Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Hi, On 9-2-2013 1:19, Edmund Storms wrote: On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote: I disagree, I think Andrea already did prove his claims. The problem is only that almost nobody seems to understand what is going on. So Rob, you think Andre has proven his claims in many minds. You say that you believe him, but I do not get the impression that this is the general opinion. In my case, I think he has shown that he can make excess energy on occasion, but that does not seem to be a general opinion. Ed, I see what you mean and I agree with your impression; I should have said that almost nobody believes Andrea, because most people don't seem to understand what is going on. In my opinion is what Andrea has discovered to good to be true and therefore most people won't accept Andrea's findings, even when it bites them in their noses. However, I have seen there are sometimes those little gems that are indeed to good to be true and I think this is one of those. The issue here is not what causes the reaction, but whether the claims for a commercial product are justified. The Miley claim, which started this discussion, is based on a commercial generator of heat. The question was whether anyone should believe and support this claim. I still think that what causes the reaction is an important factor that is overlooked by almost everybody. And yes, I agree we should support Miley's claim; that's why I also voted for his claim. And yes, I think we need this type of commercial generator. It's sad that Andrea is not pushing his systems and knowledge of how the system is build-up more to the people. I think that if he isn't going to do this soon, someone else might beat him; and that's what he is afraid of, because he or someone else wants to see some money. I think Andrea could better sell his knowledge for a small fee to the people, which I think may result in higher revenues in the long run than his current scenario. Could it be that Andrea has advisers who are not open enough for this knowledge scenario and advise him to go for the large bucks, while he himself is in a zweispalt about this??? As the heat itself results in energy and a high frequency and therefore keeps the process self-sustaining as long as sufficient source-material is available. It would probably be much better for the ITER project to focus on the frequency of the plasma instead of the temperature. How do you propose the frequency be measured? It's the temperature that produces a useful result, so why ignore it? Yes, the temperature is needed to heat up for example water or generate electricity, but in my opinion it is not the driving force for the mechanism. Therefore people at the ITER project should focus more on the frequency of the plasma i.s.o. of gaining a high temperature as in the Sun. And on the current large scale, it seems to me this process is not self-sustaining, as you can not keep it sufficiently under control during a longer period. I.s.o. of building a large system I think they should downsize the system so they can control the process much better. As sometimes is said less is more. This is also in my opinion the reason why Andrea's reactor vessels seem to work. Kind regards, Rob Energy Ξ Communication
[Vo]:first in coal now on Mars
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/07/mars-rover-spots-metallic-arm_n_2637990.html
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
Chuck, consider these issues. First, the BEC between atoms has not been shown to occur except near absolute zero. The claim for such a structure between hypothetical particles based on a form of concentrated energy within a structure really does not apply. Second. once a BEC forms, why would you think it would result in a nuclear reaction? Third, if a fusion reaction occurred, why would it not take the form of hot fusion? After all, the energy has to be dissipated by a process that is not in evidence in the BEC. This idea is based on a series of assumptions having no relationship to the theory of the BEC and total ignorance about the electron structure in PdD. What constitutes a boson is even uncertain in such a structure. I suggest you read my explanation. Ed On Feb 8, 2013, at 11:33 PM, Chuck Sites wrote: Its great to read Kim's reply. I;ve followed Dr. YE Kim's work for years along with the Scott and Talbot Chubbs. I was convinced years ago, that the only mechanism that would work for cold fusion was a BEC. A Bose Einstein Condensate. It's a known physics fact that particles that enter the BEC state form a single quantum state, and become something that is just best described as weird. The actual matter wave (the De Broglie wave) that describes matter at the smallest scales, overlaps. When you have overlapping waveforms of a particle that has an attractive nuclear potential, they just snap together within very well defined probabilities. It's the particles waveform overlap that will induce fusion. What Kim shows is that within solids metals, deuterium ions screened and charge neutralized by the metals electron sea, can condense and form a BEC. When deuterium is in a BEC state there is probability that the deuteriums will interact via strong interactions. Dr. Kim has suggest two things of interest. First, that condensation could happen in a hydrated metal and the rules that describe the quantum overlap are modified