Re: [Vo]:Mark LeClair presents his thesis and supporting evidence
Thanks, Axil LeClair is making testable claims. He certainly sounds sincere. Hopefully, some labs will try to replicate his results soon. If it turns out his results are correct, I wonder whether the observed neutron and gamma emissions will be as large as expected given the reported levels of transmutations. I also wonder whether he might be adopting the Casimir-effect theory and dismissing plasma/plasmon explanations too quickly, since (I think) cavitation is accompanied by coherent electron/proton plasma currents. -- Lou Pagnucco Axil wrote: http://smartscarecrow.com/2012/09/presentation-by-mark-leclair-of-nanospire/ The LeClair talk is up on the smartscarecrow site and starts at about 30:23 in. Axil On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From this recent presentation, I have gained new insight into what motivates LeClair to spend so much time on his fusion/water crystal research. This knowledge that he gains in this area is central to the success of his cavatation business. LeClairs business model is built around ultra-high nano-precision based cavitation cutting. He saw that in many cases, there was an unknown factor in cavatation that caused unwanted randomized cutting going on. He could not explain it nor could he control it. Slide 17 shows some of the random results that led him to look into this problem. He saw both circular and straight grooving and strange tracks that he could not explain so he set out to find what was causing this unexplained behavior coming from his cavatation procedures. So that is how he came to find water crystals. Once he realized that these crystals were the causitive factor that was cutting material, he was able to come up with a mathematical model that closely predicted how cavatation cut most types of material. The existing model was an order of magnitude inaccurate in predicting cavatation erosion. This model is very valuable commercially and is closely held by Nanospire. LeClair also realized that the type of transmutation that was going on in cavatation could have massive military implications. He took it onto himself as a duty to humanity to characterize this threat to nuclear controls. This analysis included the formation of a model of the transmutation process. He informed the relevant authorities and they thanked him. From looking at slide 29, the bomb material U233, 235, and Pu239 at first glance look like to me that they are all denatured with even numbered isotopes which would require difficult isotopic separation procedures to purify them to bomb grade material. In closing, LeClair is an outcast among outcasts. I have noticed that many fringe groups show the same intolerance for new ideas that they themselves are subjected to. I have come to realize this propensity to intellectual intolerance is inherent in human nature; I myself suffer from it. I have accepted this behavior as part of the human condition. But close mindedness does very much slow our acquisition of new knowledge making our learning processes painfully slow. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Mark LeClair has a fantastic story to tell. It should be recognized that very little of this story has been confirmed, yet some of it should be rather easy to confirm. I haven't listened to the show, but did review the slides. What I can tell, clearly, is that LeClair is theorizing way beyond what he has evidence for. First things first. He has expertize in cavitation. So it is reasonable that he might find a way to create bubble fusion. Bubble fusion is hot fusion. In slide 39, he presents his work as related to CF/LENR, but he includes bubble fusion. Cavitation Fusion in Other LENR Devices Ultrasonics/Sonofusion:, Stringham, Impulse Devices Pons-Fleischmann Cells, Taleyarkhan, JET Cavitating Rotor-Stators: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump (Hydrodynamics, Inc.), Potopov, Energetics, Inc. Brillouin? Defkalion? Rossi? It's well-known and not controversial: CF/LENR isn't hot fusion. It does not produce neutrons, except possibly in very small quantities through rare branches or secondary reactions. Bubble fusion is hot fusion. Talyarkhan's work involved a claim of detecting bubble fusion through the emission of neutrons. Bubble fusion allegedly works through the generation of very high temperatures. If neutrons are generated, this is certainly hot fusion, to distinguish it from cold fusion. By lumping all those approaches together, LeClair demonstrates that he doesn't understand cold fusion at all. He claimed massive radiation poisoning, which would be from massive neutron generation. His effect, if he knows how to create it, and he's claimed more than one massive radiation event, should be easy to demonstrate, plus such a massive event would leave lots of traces. Material that he
Re: [Vo]:Why is MM considered a disproff of Ether?
Because the idea of the ether they were after (i.e. were trying to confirm) was completely mechanicistic. They never expected light would sink or shorten into the direction of movement. That is, *longitudinally*. Corolarium 1: The Universe is not mechanicistic. Light, at least, completely evades a mere mechanicistic representation. If the Universe were mechanicistic, it would be a dead, and dark, one. Corolarium 2: That sink or shortening must imply something. Conservation of energy, remember? Now, one hundred years after, give or take a couple of decades: Are we ready to really understand this? Or we'll continue to play shell games and dumb? On 09/18/2012 12:40 AM, francis wrote: I don't have an issue with the MM experiment disproving any etheric bias in a SPATIAL direction but think Lorentzian contraction and time dilation are evidence of an etheric river of virtual particles intersecting our 3d plane from a perpendicular dimension at a velocity we as chalkboard figures can only experience as C, In our 3D plane we can only remotely observe the effect of dilation by comparing objects in vastly different inertial frames. My posit is that VP don't pop into and out of existence so much as they grow into the present from the future and then shrink into the past and are responsible for the normally unexploitable force that moves gas randomly in all directions. Casimir plates by their geometry aggregate and segregate these forces from below the plank scale up into the nano scale while restricting gas motion to 2d such that the perpendicular forces the VP exert on the gas are no longer divided equally between 3 spatial axii and therefore is no longer random motion... becoming exploitable to generate heat or if driven in reverse to exert force on the ether for propulsion. Fran
[Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons?
