Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
The Nuclear reactions that ED Storms thinks is happening is not consistent to what Rossi and Piantelli see as nuclear reaction products. These reaction products include copper, cobalt, zinc, iron, calcium, and so on, together with a mix of the first 19 of the lightest elements. Yes, Rossi's info is questionable by Piantelli info is solid. PS: a top of the line presentation. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: I have uploaded an interview with Edmund Storms on his new theory of what starts the cold fusion reaction. http://coldfusionnow.org/an-explanation-of-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-by-edmund-storms/ I'll be on the road, in my truck, headed to the Bay area (San Francisco California region for you non-left-coasters) for another interview, then up to Humboldt County to visit my storage unit (next to Hiro's), camp out in the Redwoods and edit lots more video. As such, I won't be monitoring comments on Cold Fusion Now, and I'm going to send any individuals interested in discussing the work here to this thread. Is that illegal on Vortex? I am having alot of fun making these videos. Especially now that I've discovered the Zoom text on iMovie. Enjoy! -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
And it is also not consistent with the Defkalion analyses. It is a complex issue. Peter On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The Nuclear reactions that ED Storms thinks is happening is not consistent to what Rossi and Piantelli see as nuclear reaction products. These reaction products include copper, cobalt, zinc, iron, calcium, and so on, together with a mix of the first 19 of the lightest elements. Yes, Rossi's info is questionable by Piantelli info is solid. PS: a top of the line presentation. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: I have uploaded an interview with Edmund Storms on his new theory of what starts the cold fusion reaction. http://coldfusionnow.org/an-explanation-of-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-by-edmund-storms/ I'll be on the road, in my truck, headed to the Bay area (San Francisco California region for you non-left-coasters) for another interview, then up to Humboldt County to visit my storage unit (next to Hiro's), camp out in the Redwoods and edit lots more video. As such, I won't be monitoring comments on Cold Fusion Now, and I'm going to send any individuals interested in discussing the work here to this thread. Is that illegal on Vortex? I am having alot of fun making these videos. Especially now that I've discovered the Zoom text on iMovie. Enjoy! -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
is it coherent with DGT claims about isotopic anomalies ? 2012/8/24 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com The Nuclear reactions that ED Storms thinks is happening is not consistent to what Rossi and Piantelli see as nuclear reaction products. These reaction products include copper, cobalt, zinc, iron, calcium, and so on, together with a mix of the first 19 of the lightest elements. Yes, Rossi's info is questionable by Piantelli info is solid. PS: a top of the line presentation. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: I have uploaded an interview with Edmund Storms on his new theory of what starts the cold fusion reaction. http://coldfusionnow.org/an-explanation-of-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-by-edmund-storms/ I'll be on the road, in my truck, headed to the Bay area (San Francisco California region for you non-left-coasters) for another interview, then up to Humboldt County to visit my storage unit (next to Hiro's), camp out in the Redwoods and edit lots more video. As such, I won't be monitoring comments on Cold Fusion Now, and I'm going to send any individuals interested in discussing the work here to this thread. Is that illegal on Vortex? I am having alot of fun making these videos. Especially now that I've discovered the Zoom text on iMovie. Enjoy! -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
RE: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
Ruby Carat wrote: . and I'm going to send any individuals interested in discussing the work here to this thread. Is that illegal on Vortex? Well, no, it's not illegal, but if your send a troll or someone like MaryYugo over here, we might have to tickle you until Rossi does a proper test to satisfy the Collective! J -Mark Iverson
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
The CNT hypothesis it is interesting in that it provides a way engineer the nano-feature cavities. However, a problem may exist with this strategy if Peter Hagelstein's theory is correct. According to Hagelstein, the excited fused nucleus relaxes to a ground state by emitting multiple phonons due to STRONG COUPLING of the fused nucleus to the surrounding LATTICE. If you have CNTs on a surface and not integrated into a lattice, you will not have that strong coupling. Any fusion to 4He that takes place in the CNT will not then relax via multiple phonon emission and may instead emit gamma. This could end up being a test for Hagelstein's theory.
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
Oustanding work Ruby. Does anyone know which paper of Roy Stanley he is referring to. Sorry, I am not very informed about some of the work Ed Storms is referring to. Jojo PS: I will write some opinions about this video in my thread. I did not want to interject my ideas here so as not to pollute this thread. - Original Message - From: Ruby To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 12:40 PM Subject: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms I have uploaded an interview with Edmund Storms on his new theory of what starts the cold fusion reaction. http://coldfusionnow.org/an-explanation-of-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-by-edmund-storms/ I'll be on the road, in my truck, headed to the Bay area (San Francisco California region for you non-left-coasters) for another interview, then up to Humboldt County to visit my storage unit (next to Hiro's), camp out in the Redwoods and edit lots more video. As such, I won't be monitoring comments on Cold Fusion Now, and I'm going to send any individuals interested in discussing the work here to this thread. Is that illegal on Vortex? I am having alot of fun making these videos. Especially now that I've discovered the Zoom text on iMovie. Enjoy! -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
In Ruby's fine interview of Ed Storms, Ed mentioned his work on Carbon Nanotubes. In fact, there was a picture of a landscape of open top Carbnon nanotubes - i.e., Carbon nanohorns. He said that those tests were unsuccessful. This was essentially what he told me the last time I asked him about CNTs. Now that I've had a chance to refine my thinking, I think Ed's CNT structures were missing a few things, ergo, it failed. 1. Ed seems to have MWNTs. I think Metallic Armchair SWNTs are what is required to achieve the full effective electron screening Metallic Armchair SWNTs are also required for Superconductive behavior which seems to be a critical ingredient. 2. Ed did not fire an electric spark along his CNTs. I think this is required to increase the amount of electrons on the SWNTs to produce huge charge accumulation via long coherence length, i.e., a single electron quantum wave. A BEC formation of electrons on the SWNTs. 3. In Ed's cracks, the hydrogen H+ ions can freely diffuse into the metal lattice and escape the confinement of the crack. I think the NAE structure needs to confine the H+ ions to allow them time to collide and fuse. If they esacpe, chances of fusion is drastically lowered. CNTs have been known to confine H+ ions. The interaction of H+ ions on a CNT is via the mechanism of Physisorption and Chemisorption, both of which locks the H+ ions on the CNT walls and not allow it to permeate and diffuse thru the CNT walls. I think this confinement is the critical ingredient that metal lattice can not provide, hence, a good explanation of why fusion on such NAEs are very low. Jojo PS: On a different note, what would a p + p fusion reaction look like. I have designed a new reactor with a view sight glass, hopefully, I'll see some fusion reactions taking place.
RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
From: Jojo Jaro PS: On a different note, what would a p + p fusion reaction look like. I have designed a new reactor with a view sight glass, hopefully, I'll see some fusion reactions taking place. This is where the problem arises. Sadly, you will probably never see it, even if you look until you are as old as I am. This reaction cannot happen above background rates on earth, or outside of extreme acceleration gradients, such as in a mile long beam-line. Even on the sun, it is seldom gainful. It is a two step reaction and the gain does not come from fusion at all - but from the subsequent beta decay of the metastable fused helium (2He) into deuterium. Most of the time, essentially all of the time - the reaction will NOT proceed to deuterium since the initial helium-2 nucleus will revert back to two protons and a slight net loss. Even on the sun, there is only one successful beta decay per every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fusion events :-) (or else the sun would have run out of fuel early on) . and there is doubt among experts that there is net gain in this reaction at all, even on the sun, considering the rarity of the beta decay and the elastic scattering. Again - just so we are clear, gain in PP reactions depends completely on the secondary beta decay of the initial helium-2 nucleus, and this is extraordinarily rare. It is QM and not thermonuclear. You will never see it in LENR, unless of course, there is a novel version of it which is precisely the proverbial second or third miracle in LENR (over and above the excess heat and lack of gamma radiation). But if multiple miracles are required, in addition to excess heat - you might as well stick with Gremlins :-) Jones BTW as for transmutation products - these are mundane in many situations. Roy Hammack spent a lifetime documenting transmutation under power lines (always happens) lightning strikes and even in neon light electrodes. The point being that transmutation alone means little more than that an electron arc was present. If you want to show the heat came from the transmutation - that is a far different story, and Piantelli or no one else has come close to a correlation of the heat radiated to the tiny amount of transmutation.
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Jojo, I recommend you to discuss the problem of LENR-2 openly and directly with Edmund Storms- he is the most documented and knowledgeable in the field of LENR and is very open minded. And nice. Plus he has good means for doing experiments that can confirm or not the idea Peter On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** In Ruby's fine interview of Ed Storms, Ed mentioned his work on Carbon Nanotubes. In fact, there was a picture of a landscape of open top Carbnon nanotubes - i.e., Carbon nanohorns. He said that those tests were unsuccessful. This was essentially what he told me the last time I asked him about CNTs. Now that I've had a chance to refine my thinking, I think Ed's CNT structures were missing a few things, ergo, it failed. 1. Ed seems to have MWNTs. I think Metallic Armchair SWNTs are what is required to achieve the full effective electron screening Metallic Armchair SWNTs are also required for Superconductive behavior which seems to be a critical ingredient. 2. Ed did not fire an electric spark along his CNTs. I think this is required to increase the amount of electrons on the SWNTs to produce huge charge accumulation via long coherence length, i.e., a single electron quantum wave. A BEC formation of electrons on the SWNTs. 3. In Ed's cracks, the hydrogen H+ ions can freely diffuse into the metal lattice and escape the confinement of the crack. I think the NAE structure needs to confine the H+ ions to allow them time to collide and fuse. If they esacpe, chances of fusion is drastically lowered. CNTs have been known to confine H+ ions. The interaction of H+ ions on a CNT is via the mechanism of Physisorption and Chemisorption, both of which locks the H+ ions on the CNT walls and not allow it to permeate and diffuse thru the CNT walls. I think this confinement is the critical ingredient that metal lattice can not provide, hence, a good explanation of why fusion on such NAEs are very low. Jojo PS: On a different note, what would a p + p fusion reaction look like. I have designed a new reactor with a view sight glass, hopefully, I'll see some fusion reactions taking place. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Peter Hagelstein says that transmutation of nickel to copper is overall endothermic. On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** If you want to show the heat came from the transmutation - that is a far different story, and Piantelli or no one else has come close to a correlation of the heat radiated to the tiny amount of transmutation.
RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Well, Bob - this would depend on which isotopes of Ni are involved, as some reaction could be gainful - but one thing that almost every expert agrees on, is that if-and-when Nickel does transmute to Copper, one cannot end-up with a natural copper isotope ratio as the ash. Moreover, there will be some percentage of radioactive species (copper or otherwise) with detectably long half-life (months to years) - and these will be extraordinarily easy to document if they are present. The reason that these isotopes have not been documented (by the Swedes, for instance) can most likely be attributed to the fact that nickel is NOT transmuting into copper (or anything else) for most of the gain in this reaction. They would have detected tritium or almost any other radioactive isotope, if present - since they had access to the unshielded spent-fuel from Rossi to test. From: Bob Higgins Peter Hagelstein says that transmutation of nickel to copper is overall endothermic. If you want to show the heat came from the transmutation - that is a far different story, and Piantelli or no one else has come close to a correlation of the heat radiated to the tiny amount of transmutation.
