   Some systems show life after death and others do not; Rossi…yes, the
> Brillouin Energy system…no.
>

The difference is probably the size of the particles and the amount they
can absorb.

There is no particular advantage to life after death. It is like a dirty
ICE engine that keeps running for a moment after you cut the ignition.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[pagnucco]

It would be interesting to know if some of these (and maybe other "bursty")
phenomena were due to self-sustaining generation of micro-fractures -
i.e., some kind of tipping into a phase transition.

Also, it would interesting to know if the protons seen long after energy
production stops in Piantelli's experiments are due to neutron decays.

BTW, Godes of Brillouin has made some new remarks:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/04/robert-godes-of-brillouin-energy-comments-on-lenr-research/

Axil Axil wrote:
> I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator of the
> possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion.  Some systems show life
> after death and others do not; Rossi…yes, the Brillouin Energy system…no.
> A
> single cause should show the same type of behavior.
>
> What does (Lattice Energy LLC)  theory state in explanation of this “life
> after death” behavior?
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM,  wrote:
>
>> Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation entitled
>> -
>> "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)
>> New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning" - at -
>> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen
>>
>> He presents evidence that electrons and protons in coherent/collective
>> motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused,
>> can
>> form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events.
>>
>> Slides 18-20 ("Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires and lightning I-III")
>> review the very old (1922) controversy between Wendt and Rutherford on
>> whether large current pulses through tungsten wires could induce
>> transmutations. (See preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf).
>>
>> Wendt, using intense current pulses of strongly inductively coupled
>> electrons, saw transmutations, whereas Rutherford, using a sparse beam
>> of
>> uncoupled high velocity electrons, saw none.  Rutherford's eminence
>> trumped Wendt's more modest reputation.
>>
>> Now, this cannot be a difficult, nor expensive, experiment to reproduce
>> -
>> using Wendt's procedure, not Rutherford's.
>>
>> Has anyone tried to reproduce it?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Vo]:In the foodsteps of Jules Verne

[Jouni Valkonen]

How about $40/kg cargo into LEO? This tech could have vastly larger capasity 
and speed than with Space Elevator. And it is a little bit cheaper, well in 
reach of current engineering and does not require exotic nanomaterials that do 
not exist in required scale nowhere near in the future if never.
Holiday in the stars: Space train could send four million people a year into 
orbit by 2032

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2113668/Space-holidays-Space-train-send-million-people-year-orbit-2032.html


―Jouni

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[Axil Axil]

I am interested in the “life after death” phenomena as an indicator of the
possibility of multiple causes of cold fusion.  Some systems show life
after death and others do not; Rossi…yes, the Brillouin Energy system…no. A
single cause should show the same type of behavior.

What does (Lattice Energy LLC)  theory state in explanation of this “life
after death” behavior?


On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM,  wrote:

> Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC) has posted a new presentation entitled -
> "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)
> New neutron data consistent with WLS mechanism in lightning" - at -
> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen
>
> He presents evidence that electrons and protons in coherent/collective
> motion on metal hydride surfaces, where e-m energy is highly focused, can
> form low momentum neutrons which initiate LENR events.
>
> Slides 18-20 ("Nucleosynthesis in exploding wires and lightning I-III")
> review the very old (1922) controversy between Wendt and Rutherford on
> whether large current pulses through tungsten wires could induce
> transmutations. (See preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf).
>
> Wendt, using intense current pulses of strongly inductively coupled
> electrons, saw transmutations, whereas Rutherford, using a sparse beam of
> uncoupled high velocity electrons, saw none.  Rutherford's eminence
> trumped Wendt's more modest reputation.
>
> Now, this cannot be a difficult, nor expensive, experiment to reproduce -
> using Wendt's procedure, not Rutherford's.
>
> Has anyone tried to reproduce it?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:10th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 08:26 AM 4/10/2012, Harry Veeder wrote:

starts today...
http://www.iscmns.org/work10/


Abstracts at http://www.iscmns.org/work10/Abstracts.pdf

[Vo]:STS-115 Unknown Objects

[Terry Blanton]

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981250151

Jump the vid to 4:45 when the crew PTZs to the unidentified objects.
Interesting is the look on the faces of the flight director and others
at the end of the vid just prior to the daily briefing.

T

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 05:16 PM 4/9/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:

Interpretations of work can involve theory. McKubre is an 
electrochemist, not a nuclear physicist. While his opinions about 
theory may not exactly be irrelevant, neither should we expect them 
to be authoritative . . .



As far as I know, McKubre feels that Hagelstein's theories are the 
most helpful in the field. I have never heard or read anything from 
him about the W-L theory.