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/rossi-on-the-safety-of-cop-6/ Admittedly this is from Mr Unreliable, so caveat emptor, but if there are neutrons being released under some conditions why not all the time? Neutrons would be really bad news for LENR. Very penetrating and hard to shield - and produce long term accumulation of radioisotopes in surrounding environment. Just the kind of thing that regulators would jump on to restrict applications.
Re: [Vo]:Why is MM considered a disproff of Ether?
Guys, We are surrounded by dark matter which absorbs light and energy and matter Massive dark matter particles are orbiting through the earth and creating many/most of our high energy events on Earth including intense weather patterns, seismic and volcanic activity. Believe it or not I think they are talking to us through crop circles as they pass through earth. Http://darkmattersalot.com P.S. Please sidestep all active sinkholes. Once the low pressure system moves through they will go dormant. Then you can fill them in safetly. Until then, well, they are just a sinkhole of money, matter and energy. Stewart I call this my grand unification theory of hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, sinkholes and crop circles... On Saturday, September 22, 2012, Mauro Lacy wrote: On 09/22/2012 08:39 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: On 09/22/2012 08:29 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Because the idea of the ether they were after (i.e. were trying to confirm) was completely mechanicistic. They never expected light would sink or shorten into the direction of movement. That is, * longitudinally*. Corolarium 1: The Universe is not mechanicistic. Light, at least, completely evades a mere mechanicistic representation. If the Universe were mechanicistic, it would be a dead, and dark, one. Corolarium 2: That sink or shortening must imply something. Conservation of energy, remember? Now, one hundred years after, give or take a couple of decades: Are we ready to really understand this? Or we'll continue to play shell games and dumb? In other words: There's more to it than what's usually stated. Modern science evades the question by modeling only the visible part of the equation, i.e. the material aspect. *There's, without any doubt at all, an invisible or spiritual aspect to all of it.* Just don't try to imagine it, visualize it, or model it in material terms. But, for God's sake: *don't forget about it*. Because you, your very self, is at the stake. 'Are' is probably more appropriate above, not 'is'. In the very same way as the material world has complex, detailed, and strict rules, the spiritual world has them, too. They are different. You can spend your whole life just trying to understand some of it. As a first, you should just stop pretending they don't exist, i.e. suspension of disbelief. And secondly, that they are similar to those of the material world. Abstraction is another common cause of confusion: abstraction can't never be the spiritual, but just, at best, a distilled, or dissected, that is, still (i.e. dead) *image* of it.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons?
It's possible that Rossie is seeing more neutrons than he has let on, even in his smaller devices running at low COP. Weighing against this is the fact that many of the LENR researchers have also seen neutrons, but only at very low levels -- Ed Storms provides a single, short paragraph in chapter 7 of his book on what is detected that says that neutrons not seen at any significant level, and the book includes references to Celani, who has looked at Ni/H. My hunch is that neutrons are arising in relatively uncommon side branches in most cases. If this is right, I also suspect that these branches can be reached more frequently if the system is driven harder or if the experimental conditions are adjusted in the right way. Eric On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/rossi-on-the-safety-of-cop-6/ Admittedly this is from Mr Unreliable, so caveat emptor, but if there are neutrons being released under some conditions why not all the time? Neutrons would be really bad news for LENR. Very penetrating and hard to shield - and produce long term accumulation of radioisotopes in surrounding environment. Just the kind of thing that regulators would jump on to restrict applications.
Re: [Vo]:Why is MM considered a disproff of Ether?
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:57 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Guys, We are surrounded by dark matter which absorbs light and energy and matter Massive dark matter particles are orbiting through the earth and creating many/most of our high energy events on Earth including intense weather patterns, seismic and volcanic activity. According to the latest: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3829 the dark matter boson is quite small, around 38 MeV. Don't feel bad, it blows the standard model out of the water, too.
[Vo]:New and probably very important - the Reiter effect
Hats off to Nick ! Nick Reiter has generously compiled and placed his recent positive thermal results with cobalt-hydrogen in a Word doc at the bottom of the documents list here: https://sites.google.com/site/ohiotoio/documents Note that this is not high-budget work, and is not yet verified by flow calorimetry - but if replicated could be far more important than Celani's recent revelations, for several reasons. 1) Celani sees thermal gain in the range of 20 watts, Reiter sees thermal gain in the range of 70 watts. In both cases COP is not large but the excess watt level portends eventual self-power. 2) Celani depends on an alloy, and long time delay before gain is realized. Reiter depends on simple ion deposition of cobalt in zeolite, with gain happening much sooner. 3) The setup, and processing of active material is much simpler - tank hydrogen is not needed for Reiter, since a hydride breakdown supplies hydrogen. P-in can be external or internal. 4) Long term results have been seen for both - even in the first effort by Reiter. 5) Both experiments beg for replication with calorimetry (as opposed to baseline thermometry), but Nick's is much simpler and much more robust. This is great news - and the Reiter effect is most likely a hybrid effect of f/H (fractional hydrogen) in a Casimir cavity with a ferromagnetic thermal dump (nickel or cobalt). I am not speaking for Nick on this theory, and he and Sam may be working on a different underlying theory. The results speak for themselves - when replicated. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Why is MM considered a disproff of Ether?
