[Vo]:FYI: Theorem unifies superfluids and other weird materials...
Theorem unifies superfluids and other weird materials http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/06/08/theorem-unifies-superfluids-and-ot her-weird-materials/ Don't know if Storms' NAE qualifies for 'weird materials', but I'd bet it does... -mark attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]: Nuclear Stability and Proton or Neutron Addition
Your question of whether Rossi or W-L are correct (if either is) made me want to check whether a cascade of neutron captures suggested by W-L were consistent with Rossi's reports. Using the data from the wiki-page on masses and half-lives for Ni-isotopes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_nickel -- it appears that the sequence of neutron captures are all exothermic - 58Ni | (8.2 Mev) 59Ni | (10.5 Mev) 60Ni | (7.0 Mev) 61Ni (energy released) | (9.8 Mev) 62Ni | (6.1 Mev) 63Ni | (8.9 Mev) 64Ni | (5.3 Mev) 65Ni -- 65Cu (stable) | (8.1 Mev) 66Ni -- 66Cu -- 66Zn (stable) (The ~780 Kev cost of electron capture is subracted from energy figures.) From 58Ni through 64Ni, half-lives are very long. After 66Ni, half-lives become too short to provide much transmutation ash. If we start with off-the-shelf Ni (normal isotopic mix), it looks like very little Cu63 would result, but there could be significant amounts of 65Cu and some 66Zn. The distribution of 58Ni-64Ni should show enhanced concentrations of the heavier Ni-isotopes. Rossi claims he use Ni enriched in 62Ni and 64Ni in the e-cat. Unless they have significantly larger cross-sections to capture low energy neutrons, the enrichment would probably not help if W-L neutrons are responsible. (The Lattice Energy website on Nickel-Seed LENR Networks that may have a more complete analysis than mine.) Rossi claims the e-cat LENR results from Ni-proton capture. -- Lou Pagnucco Dave Roberson wrote: I have been reviewing a table of nuclides in an attempt to make sense of the process suggested by WL proponents and those of Rossi. In the WL theory a neutron is formed by the combination of an electron and a proton with the .78 MeV of energy being supplied by their process. This neutron then finds its way into a nucleus of nickel in this version of devices and energy is released. The final result is the next heavier isotope of nickel plus a significant amount of energy. The Rossi process involves the insertion of a proton into the nucleus of the subject nickel atom forming a new copper atom along with release of energy. Some of the copper isotopes formed by addition of a proton into their parent nickel isotopes decay by beta plus action into the next heavier nickel isotope along with a release of additional energy. The above two paragraphs offer an extremely brief description of the two theories. They are not intended to get into details which can be located within many documents. My purpose for writing this document is to reveal an interesting observation that I have made concerning the two processes. This may be well known to many of the people on the list, but it is new to me and I offer it as a refresher. If you take any stable isotope of an element, for example nickel 60 and either add a neutron as with the WL process or overcome the Coulomb barrier by forcing a proton into the nucleus you find an interesting result. In virtually every case only one of these processes leads to a stable isotope in a single reaction. There are only a couple of exceptions to this observation and that appears to be when neither process results in a single step stable new atom. Of course the newly created atoms will all eventually decay in steps until a stable result is obtained. I further notice that the end result of the two processes is the same nuclide. An example is as follows: Start with Ni60 and add a proton to it by forcing the particle against the Coulomb barrier and you obtain Cu61. Some immediate energy is released by the new element and at a half life later a Beta Plus decay process occurs which releases more energy. The Beta Plus decay leaves us with Ni61. The energy release is composed of two parts as we progress from Ni60 to Ni61. Now, instead of adding a proton, letâs allow a neutron to encounter the Ni60 nucleus. In this case a stable isotope of nickel Ni61 is directly formed and a significant amount of energy is released. I followed both of these processes through several different elements and can state that the same total energy is released regardless of the path taken when I start with an isotope of an element and end at the same final product. I consider this an important and useful observation. A second issue I would like to discuss is also interesting and leads to some neat results. The above rule that I found makes it impossible to have two stable isotopes of elements with the same number of nucleons that are one level apart. An example of this rule would be that since He3 is stable, then H3 cannot be. Or, since Ni61 is stable, then Cu61 is unstable. This appears to apply throughout the entire list of elements and I would appreciate it for others to verify this conclusion. I have a couple of additional concepts that I plan to present at a later time, so for now review what I have observed and please make relevant comments. Dave