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
Ed's theory can not explain the lack of radiation. The ONLY way a nuclear reaction can proceed without producing radiation is in the case where the range of the strong nuclear force exceeds that of the coulombic. Ed start by assuming that the range of the force fields is not a conserved property. Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Ruby r...@hush.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 24, 2012 12:40 am Subject: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms I have uploaded an interview with Edmund Storms on his new theory of what starts the cold fusion reaction. http://coldfusionnow.org/an-explanation-of-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-by-edmund-storms/ I'll be on the road, in my truck, headed to the Bay area (San Francisco California region for you non-left-coasters) for another interview, then up to Humboldt County to visit my storage unit (next to Hiro's), camp out in the Redwoods and edit lots more video. As such, I won't be monitoring comments on Cold Fusion Now, and I'm going to send any individuals interested in discussing the work here to this thread. Is that illegal on Vortex? I am having alot of fun making these videos. Especially now that I've discovered the Zoom text on iMovie. Enjoy! -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Curiouser and curiouser
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:10 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Clearly that is not only not the case, but pixels there were dead in one image are suddenly live again in the next Yes, this is the explanation by the same NASA that put solar panels on the fusion rocket. T
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
I agree with Frank. I will only add that a local STRONG QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL FORCE can also red-shift any energy that escapes its grasp, resulting in weak radiation to outside observers. It also has the advantage of creating collective, high energy blue-shifted radiation near the SOURCE of quantum gravity that can take down local coulomb barriers of atoms that happen by. This is number 7 on my list of predictions from revision 12 of my theory. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:57 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Ed's theory can not explain the lack of radiation. The ONLY way a nuclear reaction can proceed without producing radiation is in the case where the range of the strong nuclear force exceeds that of the coulombic. Ed start by assuming that the range of the force fields is not a conserved property. Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Ruby r...@hush.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 24, 2012 12:40 am Subject: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms I have uploaded an interview with Edmund Storms on his new theory of what starts the cold fusion reaction. http://coldfusionnow.org/an-explanation-of-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-by-edmund-storms/ I'll be on the road, in my truck, headed to the Bay area (San Francisco California region for you non-left-coasters) for another interview, then up to Humboldt County to visit my storage unit (next to Hiro's), camp out in the Redwoods and edit lots more video. As such, I won't be monitoring comments on Cold Fusion Now, and I'm going to send any individuals interested in discussing the work here to this thread. Is that illegal on Vortex? I am having alot of fun making these videos. Especially now that I've discovered the Zoom text on iMovie. Enjoy! -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 5:23 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Well, no, it’s not illegal, but if your send a troll or someone like MaryYugo over here, we might have to tickle you until Rossi does a proper test to satisfy the Collective! That could be cruel, unusual, possibly perpetual punishment! T I do so love alliteration.
[Vo]:If You Liked Segway
You will love Lit: http://litmotors.com/ albeit, a bit more expensive. T
Re: [Vo]:If You Liked Segway
I guess even though it might me simpler just having three wheels, a tricycle will not attract babes like at the end of the video... On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: You will love Lit: http://litmotors.com/ albeit, a bit more expensive. T Stewart
RE: [Vo]:If You Liked Segway
Wired wrote them up a couple of months ago: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/05/lit-motors-c1/ They are in Alameda, on the old air base. Same place Myth-busters films most of their overrated debunking. (for trivia nuts the photos above are approximately where the Interstate chase scene in the Matrix was filmed with SF in the background - they actually built a few miles of fake banked Highway on the old airstrip. That scene cost about $5 million per minute. Wonder if the spirits of Mr Smith are still haunting the place? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton You will love Lit: http://litmotors.com/ albeit, a bit more expensive. T attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Editor needs an editor
Three people have now volunteered to proofread my paper. That's enough! Thank you, everyone. Thanks also to the people who assisted me before the conference, especially Jim Dunn. I think the presentation was well received. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:If You Liked Segway
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I guess even though it might me simpler just having three wheels, a tricycle will not attract babes like at the end of the video... There's a big difference between riding a three vs a two wheeler. It's in the dynamics. T
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
In what proportions are these transmutations occuring. If they are one-hundredthousandth of the amount of fusion of deurium and so contribute little in the way of net heat out they are just a side reaction but an important one as they provide testament of a nuclear reaction. The transmutation of larger atomic species may be a side reaction. I think people are being too dismissive of the idea of a nano structure/void or topology being important in this process. If the effect can be conjured up using materials other than palladium or nickle then what does that suggest? What conditions are common to all those various systems? Can the phenomena be brought to life in a pure crystal of a substance or does it require defects be present? If that is so then it is to some degree a surface effect. What is common to all the systems that have produced a LENR effect? - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms The Nuclear reactions that ED Storms thinks is happening is not consistent to what Rossi and Piantelli see as nuclear reaction products. These reaction products include copper, cobalt, zinc, iron, calcium, and so on, together with a mix of the first 19 of the lightest elements. Yes, Rossi's info is questionable by Piantelli info is solid. PS: a top of the line presentation. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: I have uploaded an interview with Edmund Storms on his new theory of what starts the cold fusion reaction. http://coldfusionnow.org/an-explanation-of-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-by-edmund-storms/ I'll be on the road, in my truck, headed to the Bay area (San Francisco California region for you non-left-coasters) for another interview, then up to Humboldt County to visit my storage unit (next to Hiro's), camp out in the Redwoods and edit lots more video. As such, I won't be monitoring comments on Cold Fusion Now, and I'm going to send any individuals interested in discussing the work here to this thread. Is that illegal on Vortex? I am having alot of fun making these videos. Especially now that I've discovered the Zoom text on iMovie. Enjoy! -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Model with Interesting Correlations
OK, I played a bit more with the model to see if this sort of behavior was demonstrated. Actually it was relatively easy to incorporate a mechanism that did the trick. I reviewed the picture of the Rossi test cylinder and realized that the surface of the device was radiating the heat that was being generated within. This implied a forth order energy release mechanism due to the blackbody radiation equation. I added a heat energy sink that absorbed the output in proportion to the forth power of the absolute temperature and adjusted the second order term that I had established earlier in the model to compensate for interaction and things got interesting. First of all, there remains performance as before where a well defined self sustaining temperature is reached. If the drive is of my original description, where the temperature is driven to within 90 % of the critical run away value, then it can be totally controlled by duty cycle of the drive mechanism. This makes perfect sense since operation is below the critical region. If the input is allowed to remain for long enough in the drive mode, the device temperature will reach the self sustaining trigger point. From this point onward, the output heat energy increases exponentially due to the positive feedback that we are so familiar with until an output level is reached that remains stationary. The stationary level is established at the temperature where the forth order radiation energy sink exactly matches the second order (in this model) energy release source. Of course the drive signal is taken away at some point in the procedure just to demonstrate that the device operates in a self sustaining mode. This effect is consistent with the real world ECAT as described by Rossi. So, to design a device such as the ECAT, one needs to have a curve that defines the internally generated heat energy as a function of the device temperature. He then must establish an operating temperature such as 1000 C that is determined by the requirements for the unit. At this time, the blackbody radiation rules will lead to a calculatible energy density being removed from the surface. Next, you adjust the surface area that is to be set at 1000 C by working on the dimensions of the device until a match is achieved. I believe that this process could be used to establish the amount of active material that contributes to the desired energy release. One could adjust the inside hole dimensions as a method of reducing the nickel mixture until exactly the correct amount of material is reached. A secondary use for the hole is to allow introduction of gas heating to initialize the reaction. Please recall that my model is very speculative and an interesting exercise. I do not imply that it is accurate in any way, but the correlation to the real world behavior of ECAT devices might have significance. Enjoy, Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 23, 2012 9:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Model with Interesting Correlations Nice model Dave. Now, try it if the output temperature remains steady at 1200C as Rossi claims. This implies very little positive feedback. What COP would he achieve? Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 7:54 AM Subject: [Vo]:ECAT Model with Interesting Correlations I have been fiddling with one of my models of the ECAT and just wanted to let the group have a peek. Rossi has been active on his journal and suggested that his device has certain characteristics which my model tends to support. It should be noted that any model of Rossi's device is going to be lacking at this point in time since very little reliable information is available. My objective in this case is to reveal that a relatively simple model does in fact give results that are reasonably consistent with what he claims. Please realize that these results are at best speculative and should be considered educational but not accurate. With this disclaimer, I will proceed with the disclosure. The model consists of a power drive source that supplies heat to a device that internally generates excess heat that is proportional to the second order of the absolute temperature within. The net heat is thus the sum of the drive power plus the contribution of the internally generated heating process. Since the internally generated heat energy is defined as E = k * T * T, very little shows up until you approach the operating region. I have experimented with various heat output functions, such as exponential, linear or third order in the past. Each of these has an interesting behavior and I plan to investigate further. The model I am discussing in this report behaves a great deal like what
The size of our vehicles (was: Re: [Vo]:If You Liked Segway)
On 08/24/2012 12:54 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I guess even though it might me simpler just having three wheels, a tricycle will not attract babes like at the end of the video... There's a big difference between riding a three vs a two wheeler. It's in the dynamics. T now that I see this two-weeler, and its four wheeler stability, it sets me to thinking: *why*? Terry's answer may be true. It may be for the nice dynamics of a two wheeler (though most have become artificial in this specific example). The other case behind this vehicle must be: the trend in cars is towards smaller. So I was wondering, and have been a while, what the future trend will be in car sizes. I honestly don't know the answer myself. As said, nowadays, the trend is towards much smaller cars. A large part of this has to do with pollution and economy. It is almost certain that In the decade(s) to come we will have autonomous, self-driving cars, like Google is testing now. There is also not unthinkable that variable costs will become ultra low, for example when LENR becomes practical for use in cars. Initially, the self-driving will be human assisted, meaning you will actively participate in traffic. Soon, however, we will all want to turn our chairs and sit at a desk and do some work, or have some entertainment, as the car brings us where we want to be. For this you will need some amount of space. Parking space for these larger cars may not be much of an issue, when you can instruct the car to park itself outside of town, if only to save some money, and ask it to be back in time to pick you up later. In traffic itself, it may not take long before we introduce some kind of scheduling or reservation algorithm (much like you can have QoS - Quality of Service - on a computer network). We can then 'reserve' a slot for our car in non congested traffic. This allows for less congestion, more optimal use of asphalt and more space on the road for bigger cars. Thinking even further, and taking into account 'free' energy like LENR, I envision that if, for example, you live somewhere in Europe and want to spend the weekend in southern France, you just make arrangements for this around bedtime, get in your much bigger car and make it go it that way, then go to sleep. This would call for a more camper / Van like configuration, with room for some pre-sleep entertainment and a bed. And maybe even one that will provide you the comfort you need for your stay there. Costs would only be some tire wear and maybe toll for the roads. Even when forgetting all this really sci-fi autonomous stuff (that I think in fact has a larger reality factor than free energy) , would it be true that if by using LENR we get rid of the guilty feeling most of us now have with big pickup trucks and SUVs etc, everyone will want to have one, again? What do you guys think... will cars become bigger again? Andre
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
have dislocations been considered? http://www.ic.arizona.edu/ic/mse257/class_notes/disclocation.html http://kasap3.usask.ca/images/photos/dislocation.gif harry On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Kelley Trezise ktrez2...@ssvecnet.com wrote: In what proportions are these transmutations occuring. If they are one-hundredthousandth of the amount of fusion of deurium and so contribute little in the way of net heat out they are just a side reaction but an important one as they provide testament of a nuclear reaction. The transmutation of larger atomic species may be a side reaction. I think people are being too dismissive of the idea of a nano structure/void or topology being important in this process. If the effect can be conjured up using materials other than palladium or nickle then what does that suggest? What conditions are common to all those various systems? Can the phenomena be brought to life in a pure crystal of a substance or does it require defects be present? If that is so then it is to some degree a surface effect. What is common to all the systems that have produced a LENR effect? - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms The Nuclear reactions that ED Storms thinks is happening is not consistent to what Rossi and Piantelli see as nuclear reaction products. These reaction products include copper, cobalt, zinc, iron, calcium, and so on, together with a mix of the first 19 of the lightest elements. Yes, Rossi's info is questionable by Piantelli info is solid. PS: a top of the line presentation. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: I have uploaded an interview with Edmund Storms on his new theory of what starts the cold fusion reaction. http://coldfusionnow.org/an-explanation-of-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-by-edmund-storms/ I'll be on the road, in my truck, headed to the Bay area (San Francisco California region for you non-left-coasters) for another interview, then up to Humboldt County to visit my storage unit (next to Hiro's), camp out in the Redwoods and edit lots more video. As such, I won't be monitoring comments on Cold Fusion Now, and I'm going to send any individuals interested in discussing the work here to this thread. Is that illegal on Vortex? I am having alot of fun making these videos. Especially now that I've discovered the Zoom text on iMovie. Enjoy! -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
I have heard that it depends on which isotopes of nickel are involved. harry On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Hagelstein says that transmutation of nickel to copper is overall endothermic. On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If you want to show the heat came from the transmutation - that is a far different story, and Piantelli or no one else has come close to a correlation of the heat radiated to the tiny amount of transmutation.