On 09/22/2012 09:04 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: On 09/22/2012 08:39 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: On 09/22/2012 08:29 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Because the idea of the ether they were after (i.e. were trying to confirm) was completely mechanicistic. They never expected light would sink or shorten into the direction of movement. That is, *longitudinally*. Corolarium 1: The Universe is not mechanicistic. Light, at least, completely evades a mere mechanicistic representation. If the Universe were mechanicistic, it would be a dead, and dark, one. Corolarium 2: That sink or shortening must imply something. Conservation of energy, remember? Now, one hundred years after, give or take a couple of decades: Are we ready to really understand this? Or we'll continue to play shell games and dumb? In other words: There's more to it than what's usually stated. Modern science evades the question by modeling only the visible part of the equation, i.e. the material aspect. *There's, without any doubt at all, an invisible or spiritual aspect to all of it.* Just don't try to imagine it, visualize it, or model it in material terms. But, for God's sake: *don't forget about it*. Because you, your very self, is at the stake. 'Are' is probably more appropriate above, not 'is'. In the very same way as the material world has complex, detailed, and strict rules, the spiritual world has them, too. They are different. You can spend your whole life just trying to understand some of it. As a first, you should just stop pretending they don't exist, i.e. suspension of disbelief. And secondly, that they are similar to those of the material world. Abstraction is another common cause of confusion: abstraction can't never be the spiritual, but just, at best, a distilled, or dissected, that is, still (i.e. dead) *image* of it. Just to clarify, one more thing: the ether is material. It's just a subler, or finer, form of matter. The ether is dark matter. Although transparent matter would be a better term. And yes, it's related to the weather, seismic activity and earthquakes. Probably not to crop circles. At least, not directly :-) Without the ether, life would not be possible. And without even subtler forms, which gradually lead more and more to the spirit, perception and conscience wouldn't exist either. All these are things that will, for better and worse, become gradually clear in the centuries to follow. There's nothing that can be done to avoid that. What can and must be done, is to be aware and try to gain a clear understanding of these issues.
Re: [Vo]:New and probably very important - the Reiter effect
The cobalt loaded beads remind me of Mars. Way to go Avalon Biker!
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I have a pre-tirement house near a Borax source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borax_Lake_Site. It was the major US source before those dang mule trains took over. It would be a real doozie if I could just scrape up some salts, hook up the nickels and demonstrate CF// an anomalous heat effect.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
What's the quickest way to do some basic calorimetry ... ? a) Stir the boron and measure the temperature inside and outside the container. b) Compare the measured VA and the delta-T of the solution. c) Use an oscilloscope to check that there are no spikes/abnormal waveforms in the input power. If that show some excess heat, but it's not definitive, estimate the losses: d) Add a resistor, and use it to produce the same temperature/time profile (This is what Godes/McKubre did).
Re: [Vo]:Why is MM considered a disproff of Ether?
There are two kinds of ethers. First: the classical ether is extremely stiff medium where light waves are propagating, similarly like sound waves are propagating in a water. It must be hugely stiff, because the speed of light is depended on the stiffness and the speed of light is quite remarkable. There is slight problem that if ether as stiff that it allows the speed for light to be 300 Mm/s, then how on Earth there can be inertial movement around the sun! And if ether does not interact with regular matter, then how come we can see the light that is pressure waves propagating through ether? Luckily this classical ether was refuted by Einstein and his (with little help from Planck) invention of quantum theory that pointed out that actually photons are quantum particles, not waves. And as they are particles, no ether as medium for light waves is required. Second: The other kind of Ether is Newton's fixed background or preferred frame of reference. Einstein developed this idea even further when he showed with general relativity that actually ether is not fixed, but the gravity can modify the geometry of absolute frame of reference. Einstein himself called correctly his general relativity as ether theory as it is based on a idea of an absolute frame of reference. In some other instances I have promoted Lorentz's theory of relativity. That is similar ether based kinematic theory as general relativity is for accelerating frame of references. That is, the kinematic motion in Lorentz's theory of relativity is always measured in respect of ether and if we choose Earth's gravity field as preferred frame of reference, then this interpretation agrees with every empirical observations so far. Although Lorentz's theory of relativity is ether theory, it has not been disproved and it happily agrees with MM experiment and all the time dilation observations. Therefore this latter kind of ether, where ether or preferred frame of reference is Earth's gravity field, is not refuted. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:The Believers
Opening at the Chicago International Film Festival October 16th: http://www.thebelieversmovie.com/
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I would say just measure the temperature of an open beaker containing the boron solution. What you're probably looking after is sudden heat increase due to a kind of LENR effect. If such an effect is occurring you should see different slope of the Temp/time graph you should compose. Such sudden effect likely occurs when a certain hydrogen saturation in the coin metal lattice has occurred. If you want an extra reference you could use a second identical beaker and use only graphite rods in the same solution. Both setups can be connected to the same power supply, but measure the current in both setups, since the 'all graphite' beaker will likely have a different overall resistance. Graphite rods are cheap and can be bough for a few dollars in any art materials shop. On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: What's the quickest way to do some basic calorimetry ... ? a) Stir the boron and measure the temperature inside and outside the container. b) Compare the measured VA and the delta-T of the solution. c) Use an oscilloscope to check that there are no spikes/abnormal waveforms in the input power. If that show some excess heat, but it's not definitive, estimate the losses: d) Add a resistor, and use it to produce the same temperature/time profile (This is what Godes/McKubre did).