Having met Peter and having heard him speak a number of times, I 
agree. Peter is quite cautious, and is proceeding step-by-step 
through what it is necessary to understand to understand cold fusion. 
He became quite interested in the possible formation of D2 in the 
lattice, which could form in vacancies. Indeed, it appears, *would* 
form in vacancies.


Some CF theories suggest the presence of D2 in confinement.

I believe he is hoping to confirm Brillouin's calorimetry. That 
would not necessarily give credibility to their theory. It might, if 
-- for example -- they can control the reaction well, and their 
method of control is predicted by the theory.


Yup.

When a theory makes a successful prediction, particularly something 
not expected, it gets a right to a higher notch in the process of 
acceptance. However, what is truly important is that process of 
prediction/experimental design/confirmation or falsification.


A theory may suggest a new experiment which has positive results. 
That doesn't prove that the theory is "true." But it takes us closer 
to such a conclusion. If results are *quantitatively predicted*, with 
accuracy, the theory becomes the default understanding. It might 
still be incomplete.


Pons and Fleischmann, in 1989, falsified standard LENR=zero 
expectations. It was reasonable, before the FPHE was confirmed, to be 
quite skeptical.



Cold fusion theories have not been useful or predictive so far.



Two exceptions that I know of.

1. Preparata predicted helium. Miles checked and found that helium 
was being produced, correlated with the heat. That was a major 
milestone in cold fusion history, and still has received inadequate 
attention, especially given that Miles has been confirmed. That can 
only partially be blamed on stubborn pseudoskepticism. As a community 
with interest in cold fusion, we also need to take responsibility for this.


2. Hagelstein predicted resonances (generating increased heat) at 8 
and 15 THz. Letts confirmed it, using dual laser stimulation with 
beat frequencies from 3 - 22 THz, and an additional unexpected 
resonance was found below 22 THz, which may have been due to hydrogen 
impurities.


What's the importance of this? After all, "dual laser stimulation" 
isn't apparently necessary for cold fusion to happen!


The Hagelstein-Letts experiment, published in 2008, takes what might 
be called "subcritical" PdD, it apparently has no heat without both 
laser stimulation and a magnetic field, and "turns it on." The 
cathode is not a normal FPHE cathode. It is a piece of carefully 
prepared palladium foil, a standard Letts cathode, to which has been 
added a bit of gold plating, after the foil has been loaded with deuterium.


(The gold may help reduce deuterium loss, but it is apparently 
necessary for laser stimulation, the gold particles on the surface 
absorb the laser light, and, with dual lasers, are the "non-linear 
mixer" necessary to produce the beat frequency.)


This is a heads-up, for those reading. The Letts-Hagelstein 
experiment may not directly represent a practical approach to cold 
fusion, but it gives us a handle on the reaction under the specific 
conditions. It may be possible to further explore heat/helium, for 
example, with this approach. It may be possible to explore vacancy 
theory, or other theories. If the effect is reliable, as it seems it 
is, it becomes possible to vary specific conditions and see 
quantitative changes.


For example, to get results from dual laser stimulation, a magnetic 
field appears necessary. What is the *quantitative* relationship of 
magnetic field to heat, under dual laser stimulation at resonance? 
What level of field is necessary? Indeed, with dual-laser 
stimulation, we don't know how the effect varies with laser 
intensity. 1 mW lasers seem to produce the effect. It might not take much!


How much natural radiation is present at the resonant frequencies?

A host of experimental questions are raised, that will have general 
implications. That's exciting, that there is now beginning 
experimental work to more carefully and quantitatively explore what 
McKubre called the "parameter space," at that ACS Conference where 
Krivit made such an ass of himself.


It's about time. 

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 03:42 AM 4/10/2012, Alain Sepeda wrote:

Some point agains WL by AUL Lomax are ok, but they also are against DD fusion.


Depends. What is "DD fusion"?

There is a known set of reactions which can be called "DD fusion." 
That is not what is happening in the FPHE. Obviously.


The Storms review (2010) does not claim "DD fusion," rather he writes 
about the fusion of deuterons. He does not specify the number 
involved, and one of the theories he cites is Takahashi's 4D BEC 
collapse fusion theory. Hence I typically write about "deuterium 
fusion," without specifying the mechanism. If deuterium is being 
converted to helium, with no other major products, the heat generated 
will be 23.8 MeV/He-4. If this is through 4D fusion to Be-8, no 
gammas are expected, and there is no rate issue, because the 4D 
collapse is a single BEC formation and collapse. The intermediate 
product is formed within a BEC, and we don't really know, as far as I 
can tell, how this would behave. But Be-8 is highly unstable, I think 
the half-life under normal circumstances is a femtosecond, and it 
would decay to two alpha particles. Plus, of course, the four electrons.




gamma are expected in both cases.