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Model with Interesting Correlations
Dave, I started my career with Honeywell in industrial controls so I understand your viewpoint and agree. The bugger becomes that if this reaction is triggering local fission, fusion and high temperature chemical events (as it appears to be from a wide range of data) it will most likely degrade and collapse over time any lattice material/matter within its local environment. Thus the RELIABILITY and STABILITY issue. I predict any local collapse within a void/crack/lattice may instantly shift the reactions to a new thermodynamic equilibrium point. I am not sure there is ANY material in the universe that can withstand this combination of reactions over time. If the energy source happens to be related to collapsed matter we should learn from nature, isolate it within magnetic and gravitational fields and feed it a steady dose of hydrogen and you will get a steady source of high temperature red-shifted black-body type radiation out. Sounds easy.. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, I played a bit more with the model to see if this sort of behavior was demonstrated. Actually it was relatively easy to incorporate a mechanism that did the trick. I reviewed the picture of the Rossi test cylinder and realized that the surface of the device was radiating the heat that was being generated within. This implied a forth order energy release mechanism due to the blackbody radiation equation. I added a heat energy sink that absorbed the output in proportion to the forth power of the absolute temperature and adjusted the second order term that I had established earlier in the model to compensate for interaction and things got interesting. First of all, there remains performance as before where a well defined self sustaining temperature is reached. If the drive is of my original description, where the temperature is driven to within 90 % of the critical run away value, then it can be totally controlled by duty cycle of the drive mechanism. This makes perfect sense since operation is below the critical region. If the input is allowed to remain for long enough in the drive mode, the device temperature will reach the self sustaining trigger point. From this point onward, the output heat energy increases exponentially due to the positive feedback that we are so familiar with until an output level is reached that remains stationary. The stationary level is established at the temperature where the forth order radiation energy sink exactly matches the second order (in this model) energy release source. Of course the drive signal is taken away at some point in the procedure just to demonstrate that the device operates in a self sustaining mode. This effect is consistent with the real world ECAT as described by Rossi. So, to design a device such as the ECAT, one needs to have a curve that defines the internally generated heat energy as a function of the device temperature. He then must establish an operating temperature such as 1000 C that is determined by the requirements for the unit. At this time, the blackbody radiation rules will lead to a calculatible energy density being removed from the surface. Next, you adjust the surface area that is to be set at 1000 C by working on the dimensions of the device until a match is achieved. I believe that this process could be used to establish the amount of active material that contributes to the desired energy release. One could adjust the inside hole dimensions as a method of reducing the nickel mixture until exactly the correct amount of material is reached. A secondary use for the hole is to allow introduction of gas heating to initialize the reaction. Please recall that my model is very speculative and an interesting exercise. I do not imply that it is accurate in any way, but the correlation to the real world behavior of ECAT devices might have significance. Enjoy, Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 23, 2012 9:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Model with Interesting Correlations Nice model Dave. Now, try it if the output temperature remains steady at 1200C as Rossi claims. This implies very little positive feedback. What COP would he achieve? Jojo - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2012 7:54 AM *Subject:* [Vo]:ECAT Model with Interesting Correlations I have been fiddling with one of my models of the ECAT and just wanted to let the group have a peek. Rossi has been active on his journal and suggested that his device has certain characteristics which my model tends to support. It should be noted that any model of Rossi's device is going to be lacking at this point in time since very little reliable information is available.
[Vo]:PDGTG on Storms and Cracks
I received some interesting responses in this thread: http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=1419 T
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
Perhaps of relevance is the H-Chain modeling described in this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1746v1.pdf The homogeneous (i.e., equispaced), linear, and peri- odic chain of Hydrogen atoms (hereafter, the H-chain) is commonly believed to be the simplest physical system de- scribed by the one-band, periodic, one-dimensional (1D) Hubbard Hamiltonian1 (see Eq. 11). This Hamiltonian is *exactly solvable*2 and its solution predicts the H-chain to be always a Mott-Hubbard (i.e., a strongly correlated) insulator. Strong electronic correlation in the Hydrogen chain: a variational Monte Carlo study Lorenzo Stella, Claudio Attaccalite, Sandro Sorella, Angel Rubio (Submitted on 8 Oct 2011) Abstract: In this article, we report a fully ab initio variational Monte Carlo study of the linear, and periodic chain of Hydrogen atoms, a prototype system providing the simplest example of strong electronic correlation in low dimensions. In particular, we prove that numerical accuracy comparable to that of benchmark density matrix renormalization group calculations can be achieved by using a highly correlated Jastrow-antisymmetrized geminal power variational wave function. Furthermore, by using the so-called modern theory of polarization and by studying the spin-spin and dimer-dimer correlations functions, we have characterized in details the crossover between the weakly and strongly correlated regimes of this atomic chain. Our results show that variational Monte Carlo provides an accurate and flexible alternative to highly correlated methods of quantum chemistry which, at variance with these methods, can be also applied to a strongly correlated solid in low dimensions close to a crossover or a phase transition. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: I have uploaded an interview with Edmund Storms on his new theory of what starts the cold fusion reaction. http://coldfusionnow.org/an-explanation-of-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-by-edmund-storms/ I'll be on the road, in my truck, headed to the Bay area (San Francisco California region for you non-left-coasters) for another interview, then up to Humboldt County to visit my storage unit (next to Hiro's), camp out in the Redwoods and edit lots more video. As such, I won't be monitoring comments on Cold Fusion Now, and I'm going to send any individuals interested in discussing the work here to this thread. Is that illegal on Vortex? I am having alot of fun making these videos. Especially now that I've discovered the Zoom text on iMovie. Enjoy! -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
Kelley Trezise ktrez2...@ssvecnet.com wrote: ** In what proportions are these transmutations occuring. If they are one-hundredthousandth of the amount of fusion of deurium and so contribute little in the way of net heat out . . . As far as I know, they contribute far less energy than the deuterium reactions. they are just a side reaction but an important one as they provide testament of a nuclear reaction. True again. But they may be very important as a clue to how the reaction works. The question becomes: What sort of principle reaction can give rise to intermittent transmutations as a side-effect? That would include transmuting deuterium into tritium, by the way. - Jed
[Vo]:It's fission
http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=1419 Defkalion GT stated *On the other hand, the trace of Li, Bi and B in ICPMS analysis of NAE after the reactions/interactions in Hyperion reactors, is a strong evidence of nucleosynthesis of light elements (H to B), relating gamma absorption and further heat energy production.* It is very difficult to produce of Li, Bi and B through nucleosynthesis. These elements are rare throughout the solar system and universe because they are poorly synthesized by fusion in both the Big Bang and also in stars. The concept of element build up from solely hydrogen that is held by DGTG, Ed Storms, and JoJo may be flawed. The method of production of these light elements in LENR may well derive from fission of a heavy element into multiple light elements. Fission is much more energy productive as a nuclear process. A heavy metal like nickel might be an absolute requirement to get transmutation of light elements and nuclear heat production to fly. Depending on element atomic weight build up from just hydrogen might not work. In addition, the production of helium(He4) may be a result of alpha decay and not fusion. Cheers:Axil
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
An alert viewer let me know about the 10^12 is a trillion typo. I HAD to upload a fresh vid, couldn't get the tweak right in Youtube Storms interview UPDATED video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNodilc6su0 Getting to the youtube, most people will be able to find it. Woo hoo - the global theatre is ROCKIN. On 8/23/12 9:40 PM, Ruby wrote: I have uploaded an interview with Edmund Storms on his new theory of what starts the cold fusion reaction. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
Can you hypothesize a starting element that would produce these elements via fission? Ni Jojo PS. On a lighter note, I am glad that you view my theory and explanation to be sufficiently credible for you to put it in league with Ed Storms. Comparing my theory with DGT is fair and proper, as both theories are vaporware - no experimental basis at all. But comparing me with Ed Storms is a great honor indeed. Frankly, this idea of CNTs and Charge accumulation on 1D structures, predominantly came from insights I got from Ed Storms and You. So, it's not really MY theory. It's mostly yours. But I'll be glad if someone would give my theory a sanity check. Heck, as long as we get LENR and kick out the ragheads from our lives, I don't care where or who comes up with it. Being the inventor of Commercial LENR would only serve to complicate my life. Last thing I need is for the ragheads and the Illuminati to paint a big Bullseye on my back. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:37 AM Subject: [Vo]:It's fission http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=1419 Defkalion GT stated On the other hand, the trace of Li, Bi and B in ICPMS analysis of NAE after the reactions/interactions in Hyperion reactors, is a strong evidence of nucleosynthesis of light elements (H to B), relating gamma absorption and further heat energy production. It is very difficult to produce of Li, Bi and B through nucleosynthesis. These elements are rare throughout the solar system and universe because they are poorly synthesized by fusion in both the Big Bang and also in stars. The concept of element build up from solely hydrogen that is held by DGTG, Ed Storms, and JoJo may be flawed. The method of production of these light elements in LENR may well derive from fission of a heavy element into multiple light elements. Fission is much more energy productive as a nuclear process. A heavy metal like nickel might be an absolute requirement to get transmutation of light elements and nuclear heat production to fly. Depending on element atomic weight build up from just hydrogen might not work. In addition, the production of helium(He4) may be a result of alpha decay and not fusion. Cheers:Axil
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: An alert viewer let me know about the 10^12 is a trillion typo. Like I said in my private message, what's an order of magnitude error among friends? I also edited the DGT post but it won't reappear until the moderators approve the edit. T
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Jones, I read then reread then reread again this post to make sure I fully understand the implication of what you are saying. If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that p + p would result in 2He, which would would quickly decay back to p and p again, resulting is net energy loss. First question, are we certain of this. Could our understanding of Stellar reactions simply be faulty and we do not really have a complete picture of what's going on in the Sun. Has this reaction rate been seen experimentally seen and verified, or is this just a theory. It seems to me that 2He being a Noble gas would be stable and not decay back to 2 H+ ions. If what you are saying is true, wouldn't all our helium simply spontaneously fission back to H+ ions, ergo, we wouldn't see any Helium in the atmosphere. Second question, if this reaction is implausible as you suggest due to rapid decay of 2He back to 2 H+, is there any other possible reactions that would benefit from charge screening afforded by the nanohorn NAE. Boron gas??? instead of H2 gas? Boron and H2 mixed gas? Jojo Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:46 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King From: Jojo Jaro PS: On a different note, what would a p + p fusion reaction look like. I have designed a new reactor with a view sight glass, hopefully, I'll see some fusion reactions taking place. This is where the problem arises. Sadly, you will probably never see it, even if you look until you are as old as I am. This reaction cannot happen above background rates on earth, or outside of extreme acceleration gradients, such as in a mile long beam-line. Even on the sun, it is seldom gainful. It is a two step reaction and the gain does not come from fusion at all - but from the subsequent beta decay of the metastable fused helium (2He) into deuterium. Most of the time, essentially all of the time - the reaction will NOT proceed to deuterium since the initial helium-2 nucleus will revert back to two protons and a slight net loss. Even on the sun, there is only one successful beta decay per every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fusion events J (or else the sun would have run out of fuel early on) . and there is doubt among experts that there is net gain in this reaction at all, even on the sun, considering the rarity of the beta decay and the elastic scattering. Again - just so we are clear, gain in PP reactions depends completely on the secondary beta decay of the initial helium-2 nucleus, and this is extraordinarily rare. It is QM and not thermonuclear. You will never see it in LENR, unless of course, there is a novel version of it which is precisely the proverbial second or third miracle in LENR (over and above the excess heat and lack of gamma radiation). But if multiple miracles are required, in addition to excess heat - you might as well stick with Gremlins J Jones BTW as for transmutation products - these are mundane in many situations. Roy Hammack spent a lifetime documenting transmutation under power lines (always happens) lightning strikes and even in neon light electrodes. The point being that transmutation alone means little more than that an electron arc was present. If you want to show the heat came from the transmutation - that is a far different story, and Piantelli or no one else has come close to a correlation of the heat radiated to the tiny amount of transmutation.
