Re: [Vo]:Lattice Energy LL -- Larsen Webradio Interview with Sandy Andrew, July 11 2012 by Lewis Larsen [ interview April 17, 2010 ]: Rich Murray 2012.07.11
This is more a language problem that a technical one. Initial hypothesis on LENR were mostly trying to know how to overcome coulomb barrier, to allow the nuclear fusion. WL, Fisher, Kozima hypothesis assume playing with neutrons... let's say that you plan to invade a castle and make the canon powder explode. some say : blast the door by mass attack, cannon ball, or pass through my magic, or get smaller than a mouse, then get to the powder store some like WL just say, blast a food delivery driver, and get into as if you bring food... then got to the powder room... of course the main story is to make powder explode (strong force). you can find tricks to get through the door (screening, hydrino, resonance, tunnel), but some find that using someone that can pass the coulomb door quietly as a troyan, is a good idea. of course stealing the food card ask for violence (endothermic), but a different one from pure blasting... let call that weak interaction with the cart driver. also many way to blast or control the driver... and at the end, the energy produced is by gunpowder. 2012/7/12 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com I am a bit confused by the description presented by Larsen. He states very clearly that the WL process relies upon the weak force for the energy generation mechanism. I thought that their use of the weak force was only to generate low momentum neutrons which actually has an energy cost and then this is followed by the absorption of these neutrons into the active nucleus. Why would the penetration of a neutron into a nucleus be considered weak force activity when it involves release of binding energy? Is Larsen avoiding the use of that term for any special reason? Am I mistaken in my understanding that the strong force is associated with binding energy within the nucleus? I would consider their process a use of the weak force to generate neutrons followed by a strong force interaction to release the vast stored binding energy. There is still room for the binding energy to be released in another form instead of gamma rays which we know would be difficult to control once freed. There are numerous reactions listed in fusion sources where little gamma energy is released. In these cases I generally see two or more fairly massive particles being emitted that share the energy in the form of kinetic energy. Thus far I have found it difficult to determine exactly what energy mix is released with fusion type nuclear reactions. I am unable to understand why some release only kinetic energy while others emit only gammas and still other reactions result in the release of both types of energy. How does one obtain a solution to this problem? Dave -Original Message- From: Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com To: vortex-L vortex-L@eskimo.com; Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 2:43 pm Subject: [Vo]:Lattice Energy LL -- Larsen Webradio Interview with Sandy Andrew, July 11 2012 by Lewis Larsen [ interview April 17, 2010 ]: Rich Murray 2012.07.11 Lattice Energy LL -- Larsen Webradio Interview with Sandy Andrew, July 11 2012 by Lewis Larsen [ interview April 17, 2010 ]: Rich Murray 2012.07.11 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-lllarsen-webradio-interview-with-sandy-andrewjuly-11-2012?from=new_upload_email Lively, in-depth audio interview suitable for a general audience; Mr. Sandy Andrew had carefully researched the topics of LENRs and cold fusion prior to the show --- asked a number of probing questions that explored the scientific, economic, geopolitical, and social implications of the W-L theory of LENRs. [one-hour online recording]
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hydrinos
Axil, I agree with your statement [snip] These hydrinos only form when electrons are entangled in special materials and hydrinos are not ubiquitous throughout nature as Mills claims. [/snip] but would add geometry to you description : These hydrinos only form when electrons are entangled in special materials at specific geometries. Fran From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:24 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Hydrinos This is an interesting concept that might apply to protons as well. I have been seeking a mechanism that allows the binding energy associated with a proton entering a nucleus to be spread among others nearby and this might be that process. The gamma rays that normally occur with hot fusion would be eliminated in this manner and converted into heat. If the gammas are not generated, then they would not cause problems. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 11:24 pm Subject: [Vo]:Hydrinos http://phys.org/news/2012-06-mass-scientists-electrons-heavy-speedy.html Got mass? Scientists observe electrons become both heavy and speedy Hydrinos may be caused by entangled electrons. When electrons become entangled they gain mass if not energy. If such a “heavy“ electron enters the orbit of a nickel atom, this extra mass will drive the orbit of the entangled electron closer to the nucleus. If the electron gets heavy enough, like Muon-catalyzed fusion (μCF), a heavy electron fusion process allows nuclear fusion to take place at temperatures significantly lower than the temperatures required for thermonuclear fusion, even at room temperature or lower. It is one of the few known ways of catalyzing nuclear fusion reactions. Muons are unstable subatomic particles. They are similar to electrons, but are about 207 times more massive. If a muon replaces one of the electrons in a hydrogen molecule, the nuclei are consequently drawn 207 times closer together than in a normal molecule. In like manner when an entangled electron with a mass 1000 times greater than a free electron gains mass through entanglement, the high mass electron’s orbit draws closer into the nuclei in direct proportion to its increased mass based on its degree of entanglement, the probability of nuclear fusion with the heavy electron is greatly increased, to the point where a significant number of fusion events can happen at room temperature. When Mills sees evidence of hydrinos in spectral analysis emanating from his materials, he is really seeing heavy entangled electrons in close orbit around the nickel nucleus. This is a materials physics mechanism and only appears in the types of materials that Mills uses to increase heat production using this LENR mechanism. These hydrinos only form when electrons are entangled in special materials and hydrinos are not ubiquitous throughout nature as Mills claims. Cheers: Axil
[Vo]:It's chemical, not nuclear... at least when its Alumina.
FYI: Jed, you might want to add this to your library… http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040603112002742 Don’t know what this proves as far as Ni/H or Pd/D systems are concerned… there are significant differences: - they used alumina powder (Al2O3), and Al is atomic# 13 vs 28 for Ni - Al isn’t in the same region on the periodic chart; very different properties and electron configurations from the Ni/Pd/Pt column - they are using the oxide, which is a no-no in LENR - Couldn’t find anything so far about the H/D absorption properties of Al2O3, but doubt if they are anything like Pd So, bottom line, don’t think this paper proves anything about systems which use Ni or Pd… Note also that some of the authors are from a commercial entity, Coolescence LLC, so is this misinformation to slow the interest in LENR to give Cool-LLC time to catch up? -Mark Origin of excess heat generated during loading Pd-impregnated alumina powder with deuterium and hydrogen O. Dmitriyeva, R. Cantwell, M. McConnell, G. Moddel - Department of Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0425, USA - Coolescence LLC, 2450 Central Ave Ste F, Boulder, CO 80301, USA Received 5 April 2012. Revised 31 May 2012. Accepted 31 May 2012. Available online 8 June 2012. Abstract We studied heat production in Pd-impregnated alumina powder in the presence of hydrogen and deuterium gases, investigating claims of anomalous heat generated as a result of nuclear fusion, usually referred to as a low energy nuclear reaction (LENR). By selecting the water isotope used to fabricate the material and then varying the gas used for loading, we were able to influence the amount of heat released or consumed. We suggest that Pd in its nanoparticle form catalyzes hydrogen/deuterium (H/D) exchange reactions in the material. This hypothesis is supported by heat measurements, residual gas analysis (RGA) data, and calculations of energy available from H/D exchange reactions. Based on the results we conclude that the origin of the anomalous heat generated during deuterium loading of Pd-enriched alumina powder is chemical rather than nuclear. Highlights ► We studied heat produced by hydrogen and deuterium in Pd-impregnated alumina powder. ► Samples were fabricated using light and heavy water isotopes and varied the gas used for loading. ► Incorporation of hydrogen and deuterium influenced the amount of heat released or consumed. ► Pd nanoparticles appear to catalyze hydrogen/deuterium (H/D) exchange chemical reactions. ► Anomalous heating can be accounted for by chemical rather than nuclear reactions. ===
Re: [Vo]: European commission recommends funding for LENR research
The article is by Vittorio Violante. It starts on p. 23. Pretty good. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