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: If you want an extra reference you could use a second identical beaker and use only graphite rods in the same solution. Graphite rods are not necessarily a suitable control. It is possible that graphite will be consumed in a different but related set of reactions. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 11:58:00 AM If you want an extra reference you could use a second identical beaker and use only graphite rods in the same solution. Graphite rods are not necessarily a suitable control. It is possible that graphite will be consumed in a different but related set of reactions. I think that all obvious controls should be tested : nickel, copper ... Chuck reported some. But graphite is probably a good base. AFTER there's a clear excess heat signal we can look into its origins: e) Exothermic Chemical/electroplating effect I'll search for any reaction information. THEN we could look into varying parameters -- Ni% Cu% : boron solutions : other AC/DC/combined waveforms to see if there's a peak : distance between the (Cat/An)odes. The Nickels should be weighed (a gemologist's scale would be fine) to see if weight changes.
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I think that all obvious controls should be tested : nickel, copper ... Chuck reported some. But graphite is probably a good base. Sure -- any possible and interesting control should be attempted, and graphite is definitely one. In addition, for a hydrogen-1 gas-loading or light water experiment, I propose either silicon or magnesium as suitable controls. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New and probably very important - the Reiter effect
This is one of the better writeups that I've seen. It's encouraging to see some simple experiments that, if successful, will demonstrate a clear effect. Nick Reiter should consult a paper written by Hioki, et al., which touches upon work they did monitoring heat evolution in a zeolite [1]. Figure 2 of that paper shows a graph with two curves. There is a steep curve that was seen at the start of the gas loading which appears to have been due to a chemical effect (phase 1). After that there is a sharp drop followed by a gradual increase, which they attribute to anomalous heat (phase 2). It's not clear that Nick Reiter and S.P. Faile got beyond the first phase, if such a phase can be distinguished. The fact that they saw a reaction over a period of a week instead of hours does not dispel this question, since they were using the KH slurry that slowly releases the hydrogen in this instance. In other words, it is possible they saw no anomalous heat. Eric [1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Hioki-Isotope-Effect-Paper.pdf On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Hats off to Nick ! Nick Reiter has generously compiled and placed his recent positive thermal results with cobalt-hydrogen in a Word doc at the bottom of the documents list here: https://sites.google.com/site/ohiotoio/documents
[Vo]:Show me the beef
A lesson for all the naysayers, wind bags, journalist wan-a-bees, hop heads, dreamers and procastinators:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4VJG8-9izQfeature=player_embedded#t=156sHow about cleaning up Vortex to allow easier selection of intellectional discourse and experimental attempts from the foul, odoriferous and useless manure found here repetitiously hundreds of times by the same posters.Bark Bark
RE: [Vo]:New and probably very important - the Reiter effect
Actually, he includes the Hioki paper in his references on page 16. I doubt if a sealed reactor with 10-15 grams of material, most of it already oxidized, could show continuous thermal gain over a 100 hour run on chemical energy. Did you notice the low mass of KH? In fact, if it were chemical – even an hour at that level of excess would be rather amazing. From: Eric Walker This is one of the better writeups that I've seen. It's encouraging to see some simple experiments that, if successful, will demonstrate a clear effect. Nick Reiter should consult a paper written by Hioki, et al., which touches upon work they did monitoring heat evolution in a zeolite [1]. Figure 2 of that paper shows a graph with two curves. There is a steep curve that was seen at the start of the gas loading which appears to have been due to a chemical effect (phase 1). After that there is a sharp drop followed by a gradual increase, which they attribute to anomalous heat (phase 2). It's not clear that Nick Reiter and S.P. Faile got beyond the first phase, if such a phase can be distinguished. The fact that they saw a reaction over a period of a week instead of hours does not dispel this question, since they were using the KH slurry that slowly releases the hydrogen in this instance. In other words, it is possible they saw no anomalous heat. Eric [1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Hioki-Isotope-Effect-Paper.pdf On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Hats off to Nick ! Nick Reiter has generously compiled and placed his recent positive thermal results with cobalt-hydrogen in a Word doc at the bottom of the documents list here: https://sites.google.com/site/ohiotoio/documents
Re: [Vo]:Show me the beef
Yes, Puppy,Like Jed Rothwell in Vortex search shows 15574 matches or Jojo with 834 never showing any results for his "research" while soliciting donations on Vertex. Perhaps they became Rich raising worms or lizzards.Meow
Re: [Vo]:Show me the beef
This sort of message I would expect from american smokers of shit. Thank You for displaying that to the world at large. Guenter Von: Puppy Dog d...@inbox.lv An: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 22:26 Samstag, 22.September 2012 Betreff: [Vo]:Show me the beef A lesson for all the naysayers, wind bags, journalist wan-a-bees, hop heads, dreamers and procastinators: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4VJG8-9izQfeature=player_embedded#t=156s How about cleaning up Vortex to allow easier selection of intellectional discourse and experimental attempts from the foul, odoriferous and useless manure found here repetitiously hundreds of times by the same posters. Bark Bark
Re: [Vo]:Show me the beef