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
Never mind, I opened my mouth before I had the chance to read and comprehend what you are saying. I do that many times in my excitement. I'm an idiot. So, you are hypothesizing fission of Nickel? Wouldn't that be unlikely considering that nickel is such a stable element? What would be the fission reaction paths ending up with these elements. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:It's fission Can you hypothesize a starting element that would produce these elements via fission? Ni Jojo PS. On a lighter note, I am glad that you view my theory and explanation to be sufficiently credible for you to put it in league with Ed Storms. Comparing my theory with DGT is fair and proper, as both theories are vaporware - no experimental basis at all. But comparing me with Ed Storms is a great honor indeed. Frankly, this idea of CNTs and Charge accumulation on 1D structures, predominantly came from insights I got from Ed Storms and You. So, it's not really MY theory. It's mostly yours. But I'll be glad if someone would give my theory a sanity check. Heck, as long as we get LENR and kick out the ragheads from our lives, I don't care where or who comes up with it. Being the inventor of Commercial LENR would only serve to complicate my life. Last thing I need is for the ragheads and the Illuminati to paint a big Bullseye on my back. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:37 AM Subject: [Vo]:It's fission http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=1419 Defkalion GT stated On the other hand, the trace of Li, Bi and B in ICPMS analysis of NAE after the reactions/interactions in Hyperion reactors, is a strong evidence of nucleosynthesis of light elements (H to B), relating gamma absorption and further heat energy production. It is very difficult to produce of Li, Bi and B through nucleosynthesis. These elements are rare throughout the solar system and universe because they are poorly synthesized by fusion in both the Big Bang and also in stars. The concept of element build up from solely hydrogen that is held by DGTG, Ed Storms, and JoJo may be flawed. The method of production of these light elements in LENR may well derive from fission of a heavy element into multiple light elements. Fission is much more energy productive as a nuclear process. A heavy metal like nickel might be an absolute requirement to get transmutation of light elements and nuclear heat production to fly. Depending on element atomic weight build up from just hydrogen might not work. In addition, the production of helium(He4) may be a result of alpha decay and not fusion. Cheers:Axil
[Vo]:Fridays and Pi-days
TGIF is the mantra of working stiffs everywhere, and today is no exception, so I'll keep this one shorter and sillier than most weekenders, and then your outta here. Silly also means it's a good day for PerpMos (perpetual motion aficionados) to speak up; yet one of these days, someone ultra-silly is going to turn Boyle's flask into the real-deal. Skeptics and college profs use the flask as a perpmo-putdown these days, since we now understand why it is not really gainful... at least not with water. However, the great Boyle who ranks right up there with Newton, once thought it just might be self-powered under the right circumstances - which of course it is ... on beer; and if you stop the camera before all the fizz is gone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS1KXMsE2qkfeature=plcp 10 days ago was a Pi-day - that would have been August 14, 2012 - and despite the post-partum Olympics withdrawal blues, or needing a breakthrough ahead of a Bak'tun rollover, there was a flash of inspiration out in cyber-space; and at some profound instant in time, which you must have noticed subliminally coincided exactly as the U.S. population reached the milestone of 314,159,265 citizens (Pi times 100 million) there was a revelation of sorts. Kinda makes your head spin, no? Well that inspiration was a way to make Boyle's flask into the strangest invention of the final year of this cycle, notably the 13th - and using ferrofluid as the circulating medium. You can probably connect the dots. And basically, it did work for about 50 hours; and the culprit that stopped it was probably named hysteresis. Like Pi, which is an irrational number, most of the population and maybe the great Boyle himself- have been nominally irrational for long periods, even if they slide into occasional lucidity often enough to be considered part-time geniuses. Newton was into alchemy and Leonardo spent half his time working on crazy overunity devices, go figure. You're in good nutty company, Andrea. Anyway, as summer ends and an even sillier election cycle begins - let's hope the excess heat of Ni-H has the traction to overtake the excess hot air of political promises, or the excess glacier melts of 'climate change', so as to give the U.S. population something warm to celebrate on December 22, 2012 ... no hysteresis, or histrionics, permitted. At least we will realize once again that the end of time and a new beginning are pretty much a seamless non-event, dreamt up by the same drama-queens who gave us Y2K ... or a few frustrated PerpMo's using Boyle's flask to promote their favorite beer. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
OK, once again, I'm an idiot. I mouth off before investigating the matter. So, in fact, you're right. 2He does indeed decay back to H+ and H+. I forgot to realize that stable Helium is 4He not 2He. But 1H + 11B should be an ideal fusion reaction, right? No hard radiation? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 4:44 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King It seems to me that 2He being a Noble gas would be stable and not decay back to 2 H+ ions. If what you are saying is true, wouldn't all our helium simply spontaneously fission back to H+ ions, ergo, we wouldn't see any Helium in the atmosphere. Jojo Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:46 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King From: Jojo Jaro PS: On a different note, what would a p + p fusion reaction look like. I have designed a new reactor with a view sight glass, hopefully, I'll see some fusion reactions taking place. This is where the problem arises. Sadly, you will probably never see it, even if you look until you are as old as I am. This reaction cannot happen above background rates on earth, or outside of extreme acceleration gradients, such as in a mile long beam-line. Even on the sun, it is seldom gainful. It is a two step reaction and the gain does not come from fusion at all - but from the subsequent beta decay of the metastable fused helium (2He) into deuterium. Most of the time, essentially all of the time - the reaction will NOT proceed to deuterium since the initial helium-2 nucleus will revert back to two protons and a slight net loss. Even on the sun, there is only one successful beta decay per every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fusion events J (or else the sun would have run out of fuel early on) . and there is doubt among experts that there is net gain in this reaction at all, even on the sun, considering the rarity of the beta decay and the elastic scattering. Again - just so we are clear, gain in PP reactions depends completely on the secondary beta decay of the initial helium-2 nucleus, and this is extraordinarily rare. It is QM and not thermonuclear. You will never see it in LENR, unless of course, there is a novel version of it which is precisely the proverbial second or third miracle in LENR (over and above the excess heat and lack of gamma radiation). But if multiple miracles are required, in addition to excess heat - you might as well stick with Gremlins J Jones BTW as for transmutation products - these are mundane in many situations. Roy Hammack spent a lifetime documenting transmutation under power lines (always happens) lightning strikes and even in neon light electrodes. The point being that transmutation alone means little more than that an electron arc was present. If you want to show the heat came from the transmutation - that is a far different story, and Piantelli or no one else has come close to a correlation of the heat radiated to the tiny amount of transmutation.
RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
From: Jojo Jaro If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that p + p would result in 2He, which would would quickly decay back to p and p again, resulting in net energy loss. Not exactly. Most of the di-protons in the short time they exist as 2He decay back almost instantly, true - but the rare times that this nucleus does undergo beta decay into deuterium - that provides the needed raw material (deuterium) for extremely energetic reactions that follow, ending in 4He. First question, are we certain of this. Could our understanding of Stellar reactions simply be faulty and we do not really have a complete picture of what's going on in the Sun. Not this is the current standard model. It is just poorly understood by those who want to shoehorn a particular reaction into a space where it doesn't fit very well. Has this reaction rate been seen experimentally seen and verified, or is this just a theory. Seen and verified It seems to me that 2He being a Noble gas would be stable and not decay back to 2 H+ ions. Two protons without a neutron have negative binding energy. Note do not confuse 2He with 3He or 4He - the last two being stable helium If what you are saying is true, wouldn't all our helium simply spontaneously fission back to H+ ions, ergo, we wouldn't see any Helium in the atmosphere. No, helium normally has at least one neutron, and is stable. With two neutrons, as 4He it is extremely stable. Second question, if this reaction is implausible as you suggest due to rapid decay of 2He back to 2 H+, is there any other possible reactions that would benefit from charge screening afforded by the nanohorn NAE. Boron gas??? instead of H2 gas? Boron and H2 mixed gas? Deuterium and tritium as raw materials should work. Original Message - From: Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:46 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King From: Jojo Jaro PS: On a different note, what would a p + p fusion reaction look like. I have designed a new reactor with a view sight glass, hopefully, I'll see some fusion reactions taking place. This is where the problem arises. Sadly, you will probably never see it, even if you look until you are as old as I am. This reaction cannot happen above background rates on earth, or outside of extreme acceleration gradients, such as in a mile long beam-line. Even on the sun, it is seldom gainful. It is a two step reaction and the gain does not come from fusion at all - but from the subsequent beta decay of the metastable fused helium (2He) into deuterium. Most of the time, essentially all of the time - the reaction will NOT proceed to deuterium since the initial helium-2 nucleus will revert back to two protons and a slight net loss. Even on the sun, there is only one successful beta decay per every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fusion events :-) (or else the sun would have run out of fuel early on) ... and there is doubt among experts that there is net gain in this reaction at all, even on the sun, considering the rarity of the beta decay and the elastic scattering. Again - just so we are clear, gain in PP reactions depends completely on the secondary beta decay of the initial helium-2 nucleus, and this is extraordinarily rare. It is QM and not thermonuclear. You will never see it in LENR, unless of course, there is a novel version of it which is precisely the proverbial second or third miracle in LENR (over and above the excess heat and lack of gamma radiation). But if multiple miracles are required, in addition to excess heat - you might as well stick with Gremlins :-) Jones BTW as for transmutation products - these are mundane in many situations. Roy Hammack spent a lifetime documenting transmutation under power lines (always happens) lightning strikes and even in neon light electrodes. The point being that transmutation alone means little more than that an electron arc was present. If you want to show the heat came from the transmutation - that is a far different story, and Piantelli or no one else has come close to a correlation of the heat radiated to the tiny amount of transmutation. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
Not fusion not fission. It is nucleon flipping due to an greatly increased range and strength of the strong nuclear spin orbit force. Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 24, 2012 4:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:It's fission Never mind, I opened my mouth before I had the chance to read and comprehend what you are saying. I do that many times in my excitement. I'm an idiot. So, you are hypothesizing fission of Nickel? Wouldn't that be unlikely considering that nickel is such a stable element? What would be the fission reaction paths ending up with these elements. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:It's fission Can you hypothesize a starting element that would produce these elements via fission? Ni Jojo PS. On a lighter note, I am glad that you view my theory and explanation to be sufficiently credible for you to put it in league with Ed Storms. Comparing my theory with DGT is fair and proper, as both theories are vaporware - no experimental basis at all. But comparing me with Ed Storms is a great honor indeed. Frankly, this idea of CNTs and Charge accumulation on 1D structures, predominantly came from insights I got from Ed Storms and You. So, it's not really MY theory. It's mostly yours. But I'll be glad if someone would give my theory a sanity check. Heck, as long as we get LENR and kick out the ragheads from our lives, I don't care where or who comes up with it. Being the inventor of Commercial LENR would only serve to complicate my life. Last thing I need is for the ragheads and the Illuminati to paint a big Bullseye on my back. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:37 AM Subject: [Vo]:It's fission http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=1419 Defkalion GT stated On the other hand, the trace of Li, Bi and B in ICPMS analysis of NAE after the reactions/interactions in Hyperion reactors, is a strong evidence of nucleosynthesis of light elements (H to B), relating gamma absorption and further heat energy production. It is very difficult to produce of Li, Bi and B through nucleosynthesis. These elements are rare throughout the solar system and universe because they are poorly synthesized by fusion in both the Big Bang and also in stars. The concept of element build up from solely hydrogen that is held by DGTG, Ed Storms, and JoJo may be flawed. The method of production of these light elements in LENR may well derive from fission of a heavy element into multiple light elements. Fission is much more energy productive as a nuclear process. A heavy metal like nickel might be an absolute requirement to get transmutation of light elements and nuclear heat production to fly. Depending on element atomic weight build up from just hydrogen might not work. In addition, the production of helium(He4) may be a result of alpha decay and not fusion. Cheers:Axil
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Yes Jones, I realized my stupidity before you responded. You are right about 2He decaying. Also, I was hoping to avoid D2 gas due to expected neutron radiation. But now it looks like I may have to use it. These are the kinds of things that I am hoping you experts can correct me on. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 5:28 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King From: Jojo Jaro If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that p + p would result in 2He, which would would quickly decay back to p and p again, resulting in net energy loss. Not exactly. Most of the di-protons in the short time they exist as 2He decay back almost instantly, true - but the rare times that this nucleus does undergo beta decay into deuterium - that provides the needed raw material (deuterium) for extremely energetic reactions that follow, ending in 4He. First question, are we certain of this. Could our understanding of Stellar reactions simply be faulty and we do not really have a complete picture of what's going on in the Sun. Not this is the current standard model. It is just poorly understood by those who want to shoehorn a particular reaction into a space where it doesn't fit very well. Has this reaction rate been seen experimentally seen and verified, or is this just a theory. Seen and verified It seems to me that 2He being a Noble gas would be stable and not decay back to 2 H+ ions. Two protons without a neutron have negative binding energy. Note do not confuse 2He with 3He or 4He - the last two being stable helium If what you are saying is true, wouldn't all our helium simply spontaneously fission back to H+ ions, ergo, we wouldn't see any Helium in the atmosphere. No, helium normally has at least one neutron, and is stable. With two neutrons, as 4He it is extremely stable. Second question, if this reaction is implausible as you suggest due to rapid decay of 2He back to 2 H+, is there any other possible reactions that would benefit from charge screening afforded by the nanohorn NAE. Boron gas??? instead of H2 gas? Boron and H2 mixed gas? Deuterium and tritium as raw materials should work. Original Message - From: Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:46 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King From: Jojo Jaro PS: On a different note, what would a p + p fusion reaction look like. I have designed a new reactor with a view sight glass, hopefully, I'll see some fusion reactions taking place. This is where the problem arises. Sadly, you will probably never see it, even if you look until you are as old as I am. This reaction cannot happen above background rates on earth, or outside of extreme acceleration gradients, such as in a mile long beam-line. Even on the sun, it is seldom gainful. It is a two step reaction and the gain does not come from fusion at all - but from the subsequent beta decay of the metastable fused helium (2He) into deuterium. Most of the time, essentially all of the time - the reaction will NOT proceed to deuterium since the initial helium-2 nucleus will revert back to two protons and a slight net loss. Even on the sun, there is only one successful beta decay per every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fusion events :-) (or else the sun would have run out of fuel early on) ... and there is doubt among experts that there is net gain in this reaction at all, even on the sun, considering the rarity of the beta decay and the elastic scattering. Again - just so we are clear, gain in PP reactions depends completely on the secondary beta decay of the initial helium-2 nucleus, and this is extraordinarily rare. It is QM and not thermonuclear. You will never see it in LENR, unless of course, there is a novel version of it which is precisely the proverbial second or third miracle in LENR (over and above the excess heat and lack of gamma radiation). But if multiple miracles are required, in addition to excess heat - you might as well stick with Gremlins :-) Jones BTW as for transmutation products - these are mundane in many situations. Roy Hammack spent a lifetime documenting transmutation under power lines (always happens) lightning strikes and even in neon light electrodes. The point being that transmutation alone means little more than that an electron arc was present. If you want to show the heat came from the transmutation - that is a far different story, and Piantelli or no one else has come close to a correlation of the heat radiated to the tiny amount of transmutation.