At 12:27 PM 7/11/2012, David Roberson wrote: Abd, do you have information concerning the relative magnitude of the power input drop relative to the nominal value in its absence? Are we speaking of a large percentage change? The change is significant. I saw this in certain data, and discovered that a number of researchers in the field were familiar with it. Looking at the ENEA replication of the Energetic Technologies SuperWave work, a dc input experiment has a plot of Pin, Pout, and electrolyte temperature. There are two episodes of elevated temperature and XP. Both show a sudden drop in input power preceding the elevated temperature and XP. That is, the first sign of the anomaly is the reduction of input power. The increase in temperature/XP follows immediately. The paper is Replication of Condensed Matter Heat Production, by McKubre et al, ACS LENR Sourcebook, 2008, pp 219-247. The chart is on p. 240, and it is discussed on p. 236. McKubre et al ascribe the reduction of resistance to local heating: During the excess power burst the input power reduces due to the strong heating of the cathode and electrolyte canusing a reduction of the cathode interfacial impedance and the electrolyte resistivity (at constant dc durrent). It is not clear from the data that the reduction is due to local heating, because the reduction is not during the excess power burst. It precedes it, slightly. However, the excess power burst is measured through the temperature of the cell (not the cathode), so there will be a delay. From the data presented, it seems difficult or impossible to distinguish between a very local heating -- in the interface layer, which is quite thin -- and a reduction in impedance from a different cause, such as increased ionization. These heat episodes were with the power supply operating in constant current mode. This power supply mode can hold current constant very accurately, with a response time in the order of microseconds. So a reduction in input power is a reduction in measured voltage, thus represents a decrease in cell resistance. The reduction in input power cannot be the cause of the increase in temperature, one would expect the reversed effect, in fact. We'd think that reduced input power would result in reduced temperature, except for the anomalous effect creating apparent XP, excess power. In that chart, input power is quite constant until this anomaly shows up, for over three hours as shown on the plot. Input power drops, the first episode, from 200 mW to about 50 mW. Since current is constant, this represents a resistance being cut by 75%. The resistance then increases back to *almost* what it was before, after a few minutes at most. (One wishes for the raw data! I am sure they are collecting data at a much higher rate than they are plotting!) Some level of XP remains, input power slowly rises to the previous level, then it drops again, not so far this time, but again abruptly. 200 mW down to about 130 mW. Again the output temperature rises, to an even higher level. This time the lowered resistance is sustained, quite flat, for almost two hours. When the resistance again abruptly rises, the output power gradually falls. Looking at the other chart in the paper showing a fast episode, the L30 experiment, we see a fast rise in temperature simultaneously with the resistance drop. They represent the same plot time. In this case the time scale has been expanded, there are 18 data points per 0.2 hour. That would be 40 seconds per plot point. I can't disentangle the timing of the onset, though, because the critical transient is obscured under the heavier plot line for the Output power. It is quite obvious that researchers have not considered the resistance reduction to be very important, or it would have been plotted differently. This experiment is puzzling, because output power was substantially less than input power, though rising to meet it. Just before the transient, the input power was at about 130 mW, and the output power had risen to roughly 110 mW. What I'm used to seeing with CF XP bursts is that XP is running at about zero before the burst. Here it may have been negative. The analysis looks at this power burst and, considering calorimeter characteristics, they estimate it as equivalent to 7 W for 600 seconds. The initial purpose of my inquiry is not to explain the effect, but to examine and characterize it. How reproducible is it? Some of the data I've seen shows that it is quite reproducible. Lots of CF data is not presented in a way to make it visible. However, given the effect, we can speculate a bit about the cause. Something rather drastic is happening in these cells, and it's associated with power bursts. Notice that if the cause is the temperature rise of the interfacial layer, this is strongly indicative that the power burst is being sourced at or near the surface of the cathode, not
[Vo]:DARPA Nanotech Project - $34 million investigating cold fusion and excess heat was found
Hello group, This is via nextbigfuture.com, thread subject included. It appears that DARPA is spending $34 million to research LENR (among other things) in a project on nanoscale materials, although they don't directly state so. They managed to generate excess heat for 2.5 days. Follow this link for more details: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/darpa-nanotech-projects-nanoscale.html What's interesting is the involvement with the Italian Department of Energy. Note this accomplishment for year 2011: - Continued quantification of material parameters that control degree of increase in excess heat generation and life expectancy of power cells in collaboration with the Italian Department of Energy. Established ability to extend active heat generation time from minutes to 2.5 days for pressure-activated power cells.. And what is planned for 2012: - Establish scalability and scaling parameters in excess heat generation processes in collaboration with the Italian Department of Energy. The original document is available here: http://www.darpa.mil/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147484865ei=ggz-T9OQHoLjrAG8vIGMCQusg=AFQjCNF5FYEcO9HPUxK1Hsr1vV-q1KmmPQ The relevant section starts from page 50. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]: European commission recommends funding for LENR research
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The article is by Vittorio Violante. It starts on p. 23. Pretty good Yes. I very much enjoyed: The target was achieved and the existence of the effect is no longer in doubt. Can Fleischmann have his Nobel now, before he passes? You can give it to Higgs and Bose next year. T
RE: [Vo]:DARPA Nanotech Project - $34 million investigating cold fusion and excess heat was found
Excellent find Akira!! Very interesting how they completely avoided the usual terms, CF or LENR, in describing it... probably to avoid the exact thing that happened to Hagelstein. Anyone who dismisses the overwhelming evidence now is either ignorant, or pathologically skeptical, or part of the misinformation campaign... Wonder if the work of this DARPA program could be used to beat into submission the skeptics on Wikipedia... Thanks, -Mark -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa [mailto:shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 11:32 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:DARPA Nanotech Project - $34 million investigating cold fusion and excess heat was found Hello group, This is via nextbigfuture.com, thread subject included. It appears that DARPA is spending $34 million to research LENR (among other things) in a project on nanoscale materials, although they don't directly state so. They managed to generate excess heat for 2.5 days. Follow this link for more details: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/darpa-nanotech-projects-nanoscale.html What's interesting is the involvement with the Italian Department of Energy. Note this accomplishment for year 2011: - Continued quantification of material parameters that control degree of increase in excess heat generation and life expectancy of power cells in collaboration with the Italian Department of Energy. Established ability to extend active heat generation time from minutes to 2.5 days for pressure-activated power cells.. And what is planned for 2012: - Establish scalability and scaling parameters in excess heat generation processes in collaboration with the Italian Department of Energy. The original document is available here: http://www.darpa.mil/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147484865ei=ggz-T9OQHoLjrAG8vIGMCQusg=AFQjCNF5FYEcO9HPUxK1Hsr1vV-q1KmmPQ The relevant section starts from page 50. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
At 03:00 PM 7/11/2012, Rich Murray wrote: maybe, the cathode becomes coated with many micro and nano bubbles, raising its surface electrical resistance -- then micro and nano explosions on the surface, which quickly becomes much more rugged with tractal geometry, expose the metal directly to the electrolyte, with reduced average electrical resistance -- check this with microphones able to hear very brief, tiny micro and nano explosions -- This effect would be quite visible, if large enough to affect resistance in this way. Notice that with some observations of this effect, the lowered resistance persists and is sustained, along with sustained excess heat. That indicates that a single transient phenomenon like bubble-blowing-off is not the cause, that wouldn't last for more than a minute or two, at most given bubble generation rates. Bubble noise is well-known in this work, it shows up when you look at voltage with high data rate and no averaging. So, with this theory, there would be a rapid transient (the effect described) and bubble noise would disappear for a short time. Easy to spot. can this be done with unusual electrolytes at a few degrees above absolute zero? -- then the explosions might be more easily detectable as sounds and light flashes -- can verify any subtle nucear reactions -- strive to set up micro and nano scale experiments to allow detection and precise measurement of individual events ... Rich, you are to be congratulated for an ability come up with utterly preposterous ideas. Electrolytes at a few degrees above absolute zero, when nearly everything is frozen utterly solid? This is an electrolytic effect, with a deuterium oxide electrolyte (by the way, the effect has been seen with light water as well, another story. Less well established, for sure.) The FPHE is known to be generally enhanced at higher temperatures. We expect LENR to be non-existent at very low temperatures, at least this kind of LENR. Muon-catalyzed LENR is only operable at those very low temperatures, the formation of muonic hydrogen would be very transient at higher temperatures, I'd assume. Basically, nobody with resources is even going to think of looking there, and it makes no sense. We do know that deuterium at close to absolute zero, and even under very high pressure, doesn't fuse Good thing, too. Or we'd be minus at least one lab, the first one to try it.