my the metals electronic environment. In YE Kim's theory, it only takes 10-100 Deuterium ions to make a BEC within a metal. And the number of ions in the BEC glob is temperature relative. I think Kim's theory is pretty convincing with deuterium in metals, What has been difficult for me is explaining the Hydrogen in metal systems. The problem being that H-ion is a fermion quantum 1/2 spin state, and is forced to follow the Pauli exclusion principle and so will never have an overlapping waveforms or the potential for strong interactions between protons. Perhaps a pair of H ions waveforms interacting with W/Z's might flip enough to the Proton-Proton chain. As it is now, I really struggle to understand how H in a metal creates excess heat. Best Regards, Chuck s On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Vorts: See below for confirmation from YE Kim that the formation of a BEC at room temperature gives his LENR theory a leg up. Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 1:22 PM (4 hours ago) to yekim, ayandas, pkb Hello Dr. Kim. I left you a voicemail regarding this. Does the formation of a BEC at room temperature make your theory of Deuteron Fusion more viable? Wasn't the main criticism of your theory that BECs couldn't form at higher temperatures? Y. E. Kim, Bose-Einstein Condensate Theory of Deuteron Fusion in Metal, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 4, 188 (2011), best regards, Kevin O'Malley -- http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/29/1210842110 Polariton Bose–Einstein condensate at room temperature in an Al(Ga)N nanowire–dielectric microcavity with a spatial potential trap Ayan Dasa,1, Pallab Bhattacharyaa,1, Junseok Heoa, Animesh Banerjeea, and Wei Guob Author Affiliations Edited by Paul L. McEuen, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and approved December 21, 2012 (received for review June 28, 2012) Abstract A spatial potential trap is formed in a 6.0-μm Al(Ga)N nanowire by varying the Al composition along its length during epitaxial growth. The polariton emission characteristics of a dielectric microcavity with the single nanowire embedded in-plane have been studied at room temperature. Excitation is provided at the Al(Ga)N end of the nanowire, and polariton emission is observed from the lowest bandgap GaN region within the potential trap. Comparison of the results with those measured in an identical microcavity with a uniform GaN nanowire and having an identical exciton–photon detuning suggests evaporative cooling of the polaritons as they are transported into the trap in the Al(Ga)N nanowire. Measurement of the spectral characteristics of the polariton emission, their momentum distribution, first-order spatial coherence, and time-resolved measurements of polariton cooling provides strong evidence of
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
On Feb 9, 2013, at 3:58 AM, Rob Dingemans wrote: Hi, On 9-2-2013 1:19, Edmund Storms wrote: On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote: I disagree, I think Andrea already did prove his claims. The problem is only that almost nobody seems to understand what is going on. So Rob, you think Andre has proven his claims in many minds. You say that you believe him, but I do not get the impression that this is the general opinion. In my case, I think he has shown that he can make excess energy on occasion, but that does not seem to be a general opinion. Ed, I see what you mean and I agree with your impression; I should have said that almost nobody believes Andrea, because most people don't seem to understand what is going on. In my opinion is what Andrea has discovered to good to be true and therefore most people won't accept Andrea's findings, even when it bites them in their noses. However, I have seen there are sometimes those little gems that are indeed to good to be true and I think this is one of those. I agree Rob, and Piantelli showed that the phenomenon is real. Rossi only showed that it worked better using powder. The issue here is not what causes the reaction, but whether the claims for a commercial product are justified. The Miley claim, which started this discussion, is based on a commercial generator of heat. The question was whether anyone should believe and support this claim. I still think that what causes the reaction is an important factor that is overlooked by almost everybody. I agree, but that is not what Miley is showing. He is claiming a working generator. If this idea is based on pure PR or it fails, your vote will look foolish. I think we agree, knowing how and whether the fusion process works should proceed claiming a working generator. Miley has not done this. He has a theory that makes no sense and claims for heat production that have not been replicated or checked by anyone. Are we seeing another Rossi in the making? And yes, I agree we should support Miley's claim; that's why I also voted for his claim. And yes, I think we need this type of commercial generator. It's sad that Andrea is not pushing his systems and knowledge of how the system is build-up more to the people. I think that if he isn't going to do this soon, someone else might beat him; and that's what he is afraid of, because he or someone else wants to see some money. I think Andrea could better sell his knowledge for a small fee to the people, which I think may result in higher revenues in the long run