Mental Abnormalities? ** Re: [Vo]:Show me the beef Guenter Wildgruber Sat, 22 Sep 2012 14:43:04 -0700 This sort of message I would expect from american smokers of shit. Thank You for displaying that to the world at large. Guenter Von: Puppy Dog d...@inbox.lv An: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 22:26 Samstag, 22.September 2012 Betreff: [Vo]:Show me the beef A lesson for all the naysayers, wind bags, journalist wan-a-bees, hop heads, dreamers and procastinators: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4VJG8-9izQfeature=player_embedded#t=156s How about cleaning up Vortex to allow easier selection of intellectional discourse and experimental attempts from the foul, odoriferous and useless manure found here repetitiously hundreds of times by the same posters. Bark Bark *** RE: [Vo]:Rossi conspiracy. Part III Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:16:06 -0700 I don't know if Guenter Wildgruber is *his* real name, but Mark_-ZeroPoint most certainly is not a real name. But I'll happily apologize if it is. Mark, here, speculates on something, along with SVJ, about Guenter's mail, that makes some crazy assumptions. If you hit a reply to an actual vortex-l post, what happens to the reply depends on, not only the list settings, but also your own email program's settings. It has little or nothing to do with the original email. If the mail is echoed through the list, it will have a Reply-to header supplied by the list. If you look at the headers from his mails, they look quite like headers from other mails. However, how do we know that a mail is from the vortex list? If you only rely upon the [Vo] in the header, you could be easily misled. Some people do send mails to both the list and the individual. That could easily be done by the user who originates the mail. A mail that was cc'd to the individual, as well as sent to to the list, if the individual replies to it, will behave exactly as described. I don't see a cc in Guenter's mails to the list, but he might be bcc'ing the private emails of some. That would produce the same effect for those people. Again, people might do this to suppress further cc's being sent, but to notify an individual that a mail has been sent to the list. Embarrassing, messages like this, assuming a nefarious reason for something quite ordinary, don't you think? None of this has any bearing on the cogency of the alleged Rossi conspiracy. As with most Matters Rossi, we don't have enough information to do more than flap the meaning-making machine, which can churn out endless speculations. I think Guenter was just having fun. He seems to have some level of grasp of the situation, more than can be said for many others. At 12:57 PM 7/14/2012, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: SVJ wrote: While Im at it, I think Gunter might turn out to be an agent too - with his own personal agenda. I base this suspicion of mine on the fact that whenever I hit the reply button from one of Gunters vortex-l posts my replies are automatically sent to Gunters personal email address, not Vortex. I have come to the disquieting conclusion that this is a deliberate act of sabotage on Gunters part, perhaps to siphon off information from entering the general public domain. You certainly have to admit the fact that inserting ones personal email address in lieu of vortex-l may be due to a highly suspicious agenda! ;-) I think youre onto something, Steven! In another rambling post, Guenter goes on about how adept he is with technology and wondering whether he should teach his non-techy friends how to use an iPad, but yet, he cant even configure his email client to ReplyTo: the proper vortex-l address there would only seem to be two possibilities 1. His computer skills are what he implies, quite adept, and thus should know how to properly configure his email client, but doesnt for some nefarious reason; or 2. He isnt what he says he is, in which case, it might excuse his inability to properly configure his email client, but then he is misleading readers about his tech-skills/knowledge. I think the first is the more likely one -Mark * * A Quickly Response.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:23:24 AM First, the Neutrons were observed occasionally, and only at COP=200. There's another discussion of COP at : Steven N. Karels September 17th, 2012 at 8:34 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=733cpage=3#comment-326141 eCat and Control Linearity ... It is desirable to have a linear control of a heat generation system. ... So does COP imply control linearity? Perhaps Andrea Rossi will illumine us? .. Rossi : Yes
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons?
I am less optimistic that neutron production is only occurring under special circumstances and not all the time - would seem to me to require more good luck than is likely (what was McKubre's line about conservation of miracles?) I believe low energy neutrons are relatively hard to detect - requiring specialist equipment that may not yet have been applied to the new generation of high output Ni-P LENR. Fingers crossed it doesn't turn out to be a big problem. On 22 September 2012 16:23, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: It's possible that Rossie is seeing more neutrons than he has let on, even in his smaller devices running at low COP. Weighing against this is the fact that many of the LENR researchers have also seen neutrons, but only at very low levels -- Ed Storms provides a single, short paragraph in chapter 7 of his book on what is detected that says that neutrons not seen at any significant level, and the book includes references to Celani, who has looked at Ni/H. My hunch is that neutrons are arising in relatively uncommon side branches in most cases. If this is right, I also suspect that these branches can be reached more frequently if the system is driven harder or if the experimental conditions are adjusted in the right way. Eric On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/rossi-on-the-safety-of-cop-6/ Admittedly this is from Mr Unreliable, so caveat emptor, but if there are neutrons being released under some conditions why not all the time? Neutrons would be really bad news for LENR. Very penetrating and hard to shield - and produce long term accumulation of radioisotopes in surrounding environment. Just the kind of thing that regulators would jump on to restrict applications.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons?
In reply to Robert Lynn's message of Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:45:38 +0100: Hi, [snip] http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/rossi-on-the-safety-of-cop-6/ IOW at very high COP levels he actually had a few nuclear reactions. ;) ...so at lower COP levels his Hydrinos don't shrink far enough to result in a significant number of fusion events. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Overunity LED?
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds Craig
Re: [Vo]:Overunity LED?
No, from the article: However, while MIT's diode puts out more than twice as much energy in photons as it's fed in electrons, it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead. When it gets more than 100 percent *electrically*-efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing energy from its environment to convert into more photons. 2012/9/22 Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds Craig -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Overunity LED?
Well, nothing is overunity, not even cold fusion, but there are a lot of places which could use cheap lighting and air conditioning. Craig On 09/22/2012 09:30 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: No, from the article: However, while MIT's diode puts out more than twice as much energy in photons as it's fed in electrons, it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead. When it gets more than 100 percent /electrically/-efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing energy from its environment to convert into more photons. 2012/9/22 Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds Craig -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Overunity LED?