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
At 02:44 PM 7/11/2012, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Could this be an indication of the onset of ballistic conduction in some micro-/nano-channels? I first want to know what this is before going much into possible explanations! The proposed explanation here seems overly complex to me, though. I'd prefer to look at what is close to what is already known, unless and until those ideas are exhausted. There are explanations that are fairly obvious as possibilities: 1. Local substantial heating, which could be due to LENR or to some other heat-generating effect. The key would be that the heating need only affect, initially, the interface layer, which is where the bulk of the cell resistance lives. It is where the electrochemical work is being done. This local heating only would show up with delay and with lesser temperature rise in the bulk electrolyte, where cell temperature is being measured. 2. Ionization, again in the interface layer, due to charged particle radiation. There are already indications that such radiation exists. If this is the case, it is of major interest because it would be a radiation effect, directly proportional to the nuclear reaction rate, providing an immediate tell for it. Even the local heating theory is of great interest, because it seems to be the first sign that appears of substantial heating. It's sudden, which makes chemical explanations more difficult, though not impossible. Both mechanisms could be operating, and any quantitative analysis should consider both. If we were looking only at this effect, we'd need to include non-nuclear explanations for the heat. In any given experiment, there can be non-nuclear origin for excess heat, but in some of this work, helium measurement has shown that the calorimetry is at least approximately correct, and that the origin of the excess heat is nuclear, i.e., helium is the ash. We do not need to keep reinventing the wheel just because some people don't know how to put together an axle with spokes or wheels that will work and not break.
[Vo]:Rossi conspiracy-- Three parts
Part ONE The S Korea ICCF17-symposium approaching, plus some soon to be revealed 'breakthroughs' by Rossi/DGT, we should consider other optional realities, as improbable as they may be. Probability being in the eye of the beholder. Now to repeat: I think LENR is real, but have some doubts wether it is anything near a commercial level. 'Commercial' being something comprising a) useful (power 1kW, COP 6) and b) affordable, and c) safe. Respectable people including freshmen at MIT and Italy could reproduce LENR with little residual doubt wrt the effect in general. Output power is consistently low, in the mWatt to say Watt level. The argument seems to go something like: demonstrate the principle, not commercial aspects. ALL demonstrations of this type show an effect, but not on a commercial level! Now several companies claim to bridge the gap from effect TO EVERYDAY USE: 1) Rossi 2) DGT 3) Brillouin 4) Blacklight power 5) Nanospire 6) others ... put Your favorite claimant in here. (Note: Sterling Allan eg is one of those persons who are endlessly optimistic, and I just read his strange findings, to somehow understand his type of state of mind, which is completely alien to me.) How credible are those claims 1-.6? What evidence did they show? What are their claims exactly? Note how different (1-3) from (4) and (5) is: (4), Randell Mills is quite a maverick, maybe a genius, kicking out a 2000-page epitome to rewrite the fundamentals of physics. Admirable of sorts. Compare this to eg 'Ramon Lull', also a very strange genius. (5), LeClair is not a physicist, and only has little theory, as far as I can see, except the effects of cavitation, which very well could produce strange effects, including local fusion, with transmutations and dangerous emissions of radioactivitiy of all sorts Not your decent e-cat, which you want to have in Your living room. (3) Brillouin, is somewhat in between, and claims to have some sort of an activation method, which is basically some electronic feat, which is naturally not disclosed in sufficient detail. 'We are in it for the money', right? (1),(2), Rossi and DGT, being the most fervent claimants to date, obviously have a common root, which dates back to the work of Piantelli/Focardi , who at times seemed to be sympathetic to this strain of development of Rossi,, but currently keep some distance, as far as I can see. Note that Piantelli seems to have a difficult time collecting some 50k to 100k$ to advance his case. Same with Brillouin, with a bit more money asked for. Maybe you ask yourself, as I do: Why is that? Rossi and DGT do not seem to have this financial difficulty at all! Are they so far ahead as they claim, or could there be another cause? Next: Part TWO.
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
At 03:07 PM 7/11/2012, Axil Axil wrote: Could this be an indication of the establishment of entangled electron states resulting in mass increase related to heavy electrons? Recently, heavy electrons have been shown to be an indicator of an onset of superconductive conditions. Axil Gee, how could I say? Could it be the first indication of Higgs Boson effects at low energies? Gee, how could I say? Doorbell rings. Could it be some million-dollar giveaway? How could I say? Maybe I'll just answer the door and see who is there. *What is this effect? Under what conditions does it happen? What can be seen to be consistent about it? Anything?* What torpedoed the discovery of the FPHE in the first place was speculation about the cause, with most of the physics community imagining that if it was real, it must be X, and X wouldn't look like this, therefore it wasn't real. And most of the few others imagining that it was Y, which was preposterous and with very little foundation and certainly no proof. And only a few actually persisting with the question, How does this behave? What actually happens? As evidence from these few accumulated, we came to the point where we can actually say a little that is solid. We still don't know what the hell is going on, really, but we can now say that the probability is very high that the FPHE is a result of deuterium being transmuted to helium. How? We don't know. Lots of people have lots of guesses. In order to discriminate between these guesses, we need a lot more data. We do not collect data sitting at a computer screen typing out our opinions, fantasies, nor even what we know. I am, with this request for information, beginning the process of gathering what is actually known, as to a detail that might have some significance. When what is known has been collected and collated, further experiment may be suggested. That's how science actually works, other than through sheer luck. We do know, now, that Pons and Fleischmann were very lucky, If their batch of palladium had been ordinary, they would probably have seen nothing.
[Vo]:Rossi conspiracy, part Two
Rossi conspiracy, part TWO. Here I concentrate on Rossi/DGT, which somehow seem to be joined at the hip. The genealogy seems to be clear: Piantelli/Focardi - Rossi - DGT Rossi improved on P/F, then DGT stole something and improved, then Rossi improved. Here we are: the 600degC solid-state e-cat. Remember: Rossi never proved anything! Whoever believes differently: please show the evidence! There is none of any validity! Mats Lewan from Nyteknik had to resign because of what? Sloppy bullshitting. Since the elimination of M.L. from Nyteknik staff, all LENR reporting stopped. Why? Ask yourself. Rossi, without a doubt is a master of pretending. But he is approaching some limits, which are timed to about 9/2012. Rossi, I am sure, has nothing to offer but vague socalled 'evidences', transmitted via various internet channels. Somebody respectable must stand up, not only National Instruments, which currently seems to be ridiculing itself. (Note: I know NI/ Labview from v 1.0 on a Mac 128k, so do'nT ask me. if somebody offers the the most precise measuring tools to measure a BRUTALLY evident effect like commercial LENR, I have to ask, if those guys understood a bit of the issue.) The general calmness of Rossi (pretending a 16hr workday, simultaneously answering all sorts of silly questions,) is something to consider, right? Now comes the conspiracy: Fasten Your seatbelts! - Part III
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
At 03:19 PM 7/11/2012, Nigel Dyer wrote: I would agree that looking at the physical state of the water/bubbles at the surface of the electrode is a good idea. There was some work done many years ago on the sound of various chemical reactions. The sound of jelly setting was particularly odd (another situation where water is important). It was never followed up to the best of my knowledge It's not a bad idea at all. However, the idea that a bunch of bubbles are blown away at once could explain a transient reduction in resistance, but not a sustained one, which is often seen. It would be easy to see a bubble noise effect in the raw data, collected without the averaging that is often done (because researchers are generally interested in total heat input, integrated over time). Bubble noise would completely -- or largely -- disappear for a time until new bubbles built up to be released. The resistance would gradually rise until bubbles were replaced. There would be an echo of the effect as the new bubbles would *tend* to be released at the same time. I don't think this matches the data I've seen. At all. Yes, monitoring of cell sound would also show this effect, in various ways. It would also show an effect from any event that generates high local heat, enough to suddenly boil the water in a small volume.