RE: [Vo]:It's fission
-Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro So, you are hypothesizing fission of Nickel? Wouldn't that be unlikely considering that nickel is such a stable element? ...What would be the fission reaction paths ending up with these elements. Jojo, I have been pursuing what is a default theory which has been posted to Newsgroups for the past few months to explain nickel-hydrogen gain. It is basically what is left when you eliminate the theories which cannot work, due to actual results and especially lack of gammas. The theory is fully falsifiable, unlike the others. My major hypothesis is that the gain does derive from mass-to-energy conversion, even if there is little or no actual fusion, fission, beta decay or transmutation, since the proton mass is not quantized. The proton mass-energy is in the vicinity of 938.272013 MeV on average (even this accepted value is in contention) but this value becomes what is really an average mass based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being use before recalibration. The average mass can vary a fractional percent or more between atoms, as either overage or deficit and the hydrogen will still be hydrogen. The overage fraction is in play for conversion into energy via QCD, and this becomes the mystery energy source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from Mills, Rossi, DGT, Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. It all begins with spillover, and most likely the process must have a Casimir connection - in the geometry and porosity. A fraction of hydrogen average mass overage, when in-play (with about a third of the heaviest atoms) - would be partly convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion or in a number of other scenarios, but no actual fusion or fission or decay. The predecessor event is when spillover hydrogen is captured in a Casimir sized nano-pore (2-12 nm), and later, when it recombines into H2 or is expelled at high velocity by Coulomb force prior to that. The standard model gives us 938.272013 MeV as hydrogen mass but the quark component is small for all three - but is the only component which is relatively fixed by standard theory; and at least one hundred MeV is present but not required to bind quarks. This is the bosonic quantum glue and some of it is expendable. Thus, there is plenty of wiggle room for quasi-nuclear gain, even if most of the glue must be retained, since quarks are not mutually attractive without it. Bottom line, there is a range of expendable mass-energy of the non-quark remainder bosons (pions, gluons, etc) in the proton average mass - which is extractable as the 'gain' seen in the Ni-H thermal effect - yet the proton maintains its identity and no radioactivity or transmutation needs to show up. Ironically, this is still a nuclear reaction but is being labeled as quasi-nuclear, to avoid confusion. Jones l attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
Frank, how does one achieve this nucleon flipping? Give me something that I can test experimentally. Jojo - Original Message - From: fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 5:48 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:It's fission Not fusion not fission. It is nucleon flipping due to an greatly increased range and strength of the strong nuclear spin orbit force. Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 24, 2012 4:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:It's fission Never mind, I opened my mouth before I had the chance to read and comprehend what you are saying. I do that many times in my excitement. I'm an idiot. So, you are hypothesizing fission of Nickel? Wouldn't that be unlikely considering that nickel is such a stable element? What would be the fission reaction paths ending up with these elements. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:It's fission Can you hypothesize a starting element that would produce these elements via fission? Ni Jojo PS. On a lighter note, I am glad that you view my theory and explanation to be sufficiently credible for you to put it in league with Ed Storms. Comparing my theory with DGT is fair and proper, as both theories are vaporware - no experimental basis at all. But comparing me with Ed Storms is a great honor indeed. Frankly, this idea of CNTs and Charge accumulation on 1D structures, predominantly came from insights I got from Ed Storms and You. So, it's not really MY theory. It's mostly yours. But I'll be glad if someone would give my theory a sanity check. Heck, as long as we get LENR and kick out the ragheads from our lives, I don't care where or who comes up with it. Being the inventor of Commercial LENR would only serve to complicate my life. Last thing I need is for the ragheads and the Illuminati to paint a big Bullseye on my back. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:37 AM Subject: [Vo]:It's fission http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=1419 Defkalion GT stated On the other hand, the trace of Li, Bi and B in ICPMS analysis of NAE after the reactions/interactions in Hyperion reactors, is a strong evidence of nucleosynthesis of light elements (H to B), relating gamma absorption and further heat energy production. It is very difficult to produce of Li, Bi and B through nucleosynthesis. These elements are rare throughout the solar system and universe because they are poorly synthesized by fusion in both the Big Bang and also in stars. The concept of element build up from solely hydrogen that is held by DGTG, Ed Storms, and JoJo may be flawed. The method of production of these light elements in LENR may well derive from fission of a heavy element into multiple light elements. Fission is much more energy productive as a nuclear process. A heavy metal like nickel might be an absolute requirement to get transmutation of light elements and nuclear heat production to fly. Depending on element atomic weight build up from just hydrogen might not work. In addition, the production of helium(He4) may be a result of alpha decay and not fusion. Cheers:Axil
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
How does one achieve this quasi nuclear reaction of releasing excess bosonic glue? Do you put H+ ions within 2-12 nm apart from each other? Put both of them is a cavity 2-12 nm in size? Or put an H2 molecule in a cavity 2-12nm in size and ionize them. Their recombination should release this extra bosonic glue energy? If this is correct, this would be easy to do experimentally. Just do what I proposed. Create CNTs 2-12 nm in diameter, chop off the tops, allow H2 molecules to accumulate inside the pipe, and deliver a mild spark to ionize the H2 to individual H+ ions. Their recombination should release this extra glue energy. Correct? You gotta help me out here Jones. I do not fully understand your Casimer theory to even begin to design a possible experiment. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:18 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:It's fission -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro So, you are hypothesizing fission of Nickel? Wouldn't that be unlikely considering that nickel is such a stable element? ...What would be the fission reaction paths ending up with these elements. Jojo, I have been pursuing what is a default theory which has been posted to Newsgroups for the past few months to explain nickel-hydrogen gain. It is basically what is left when you eliminate the theories which cannot work, due to actual results and especially lack of gammas. The theory is fully falsifiable, unlike the others. My major hypothesis is that the gain does derive from mass-to-energy conversion, even if there is little or no actual fusion, fission, beta decay or transmutation, since the proton mass is not quantized. The proton mass-energy is in the vicinity of 938.272013 MeV on average (even this accepted value is in contention) but this value becomes what is really an average mass based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being use before recalibration. The average mass can vary a fractional percent or more between atoms, as either overage or deficit and the hydrogen will still be hydrogen. The overage fraction is in play for conversion into energy via QCD, and this becomes the mystery energy source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from Mills, Rossi, DGT, Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. It all begins with spillover, and most likely the process must have a Casimir connection - in the geometry and porosity. A fraction of hydrogen average mass overage, when in-play (with about a third of the heaviest atoms) - would be partly convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion or in a number of other scenarios, but no actual fusion or fission or decay. The predecessor event is when spillover hydrogen is captured in a Casimir sized nano-pore (2-12 nm), and later, when it recombines into H2 or is expelled at high velocity by Coulomb force prior to that. The standard model gives us 938.272013 MeV as hydrogen mass but the quark component is small for all three - but is the only component which is relatively fixed by standard theory; and at least one hundred MeV is present but not required to bind quarks. This is the bosonic quantum glue and some of it is expendable. Thus, there is plenty of wiggle room for quasi-nuclear gain, even if most of the glue must be retained, since quarks are not mutually attractive without it. Bottom line, there is a range of expendable mass-energy of the non-quark remainder bosons (pions, gluons, etc) in the proton average mass - which is extractable as the 'gain' seen in the Ni-H thermal effect - yet the proton maintains its identity and no radioactivity or transmutation needs to show up. Ironically, this is still a nuclear reaction but is being labeled as quasi-nuclear, to avoid confusion. Jones l
RE: [Vo]:It's fission
Sounds like you are a fast study, JoJo. Fran Roarty has got a lot of detailed info on Casimir on his site, and there are lots of specialized papers on CNT online. Other than that, you may be breaking new ground - so the best advice is to be thorough, keep good lab notes, report problems, consider all alternatives, and do not be hesitant to ask for help or opinions from strangers when you stall-out. And in general - no one of us is as smart as all of us. It is no secret that there are lots of diverse opinions, in various degrees of contact with reality, here on vortex. The one common denominator is a commitment to finding a solution. Obviously, if anyone had it figured out, they would not be inclined to reveal it completely, so you are in a position to cherry-pick, based on your own experience. The real beauty of free enterprise as a philosophy is most obvious and most pure in RD - and not in commerce, per se. The one thing you do different in the Lab, may end up being critical to success in ways that even the inventor does not understand. It is seldom as pure in capitalism where little actual value is added most of the time - and where one man's sales gimmick or tax savings (or greed) can be a better man's tax burden or lost sales. In the Lab, it can be win-win without needing to play the system or scheme-up on worthless promotion. Go for it! -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro How does one achieve this quasi nuclear reaction of releasing excess bosonic glue? Do you put H+ ions within 2-12 nm apart from each other? Put both of them is a cavity 2-12 nm in size? Or put an H2 molecule in a cavity 2-12nm in size and ionize them. Their recombination should release this extra bosonic glue energy? If this is correct, this would be easy to do experimentally. Just do what I proposed. Create CNTs 2-12 nm in diameter, chop off the tops, allow H2 molecules to accumulate inside the pipe, and deliver a mild spark to ionize the H2 to individual H+ ions. Their recombination should release this extra glue energy. Correct? You gotta help me out here Jones. I do not fully understand your Casimer theory to even begin to design a possible experiment. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:18 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:It's fission -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro So, you are hypothesizing fission of Nickel? Wouldn't that be unlikely considering that nickel is such a stable element? ...What would be the fission reaction paths ending up with these elements. Jojo, I have been pursuing what is a default theory which has been posted to Newsgroups for the past few months to explain nickel-hydrogen gain. It is basically what is left when you eliminate the theories which cannot work, due to actual results and especially lack of gammas. The theory is fully falsifiable, unlike the others. My major hypothesis is that the gain does derive from mass-to-energy conversion, even if there is little or no actual fusion, fission, beta decay or transmutation, since the proton mass is not quantized. The proton mass-energy is in the vicinity of 938.272013 MeV on average (even this accepted value is in contention) but this value becomes what is really an average mass based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being use before recalibration. The average mass can vary a fractional percent or more between atoms, as either overage or deficit and the hydrogen will still be hydrogen. The overage fraction is in play for conversion into energy via QCD, and this becomes the mystery energy source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from Mills, Rossi, DGT, Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. It all begins with spillover, and most likely the process must have a Casimir connection - in the geometry and porosity. A fraction of hydrogen average mass overage, when in-play (with about a third of the heaviest atoms) - would be partly convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion or in a number of other scenarios, but no actual fusion or fission or decay. The predecessor event is when spillover hydrogen is captured in a Casimir sized nano-pore (2-12 nm), and later, when it recombines into H2 or is expelled at high velocity by Coulomb force prior to that. The standard model gives us 938.272013 MeV as hydrogen mass but the quark component is small for all three - but is the only component which is relatively fixed by standard theory; and at least one hundred MeV is present but not required to bind quarks. This is the bosonic quantum glue and some of it is expendable. Thus, there is plenty of wiggle room for quasi-nuclear gain, even if most of the glue must be retained, since quarks are not mutually attractive without it. Bottom line, there is a range of expendable mass-energy of the non-quark remainder bosons (pions,
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:It's fission