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds LOL! The Reiter Effect showed a similar effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_coefficient as have other LENR products.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
I saw that information on Rossi's journal. I am inclined to believe that he does not have anything resembling linear control otherwise he could raise the COP above 6 with little concern. Does anyone in vortex actually believe that the LENR activity goes up linearly with drive power? It would be great if true, but I would bet against it. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 6:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:23:24 AM First, the Neutrons were observed occasionally, and only at COP=200. There's another discussion of COP at : Steven N. Karels September 17th, 2012 at 8:34 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=733cpage=3#comment-326141 eCat and Control Linearity ... It is desirable to have a linear control of a heat generation system. ... So does COP imply control linearity? Perhaps Andrea Rossi will illumine us? .. Rossi : Yes
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons?
Would it be possible to detect that modest energy neutrons were being emitted by just monitoring the local gamma radiation from transmuted materials? Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 7:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? I am less optimistic that neutron production is only occurring under special circumstances and not all the time - would seem to me to require more good luck than is likely (what was McKubre's line about conservation of miracles?) I believe low energy neutrons are relatively hard to detect - requiring specialist equipment that may not yet have been applied to the new generation of high output Ni-P LENR. Fingers crossed it doesn't turn out to be a big problem. On 22 September 2012 16:23, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: It's possible that Rossie is seeing more neutrons than he has let on, even in his smaller devices running at low COP. Weighing against this is the fact that many of the LENR researchers have also seen neutrons, but only at very low levels -- Ed Storms provides a single, short paragraph in chapter 7 of his book on what is detected that says that neutrons not seen at any significant level, and the book includes references to Celani, who has looked at Ni/H. My hunch is that neutrons are arising in relatively uncommon side branches in most cases. If this is right, I also suspect that these branches can be reached more frequently if the system is driven harder or if the experimental conditions are adjusted in the right way. Eric On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/rossi-on-the-safety-of-cop-6/ Admittedly this is from Mr Unreliable, so caveat emptor, but if there are neutrons being released under some conditions why not all the time? Neutrons would be really bad news for LENR. Very penetrating and hard to shield - and produce long term accumulation of radioisotopes in surrounding environment. Just the kind of thing that regulators would jump on to restrict applications.
Re: [Vo]:JCMNS Vols 6 to 9
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 11:05:05 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:JCMNS Vols 6 to 9 JCMNS Volumes 6 to 9 published Goodness. I am behind. I forgot to add them to LENR-CANR.org. Should be *I*CMNS. Wiki says they changed ICCF to International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science When did they change it back? (Remarkably, a wiki Cold Fusion editor says he's going to put up an article on ICCF!!)
Re: [Vo]:Overunity LED?
Ordinarily it takes energy to fall below ambient temperature, so it must stealing energy from the electrical input that would have been used for photon production. Unless it is violating the laws of thermodynamics, it must become less efficient at producing photons as it cools. harry On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: No, from the article: However, while MIT's diode puts out more than twice as much energy in photons as it's fed in electrons, it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead. When it gets more than 100 percent electrically-efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing energy from its environment to convert into more photons. 2012/9/22 Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds Craig -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 6:43:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity I saw that information on Rossi's journal. I am inclined to believe that he does not have anything resembling linear control otherwise he could raise the COP above 6 with little concern. Does anyone in vortex actually believe that the LENR activity goes up linearly with drive power? It would be great if true, but I would bet against it. I don't think anyone but Rossi BELIEVES it ... but he sure sticks with it, all the way up to 1200C. (Or has any idea how a resistive heating control could still work at 1200C. Actually, he uses a lower number -- 1080C?). If he was scamming and had nothing to show, he'd surely have raised his COP to See Defkalion. (Poker terms.) And the un-public test rumors are that Defkalion couldn't deliver stable results.
Re: [Vo]:Overunity LED?
I like this device. It has interesting possibilities. Actually, energy is being radiated into space by all warm collections of gas molecules in the form of infrared. You could place a tiny low power heater within one of these clouds and claim that the power being radiated as heat is many times more than you supply. Of course if they have found a way to accelerate the transfer of heat beyond normal cooling then they can tap the residual energy that has thus far been considered impossible. Could this device be a form of heat pump? If it is, the test system boundary must include the location to which the LED radiation is sent. The target region would now have additional heat energy that matches that which is radiated from the local region. Dave -Original Message- From: Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 9:17 pm Subject: [Vo]:Overunity LED? http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds Craig
Re: [Vo]:JCMNS Vols 6 to 9
(Should this be considered another miracle of cold fusion?) Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 9:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:JCMNS Vols 6 to 9 From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 11:05:05 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:JCMNS Vols 6 to 9 JCMNS Volumes 6 to 9 published Goodness. I am behind. I forgot to add them to LENR-CANR.org. Should be *I*CMNS. Wiki says they changed ICCF to International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science When did they change it back? (Remarkably, a wiki Cold Fusion editor says he's going to put up an article on ICCF!!)
Re: [Vo]:Why is MM considered a disproff of Ether?