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
At 10:29 PM 7/11/2012, David Roberson wrote: A thought occurred to me concerning the drop in equivalent resistance that this thread covers. It would be quite important if the drop were due to a reverse voltage generated by the LENR mechanism that could be improved in such a manner as to act as an electric source of energy. How wonderful it would be if we would be so lucky as to discover an electric source of power that directly converts LENR activity into DC power with a decent efficiency. If I recall the Patterson Cell used DC input to generate heat output, maybe this coupling can be reversed in some fashion. This concept is just open minded dreaming. I will return to reality ASAP! No problem. The FPHE almost certainly involves the generation of helium from deuterium fusion. The helium will very likely end up, regardless of the mechanism, as positive helium ions. By the nature of this approach, half of that ionization would end up in the interface layer. When those ions are formed, the involved electrons are left behind. The result is a charge imbalance, with the surface layer being ionized positively, relatively, with respect to the metal. This is already the normal state. One way to look at this is that the ionization reduces the work necessary to create that charge difference, that voltage between the electrolyte and the cathode metal. I.e., the resistance is reduced. Now, if the electrolytic voltage could be reduced, but the reaction sustained, there would remain a voltage induced. However, the power made available in that way would be tiny compared to the power released as heat through the FPHE. The efficiency would be *horrible.* Consider that if one finds a way to steer the nuclear reaction involved so that the products have much higher energy as particles, sure, one could create a power generator. However, one would also create substantial radiation and radiation byproducts, including radioactive isotopes, probably. Not likely to be a useful approach. Thanks for playing Flights-o-Fancy, though.
RE: [Vo]:DARPA Nanotech Project - $34 million investigating cold fusion and excess heat was found
Hmm ... $35M is a trickle from Darpa ... but how many billion butterfly's tears does that represent?
RE: [Vo]:DARPA Nanotech Project - $34 million investigating cold fusion and excess heat was found
Not only that, but it's been going down each year... 2011 2012 2013 16.74511.6505.500 (in millions of $) But, they may have more efforts buried under different program headings...this budget is 336 pages. -mark -Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:DARPA Nanotech Project - $34 million investigating cold fusion and excess heat was found Hmm ... $35M is a trickle from Darpa ... but how many billion butterfly's tears does that represent?
[Vo]:rossi-Conspiracy-- Part III
Part III and end: now the conspiracy: Rossi is actually an agent, to ultimately prove the ridiculousness of LENR. Hint: Rossi does not ask for money from unsuspecting customers. He does not need that! He is financed by some obscure sources, which I can only speculate about who they are. His strange 'office' in Florida reminds me of exactly what? What we logically can infere: Rossi is backed by one or more influential US-entities: Probably the NSA, the CIA and the oil-industry. this trio has enough money to 1) know what is going on, 2) finance a counter-strategy, including ridiculiing the field. Remember: Rossi is not entiteled to anything up to now. He quite possibly is paid to PRETEND, as long as possible: ridiculos claims, to discredit the field as a whole. DGT, making similar ridiculous claims, maybe trapped by a secondary illusion. If Rossi has something, they should also, even if they are deep in the woods of only PRETENDING to know he way. Argument Pro: the DGT founders are from banking and have their claims hidden in Cyprus, which is a tax haven. They maybe are not even aware of the primary scam, What bankers do: Pretend. The rest: they do not really care. DGTs socalled customers from 100 countries with 40million$ per entity should make one's head spin! How come? I was boggled by the good Peter Gluck's interview, reporting such outrageous claims. If 'I' spend 40mio per 300k items, I want to know, right? It is not the Cayaman Islands, or Aserbaijan, which preorder ecats, right? But all those parties have convinced themselves that this is a good investment? One would like to see this by one's own eyes, right?. An endless procession of interested parties to the outbacks of Athens must have been happened, -1k premier deciders, I guess--carefully monitored by the likes of CIA, NSA, right? I do not know, where to put my conspiracy hat OFF right now, because it fits so well. Those are just wild speculations. Make up you own, and back it up with evidence. Sorry folks. Guenter
Re: [Vo]:Rossi conspiracy, part Two
At 12:23 PM 7/12/2012, Guenter Wildgruber wrote: Mats Lewan from Nyteknik had to resign because of what? Sloppy bullshitting. Since the elimination of M.L. from Nyteknik staff, all LENR reporting stopped. Why? Ask yourself. As far as I can see, Mats is still with NyTeknik -- eg https://twitter.com/matslew -- he articles up from June 2012
Re: [Vo]:Rossi conspiracy, part Two
Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: Mats Lewan from Nyteknik had to resign because of what? Sloppy bullshitting. Lewan is still there as far as I know. He would have told me otherwise. There is nothing sloppy about his reports. Given the difficulty of dealing with Rossi they are superb. The only bullshitting I see here is by Guenter Wildgruber, spreading false rumors about Lewan and Rossi, and absurd, unfounded conspiracy theories. Lewan has not reported anything more about Rossi or Defkalion because there is nothing more to report. Neither of them has done anything newsworthy. I have not reported anything about them either, for the same reason. I have no information, and I am not interested in repeating the claims that Rossi makes in his blog. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
Here is a way to test my guess. One indicator that the alpha particles come from fusion is a lack of light nuclear transmutation products; products with an atomic number less than the cathode material. From the begining, the assumption has always been that helium is a product of deuterium fusion. This assumption may not be true. If helium is found in H/Ni ash, how could that helium be produce? An alternative to fusion is the lowering of the coulomb barrier which increases the probability of alpha particle emissions from the heavy element nucleus. If light element ash is present, this tends to suggest that the cause of the alpha partial emissions from the cathode is a result of a fission process of the cathode material and a partial lowering in the coulomb barrier. Rossi explained the appearance of light element ash in his used powder as a fission process back in 2011. If true, how could fission be happening? Keep up the good work and your excelent posts; Kine regards: Axil On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:07 PM 7/11/2012, Axil Axil wrote: Could this be an indication of the establishment of entangled electron states resulting in mass increase related to heavy electrons? Recently, heavy electrons have been shown to be an indicator of an onset of superconductive conditions. Axil Gee, how could I say? Could it be the first indication of Higgs Boson effects at low energies? Gee, how could I say? Doorbell rings. Could it be some million-dollar giveaway? How could I say? Maybe I'll just answer the door and see who is there. *What is this effect? Under what conditions does it happen? What can be seen to be consistent about it? Anything?* What torpedoed the discovery of the FPHE in the first place was speculation about the cause, with most of the physics community imagining that if it was real, it must be X, and X wouldn't look like this, therefore it wasn't real. And most of the few others imagining that it was Y, which was preposterous and with very little foundation and certainly no proof. And only a few actually persisting with the question, How does this behave? What actually happens? As evidence from these few accumulated, we came to the point where we can actually say a little that is solid. We still don't know what the hell is going on, really, but we can now say that the probability is very high that the FPHE is a result of deuterium being transmuted to helium. How? We don't know. Lots of people have lots of guesses. In order to discriminate between these guesses, we need a lot more data. We do not collect data sitting at a computer screen typing out our opinions, fantasies, nor even what we know. I am, with this request for information, beginning the process of gathering what is actually known, as to a detail that might have some significance. When what is known has been collected and collated, further experiment may be suggested. That's how science actually works, other than through sheer luck. We do know, now, that Pons and Fleischmann were very lucky, If their batch of palladium had been ordinary, they would probably have seen nothing.