Jones, I'm ok with your posit crediting the extra energy to these slight atomic overages , it is an olive branch to those that still insist this a nuclear reaction despite the fleeting amount of ash while leaving the door open for those of us that credit ZPE as being a key ingredient. Your theory, Haisch and Model's lamb pinch or my posit of changes in NAE opposing h2 motion differently than h1 motion are all just different theories for containing and rectifying this same anomalous environment to produce heat... We seem to share the same back end where the energy is released when h2 reforms but regarding the front end, there are likely many methods that will suffice, After reading about the MAHG, and Lyne, and Langmuir I derived my posit that normal gas motion between different Casimir geometries can discount and disassociate H2 at an over unity rate. In the case of atomic welding I think some of the hydrogen ions do indeed act like catalyzers for other hydrogen molecules much like Mills predicts in Rayney Nickel. Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 6:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:It's fission -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro So, you are hypothesizing fission of Nickel? Wouldn't that be unlikely considering that nickel is such a stable element? ...What would be the fission reaction paths ending up with these elements. Jojo, I have been pursuing what is a default theory which has been posted to Newsgroups for the past few months to explain nickel-hydrogen gain. It is basically what is left when you eliminate the theories which cannot work, due to actual results and especially lack of gammas. The theory is fully falsifiable, unlike the others. My major hypothesis is that the gain does derive from mass-to-energy conversion, even if there is little or no actual fusion, fission, beta decay or transmutation, since the proton mass is not quantized. The proton mass-energy is in the vicinity of 938.272013 MeV on average (even this accepted value is in contention) but this value becomes what is really an average mass based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being use before recalibration. The average mass can vary a fractional percent or more between atoms, as either overage or deficit and the hydrogen will still be hydrogen. The overage fraction is in play for conversion into energy via QCD, and this becomes the mystery energy source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from Mills, Rossi, DGT, Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. It all begins with spillover, and most likely the process must have a Casimir connection - in the geometry and porosity. A fraction of hydrogen average mass overage, when in-play (with about a third of the heaviest atoms) - would be partly convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion or in a number of other scenarios, but no actual fusion or fission or decay. The predecessor event is when spillover hydrogen is captured in a Casimir sized nano-pore (2-12 nm), and later, when it recombines into H2 or is expelled at high velocity by Coulomb force prior to that. The standard model gives us 938.272013 MeV as hydrogen mass but the quark component is small for all three - but is the only component which is relatively fixed by standard theory; and at least one hundred MeV is present but not required to bind quarks. This is the bosonic quantum glue and some of it is expendable. Thus, there is plenty of wiggle room for quasi-nuclear gain, even if most of the glue must be retained, since quarks are not mutually attractive without it. Bottom line, there is a range of expendable mass-energy of the non-quark remainder bosons (pions, gluons, etc) in the proton average mass - which is extractable as the 'gain' seen in the Ni-H thermal effect - yet the proton maintains its identity and no radioactivity or transmutation needs to show up. Ironically, this is still a nuclear reaction but is being labeled as quasi-nuclear, to avoid confusion. Jones l
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Model with Interesting Correlations
In reply to ChemE Stewart's message of Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:48:23 -0400: Hi, [snip] The bugger becomes that if this reaction is triggering local fission, fusion and high temperature chemical events (as it appears to be from a wide range of data) it will most likely degrade and collapse over time any lattice material/matter within its local environment. Thus the RELIABILITY and STABILITY issue. I predict any local collapse within a void/crack/lattice may instantly shift the reactions to a new thermodynamic equilibrium point. I am not sure there is ANY material in the universe that can withstand this combination of reactions over time. [snip] The same (or worse) can be said of all current fission reactors. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:It's fission
Fran, Jones has suggested that I go to your site to study your post about casimer cavitites; in fact, I've been to your blog several times, but most of what you are saying is beyond my paygrade. I have no idea how to interpret what you are saying. So, can you help me out. Based on your theory, how does one achieve this overunity from dynamical casimer cavities. Just put an H2 molecule in a casimer cavity 2-12 nm in size and ionize it and allow it to recombine resulting in excess heat due to excess bosonic glue as Jones theorizes? Could it be as simple as this? What do you mean by normal gas motion between different casimer geometries can discount and disassociate H2 at an overunity rate. Do you mean, ionize H2 at a certain size cavity and then move it to a different size cavity (bigger or smaller?) ? If this is what you mean, I can achieve this. I seem to remember a way to build Carbon Nanotubes via tip growth wherein you start out with a bigger diameter CNT and modify it to a smaller diameter CNT. I think this is possible. This would provide a change in casimer cavity size. Would this work? Jojo - Original Message - From: Roarty, Francis X To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 7:58 AM Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:It's fission Jones, I'm ok with your posit crediting the extra energy to these slight atomic overages , it is an olive branch to those that still insist this a nuclear reaction despite the fleeting amount of ash while leaving the door open for those of us that credit ZPE as being a key ingredient. Your theory, Haisch and Model's lamb pinch or my posit of changes in NAE opposing h2 motion differently than h1 motion are all just different theories for containing and rectifying this same anomalous environment to produce heat. We seem to share the same back end where the energy is released when h2 reforms but regarding the front end, there are likely many methods that will suffice, After reading about the MAHG, and Lyne, and Langmuir I derived my posit that normal gas motion between different Casimir geometries can discount and disassociate H2 at an over unity rate. In the case of atomic welding I think some of the hydrogen ions do indeed act like catalyzers for other hydrogen molecules much like Mills predicts in Rayney Nickel. Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 6:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:It's fission -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro So, you are hypothesizing fission of Nickel? Wouldn't that be unlikely considering that nickel is such a stable element? .What would be the fission reaction paths ending up with these elements. Jojo, I have been pursuing what is a default theory which has been posted to Newsgroups for the past few months to explain nickel-hydrogen gain. It is basically what is left when you eliminate the theories which cannot work, due to actual results and especially lack of gammas. The theory is fully falsifiable, unlike the others. My major hypothesis is that the gain does derive from mass-to-energy conversion, even if there is little or no actual fusion, fission, beta decay or transmutation, since the proton mass is not quantized. The proton mass-energy is in the vicinity of 938.272013 MeV on average (even this accepted value is in contention) but this value becomes what is really an average mass based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being use before recalibration. The average mass can vary a fractional percent or more between atoms, as either overage or deficit and the hydrogen will still be hydrogen. The overage fraction is in play for conversion into energy via QCD, and this becomes the mystery energy source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from Mills, Rossi, DGT, Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. It all begins with spillover, and most likely the process must have a Casimir connection - in the geometry and porosity. A fraction of hydrogen average mass overage, when in-play (with about a third of the heaviest atoms) - would be partly convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion or in a number of other scenarios, but no actual fusion or fission or decay. The predecessor event is when spillover hydrogen is captured in a Casimir sized nano-pore (2-12 nm), and later, when it recombines into H2 or is expelled at high velocity by Coulomb force prior to that. The standard model gives us 938.272013 MeV as hydrogen mass but the quark component is small for all three - but is the only component which is relatively fixed by standard theory; and at least one hundred MeV is present but not required to bind quarks. This is the bosonic quantum glue and some of it is expendable. Thus, there is plenty of wiggle room for
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:It's fission
JoJo, If it were simple everyone would be doing it.. some nice recent clues I hope you were gathering were regarding the best alloys being of Ni and cu where grain size would also be an important variable and I think you will also need a support structure- dielectric as Jones suggests, Zirconia, To assist in spillover - also with respect to those 2-12 nm numbers keep in mind the size of the powder grains, tubules or appendages are not necessarily the geometries in play since you have to consider how they pack together with backfills and support structures which may be why the Rossi tubules sounded so large to those of us expecting Casimir geometries [which BTW you do see in Rayney nickel in an inverse sort of way -so catalytic action and Casmir effect are likely interrelated] The DYNAMIC anomalous environment we are all trying to exploit - the different size crevices - are all essentially Casimir plates braced apart at different distances - the plates can not shut even though there is a pressure differential where outside the plates you have standard distribution of large and small virtual particles while between the plates only smaller particles can appear which would push the plates together if not braced apart - gas molecules moving between these differtently spaced plates of conductive material [Ni] experiences these changes in pressure the same as we would experience being at different positions in a gravity well but without the normal square of the distance gradient we are accustomed to. This is referred to as a break in the isotropy in cavity QED or in this case an ongoing dynamic change between different isotropy as the molecules are constantly required to move by gas law. To be more accurate the hydrogen is jumping between different points in a gravity hill not a well since it is based on suppression of the isotropy and not the concentration you get when accumulating mass. No need to get into relativistic theory or Naudts paper on hydrino but my takeaway is that catalyzed or fractional H2 opposes these changes in isotropy such that when it is pushed into a different zone the molecular bond resists this displacement and the heat needed to disassociate the molecule can be discounted to the point where the energy released upon immediate re-association is greater than the heat absorbed courtesy of HUP and gas law.[no one ever said gas motion isn't energy they only said it couldn't be exploited because it was too chaotic..well -I think we found a practical form of maxwellian demon here - no hardware to rectify needed you simply extract heat using self assembled bulk geometry of powders. Model and Haisch have a prototype of tunnels through alternating thin layers of conduct and insulating metal and then circulate gas through tunnels - so it can also be fabricated but has scaling limitations. heat extraction is critical to protecting the geometry from self destructing - which IMHO was the downfall of the MAHG and perhaps the present limiting factor on COP claims by Rossi, Defkallion and others - I was rather hoping tungsten could be used to sidestep this issue to a certain degree but if Ni and cu are the sweethearts then we gotta go with what works.. perhaps use tungsten powder as a backfill to pack the conductive geometry tighter? I also suspect that much of the best geometry self destructs instantly all around us in ambient air and similar to the way some catalysts have to made in multiple steps or nano parts have to avoid stiction or Mills has to keep Rayney Nickel wet you might want to activate your mix in inert gas then go straight to hydrogen without ever exposing your fissure surfaces to ambient gases. You may also want to have heat sinking already on when you go from inert gas to hydrogen since IMHO your most valuable real estate self destructs the moment inert gas is replaced by ambient. Fran From: Jojo Jaro [mailto:jth...@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 8:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:It's fission Fran, Jones has suggested that I go to your site to study your post about casimer cavitites; in fact, I've been to your blog several times, but most of what you are saying is beyond my paygrade. I have no idea how to interpret what you are saying. So, can you help me out. Based on your theory, how does one achieve this overunity from dynamical casimer cavities. Just put an H2 molecule in a casimer cavity 2-12 nm in size and ionize it and allow it to recombine resulting in excess heat due to excess bosonic glue as Jones theorizes? Could it be as simple as this? What do you mean by normal gas motion between different casimer geometries can discount and disassociate H2 at an overunity rate. Do you mean, ionize H2 at a certain size cavity and then move it to a different size cavity (bigger or smaller?) ? If this is what you mean, I can achieve this. I seem to remember
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