than his current scenario. Could it be that Andrea has advisers who are not open enough for this knowledge scenario and advise him to go for the large bucks, while he himself is in a zweispalt about this??? As the heat itself results in energy and a high frequency and therefore keeps the process self-sustaining as long as sufficient source-material is available. It would probably be much better for the ITER project to focus on the frequency of the plasma instead of the temperature. How do you propose the frequency be measured? It's the temperature that produces a useful result, so why ignore it? Yes, the temperature is needed to heat up for example water or generate electricity, but in my opinion it is not the driving force for the mechanism. Therefore people at the ITER project should focus more on the frequency of the plasma i.s.o. of gaining a high temperature as in the Sun. But how is this frequency measured or even affected? Regards, Ed And on the current large scale, it seems to me this process is not self-sustaining, as you can not keep it sufficiently under control during a longer period. I.s.o. of building a large system I think they should downsize the system so they can control the process much better. As sometimes is said less is more. This is also in my opinion the reason why Andrea's reactor vessels seem to work. Kind regards, Rob Energy Ξ Communication
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: In my opinion is what Andrea has discovered to good to be true and therefore most people won't accept Andrea's findings, even when it bites them in their noses. I disagree. Many people would believe him without reservations if he would only do a proper test. His results are not surprising to someone familiar with this field. His device is qualitatively the same as the others, albeit quantitatively better. All cold fusion experiments are too good to be true. I discussed this in my book, on p. 10, starting: Some skeptics feel that cold fusion must be too good to be true. They suspect that cold fusion researchers are guilty of wishful thinking. They should remember Michael Faraday’s dictum: 'Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature.' Mankind has discovered countless wonderful things that ancient people would have thought miraculous. . . . - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
From: Edmund Storms What constitutes a boson is even uncertain in such a structure. That is the bare truth, like it or not. In point of fact - the determination of “boson” identity – whether nuclear, atomic, molecular, or composite bosons - now borders on the ludicrous. You have 4 ways to permutate the end-product - so everything is bosonic! This kind of reminiscent of what constitutes a Mills’ catalyst – everything! Since we now have quasiparticles being identified as bosons- it is easier to answer what is NOT a boson than what is a boson. Answer – aside from a single electron of proton which are seldom seen in nature as singlets – everything, that’s right EVERYTHING in the periodic table can be manipulated into the category of composite boson. Therefore, when you find the bosonic phenomenon with electrons – you must invent something like the Copper pair in order to make them look bosonic. Or when you find it with a rubidium, not an atomic boson, you must hem and haw a bit so as not to confuse students, who think you are really a brilliant professor. For instance - you can always double-up on fermions to give the appearance of a boson and most gases are found in molecular pairs. H2 is a composite or molecular boson for instance and it is an atomic boson as well but not a nuclear boson – whereas deuterium is a nuclear boson but NOT an atomic boson. So which one is more “bosonic” protium or deuterium? There is a good argument that protium is more bosonic even without being a nuclear boson since deuterium is not an atomic boson. And, after all – would anyone have guessed from looking at the definitions offered - that most of the experimental work with cold bosons has been done with rubidium !?! Give me a break. The whole field borders on the absurd. Rubidium has 37 protons, 48 neutrons and 37 electrons. Most of these important categories are fermionic, having half-integer net spin. So obviously rubidium cannot be bosonic, correct? NOOO …. not according to fizzix. That right even if most of the major subcomponents of any atom ARE fermionic, a composite boson can emerge like magic – and this is how the Nobel Prize was won – i.e. by going back from an experiment and then essentially inventing the explanation in retrospect (which is by duplicity so to speak). Yet most of us did not complain. After all, these are the experts talking. The same ones that tell us that LENR is pathological science. To finish the thought, yes – as it turns out there are 122 particles in a Rb-85 atom, and 122 is divisible by 2, ergo- because this is an even number - the Rb-85 atom is indeed a boson, but the nucleus itself is not bosonic, yet two of them are! Consequently - if the same phenomenon had been seen (in retrospect) with any other element in the periodic table, and we wanted to call the phenomenon a product of boson statistics – there exists a way to do that. We can always double down and call it a Cooper pair. Thus, almost anyone with a half a mind ( a fermionic mind?) can see what a joke this name-game has become. Pair-up and conquer.