RE: [Vo]:DARPA projects...
There is enough Holy-sh*t Batman stuff in this budget report/request to make the most extreme nerd crème-his-jeans for months! Here are just a few: Coherent Collective Dynamics (Topological Insulators): - Developed physics of topological insulators guiding the production of interconnects to transmit electricity/information with [MY Emphasis] *orders of magnitude lower power and lower losses than the best performing known technology.* - Reproduced *first ever* magnet whose direction of magnetization can be controlled via applied voltage, which together with topological surface states will [MY Emphasis] *result in an ultra low power transistor useful well beyond the impending end of Moore's Law.* - Determined the requirements for a unified theory for a non-biological system to demonstrate biological-like physical intelligence and showed how it is consistent with thermodynamic and other physical principles. - For all you HAARP enthusiasts: - Conducted a comprehensive series of ELF/ULF/VLF generation experiments and accomplished first ever generation of ELF waves (10-50 Hz) without the presence of a Polar Auroral electrojet using the ionospheric current drive (ICD). - Characterized ionospheric current drive (ICD), artificially stimulated emissions in the ionosphere, and ionospheric turbulence and associated scintillations. - Developed and implemented a continuously-operational, comprehensive array of instruments that measure emissions generated by tropospheric lightning, the associated electric and magnetic fields, and the appropriate time derivatives of these fields which indicate how rapidly they change. And that's only a smattering! -Mark
[Vo]:Also from the DARPA doc... Can you say, 'Person of Interest'?
Life imitating Art, or vice-a-versa? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Person_of_Interest_episodes http://www.cbs.com/shows/person_of_interest/episodes/ Title: Anomaly Detection at Multiple Scales (ADAMS) Description: The Anomaly Detection at Multiple Scales (ADAMS) program will develop and apply algorithms for detecting anomalous, threat-related behavior of systems, individuals, groups/organizations, and nation-states over hours, days, months, and years. ADAMS will develop flexible, scalable and highly interactive approaches to extracting actionable information from information system log files, sensors, and other instrumentation. FY 2011 Accomplishments: - Conceptualized approaches for finding indicators of anomalous behaviors buried in petabytes of observational data. FY 2012 Plans: - Formulate techniques for determining whether a system, individual, group/organization, or nation-state is exhibiting anomalous behavior suggestive of a threat. - Develop technologies specific to the problem of detecting malicious insiders. FY 2013 Plans: - Demonstrate the capability to identify anomalous behavior suggestive of a threat. - Quantify probabilities of detection and false alarm for anomalous behaviors from measured threat profiles. - Characterize techniques for detecting malicious insiders
Re: [Vo]:Lattice Energy LL -- Larsen Webradio Interview with Sandy Andrew, July 11 2012 by Lewis Larsen [ interview April 17, 2010 ]: Rich Murray 2012.07.11
In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:04:47 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] Am I mistaken in my understanding that the strong force is associated with binding energy within the nucleus? No. I would consider their process a use of the weak force to generate neutrons followed by a strong force interaction to release the vast stored binding energy. There is still room for the binding energy to be released in another form instead of gamma rays which we know would be difficult to control once freed. There are numerous reactions listed in fusion sources where little gamma energy is released. In these cases I generally see two or more fairly massive particles being emitted that share the energy in the form of kinetic energy. Thus far I have found it difficult to determine exactly what energy mix is released with fusion type nuclear reactions. I am unable to understand why some release only kinetic energy while others emit only gammas and still other reactions result in the release of both types of energy. How does one obtain a solution to this problem? Fast particle emission is a rapid process. It usually occurs essentially at the same time as the nuclear reaction i.e. on the order of 1E-23 seconds. Gamma emission OTOH is relatively slow by comparison (order 1E-17 seconds). IOW something like 5-6 orders of magnitude slower. This means that in most cases when particle emission is possible, it happens by preference. Sometimes however particle emission doesn't leave the resultant nucleus in its ground state, and it may then still emit some (usually weak) gammas. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]: European commission recommends funding for LENR research
Satyendra Nath Bose died in 1974. It is against the rules of the Noble award to issue this prize to a dead man, but such an award has been done under unusual circumstances. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The article is by Vittorio Violante. It starts on p. 23. Pretty good Yes. I very much enjoyed: The target was achieved and the existence of the effect is no longer in doubt. Can Fleischmann have his Nobel now, before he passes? You can give it to Higgs and Bose next year. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi conspiracy, part Two
Nyteknik/Mats Lewan stopped reporting about LENR as of Feb 28, 2012. Yes. He seems to be reporting about drones as late as late as June 12, 2012 at Nyteknik, but nothing wrt LENR. Google 'LENR Nyteknik' and you see that it stops at Feb 28, with a hefty 460 comments in swedish. Maybe Mats should comment why he did not report anymore on the most important issue, which ofcourse involved heavy expenses by a small publication like Nyteknnik, enabling visiting Italy and Greece and such byone oof its core reporters, to find out what is going on. And yes, I am just a bystander, watching possible bullshitters , not having the time to visit the ultimate bullshitters. Wether Mats Lewan has the mental acuity to decode what is going on, is an open isue to me. I must confess that I did not find the exact reference as to why Lewan has been sent to the pastures wrt LENR , so to say, but the fact is, that that Nyteknik LENR-reporting stopped Feb 28. Jed. I have high regards toward Your assessment wrt LENR, but choose your peers wisely. Lewan could not make his case convincingly, and made some grave errors of judgement, as far as I can see. Correct me if I am wrong, on a factual basis. I am presenting here a low probaility issue, say 20%, which is conveniently termed a conspiracy, but is not. This is a probabilistic assessment of affairs with probability 0% to xx%. Lewan is just one case, switched down from 90% to 10% by his peers. For me this is significant, but not decisive, as anything is for me. If You do not understand this, not my problem. Guenter. Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 22:46 Donnerstag, 12.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi conspiracy, part Two Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: Mats Lewan from Nyteknik had to resign because of what? Sloppy bullshitting. Lewan is still there as far as I know.