Re: [Vo]: Nuclear Stability and Proton or Neutron Addition
I won't be surprised if he use raw nickel, and pretend it enriched just as he say COP is limited to 6, that gamma heat the lead... to fool the pursuers... by the way the idea that only the beginning and end of the reaction account for energy release is normal. We just have to remind about the neutrino kinetic energy, but it is small (linked to conservation of momentum, and thus initial and final momentum of other particles, that we should notice if huge). one hypothesis about normal isotopic ratio in transmuted copper, is that the result is the same as nature, because the process is the same... Larsen talk about R and S nucleosynthetis process, not so different from WL (or similar neutron or hydrino absorption) another hypothesis is manipulation or mistake. With Rossi this is not to exclude. about guessing the theory, the results of Iwamura give strong data. in fact not the results (which just show nucleon+nucleus reaction), but the initial condition which are very controlled and simpler compared to SPAWAR, FP, Celani, Piantelli... Some should analyse if they match ES crack theory, WL surface theory, Brillouin bulk Q-wave theory, Takahashi bulk TSC theory, Kim zubarev theory. if we can divide by 2 the number of theories it should be good. This experiment was very controlled, so it should eliminate some hypothesis. 2012/6/12 pagnu...@htdconnect.com Your question of whether Rossi or W-L are correct (if either is) made me want to check whether a cascade of neutron captures suggested by W-L were consistent with Rossi's reports. Using the data from the wiki-page on masses and half-lives for Ni-isotopes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_nickel -- it appears that the sequence of neutron captures are all exothermic - 58Ni | (8.2 Mev) 59Ni | (10.5 Mev) 60Ni | (7.0 Mev) 61Ni (energy released) | (9.8 Mev) 62Ni | (6.1 Mev) 63Ni | (8.9 Mev) 64Ni | (5.3 Mev) 65Ni -- 65Cu (stable) | (8.1 Mev) 66Ni -- 66Cu -- 66Zn (stable) (The ~780 Kev cost of electron capture is subracted from energy figures.) From 58Ni through 64Ni, half-lives are very long. After 66Ni, half-lives become too short to provide much transmutation ash. If we start with off-the-shelf Ni (normal isotopic mix), it looks like very little Cu63 would result, but there could be significant amounts of 65Cu and some 66Zn. The distribution of 58Ni-64Ni should show enhanced concentrations of the heavier Ni-isotopes. Rossi claims he use Ni enriched in 62Ni and 64Ni in the e-cat. Unless they have significantly larger cross-sections to capture low energy neutrons, the enrichment would probably not help if W-L neutrons are responsible. (The Lattice Energy website on Nickel-Seed LENR Networks that may have a more complete analysis than mine.) Rossi claims the e-cat LENR results from Ni-proton capture. -- Lou Pagnucco Dave Roberson wrote: I have been reviewing a table of nuclides in an attempt to make sense of the process suggested by WL proponents and those of Rossi. In the WL theory a neutron is formed by the combination of an electron and a proton with the .78 MeV of energy being supplied by their process. This neutron then finds its way into a nucleus of nickel in this version of devices and energy is released. The final result is the next heavier isotope of nickel plus a significant amount of energy. The Rossi process involves the insertion of a proton into the nucleus of the subject nickel atom forming a new copper atom along with release of energy. Some of the copper isotopes formed by addition of a proton into their parent nickel isotopes decay by beta plus action into the next heavier nickel isotope along with a release of additional energy. The above two paragraphs offer an extremely brief description of the two theories. They are not intended to get into details which can be located within many documents. My purpose for writing this document is to reveal an interesting observation that I have made concerning the two processes. This may be well known to many of the people on the list, but it is new to me and I offer it as a refresher. If you take any stable isotope of an element, for example nickel 60 and either add a neutron as with the WL process or overcome the Coulomb barrier by forcing a proton into the nucleus you find an interesting result. In virtually every case only one of these processes leads to a stable isotope in a single reaction. There are only a couple of exceptions to this observation and that appears to be when neither process results in a single step stable new atom. Of course the newly created atoms will all eventually decay in steps until a stable result is obtained. I further notice that the end result of the two processes is the same nuclide. An example is as follows: Start with Ni60 and add a proton to it by forcing the particle against the Coulomb