encrusted protons? ;-) harry On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Sounds like you are a fast study, JoJo. Fran Roarty has got a lot of detailed info on Casimir on his site, and there are lots of specialized papers on CNT online. Other than that, you may be breaking new ground - so the best advice is to be thorough, keep good lab notes, report problems, consider all alternatives, and do not be hesitant to ask for help or opinions from strangers when you stall-out. And in general - no one of us is as smart as all of us. It is no secret that there are lots of diverse opinions, in various degrees of contact with reality, here on vortex. The one common denominator is a commitment to finding a solution. Obviously, if anyone had it figured out, they would not be inclined to reveal it completely, so you are in a position to cherry-pick, based on your own experience. The real beauty of free enterprise as a philosophy is most obvious and most pure in RD - and not in commerce, per se. The one thing you do different in the Lab, may end up being critical to success in ways that even the inventor does not understand. It is seldom as pure in capitalism where little actual value is added most of the time - and where one man's sales gimmick or tax savings (or greed) can be a better man's tax burden or lost sales. In the Lab, it can be win-win without needing to play the system or scheme-up on worthless promotion. Go for it! -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro How does one achieve this quasi nuclear reaction of releasing excess bosonic glue? Do you put H+ ions within 2-12 nm apart from each other? Put both of them is a cavity 2-12 nm in size? Or put an H2 molecule in a cavity 2-12nm in size and ionize them. Their recombination should release this extra bosonic glue energy? If this is correct, this would be easy to do experimentally. Just do what I proposed. Create CNTs 2-12 nm in diameter, chop off the tops, allow H2 molecules to accumulate inside the pipe, and deliver a mild spark to ionize the H2 to individual H+ ions. Their recombination should release this extra glue energy. Correct? You gotta help me out here Jones. I do not fully understand your Casimer theory to even begin to design a possible experiment. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:18 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:It's fission -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro So, you are hypothesizing fission of Nickel? Wouldn't that be unlikely considering that nickel is such a stable element? ...What would be the fission reaction paths ending up with these elements. Jojo, I have been pursuing what is a default theory which has been posted to Newsgroups for the past few months to explain nickel-hydrogen gain. It is basically what is left when you eliminate the theories which cannot work, due to actual results and especially lack of gammas. The theory is fully falsifiable, unlike the others. My major hypothesis is that the gain does derive from mass-to-energy conversion, even if there is little or no actual fusion, fission, beta decay or transmutation, since the proton mass is not quantized. The proton mass-energy is in the vicinity of 938.272013 MeV on average (even this accepted value is in contention) but this value becomes what is really an average mass based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being use before recalibration. The average mass can vary a fractional percent or more between atoms, as either overage or deficit and the hydrogen will still be hydrogen. The overage fraction is in play for conversion into energy via QCD, and this becomes the mystery energy source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from Mills, Rossi, DGT, Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. It all begins with spillover, and most likely the process must have a Casimir connection - in the geometry and porosity. A fraction of hydrogen average mass overage, when in-play (with about a third of the heaviest atoms) - would be partly convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion or in a number of other scenarios, but no actual fusion or fission or decay. The predecessor event is when spillover hydrogen is captured in a Casimir sized nano-pore (2-12 nm), and later, when it recombines into H2 or is expelled at high velocity by Coulomb force prior to that. The standard model gives us 938.272013 MeV as hydrogen mass but the quark component is small for all three - but is the only component which is relatively fixed by standard theory; and at least one hundred MeV is present but not required to bind quarks. This is the bosonic quantum glue and some of it is expendable. Thus, there is plenty of wiggle room for quasi-nuclear gain, even if most of the glue must be retained, since quarks are not
Re: [Vo]:IRH = DDL = Dark Matter
In reply to ChemE Stewart's message of Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:22:57 -0400: Hi, [snip] Gremlins come in different colors: Brown dwarf ~ Brown Gremlin White dwarf ~ White Gremiln Black hole ~.Black Gremlin Micro black hole ~ Invisible Gremlin The smaller they are the more elusive and more trouble they cause in their surroundings. For the gravitational field of an Invisible Gremlin with a single positive charge to be strong enough to attract another proton against the repulsive Coulomb force, it would need to have a mass in excess of 2 billion kg. Such a gremlin would have a Schwarzschild radius = 3E-3 fm (hundreds of times smaller than a proton), exerting a pressure of 2 billion kgf / Pi*SR^2 = 1E41 psi on the containment. Perhaps needless to say, it's going to be impossible to hang on to one. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 24 Aug 2012 02:13:37 -0400: Hi, [snip] The Nuclear reactions that ED Storms thinks is happening is not consistent to what Rossi and Piantelli see as nuclear reaction products. These reaction products include copper, cobalt, zinc, iron, calcium, and so on, together with a mix of the first 19 of the lightest elements. Yes, Rossi's info is questionable by Piantelli info is solid. PS: a top of the line presentation. 1H+1H+58Ni = 60Zn + 8.538 MeV 1H+1H+58Ni = 59Cu + 1H + 3.419 MeV 1H+1H+58Ni = 56Ni + 4He + 5.829 MeV 1H+1H+58Ni = 32S + 28Si + 1.859 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 62Zn + 11.277 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 61Cu + 1H + 4.801 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 58Ni + 4He + 7.909 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 4He + 4He + 54Fe + 1.417 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 50Cr + 12C + 0.365 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 32S + 30Si + 0.555 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 34S + 28Si + 1.530 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 62Zn + n + 3.457 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 63Zn + 12.570 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 62Cu + 1H + 5.866 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 59Ni + 4He + 9.088 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 4He + 4He + 55Fe + 2.895 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 51Cr + 12C + 1.806 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 47Ti + 16O + 0.026 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 33S + 30Si + 1.376 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 34S + 29Si + 2.184 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 35S + 28Si + 0.696 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 64Zn + 13.835 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 65Zn + n + 5.319 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 66Zn + 16.378 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 65Cu + 1H + 7.453 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 62Ni + 4He + 11.800 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 4He + 4He + 58Fe + 4.690 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 54Cr + 12C + 4.411 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 50Ti + 16O + 3.642 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 34S + 32Si + 1.491 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 36S + 30Si + 2.576 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 33P + 33P + 0.154 MeV Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:IRH = DDL = Dark Matter
It depends upon your calculation of the strength of quantum gravity and the number of additional dimensions of spacetime it acts upon. The blue-shifted collective radiation surrounding the surface of the collapsed matter will be more than enough to take down a nearby coulomb barrier. A 22 microgram black hole is predicted to have a local temperature as high as 5.6×1032 K . It only takes 40 million degrees to trigger fusion, not a problem for one of these guys. You definitely would not want to lock horns with one of these buggers if they do not evaporate completely. On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:36 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to ChemE Stewart's message of Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:22:57 -0400: Hi, [snip] Gremlins come in different colors: Brown dwarf ~ Brown Gremlin White dwarf ~ White Gremiln Black hole ~.Black Gremlin Micro black hole ~ Invisible Gremlin The smaller they are the more elusive and more trouble they cause in their surroundings. For the gravitational field of an Invisible Gremlin with a single positive charge to be strong enough to attract another proton against the repulsive Coulomb force, it would need to have a mass in excess of 2 billion kg. Such a gremlin would have a Schwarzschild radius = 3E-3 fm (hundreds of times smaller than a proton), exerting a pressure of 2 billion kgf / Pi*SR^2 = 1E41 psi on the containment. Perhaps needless to say, it's going to be impossible to hang on to one. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
Great, and how much of the environment did we just irradiate with high level gammas? On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 24 Aug 2012 02:13:37 -0400: Hi, [snip] The Nuclear reactions that ED Storms thinks is happening is not consistent to what Rossi and Piantelli see as nuclear reaction products. These reaction products include copper, cobalt, zinc, iron, calcium, and so on, together with a mix of the first 19 of the lightest elements. Yes, Rossi's info is questionable by Piantelli info is solid. PS: a top of the line presentation. 1H+1H+58Ni = 60Zn + 8.538 MeV 1H+1H+58Ni = 59Cu + 1H + 3.419 MeV 1H+1H+58Ni = 56Ni + 4He + 5.829 MeV 1H+1H+58Ni = 32S + 28Si + 1.859 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 62Zn + 11.277 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 61Cu + 1H + 4.801 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 58Ni + 4He + 7.909 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 4He + 4He + 54Fe + 1.417 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 50Cr + 12C + 0.365 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 32S + 30Si + 0.555 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 34S + 28Si + 1.530 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 62Zn + n + 3.457 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 63Zn + 12.570 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 62Cu + 1H + 5.866 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 59Ni + 4He + 9.088 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 4He + 4He + 55Fe + 2.895 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 51Cr + 12C + 1.806 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 47Ti + 16O + 0.026 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 33S + 30Si + 1.376 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 34S + 29Si + 2.184 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 35S + 28Si + 0.696 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 64Zn + 13.835 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 65Zn + n + 5.319 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 66Zn + 16.378 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 65Cu + 1H + 7.453 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 62Ni + 4He + 11.800 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 4He + 4He + 58Fe + 4.690 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 54Cr + 12C + 4.411 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 50Ti + 16O + 3.642 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 34S + 32Si + 1.491 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 36S + 30Si + 2.576 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 33P + 33P + 0.154 MeV Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: encrusted protons? Hairy protons, Harry. Shaved for energy. T
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
In reply to ChemE Stewart's message of Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:09:19 -0400: Hi, [snip] Great, and how much of the environment did we just irradiate with high level gammas? Prompt gammas are not a problem, because they can be absorbed and converted to heat immediately. It's radioactive nuclei producing gammas over the long term that are potentially a problem. You also need to consider that short half-lived isotopes are also not much of a problem because they only need to be contained for a short time before they become inert. On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 24 Aug 2012 02:13:37 -0400: Hi, [snip] The Nuclear reactions that ED Storms thinks is happening is not consistent to what Rossi and Piantelli see as nuclear reaction products. These reaction products include copper, cobalt, zinc, iron, calcium, and so on, together with a mix of the first 19 of the lightest elements. Yes, Rossi's info is questionable by Piantelli info is solid. PS: a top of the line presentation. 1H+1H+58Ni = 60Zn + 8.538 MeV 1H+1H+58Ni = 59Cu + 1H + 3.419 MeV 1H+1H+58Ni = 56Ni + 4He + 5.829 MeV 1H+1H+58Ni = 32S + 28Si + 1.859 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 62Zn + 11.277 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 61Cu + 1H + 4.801 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 58Ni + 4He + 7.909 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 4He + 4He + 54Fe + 1.417 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 50Cr + 12C + 0.365 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 32S + 30Si + 0.555 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 34S + 28Si + 1.530 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 62Zn + n + 3.457 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 63Zn + 12.570 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 62Cu + 1H + 5.866 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 59Ni + 4He + 9.088 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 4He + 4He + 55Fe + 2.895 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 51Cr + 12C + 1.806 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 47Ti + 16O + 0.026 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 33S + 30Si + 1.376 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 34S + 29Si + 2.184 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 35S + 28Si + 0.696 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 64Zn + 13.835 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 65Zn + n + 5.319 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 66Zn + 16.378 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 65Cu + 1H + 7.453 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 62Ni + 4He + 11.800 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 4He + 4He + 58Fe + 4.690 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 54Cr + 12C + 4.411 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 50Ti + 16O + 3.642 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 34S + 32Si + 1.491 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 36S + 30Si + 2.576 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 33P + 33P + 0.154 MeV Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
micro black holes have a balding phase like I did at age 40 On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: encrusted protons? Hairy protons, Harry. Shaved for energy. T
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