Re: [Vo]: European commission recommends funding for LENR research
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Satyendra Nath Bose died in 1974. It is against the rules of the Noble award to issue this prize to a dead man, but such an award has been done under unusual circumstances. Only by accident. They did not realize the poor fellow had died. That happened last year. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/03/nobel-prize-officials-dead-scientist - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
An alternative to fusion is the lowering of the coulomb barrier which increases the probability of alpha particle emissions from the heavy element nucleus. I must not understand your point here. If the barrier is lowered then it would seem that an alpha particle would exhibit less of a coulomb repulsion away from the nucleus. Perhaps you are suggesting that more alphas would be generated if the source elements could get through the barrier easier? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 12, 2012 4:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect Here is a way to test my guess. One indicator that the alpha particles come from fusion is a lack of light nuclear transmutation products; products with an atomic number less than the cathode material. From the begining, the assumption has always been that helium is a product of deuterium fusion. This assumption may not be true. If helium is found in H/Ni ash, how could that helium be produce? If light element ash is present, this tends to suggest that the cause of the alpha partial emissions from the cathode is a result of a fission process of the cathode material and a partial lowering in the coulomb barrier. Rossi explained the appearance of light element ash in his used powder as a fission process back in 2011. If true, how could fission be happening? Keep up the good work and your excelent posts; Kine regards: Axil On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 03:07 PM 7/11/2012, Axil Axil wrote: Could this be an indication of the establishment of entangled electron states resulting in mass increase related to heavy electrons? Recently, heavy electrons have been shown to be an indicator of an onset of superconductive conditions. Axil Gee, how could I say? Could it be the first indication of Higgs Boson effects at low energies? Gee, how could I say? Doorbell rings. Could it be some million-dollar giveaway? How could I say? Maybe I'll just answer the door and see who is there. *What is this effect? Under what conditions does it happen? What can be seen to be consistent about it? Anything?* What torpedoed the discovery of the FPHE in the first place was speculation about the cause, with most of the physics community imagining that if it was real, it must be X, and X wouldn't look like this, therefore it wasn't real. And most of the few others imagining that it was Y, which was preposterous and with very little foundation and certainly no proof. And only a few actually persisting with the question, How does this behave? What actually happens? As evidence from these few accumulated, we came to the point where we can actually say a little that is solid. We still don't know what the hell is going on, really, but we can now say that the probability is very high that the FPHE is a result of deuterium being transmuted to helium. How? We don't know. Lots of people have lots of guesses. In order to discriminate between these guesses, we need a lot more data. We do not collect data sitting at a computer screen typing out our opinions, fantasies, nor even what we know. I am, with this request for information, beginning the process of gathering what is actually known, as to a detail that might have some significance. When what is known has been collected and collated, further experiment may be suggested. That's how science actually works, other than through sheer luck. We do know, now, that Pons and Fleischmann were very lucky, If their batch of palladium had been ordinary, they would probably have seen nothing.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi conspiracy, part Two
I agree with Jed here. Guenter wrote: --- Mats Lewan from Nyteknik had to resign because of what? Sloppy bullshitting. Since the elimination of M.L. from Nyteknik staff, all LENR reporting stopped. Why? - Guenter wrote these not as questions, but explicit statements as if they were fact. shame on you!!! Perhaps a web search of 'LENR Nyteknik' returned nothing, but a web search of Nyteknik and Lewans would have shown that he was still publishing articles as Jed so easily pointed out. This list certainly engages in plenty of speculation, but most people will write in such a way to make it clear its speculation. When it comes to speculations about a person (as opposed to science/technology), you dam well better make sure you state that it is speculation. or else do the necessary checking to make sure you have the facts behind you. -Mark From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi conspiracy, part Two Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: Wether Mats Lewan has the mental acuity to decode what is going on, is an open isue to me. I have no doubt he has sufficient mental acuity. Lewan could not make his case convincingly, and made some grave errors of judgement, as far as I can see. Correct me if I am wrong, on a factual basis. Errors of judgement are a matter of opinion. Your statements regarding matters of fact are wrong. Lewan is still writing there. His article are still on file. He has not retracted, and neither has Essen, Kullander or any of the others. Consider yourself corrected. People such as Essen know a great deal more about energy than you do, and much more about the Rossi device. So I expect they are right, and you are technically wrong about the claims, as well as factually wrong about Lewan's employment status. Unless you have specific information that Lewan is not longer writing for NyTeknik, you should not claim he has been fired. I think such unfounded rumors are inappropriate here. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:59:54 -0700: Hi, [snip] Ed Storms has estimated that to generate 1 watt of power, a typical output, by way of helium production, you would need on the order of 10^12 reactions per second. (I think this is probably for a 1 cm^3 volume, but I am not sure.) 1 W = 1 J/sec = 6.24E18 eV/sec. If the formation of each He4 particle yields 23.8 MeV, then you need 2.6E11 / sec to produce one Watt. Volume is irrelevant. So I would probably need a 99.99 percent success rate in order for this approach to succeed. No, you just need that many reactions / second. The percentage success rate then depends on how many particles you have trying to react. E.g. if you have 100 times more pairs than you are getting He4, then your success rate is 1%. The evidence for gammas is quite strong. I recall seeing in one chart for an experiment hundreds of events for each of a number of energies in the gamma range. The main problem is that they are at levels much lower than that that would be expected for 1 watt of power, as mentioned above. But they are significant. This is the sort of thing that makes me think that the primary energy release mode is via fast particles, e.g. protons, alphas, or even heavier nuclei (from a clean fission reaction). These don't usually produce much in the way of gamma radiation. Fast electrons may also be produced that would produce some x-rays that may be reported as gammas. Right now I'm wondering whether they arise from secondary reactions or from primary ones. If they only arise from secondary reactions, I don't suppose you would need a mechanism like gamma quenching. But I should also add that it would be surprising if charged electrons and protons moving through a powerful magnetic field (assuming one sometimes arises) did not give off synchrotron radiation, even if all the radiation for the system is to radiate and decrease the energy of the particles. There is still plenty of room for magic. Whether there is gamma quenching or not, somehow you have to get from hydrogen or deuterium plus something else to tritium, which has been observed in small but significant amounts. Tritium is the isotope that has the highest neutron to proton ratio of all the isotopes with a reasonable half life. IMO that makes it a likely candidate to be the result of a fission reaction of heavier nuclei (since these have an excess of neutrons). Of course another possibility is the ordinary d+d - T+p reaction, though explaining the absence of He3 is difficult. (Mills had shot at it in his earlier work by suggesting that in a Deuterino molecule the protons try to stay as far away from one another as possible, resulting in the neutrons being closer, which in turn meant that T was the more likely fusion product. However muon catalyzed fusion (which is similar), yields T/He3 ratios approximately the same as those from hot fusion, so Mills' early reasoning may be a bit suspect.) BTW another possibility is that when two Deuterons are close together, it's easier for a neutron to hop from one nucleus to the other than for a proton, as the neutron has no Coulomb barrier to contend with. This may result in T formation by preference. BTW He3 with an electron trapped in the nucleus (as per Horace's theory), might look like T (since the electron would compensate for the charge of one of the protons), especially if the electron were occasionally able to escape, making it appear to be radioactive. In my ignorance I am not able to get from p+p or p+D to tritium or helium-3, a decay product of tritium, without electron capture or something even more mysterious. As long as D is present, then the D+D reaction can't be ruled out. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Of Tunneling and Tribulations...