[Vo]:Detecting a transmutation - bismuth - polonium
Hi Vortex, I was wondering what might be the best way to try transmuting bismuth into radioactive polonium. I was thinking something along the lines of taking some bismuth powder, loading it with pressurised deuterium or hydrogen gas that had been sparked with a spark plug for a while.. any chance that some of it might turn into polonium? Maybe mix some carbon dust in there too in case that helps. Basically my thinking is that while calorimetry is tricky when dealing with low amounts of excess heat, it might be much easier to measure the presence of even tiny amounts of radioactivity. What do you think? Cheers, Rob
RE: [Vo]:Detecting a transmutation - bismuth - polonium
You should probably contact Horace Heffner on this. He is not active on Vortex currently, but he may respond to direct email. Horace apparently thinks Bismuth is a good candidate for LENR, whereas 'on paper' it would seem to be poor, due to extremely low cross-section for thermal neutrons and large nuclear Coulomb charge. http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt -Original Message- From: Robert McKay Subject: [Vo]:Detecting a transmutation - bismuth - polonium Hi Vortex, I was wondering what might be the best way to try transmuting bismuth into radioactive polonium. I was thinking something along the lines of taking some bismuth powder, loading it with pressurised deuterium or hydrogen gas that had been sparked with a spark plug for a while.. any chance that some of it might turn into polonium? Maybe mix some carbon dust in there too in case that helps. Basically my thinking is that while calorimetry is tricky when dealing with low amounts of excess heat, it might be much easier to measure the presence of even tiny amounts of radioactivity. What do you think? Cheers, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Criticism of piezonuclear experiments
If you read between the lines, they are accusing Cardone and Carpinteri of either incompetency or fraud. harry On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:20 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Remarks on Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.1863
Re: [Vo]:Criticism of piezonuclear experiments
Carpinteri responds to some of hic critics on Passerini's Blog (google provides a pretty good translation) http://22passi.blogspot.ca/2012/06/risposta-del-prof-carpinteri-gerardo.html Here Passerini catalogues and examines more of the virtrol and criticism levelled against piezonucleare. http://22passi.blogspot.ca/2012/06/dal-processo-sommario-frutto-di_12.html (I like Passerini's expression che energia dalle pietre which google translates as energy from the stones) harry On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: If you read between the lines, they are accusing Cardone and Carpinteri of either incompetency or fraud. harry On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:20 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Remarks on Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.1863
[Vo]:Lattice Energy's latest paper
Lewis Larsen has very recently posted a new paper -- Electroweak Neutron Production via e+p---n+v and Capture during Lightning Discharges http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-electroweak-neutron-production-and-capture-during-lightning-dischargesjune-7-2012/1 Larsen is making testable predictions. He proposes that since lighting discharges involve dense, coherent, intense electron currents, they should create thermal neutrons (via W-L theory electron capture e+p -- n+v) that result (after ~ 4 billion years) in the nitrogen and oxygen isotopic mixtures that exist today. He also cites the transmutations seen in exploding tungsten wire experiments. Can Larsen's theory be tested by placing several devices such as --- | +-- INSULATING BOX LIGHTNING ROD ---| | | V |_ ||---+|| || ||| || ||| W = Tungsten wires || |W || (variable sizes) ||W | W || || +--+-+- ...+ || NNN = N-rich molecules || | | | | || OOO = O-rich molecules || | | | | || || | | |spark| || || = = = -- gaps-- = || || | | | | || Spark gaps with varying || | | | | || sizes and geometries || +--+-+- ...+ || ||W | W || || ||| || NNN | OOO || ||---+|| -|-- | - \ / GND V --- at points where lightning strikes are very common, e.g., forest park watch towers, radio towers, sky scrapers, ...? This would only require access to a machine shop, and a fee to a mass spectrometry lab. If design and theory are correct, W, N, O transmutations could occur. Possibly, just a few free-standing gapped W-lightning rods would suffice. Does anyone know if the Proton-21 results presented in -- A Review of Transmutation and Clustering in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions - Prelas, Miley, et al, research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/Prelas.ppt -- could be checked this way? While a negative result would not be completely definitive, a positive one would certainly be. --- Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:FYI: Theorem unifies superfluids and other weird materials...