They are expected with ordinary d-d fusion to He-4, which is a very 
rare branch.


Nobody is proposing that kind of d-d fusion.


 WL give a strange solution, but DD give none...


I'll say it again, nobody is proposing "DD."

 especially if you take into account Ni+H, W+D,... and also the 
strange LENR that WL have gathered (ligtnings, rocks breaking, 
wires explosion, coke factory nitrogen anomaly, japanese arcing in oil, )...

So there should be a different mechanism for Ni+H...


Obviously. No matter what, in fact, unless Widom and Larsen or 
someone else can explain, and test, a common mechanism.


He4 as explains give no hint on the precise reaction, and DD or WL 
are solutions.


Sure. Quite the same. "Solutions" that don't match the experimental 
evidence, either one.



the fact that WL does not give unique answer to the 31Mev average 
energy, is  a reason to keep open to alternatives. It is clear that 
WL cycles are very various, and their might even be some "no cycle", 
or soup cooking...


There is no evidence for *any* of these transmutations. It's all made 
up. I.e., W-L say that X -> Y could happen. Fine. If you get these 
neutrons, that could happen. Now take that idea and make some 
specific predictions where the results can be observed. That has not 
been done, as far as anything published. What seems obvious to 
informed observers is that W-L theory makes some obvious predictions 
that are contradicted by the evidence. If that's incorrect, where is 
the analysis by W-L that it's incorrect?


Essentially, they are stonewalling.

Larsen in his slide does not criticize Mac Kubre experiment, on the 
opposite, he support that his results are better than what he says himself.
He seems more to criticize the Error margin that seems to match just 
too fine the DD theory.


There is no "DD theory."

There is an obvious deuterium fusion theory, which need not involve 
"d-d fusion." Or there might be some form of d-d fusion that guides 
the fusion to only the helium result, with phonon transfer of energy 
to the lattice. Maybe.


But it doesn't matter. We don't have the mechanism, and Widom and 
Larsen don't take us closer to having it; the theory, indeed, creates 
new mysteries. One aspect of it, essential to any continued 
consideration of possible neutron formation, would be verifying the 
gamma absorption.


That's completely missing. We have no reports of any experiments to 
find it. I'll repeat: Larsen was asked by Garwin about this and 
declined to comment, claiming that the information was proprietary. 
Well, they now have a patent on a gamma shield. So ... where is the evidence?


A patent is invalid if it does not provide adequate information to 
make a working device. I suspect they have an invalid patent


the lack of detected neutrons could work with DD->He4, but this 
branch  (probability 1/137 compared to T+n & al) is strange... even 
more than heavy electrons... good reason to have no strong opinion 
on any of the two theories.


Two bogus theories, you are shuffling them around and comparing them.

If you want to look at 4D -> 2 He-4, that's more plausible, but still 
remains incomplete and unproven.


We *know* what will happen if there are loose slow neutrons on the 
surface of an FPHE cathode, and that doesn't happen, the evidence is 
strong. We don't know what will happen if a BEC forms from two 
deuterium molecules and collapses to fuse to Be-8.


This is important: if the precursor physical configuration, with two 
deuterium molecules in a certain arrangement that might be possible, 
forms a BEC and collapses, it *will* fuse, 100%. That's what 
Takahashi showed, though I'd be far happier if his study were 
independently confirmed. That was just a "test" configuration, and he 
didn't study how

[Vo]:10th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals

[Harry Veeder]

starts today...

http://www.iscmns.org/work10/

10th International Workshop on Anomalies in
Hydrogen  Loaded Metals
10-14 April 2012

Harry

[Vo]:Offshore wind energy potential in Japan

[Jed Rothwell]

There are not a lot of shallow offshore locations in Japan, so they are
looking into the prospects for floating wind turbines. This has been in the
news lately.

See:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-29/floating-windmills-in-japan-help-wind-down-nuclear-power-energy.html

QUOTES:

Japan, whose island geography and earthquake risk have long shaped its
economy, is lagging behind developed nations including the U.S., Germany
and Spain in wind energy, which supplied just 0.4 percent of its
electricity demand in 2010, according to the International Energy Agency
Wind 2010 Annual Report. Ranking as the world’s fifth-largest carbon
emitter, Japan is trying to elevate its wind-energy capacity from 2,500
megawatts, the 13th-highest among all nations, according to the Global Wind
Energy Council.