Good question Jojo Jaro. The spin orbit force is the dynamic component of the strong nuclear force. It is the magnetic component of the strong force, however, it is not of electromagnetic origin. The electromagnetic magnetic force is not conserved and can increase under certain conditions. With electromagnetic magnetic soft iron is does the trick. The magnetic component of the strong force is called the spin orbit force. It is likewise not conserved. Under certain dynamic conditions it can increase in range and strength. It tends to filp neutrons and protons into pairs. This flipping action drives the weak force and tends to produce stable elements. These elements have approximately equal numbers of protons and neutrons. It like a bunch of compasses sitting together. Half will point up and half will point down. Now what is the condition required to increase the strength of the spin orbit force. Its dynamic vibration. Contrary to Storm's video, there is a formula. It's velocity = 1,094,00 meters/second = frequency times wavelength Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 24, 2012 6:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:It's fission Frank, how does one achieve this nucleon flipping? Give me something that I can test experimentally. Jojo - Original Message - From: fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 5:48 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:It's fission Not fusion not fission.It is nucleon flipping due to an greatly increased range and strength of the strong nuclear spin orbit force. Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 24, 2012 4:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:It's fission Never mind, I opened my mouth before I had the chance to read and comprehend what you are saying. I do that many times in my excitement. I'm an idiot. So, you are hypothesizing fission of Nickel? Wouldn't that be unlikely considering that nickel is such a stable element? What would be the fission reaction paths ending up with these elements. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:It's fission Can you hypothesize a starting element that would produce these elements via fission? Ni Jojo PS. On a lighter note, I am glad that you view my theory and explanation to be sufficiently credible for you to put it in league with Ed Storms. Comparing my theory with DGT is fair and proper, as both theories are vaporware - no experimental basis at all. But comparing me with Ed Storms is a great honor indeed. Frankly, this idea of CNTs and Charge accumulation on 1D structures, predominantly came from insights I got from Ed Storms and You. So, it's not really MY theory. It's mostly yours. But I'll be glad if someone would give my theory a sanity check. Heck, as long as we get LENR and kick out the ragheads from our lives, I don't care where or who comes up with it. Being the inventor of Commercial LENR would only serve to complicate my life. Last thing I need is for the ragheads and the Illuminati to paint a big Bullseye on my back. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:37 AM Subject: [Vo]:It's fission http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=1419 Defkalion GT stated On the other hand, the trace of Li, Bi and B in ICPMS analysis of NAE after the reactions/interactions in Hyperion reactors, is a strong evidence of nucleosynthesis of light elements (H to B), relating gamma absorption and further heat energy production. It is very difficult to produce of Li, Bi and B through nucleosynthesis. These elements are rare throughout the solar system and universe because they are poorly synthesized by fusion in both the Big Bang and also in stars. The concept of element build up from solely hydrogen that is held by DGTG, Ed Storms, and JoJo may be flawed. The method of production of these light elements in LENR may well derive from fission of a heavy element into multiple light elements. Fission is much more energy productive as a nuclear process. A heavy metal like nickel might be an absolute requirement to get transmutation of light elements and nuclear heat production to fly.
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
Good question Jojo Jaro. Lets say there is a log on the road. In this analogy the log represents the short range strong force. You are bind and you drive over the log. Crash! You know you drover over the log because you heard the crash. Likewise when a nucleon passes over the electrostatic potential barrier there is a crash, however, this time a gamma ray, not sound, is emitted. Lets say you are walking blind and step over the log. You never knew it was there. No crash. Like wise if the range of the strong nuclear force exceeds that of the Columbic energy will pass smoothly over the potential barrier. This is the only way a nuclear reaction can progress without emission. Storm's does not see or appreciate this. It is the main point Edmond. If the range of the strong nuclear force increased matter would be crushed out of existence. It can't be this. The dynamic spin orbit force can increase to the dimensions of a cluster without crushing matter out of existence. It is expelled like the magnetic force is expelled from a superconductor. The electromagnetic analogy works well with this process. Wha lah the spin orbit force reaches through the Coulombic barrier and tens to act on a cluster of nucleons. To me its obvious. This solution also leads to a classical understanding of the quantum condition. See the control of the natural forces. http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/913/Frank,%20Znidarsic%20(new) Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 24, 2012 11:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:It's fission Good question Jojo Jaro. The spin orbit force is the dynamic component of the strong nuclear force. It is the magnetic component of the strong force, however, it is not of electromagnetic origin. The electromagnetic magnetic force is not conserved and can increase under certain conditions. With electromagnetic magnetic soft iron is does the trick. The magnetic component of the strong force is called the spin orbit force. It is likewise not conserved. Under certain dynamic conditions it can increase in range and strength. It tends to filp neutrons and protons into pairs. This flipping action drives the weak force and tends to produce stable elements. These elements have approximately equal numbers of protons and neutrons. It like a bunch of compasses sitting together. Half will point up and half will point down. Now what is the condition required to increase the strength of the spin orbit force. Its dynamic vibration. Contrary to Storm's video, there is a formula. It's velocity = 1,094,00 meters/second = frequency times wavelength Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 24, 2012 6:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:It's fission Frank, how does one achieve this nucleon flipping? Give me something that I can test experimentally. Jojo - Original Message - From: fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 5:48 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:It's fission Not fusion not fission.It is nucleon flipping due to an greatly increased range and strength of the strong nuclear spin orbit force. Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 24, 2012 4:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:It's fission Never mind, I opened my mouth before I had the chance to read and comprehend what you are saying. I do that many times in my excitement. I'm an idiot. So, you are hypothesizing fission of Nickel? Wouldn't that be unlikely considering that nickel is such a stable element? What would be the fission reaction paths ending up with these elements. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 4:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:It's fission Can you hypothesize a starting element that would produce these elements via fission? Ni Jojo PS. On a lighter note, I am glad that you view my theory and explanation to be sufficiently credible for you to put it in league with Ed Storms. Comparing my theory with DGT is fair and proper, as both theories are vaporware - no experimental basis at all. But comparing me with Ed Storms is a great honor indeed. Frankly, this idea of CNTs and Charge accumulation on 1D structures, predominantly came from insights I got from Ed Storms and You. So, it's not really MY theory. It's mostly yours. But I'll be glad if someone would give my theory a sanity check. Heck, as long as we get LENR and kick out
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
Le Aug 24, 2012 à 11:46 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com a écrit : That would include transmuting deuterium into tritium, by the way. This is always a possibility, of course. But I think it would require either a transition from D to 3He and then a very slow inverse beta decay, or, alternatively, some kind of neutron capture. This leads one to wonder whether the tritium comes from something else, such as the spallation of a heavier nucleus by way of a fast particle. Another factor pointing in this direction is the observation that tritium is possibly the only radioisotope seen in any significant quantity, whereas other transmutations are generally to stable isotopes. Eric
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
10% of Rossi's ash was iron(atomic number = 26). How can you get this much iron from nickel(atomic number = 28)? Answer: Alpha decay of nickel (Atomic number = 2) 2 + 26 = 28 nickel - helium = iron. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 24 Aug 2012 02:13:37 -0400: Hi, [snip] The Nuclear reactions that ED Storms thinks is happening is not consistent to what Rossi and Piantelli see as nuclear reaction products. These reaction products include copper, cobalt, zinc, iron, calcium, and so on, together with a mix of the first 19 of the lightest elements. Yes, Rossi's info is questionable by Piantelli info is solid. PS: a top of the line presentation. 1H+1H+58Ni = 60Zn + 8.538 MeV 1H+1H+58Ni = 59Cu + 1H + 3.419 MeV 1H+1H+58Ni = 56Ni + 4He + 5.829 MeV 1H+1H+58Ni = 32S + 28Si + 1.859 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 62Zn + 11.277 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 61Cu + 1H + 4.801 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 58Ni + 4He + 7.909 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 4He + 4He + 54Fe + 1.417 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 50Cr + 12C + 0.365 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 32S + 30Si + 0.555 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 34S + 28Si + 1.530 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 62Zn + n + 3.457 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 63Zn + 12.570 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 62Cu + 1H + 5.866 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 59Ni + 4He + 9.088 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 4He + 4He + 55Fe + 2.895 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 51Cr + 12C + 1.806 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 47Ti + 16O + 0.026 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 33S + 30Si + 1.376 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 34S + 29Si + 2.184 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 35S + 28Si + 0.696 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 64Zn + 13.835 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 65Zn + n + 5.319 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 66Zn + 16.378 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 65Cu + 1H + 7.453 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 62Ni + 4He + 11.800 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 4He + 4He + 58Fe + 4.690 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 54Cr + 12C + 4.411 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 50Ti + 16O + 3.642 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 34S + 32Si + 1.491 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 36S + 30Si + 2.576 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 33P + 33P + 0.154 MeV Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
How do you get beryllium(4) from nickel(28)? 28 - 24 = 4... The fission of nickel into chromium and beryllium. How do you get lithium(3) from copper? 29 - 3 = 26 Copper fissions into lithium and iron. How do you get sulfur(16) from nickel(28)? 28 - 16 = 12Nickel fissions into sulfur and magnesium. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=1419 Defkalion GT stated *On the other hand, the trace of Li, Bi and B in ICPMS analysis of NAE after the reactions/interactions in Hyperion reactors, is a strong evidence of nucleosynthesis of light elements (H to B), relating gamma absorption and further heat energy production.* It is very difficult to produce of Li, Bi and B through nucleosynthesis. These elements are rare throughout the solar system and universe because they are poorly synthesized by fusion in both the Big Bang and also in stars. The concept of element build up from solely hydrogen that is held by DGTG, Ed Storms, and JoJo may be flawed. The method of production of these light elements in LENR may well derive from fission of a heavy element into multiple light elements. Fission is much more energy productive as a nuclear process. A heavy metal like nickel might be an absolute requirement to get transmutation of light elements and nuclear heat production to fly. Depending on element atomic weight build up from just hydrogen might not work. In addition, the production of helium(He4) may be a result of alpha decay and not fusion. Cheers:Axil
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
How do you get boron Chromium(24) fissions into boron(5) and potassium(19) Cheers: Axil On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: How do you get beryllium(4) from nickel(28)? 28 - 24 = 4... The fission of nickel into chromium and beryllium. How do you get lithium(3) from copper? 29 - 3 = 26 Copper fissions into lithium and iron. How do you get sulfur(16) from nickel(28)? 28 - 16 = 12Nickel fissions into sulfur and magnesium. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=1419 Defkalion GT stated *On the other hand, the trace of Li, Bi and B in ICPMS analysis of NAE after the reactions/interactions in Hyperion reactors, is a strong evidence of nucleosynthesis of light elements (H to B), relating gamma absorption and further heat energy production.* It is very difficult to produce of Li, Bi and B through nucleosynthesis. These elements are rare throughout the solar system and universe because they are poorly synthesized by fusion in both the Big Bang and also in stars. The concept of element build up from solely hydrogen that is held by DGTG, Ed Storms, and JoJo may be flawed. The method of production of these light elements in LENR may well derive from fission of a heavy element into multiple light elements. Fission is much more energy productive as a nuclear process. A heavy metal like nickel might be an absolute requirement to get transmutation of light elements and nuclear heat production to fly. Depending on element atomic weight build up from just hydrogen might not work. In addition, the production of helium(He4) may be a result of alpha decay and not fusion. Cheers:Axil