One presumes they mean hypothesis or perhaps theory. The term theorem does not apply this idea. An attempt at such pedantic erroneous usage usually qualifies the proponent as a fool. --- On Mon, 6/11/12, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Subject: [Vo]:FYI: Theorem unifies superfluids and other weird materials... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Monday, June 11, 2012, 11:43 PM Theorem unifies superfluids and other weird materials http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/06/08/theorem-unifies-superfluids-and-ot her-weird-materials/ Don't know if Storms' NAE qualifies for 'weird materials', but I'd bet it does... -mark
Re: [Vo]:Lattice Energy's latest paper
Regarding: research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/Prelas.ppt I find it revealing that many if not all of the experiments showing signs of cold fusion activity include compounds which demonstrate a very low work function. This is significant because these compounds can generate positive electrostatic charge accumulation on their own accord without any external electric potential applied. These thermionic materials will expel electrons from their surface leaving positive charge accumulation behind. A good example is calcium oxide: a potent and possibly the best thermionic material around. Its work function varies from about a minuscule 2.0 to as little as .7 based on conditions and temperature. My opinion is that this coherent positive charge accumulation is one of the important underlying causes of cold fusion. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:16 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Lewis Larsen has very recently posted a new paper -- Electroweak Neutron Production via e+p---n+v and Capture during Lightning Discharges http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-electroweak-neutron-production-and-capture-during-lightning-dischargesjune-7-2012/1 Larsen is making testable predictions. He proposes that since lighting discharges involve dense, coherent, intense electron currents, they should create thermal neutrons (via W-L theory electron capture e+p -- n+v) that result (after ~ 4 billion years) in the nitrogen and oxygen isotopic mixtures that exist today. He also cites the transmutations seen in exploding tungsten wire experiments. Can Larsen's theory be tested by placing several devices such as --- | +-- INSULATING BOX LIGHTNING ROD ---| | | V |_ ||---+|| || ||| || ||| W = Tungsten wires || |W || (variable sizes) ||W | W || || +--+-+- ...+ || NNN = N-rich molecules || | | | | || OOO = O-rich molecules || | | | | || || | | |spark| || || = = = -- gaps-- = || || | | | | || Spark gaps with varying || | | | | || sizes and geometries || +--+-+- ...+ || ||W | W || || ||| || NNN | OOO || ||---+|| -|-- | - \ / GND V --- at points where lightning strikes are very common, e.g., forest park watch towers, radio towers, sky scrapers, ...? This would only require access to a machine shop, and a fee to a mass spectrometry lab. If design and theory are correct, W, N, O transmutations could occur. Possibly, just a few free-standing gapped W-lightning rods would suffice. Does anyone know if the Proton-21 results presented in -- A Review of Transmutation and Clustering in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions - Prelas, Miley, et al, research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/Prelas.ppt -- could be checked this way? While a negative result would not be completely definitive, a positive one would certainly be. --- Lou Pagnucco
RE: [Vo]:FYI: Theorem unifies superfluids and other weird materials...