Land-based wind-energy development is limited by Japan’s mountains, making
offshore developments more viable. The depths of its oceans creates a
bigger potential for floating turbine technology, still in its infancy
compared with the more conventional method of deploying fixed versions of
the machines. . . .

The industry group has set a wind-power installation target of 50,000
megawatts by March 2051, including 17,500 megawatts and 7,500 megawatts in
floating and fixed offshore wind respectively. That compares with the
49,000 megawatts of nuclear power, which is being debated by government
officials after the Fukushima meltdowns. JWPA estimates Japan’s potential
for wind is 144,000 megawatts for onshore and 608,000 for offshore. . . .



- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 12:08 AM 4/10/2012, Eric Walker wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Abd ul-Rahman 
Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:

Â
W-L theory allows for a farrago of proposed 
reactions, so one can pick and choose for a 
large and complex field, to find a reaction that 
might explain a particular result. And that the 
required reaction series might be 
way-silly-improbable is ignored. Essentially, 
there will be, if W-L theory of neutron 
formation is correct, there will be N neutrons 
being formed. It is proposed that these have a 
very high absorption rate, so N transmutations 
will be caused. But this is N/T, where T is the 
total number of possible targets. (Roughly.) A 
transmuted element becomes just another target, 
and would presumably be exposed to the same 
neutron flux. The probability of a second 
reaction in the "cycle" would be the square of 
N/T. Â That would be, for all intents and purposes, close to zero.



Can you further explain this calculation? Â Are 
you assuming a low flux, where N/T << 1? Â 
You're also thinking that T is large and 
includes the Palladium atoms in the lattice?


Yes, N/T << 1. If not so, then we'd be seeing far 
stronger evidence of reactions: transmutation 
products, heat, and (if not for the magic "heavy electron patches") radiation.



Â
The intermediate product would be left. Â If 
neutrons are being created in significant 
numbers, we would expect to see specific results 
that are not observed, and gammas are only one aspect of this.



I think you mentioned a great deal of heat as 
being another missing observable in addition to 
gamma radiation. Â Just to make sure I 
understand your position -- you're relying on 
branching ratios and reactions that are known 
from previous experience with fusion?


No, not at all. Where did you get that idea? Heat 
is not missing, except when we look at what would 
be required to generate the observed levels of 
helium following the W-L pathways. The third 
missing observable is the levels of transmuted 
elements that would be present as intermediate 
products, or as end products if the helium is produced by alpha emission.


(Which then leaves another problem, hot alphas, 
which would create other observable effects.)


 Â I have no reason to doubt this approach, I'm 
just trying to understand. Â What are the other 
missing observables in addition to heat and gamma rays?

Â
Looking through some of the other slides, what 
Larsen is doing is searching through 
experimental records, finding anomalies that W-L 
theory *might* explain. There is an absence of quantitative analysis.



I think Jed had a nice thread about the merits 
of qualitative analysis not too long ago, but point taken.


It's crucial. I know of only one *partial* theory 
that actually makes quantitative predictions, 
beyond Preparata's expectation of helium, and it's not ready for publication.



Â
There is an absence of clear experimental prediction.


A good indicator of wishy-washy thinking.
Â
This is pure ad-hoc speculation, and all it can 
do, scientifically, is to suggest avenues for exploration.



Arriving at new avenues for exploration doesn't 
seem all that bad a result, but we should strive for better.


The problem is that it hasn't really been 
developed to the point where specific experiment is being suggested.



Just to make sure I understand your position -- 
you don't like neutron flux because you don't 
find sufficient evidence for it and you find strong evidence against it.


I don't find *any* evidence for it. W-L theory is 
a speculation. The basis of the speculation is 
this: if there is an unknown nuclear reaction, 
what is it? So people make things up. Most of 
these made-up theories are not considered 
plausible. However, we cannot rule any of them 
out completely, except where they make clear predictions.


Speculation that surface conditions on metal 
hydrides might create a previously-unobserved 
effect, making neutrons, fine. But then what do 
neutrons do in that enviroment? Neutron behavior 
is well-known and predictable. And what we'd 
expect these neutrons to do just doesn't happen. 
The missing gammas are a big part of it. To 
explain them, a *new* previously unobserved 
effect is required: gamma suppression, and not 
just a partial shielding, complete shielding. 
Beyond that, where are the copious transmutation 
products (other than helium) required to explain 
the observed heat? And if helium is being 
produced by the "cycle" that W-L proposes, where 
are all the required intermediate products?