Jouni, It is a neo Lorentzian ether that I posit not a classical stiff medium that ignores an extra dimensional intersection of ether with our plane. This posit also makes the speed of light and our system of metrics into a blind man's cane used because we are trapped in 3d inertial frames while the ether which passes thru our frames from a 4th dimension decides which WSM is the right shape to remain physical - trapped in our plane while the rest of the virtual particle stream rushes past imparting energy equally in all 3 directions such that it is not exploitable other than to establish ground states and gas motion - it becomes our clock in the physical world and regardless of the actual rate that it passes thru our plane we inside the plane will always experience it as what we refer to as C - a true preferred frame wouldn't be a frame at all but rather a 4 dimensional being who could somehow actually observe time and space morphing between different frames.. and this may be the religious aspect Mauro and ChemE were discussing.. a sort of Deep Space temporal being that has difficulty communicating with the linear time inhabitants [us] or who always were and always will be to borrow a biblical expression or the ocaasic tree from Wicca where all knowledge grows on a tree which would be how our linear existence would appear from a temporal perspective . so perhaps dying in 3D is only completing a branch that remains forever a structure with a non linear sentinence -perhaps we are just a necessary facet to introduce change into that otherwise unchanging dimension. Fran Re: [Vo]:Why is MM considered a disproff of Ether? Jouni Valkonen Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:58:02 -0700 There are two kinds of ethers. First: the classical ether is extremely stiff medium where light waves are propagating, similarly like sound waves are propagating in a water. It must be hugely stiff, because the speed of light is depended on the stiffness and the speed of light is quite remarkable. There is slight problem that if ether as stiff that it allows the speed for light to be 300 Mm/s, then how on Earth there can be inertial movement around the sun! And if ether does not interact with regular matter, then how come we can see the light that is pressure waves propagating through ether? Luckily this classical ether was refuted by Einstein and his (with little help from Planck) invention of quantum theory that pointed out that actually photons are quantum particles, not waves. And as they are particles, no ether as medium for light waves is required. Second: The other kind of Ether is Newton's fixed background or preferred frame of reference. Einstein developed this idea even further when he showed with general relativity that actually ether is not fixed, but the gravity can modify the geometry of absolute frame of reference. Einstein himself called correctly his general relativity as ether theory as it is based on a idea of an absolute frame of reference. In some other instances I have promoted Lorentz's theory of relativity. That is similar ether based kinematic theory as general relativity is for accelerating frame of references. That is, the kinematic motion in Lorentz's theory of relativity is always measured in respect of ether and if we choose Earth's gravity field as preferred frame of reference, then this interpretation agrees with every empirical observations so far. Although Lorentz's theory of relativity is ether theory, it has not been disproved and it happily agrees with MM experiment and all the time dilation observations. Therefore this latter kind of ether, where ether or preferred frame of reference is Earth's gravity field, is not refuted. -Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
I have run many simulations of an ECAT type device where temperature is the controlling parameter and find that the only way to get a decent COP (2) is to use positive feedback. In this mode the device is thermally running away to generate effective gain and must be reversed just before total control is lost on each cycle. If a truly linear heat output versus material temperature is available one can have constant COP gain, but this is not true for any other function. An exception to this simulation rule might occur if strong active cooling of some type is used which overpowers the internal heat source and lowers the material temperature sufficiently to bring it back to planet earth. An example would be to apply a large pulse of low temperature coolant that extracts the additional heat energy quickly. I do not see anything of this nature within Rossi's design. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 9:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 6:43:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity I saw that information on Rossi's journal. I am inclined to believe that he does not have anything resembling linear control otherwise he could raise the COP above 6 with little concern. Does anyone in vortex actually believe that the LENR activity goes up linearly with drive power? It would be great if true, but I would bet against it. I don't think anyone but Rossi BELIEVES it ... but he sure sticks with it, all the way up to 1200C. (Or has any idea how a resistive heating control could still work at 1200C. Actually, he uses a lower number -- 1080C?). If he was scamming and had nothing to show, he'd surely have raised his COP to See Defkalion. (Poker terms.) And the un-public test rumors are that Defkalion couldn't deliver stable results.
[Vo]:New Madrid Earthquake - 200 years Later
All, For those interested, I have posted an article with my comments on one of the most awesome energy displays ever in the US in 1811-1812. A truly unworldly event. New Madrid as Seen Through Dark Sunglasses. http://darkmattersalot.com PetaPetaPetaPeta Joules of Cold Fusion Energy? released over two years time Stewart
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I've got to set me up a Sites Effect experiment. But it has to be portable (ie outside). What's the total power to bring it to hot status (8 hrs?) I see two options for power : 6V Lantern Battery A 12V Car Starter kit Normal mode seems to have a current limiter, boost mode bypasses it. Gonna look stoopid with a battery clamp clutching a nickel, but what the heck
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com I propose either silicon or magnesium as suitable controls. Ummm Burning or molten magnesium metal reacts violently with water.