Sorry Michael, but judging someone simply based on their choice of words, especially with the global connectivity of the internet where the person's English might be limited, is a very poor way to determine validity of the person's ideas... you certainly can do so, but I prefer not to. Perhaps you don't have the scientific/mathematical expertise to judge them on the merits of the published paper??? Have you at least read it? -Mark -Original Message- From: Michael Foster [mailto:mf...@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:FYI: Theorem unifies superfluids and other weird materials... One presumes they mean hypothesis or perhaps theory. The term theorem does not apply this idea. An attempt at such pedantic erroneous usage usually qualifies the proponent as a fool. --- On Mon, 6/11/12, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Subject: [Vo]:FYI: Theorem unifies superfluids and other weird materials... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Monday, June 11, 2012, 11:43 PM Theorem unifies superfluids and other weird materials http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/06/08/theorem-unifies-superfluids- and-ot her-weird-materials/ Don't know if Storms' NAE qualifies for 'weird materials', but I'd bet it does... -mark
Re: [Vo]:FYI: Theorem unifies superfluids and other weird materials...
The use of the term theorm is appropreate because the work was done in the framework of mathematical physics. Reference:: “It is a wonderful piece of work in mathematical physics” Exampe: Theorems in mathematical physics C - Chasles' theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasles%27_theorem E - Edge-of-the-wedge theoremhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge-of-the-wedge_theorem G - Gell-Mann and Low theoremhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_and_Low_theorem - Generalized Helmholtz theoremhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_Helmholtz_theorem G cont. - Geroch's splitting theoremhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geroch%27s_splitting_theorem - Goldstone boson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstone_boson H - Helmholtz's theoremshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz%27s_theorems P - Peeling theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peeling_theorem S - Stone–von Neumann theoremhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone%E2%80%93von_Neumann_theorem W - Wigner–Eckart theoremhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%E2%80%93Eckart_theorem Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Michael Foster mf...@yahoo.com wrote: One presumes they mean hypothesis or perhaps theory. The term theorem does not apply this idea. An attempt at such pedantic erroneous usage usually qualifies the proponent as a fool. --- On Mon, 6/11/12, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net Subject: [Vo]:FYI: Theorem unifies superfluids and other weird materials... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Monday, June 11, 2012, 11:43 PM Theorem unifies superfluids and other weird materials http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/06/08/theorem-unifies-superfluids-and-ot her-weird-materials/ Don't know if Storms' NAE qualifies for 'weird materials', but I'd bet it does... -mark
[Vo]:coal down gas up
http://tribune-democrat.com/local/x1318685928/US-coal-use-falling-fast-utilities-switch-to-gas
[Vo]:cracks
Reference: http://phys.org/news/2012-06-rutgers-granular-slip-documents-voltage-video.html The following work shows a connection between micro cracks and voltage generation. This fits in with Ed storms cold fusion crack theory, and my belief that voids produce one- dimensional electrical flow due to the long thin topological nature of the void. If you remember how X-rays are produced by tape http://www.nature.com/news/2008/012345/full/news.2008.1185.html It is basically the same topological materials principle at work.
Re: [Vo]:cracks
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/science/19winto.html
Re: [Vo]: Nuclear Stability and Proton or Neutron Addition
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: one hypothesis about normal isotopic ratio in transmuted copper, is that the result is the same as nature, because the process is the same... Larsen talk about R and S nucleosynthetis process, not so different from WL (or similar neutron or hydrino absorption) I think the rate of flux is an important variable. With a high flux, the isotope ratios that result after everything has settled will be different than with those after an anemic flux. It is possible that you would need a similar flux to what occurs during r-process nucleosynthesis in supernovae to get similar ratios. Such a flux is generally very high. But another variable here is the speed of the neutrons. I suppose those emanating from a supernova will be traveling very fast, and if you had much slower ones, the flux might not need to be high to get comparable ratios. Ed Storms brings up an excellent point about neutron-based explanations. Here is my elaboration: it is true that the neutron-capture cross section goes way down when the neutrons are very slow. But that's a relative change of what is normally measured at higher energies, and even with a hypothesized momentum near or at zero, the cross section will not be infinite. So there will be some elastic collisions with atoms in the environment, and some of the neutrons can be expected to thermalize and exit the system. You would then expect to see a substantial number of these be picked up in a detector, but this is not seen. Eric