Vorts, et.al., Been doin' some searching/reading on tunneling, and want to pass on this info. .. A theoretician (Boris Ivlev) has been developing a hypothesis. preprints and a few published in peer-reviewed journals, 23 papers since 2000. search results are at end of this msg. Also Russian papers about tunneling go back to the 80s, so he's been thinking about this for decades. Some interesting elements from the abstracts which caught my eye involve perpendicular magnetic fields, resonances with EM (RF), and below the barrier tunneling. The physics and math is way above my paygrade, but just want to pass along this info for those who can fully understand it. -Mark == start excerpts == As a result, a significant fraction of the prebarrier density is carried away from the barrier providing a *not* exponentially small penetration even through an almost classical barrier. The total electron energy is well below the barrier. A state of an electron in a quantum wire or a thin film becomes metastable, when a static electric field is applied perpendicular to the wire direction or the film surface. The state decays via tunneling through the created potential barrier. An additionally applied magnetic field, perpendicular to the electric field, can increase the tunneling decay rate for *many orders of magnitude*. This happens, when the state in the wire or the film has a velocity perpendicular to the magnetic field. Under conditions of Euclidean resonance a long distance underbarrier motion is possible. Quantum tunneling between two potential wells in a magnetic field can be *strongly increased* when the potential barrier varies in the direction *perpendicular* to the line connecting the two wells and remains constant along this line. The extremely small probability of quantum tunneling through an almost classical potential barrier may become not small under the action of the specially adapted nonstationary field. The tunneling rate has a sharp peak as a function of the particle energy when it is close to the certain resonant value defined by the nonstationary field (Euclidean resonance). == end excerpts == http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v69/i3/e037602 Showing results for au:ivlev 1. arXiv:1207.2357 [pdf, ps, other] Low-energy fusion caused by an interference, B. Ivlev 2. arXiv:1108.5146 [pdf] Penetration through a wall: Is it reality? B. Ivlev 3. arXiv:1104.1783 [pdf, ps, other] Dephasing in an atom,B. Ivlev 4. arXiv:1004.0987 [pdf, ps, other] Two-dimensional tunneling in a SQUID, B. Ivlev 5. arXiv:0908.3279 [pdf, ps, other] Fluctuation interactions of colloidal particles , T. Ocampo-Delgado, B. Ivlev 6. arXiv:0903.5100 [pdf, ps, other] Underbarrier interference, B. Ivlev 7. arXiv:0806.1554 [pdf, ps, other] Underbarrier interference and Euclidean resonance , B. Ivlev 8. arXiv:0805.2967 [pdf, ps, other] Cyclotron enhancement of tunneling M. V. Medvedeva, I. A. Larkin, S. Ujevic, L. N. Shchur, B. I. Ivlev 9. arXiv:0705.2789 [pdf, ps, other] Euclidean resonance in a magnetic field, B. Ivlev 10. arXiv:quant-ph/0511052 [pdf, ps, other] Tunneling in a magnetic field, B. Ivlev 11. arXiv:quant-ph/0504206 [pdf, ps, other] Long distance tunneling, Boris Ivlev 12. arXiv:quant-ph/0407163 [pdf, ps, other] Mapping of Euclidean resonance on static resonant tunneling, B. Ivlev 13. arXiv:quant-ph/0404023 [pdf, ps, other] Euclidean Resonance: Application to Physical and Chemical Experiments, B. Ivlev 14. arXiv:cond-mat/0311364 [pdf, ps, other] Critical flux pinning and enhanced upper-critical-field in magnesium diboride films M. N. Kunchur, C. Wu, D. H. Arcos, B. I. Ivlev, Eun-Mi Choi, Kijoon H.P. Kim, W. N. Kang, Sung-Ik Lee 15. arXiv:nucl-th/0307012 [pdf, ps, other] New Enhanced Tunneling in Nuclear Processes, Boris Ivlev, Vladimir Gudkov Journal-ref: Phys.Rev. C69 (2004) 037602 16. arXiv:quant-ph/0305061 [pdf, ps, other] Classical trajectories and quantum tunneling, Boris Ivlev 17. arXiv:nucl-th/0302066 [pdf, ps, other] Euclidean resonance and a new type of nuclear reactions, Boris Ivlev 18. arXiv:cond-mat/0204589 [pdf, ps, other] Steps in the Negative-Differential-Conductivity Regime of a Superconductor Milind N. Kunchur, B.I. Ivlev, J.M Knight Journal-ref: Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 177001 (2001) 19. arXiv:quant-ph/0202145 [pdf, ps, other] The Euclidean resonance and quantum tunneling, B. I. Ivlev Journal-ref: Phys.Rev.A66:012102,2002 20. arXiv:cond-mat/0109487 [pdf, ps, other] Hydrodynamic fluctuation forces, B. I. Ivlev 21. arXiv:cond-mat/0012212 [pdf, ps, other] Comment on Like-Charge Attraction and Hydrodynamic Interaction, B.I. Ivlev 22. arXiv:quant-ph/0005016 [pdf, ps, other] Control of tunneling by adapted signals, B. I. Ivlev Journal-ref:
Re: [Vo]:Rossi conspiracy, part Two
I just found that: Lewan set up his own blog at http://matslew.wordpress.com/ There we have an interesting gap from feb28 to apr28, where he mentions the fabulous 'job' listings of of DGT: 21 jobs. This quite probably is just vaporware, as far as my humble experience goes. If companies just signify some need of personell, or have a real interest, You never know. The map is not the territory, as the good Korzybski rightfully said. A step further: PRETENDING is not EXISTING. Now Lewan interestingly linked to Nyteknik, which stopped at Feb 28. Lewan must be seriously deluded or think that his followers are as deluded as he is. See here: http://matslew.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/what-would-it-be-like-to-be-super-intelligent/ Oh yes. Lewan says: ... As I have mentioned before, there are good reasons to believe that artificial intelligence by 2045 will surpass the total intelligence of all human brains in the world, both in an intellectual, emotional and moral sense. ... Lewan obvviously is a Kurzweilian, and I must say: Those are strange guys. Which is an implicit concession that primitive humankind simply is not able to care for its own and needs the supreme care and feeding of the likes of Kurzweilin superintelligence with IQ approaching infinity. Thank you! Which might be right on the money, because the good Lewan exactly proves his own proposition, and appeals to some entity or process, which supposedly heals his insanity. Kurzweil, right now, in the real world, seems to suffer a terminal disease, which I do not applaud, but hope that he possibly, finally enters a phase of substantial thinking. Come to your senses, my american friends. That this disease infected even decent Swedes, worries me a bit. Guenter Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 0:19 Freitag, 13.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi conspiracy, part Two Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: Wether Mats Lewan has the mental acuity to decode what is going on, is an open isue to me. I have no doubt he has sufficient mental acuity. Lewan could not make his case convincingly, and made some grave errors of judgement, as far as I can see. Correct me if I am wrong, on a factual basis. Errors of judgement are a matter of opinion. Your statements regarding matters of fact are wrong. Lewan is still writing there. His article are still on file. He has not retracted, and neither has Essen, Kullander or any of the others. Consider yourself corrected. People such as Essen know a great deal more about energy than you do, and much more about the Rossi device. So I expect they are right, and you are technically wrong about the claims, as well as factually wrong about Lewan's employment status. Unless you have specific information that Lewan is not longer writing for NyTeknik, you should not claim he has been fired. I think such unfounded rumors are inappropriate here. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
The coulomb barrier is symmetric. It is just as hard to get a proton out of the nucleus as it is to get a proton into a it. In 1928, George Gamow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gamow had solved the theory of the alpha decay via tunneling. The alpha particle is trapped in a potential well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_wellby the nucleus. Classically, it is forbidden to escape, but according to the then newly-discovered principles of quantum mechanicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics, it has a tiny (but non-zero) probability of tunnelinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling through the barrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_barrier and appearing on the other side to escape the nucleus. Gamow solved a model potential for the nucleus and derived, from first principles, a relationship between the half-life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-lifeof the decay, and the energy of the emission, which had been previously discovered empirically, and was known as the Geiger–Nuttall lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Nuttall_law . When the coulomb barrier is suppressed, the tunneling rate of proton clusters increases. The lower the coulomb barrier gets the bigger chunks of elements that can get out of the nucleus. Since the kinetic energy of the emitted nuclear fragment is always approximately the same, by the Geiger-Nuttall law, what changes is the decay constants. A lower coulomb barrier means a higher decay constant. A simple way to derive this law is to consider an alpha particlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particlein the atomic nucleus as a particle in a box http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box. The particle is in a bound state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bound_state because of the presence of the strong interactionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interactionpotential. It will constantly bounce from one side to the other, and due to the possibility of quantum tunnelinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelingby the wave though the potential barrier, each time it bounces, there will be a small likelihood for it to escape. Knowledge of this quantum mechanical effect enables one to obtain this law, including coefficients, via direct calculation. It was this calculation that was first performed by physicist George Gamowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gamowin 1928. I speculate that what initially causes instability in the nucleus is the tunneling of a heavy electron into it through a depressed coulomb barrier. This electron changes a proton into a neutron and sometimes the nucleus must reorder itself via nuclear decay. But don’t be confused; heavy electron tunneling into the nucleus is just one of many LENR mechanisms that transmute elements. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:32 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: An alternative to fusion is the lowering of the coulomb barrier which increases the probability of alpha particle emissions from the heavy element nucleus. I must not understand your point here. If the barrier is lowered then it would seem that an alpha particle would exhibit less of a coulomb repulsion away from the nucleus. Perhaps you are suggesting that more alphas would be generated if the source elements could get through the barrier easier? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jul 12, 2012 4:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect Here is a way to test my guess. One indicator that the alpha particles come from fusion is a lack of light nuclear transmutation products; products with an atomic number less than the cathode material. From the begining, the assumption has always been that helium is a product of deuterium fusion. This assumption may not be true. If helium is found in H/Ni ash, how could that helium be produce? If light element ash is present, this tends to suggest that the cause of the alpha partial emissions from the cathode is a result of a fission process of the cathode material and a partial lowering in the coulomb barrier. Rossi explained the appearance of light element ash in his used powder as a fission process back in 2011. If true, how could fission be happening? Keep up the good work and your excelent posts; Kine regards: Axil On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:07 PM 7/11/2012, Axil Axil wrote: Could this be an indication of the establishment of entangled electron states resulting in mass increase related to heavy electrons? Recently, heavy electrons have been shown to be an indicator of an onset of superconductive conditions. Axil Gee, how could I say? Could it be the first indication of Higgs Boson effects at low energies? Gee, how could I say? Doorbell rings. Could it be some
Re: [Vo]:DARPA Nanotech Project - $34 million investigating cold fusion and excess heat was found
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Hmm ... $35M is a trickle from Darpa ... but how many billion butterfly's tears does that represent? We should speak very quietly. DARPA are our folks. Somehow, doing whatever they do, however they do it, they brought us the Internet. I don't want to get them into trouble. It's fun to highlight some line items in the paragraph that was quoted: - developing devices and structures to enable controllable photonic devices at multiple wavelengths - engineering palladium microstructures with large deuterium loadings to study absorption thermodynamics and effects - enabling real-time detection as well as analysis of signals and molecules and origin of emergent behavior in correlated electron devices - developing stabilization and scale-up methods to fabricate high pressure crystal structures at low pressures. Maybe the line items are related, or maybe they are not. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
At 03:49 PM 7/12/2012, Axil Axil wrote: Here is a way to test my guess. One indicator that the alpha particles come from fusion is a lack of light nuclear transmutation products; products with an atomic number less than the cathode material. The indicator that helium is coming from fusion is that it is correlated to anomalous heat, in the FPHE, at approximately the deuterium fusion ratio. From the begining, the assumption has always been that helium is a product of deuterium fusion. This assumption may not be true. Well, from the beginning, it was assumed that helium could not be the product. Helium only came to be known as the predominant ash when it was measured as correlated with the heat. If helium is found in H/Ni ash, how could that helium be produce? I'm not at all interested in this question; the question is about the FPHE, which is an effect in palladium deuteride. I would not expect helium as the product from NiH electrolytic experiments, unless the reaction is due to deuterium impurity in the light water. As to gas loaded experiments, I expect the same ash as with electrolytic experiments, but this thread is only about a drop in resistance of the electrolyte (technically of the whole cell, but the resistance of the electrodes is small). (The resistance of the electrolyte appears largely in the interface layer, a thin layer adjacent to the surface where the electrochemical reactions take place. This layer may be particularly sensitive to heat generated at or near the surface, as well as to short-range ionizing radiation sourced at or near the surface. The FPHE reaction is generally considered a surface reaction. Storms is attributing it to phenomena that take place in cracks, again at the surface. The helium is found in two places: in the evolved gas -- and thus probably in the bulk electrolyte, and in a thin layer near the surface of the cathode.)
Re: [Vo]:Cell resistance drop at initiation of XP burst in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect
*The indicator that helium is coming from fusion is that it is correlated to anomalous heat, in the FPHE, at approximately the deuterium fusion ratio. * This assumption must be tested. If the precise composition of the reaction ash from the reaction is studied in detail, assumptions about the reaction can be verified. The material going into the reaction must be known with great purity to give credence to the ash analysis. For your convenience, this from A Student’s Guide to Cold Fusion by Edmund Storms *Recently, and with great difficulty, evidence for nuclear reactions other than fusion is accumulating[227, 228]. These are called transmutation reactions and involve elements much heavier than hydrogen to which hydrogen has been added to their nucleus. Such reactions are found to occur in many environments, including living cells, and when a variety of methods are used. Indeed, the more often these reactions are sought, the more often elements are found in unexpected amounts and/or with abnormal isotopic ratios. Of course, some of the elements result from the unexpected concentration of normally occurring impurities or from simple error. Some proposed reaction products are clearly impossible because energy must be accumulated to account for the mass increase.* *Nevertheless, some of the observed products appear to be produced by LENR along with energy generation. Some of the isotopes are radioactive but most are not. Most evidence is based on using the electrolytic or gas discharge methods, or a combination thereof. Unexpected elements seem to result from many types of reactions, including fusion involving one or more hydrogen isotopes and a heavy nucleus, fusion between two different heavy nuclei, and fission of a heavy nucleus that normally does not experience this type of reaction. This type of reaction has been very difficult to explain using the mechanisms now (2012) being proposed and difficult to explore because the necessary analytical tools are not widely available and are expensive to use. * * * * * * * * Miley et al.[39, 229] have studied this process in some detail using electrolysis of H2O. A spectrum of nuclear products is found, with high concentrations falling into four mass ranges of 20-30, 50-80, 110-130, and 190-210 [230]. Mizuno et al.[13, 231] have also explored the subject in detail using mainly electrolytes based on D2O. Abnormal isotopic ratios of Hg, Fe and Si were found on the cathode after this study. Although some minor elements might have resulted from contamination, it is very difficult to understand how major concentrations could come from this source, especially those having abnormal isotopic ratios. Many additional reports are available.[1, 227] * * * On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:49 PM 7/12/2012, Axil Axil wrote: Here is a way to test my guess. One indicator that the alpha particles come from fusion is a lack of light nuclear transmutation products; products with an atomic number less than the cathode material. The indicator that helium is coming from fusion is that it is correlated to anomalous heat, in the FPHE, at approximately the deuterium fusion ratio. From the begining, the assumption has always been that helium is a product of deuterium fusion. This assumption may not be true. Well, from the beginning, it was assumed that helium could not be the product. Helium only came to be known as the predominant ash when it was measured as correlated with the heat. If helium is found in H/Ni ash, how could that helium be produce? I'm not at all interested in this question; the question is about the FPHE, which is an effect in palladium deuteride. I would not expect helium as the product from NiH electrolytic experiments, unless the reaction is due to deuterium impurity in the light water. As to gas loaded experiments, I expect the same ash as with electrolytic experiments, but this thread is only about a drop in resistance of the electrolyte (technically of the whole cell, but the resistance of the electrodes is small). (The resistance of the electrolyte appears largely in the interface layer, a thin layer adjacent to the surface where the electrochemical reactions take place. This layer may be particularly sensitive to heat generated at or near the surface, as well as to short-range ionizing radiation sourced at or near the surface. The FPHE reaction is generally considered a surface reaction. Storms is attributing it to phenomena that take place in cracks, again at the surface. The helium is found in two places: in the evolved gas -- and thus probably in the bulk electrolyte, and in a thin layer near the surface of the cathode.)