[Vo]:example of a bad prognostistication
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr121/comte.html On the subject of stars, all investigations which are not ultimately reducible to simple visual observations are ... necessarily denied to us. While we can conceive of the possibility of determining their shapes, their sizes, and their motions, we shall never be able by any means to study their chemical composition or their mineralogical structure ... Our knowledge concerning their gaseous envelopes is necessarily limited to their existence, size ... and refractive power, we shall not at all be able to determine their chemical composition or even their density... I regard any notion concerning the true mean temperature of the various stars as forever denied to us. -- August Comte,1835 (before the advent of spectroscopy) harry
Re: [Vo]:example of a bad prognostistication
Please ignore the example of bad spelling in the subject line. harry On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr121/comte.html On the subject of stars, all investigations which are not ultimately reducible to simple visual observations are ... necessarily denied to us. While we can conceive of the possibility of determining their shapes, their sizes, and their motions, we shall never be able by any means to study their chemical composition or their mineralogical structure ... Our knowledge concerning their gaseous envelopes is necessarily limited to their existence, size ... and refractive power, we shall not at all be able to determine their chemical composition or even their density... I regard any notion concerning the true mean temperature of the various stars as forever denied to us. -- August Comte,1835 (before the advent of spectroscopy) harry
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Ummm Burning or molten magnesium metal reacts violently with water. Ha! That's right. There's also reason to think platinum would be a suitable control in an H2 gas or light water experiment. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
Based on comments in this thread you should be prepared to run for considerably more than 8 hours. Give yourself at least a day and then you should be prepared to run for a while if you want to make sure you're observing anything interesting, so call it 48 hours. Again based on comments in the thread, you should be prepared to dissipate 15W. This means having 500 to 750 watt hours of battery capacity available. Obviously, if you only allow yourself 8 hours, you'll only need 1/6 this much battery capacity. I don't *think* there's any problem with disconnecting the power for a few seconds to change batteries, but others with more experience may correct me. If you want to try the AC style experiment you'll need an inverter and you'll need to account for its (in)efficiency. Jeff On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I've got to set me up a Sites Effect experiment. But it has to be portable (ie outside). What's the total power to bring it to hot status (8 hrs?) I see two options for power : 6V Lantern Battery A 12V Car Starter kit Normal mode seems to have a current limiter, boost mode bypasses it. Gonna look stoopid with a battery clamp clutching a nickel, but what the heck
RE: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
This is most interesting in light of the totality of past experiments in LENR which are believable going back twenty years. There seems to be excellent evidence for long-term COP of over one but less than two, often written off as measurement error; but far less reliability for experiments which have COP greater than two. Yeah, I know: believability or reliability is too subjective of a criterion to be meaningful - but what you are saying has a surprising ring of truth to me, which is not easy to verbalize. From: David Roberson I have run many simulations of an ECAT type device where temperature is the controlling parameter and find that the only way to get a decent COP (2) is to use positive feedback. In this mode the device is thermally running away to generate effective gain and must be reversed just before total control is lost on each cycle. If a truly linear heat output versus material temperature is available one can have constant COP gain, but this is not true for any other function.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This is most interesting in light of the totality of past experiments in LENR which are “believable” going back twenty years. ** ** There seems to be excellent evidence for long-term COP of over one but less than two . . . The term COP has no meaning in the context of a cold fusion experiment. Output power is not -- in any way -- contingent upon or dependent upon input. Input is not amplified or transformed in any sense. Input can easily be turned off and output continues, with a COP of infinity. This is true of all cold fusion experiments and it has been been observed by just about every researcher I know. The only reason there is any input power in a cold fusion experiment is to form the hydride, and to keep it from de-gassing and unforming itself. In gas loading and other systems, no input power is needed. The ratio of input to output can easily be changed by altering the physical shape of the anode or cathode, or the distance between them. The techniques are trivial, and known to any electrochemist. The ratio is not optimized because that would interfere with other aspects of the experiment. Once we learn to control the reaction it will easily be adjusted to any number we want. Attempts to optimize it now are a waste of time. All discussions of this ratio, and the so-called COP, are a waste of time in my opinion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites
I would be concerned about the cost of platinum. Stainless steel might work since it is un reactive. I am using an old stainless spoon as my electrode attached to the positive supply terminal and it has been working for a number of hours without getting fouled too badly. This is allowing me to continue to exhaust hydrogen at my nickel terminal. My simple experiment presently runs smoothly at 1 amp of current when 16 volts of DC is applied. The spacing between the small spoon and the nickel is roughly 1 inch. The current is constant since I am using a power supply that allows me to set the short circuit current while the voltage adjusts to compensate for spacing and resistance variation. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 11:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Ummm Burning or molten magnesium metal reacts violently with water. Ha! That's right. There's also reason to think platinum would be a suitable control in an H2 gas or light water experiment. Eric
[Vo]:unsubscribe
Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons?
Didn't Celani measure an initial gamma burst in Rossi's 2001 demo? Robert Lynn wrote: I am less optimistic that neutron production is only occurring under special circumstances and not all the time - would seem to me to require more good luck than is likely (what was McKubre's line about conservation of miracles?) I believe low energy neutrons are relatively hard to detect - requiring specialist equipment that may not yet have been applied to the new generation of high output Ni-P LENR. Fingers crossed it doesn't turn out to be a big problem. On 22 September 2012 16:23, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: It's possible that Rossie is seeing more neutrons than he has let on, even in his smaller devices running at low COP. Weighing against this is the fact that many of the LENR researchers have also seen neutrons, but only at very low levels -- Ed Storms provides a single, short paragraph in chapter 7 of his book on what is detected that says that neutrons not seen at any significant level, and the book includes references to Celani, who has looked at Ni/H. My hunch is that neutrons are arising in relatively uncommon side branches in most cases. If this is right, I also suspect that these branches can be reached more frequently if the system is driven harder or if the experimental conditions are adjusted in the right way. Eric On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/rossi-on-the-safety-of-cop-6/ Admittedly this is from Mr Unreliable, so caveat emptor, but if there are neutrons being released under some conditions why not all the time? Neutrons would be really bad news for LENR. Very penetrating and hard to shield - and produce long term accumulation of radioisotopes in surrounding environment. Just the kind of thing that regulators would jump on to restrict applications.