This is what I understand: W-L theory proposes 
that neutrons are formed within a "patch." The 
neutrons have a short path, because of their very 
low momentum. They all are absorbed. The 
elemental composition of the patch, as to the 
most common elements, can be known. The patch 
cannot be very small, or gammas would escape from 
neutrons travelling to the edge or beyond. Given 
a composition, the t

Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation

[Alain Sepeda]

Some point agains WL by AUL Lomax are ok, but they also are against DD
fusion.

gamma are expected in both cases. WL give a strange solution, but DD give
none... especially if you take into account Ni+H, W+D,... and also the
strange LENR that WL have gathered (ligtnings, rocks breaking, wires
explosion, coke factory nitrogen anomaly, japanese arcing in oil, )...
So there should be a different mechanism for Ni+H...

He4 as explains give no hint on the precise reaction, and DD or WL are
solutions.

the fact that WL does not give unique answer to the 31Mev average energy,
is  a reason to keep open to alternatives. It is clear that WL cycles are
very various, and their might even be some "no cycle", or soup cooking...

Larsen in his slide does not criticize Mac Kubre experiment, on the
opposite, he support that his results are better than what he says himself.
He seems more to criticize the Error margin that seems to match just too
fine the DD theory.

the lack of detected neutrons could work with DD->He4, but this branch
(probability 1/137 compared to T+n & al) is strange... even more than heavy
electrons... good reason to have no strong opinion on any of the two
theories.

globally it seems that something is missing in each theoretical approach.
we should stay openmind.

the neutrons, and weak interaction seems an interesting direction...
WL theory have weaknesses. Heavy electrons, are know phenomenons, but in
that context it is hard to swallow naively... Naively isotropic screening
of gamma seems strange, but maybe is ther something we miss, or that even
the theorist missed.
maybe is there a similar theory, waiting to be found...

more classic DD fusion also have problems, but could be accepted when we
discover some new facts, like done for WL with the heavy electron idea.
the branch ratio, the Ni+H success raise problems...

what we know from the experiments :
- reaction Pd+D happens, but also less Pd+H,  strong Ni+H, W+D...
- clear energy production, with nuclear source (or at least more than
chemical)
- nearly no neutrons or ultra slow neutrons
- nearly no gamma at level coherent with power
- transmutation of heavy nuclei, letting hypothesis of nucleon absorption
by heavy nucleus
- He4 correlated to power, coherent with DD or WL phenomenons

this let room for many solutions, and WL is imperfectly filing some holes.
DD impertect too.


2012/4/10 Eric Walker 

> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
> wrote:
>
>
>> W-L theory allows for a farrago of proposed reactions, so one can pick
>> and choose for a large and complex field, to find a reaction that might
>> explain a particular result. And that the required reaction series might be
>> way-silly-improbable is ignored. Essentially, there will be, if W-L theory
>> of neutron formation is correct, there will be N neutrons being formed. It
>> is proposed that these have a very high absorption rate, so N
>> transmutations will be caused. But this is N/T, where T is the total number
>> of possible targets. (Roughly.) A transmuted element becomes just another
>> target, and would presumably be exposed to the same neutron flux. The
>> probability of a second reaction in the "cycle" would be the square of N/T.
>>  That would be, for all intents and purposes, close to zero.
>
>
> Can you further explain this calculation?  Are you assuming a low flux,
> where N/T << 1?  You're also thinking that T is large and includes the
> Palladium atoms in the lattice?
>
>
>> The intermediate product would be left.  If neutrons are being created in
>> significant numbers, we would expect to see specific results that are not
>> observed, and gammas are only one aspect of this.
>
>
> I think you mentioned a great deal of heat as being another missing
> observable in addition to gamma radiation.  Just to make sure I understand
> your position -- you're relying on branching ratios and reactions that are
> known from previous experience with fusion?  I have no reason to doubt this
> approach, I'm just trying to understand.  What are the other
> missing observables in addition to heat and gamma rays?
>
>
>> Looking through some of the other slides, what Larsen is doing is
>> searching through experimental records, finding anomalies that W-L theory
>> *might* explain. There is an absence of quantitative analysis.
>
>
> I think Jed had a nice thread about the merits of qualitative analysis not
> too long ago, but point taken.
>
>
>> There is an absence of clear experimental prediction.
>
>
> A good indicator of wishy-washy thinking.
>
>
>> This is pure ad-hoc speculation, and all it can do, scientifically, is to
>> suggest avenues for exploration.
>
>
> Arriving at new avenues for exploration doesn't seem all that bad a
> result, but we should strive for better.
>
> Just to make sure I understand your position -- you don't like neutron
> flux because you don't find sufficient evidence for it and you find strong
> evidence against it.  For there to be sufficient flux to