Re: [Vo]:nanocavities
Eric, It's good to hear Ron Maimon is trying to develop this theory. But, the math is truly confusing, bewildering and intimidating - even to formulate the problem, let alone solve it. When composite particles are involved, calculating tunneling probability is almost intractable - even in free space, much less in condensed matter. A recent paper on composite particle tunneling - Tunneling of a molecule with many bound states in three dimensions http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-4075/46/4/045201 (free - with registration) - (and, the many references it cites) shows how tricky this is. There are some related papers on arxiv.org too. In the case of LENR, I think the empirical trumps the theoretical. -- Lou Pagnucco Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:08 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: While it discusses the extreme focusing of ~1 MeV proton wave-functions, perhaps particles/ions in micro-/nano-channels in zeolites, nano-crevices, nanostructures, ..., experience more wave-function focusing than expected - possibly increasing tunneling probability by dramatically increasing overlap of channel particle wave-functions. Ron Maimon was getting at a similar idea by having two deuterons meet near a palladium spectator nucleus, at the classical turning point where the strength of the positive charge of the palladium nucleus would push the positively charged deuterons back out again. With 20 keV of initial kinetic energy, the deuterons would penetrate the electron shells as far as the K shell before turning around again. At the turning point their de Broglie waves would be enhanced,, or, presumably, focused, and as a result overlap and tunneling would be more likely. Several significant difficulties with this approach were raised which have not yet been brought to Ron's attention. Presumably he would set us straight on what I misunderstood of what he was saying. Eric
Re: [Vo]:nanocavities
The problem Eric is that once the math is solved, the expected nuclear reaction is hot fusion, not cold fusion. Consequently, this effort is a waste of time. This is something the hot fusion field needs to understand to explain the effect of bombarding materials with energetic deuterons. The effort has no application to cold fusion. Ed On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:13 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Eric, It's good to hear Ron Maimon is trying to develop this theory. But, the math is truly confusing, bewildering and intimidating - even to formulate the problem, let alone solve it. When composite particles are involved, calculating tunneling probability is almost intractable - even in free space, much less in condensed matter. A recent paper on composite particle tunneling - Tunneling of a molecule with many bound states in three dimensions http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-4075/46/4/045201 (free - with registration) - (and, the many references it cites) shows how tricky this is. There are some related papers on arxiv.org too. In the case of LENR, I think the empirical trumps the theoretical. -- Lou Pagnucco Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:08 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: While it discusses the extreme focusing of ~1 MeV proton wave- functions, perhaps particles/ions in micro-/nano-channels in zeolites, nano-crevices, nanostructures, ..., experience more wave-function focusing than expected - possibly increasing tunneling probability by dramatically increasing overlap of channel particle wave- functions. Ron Maimon was getting at a similar idea by having two deuterons meet near a palladium spectator nucleus, at the classical turning point where the strength of the positive charge of the palladium nucleus would push the positively charged deuterons back out again. With 20 keV of initial kinetic energy, the deuterons would penetrate the electron shells as far as the K shell before turning around again. At the turning point their de Broglie waves would be enhanced,, or, presumably, focused, and as a result overlap and tunneling would be more likely. Several significant difficulties with this approach were raised which have not yet been brought to Ron's attention. Presumably he would set us straight on what I misunderstood of what he was saying. Eric
Re: [Vo]:nanocavities
Ed, I assume you are referring to Maimon's theory, which I am not familiar with. When you say the expected reaction is hot fusion, are you only referring to highly energetic collisions? Do you think the theory X.Z.Li, et al, involving resonant tunneling (at low kinetic energy), allegedly avoiding energetic byproducts, might be correct? Some references -- Deuterium (Hydrogen) Flux Permeating through Palladium and Condensed Matter Nuclear Science http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/LENR%20home%20page/acrobat/WeiQdeuteriumh.pdf A Chinese view on summary of condensed matter nuclear science http://166.111.26.4/JOFE2004Sept.Vol23No3P217.pdf Fusion energy without strong nuclear radiation http://www.springerlink.com/index/w4721655219541kk.pdf Multiple Scattering Theory (MST) and Condensed Matter Nuclear ScienceSuper-Absorption in a Crystal Lattice http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/LENR%20home%20page/acrobat/LiXZmultiplesc.pdf I am agnostic on this topic, and am very interested in your view. -- Lou Pagnucco The problem Eric is that once the math is solved, the expected nuclear reaction is hot fusion, not cold fusion. Consequently, this effort is a waste of time. This is something the hot fusion field needs to understand to explain the effect of bombarding materials with energetic deuterons. The effort has no application to cold fusion. Ed On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:13 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Eric, It's good to hear Ron Maimon is trying to develop this theory. But, the math is truly confusing, bewildering and intimidating - even to formulate the problem, let alone solve it. When composite particles are involved, calculating tunneling probability is almost intractable - even in free space, much less in condensed matter. A recent paper on composite particle tunneling - Tunneling of a molecule with many bound states in three dimensions http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-4075/46/4/045201 (free - with registration) - (and, the many references it cites) shows how tricky this is. There are some related papers on arxiv.org too. In the case of LENR, I think the empirical trumps the theoretical. -- Lou Pagnucco Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:08 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: While it discusses the extreme focusing of ~1 MeV proton wave- functions, perhaps particles/ions in micro-/nano-channels in zeolites, nano-crevices, nanostructures, ..., experience more wave-function focusing than expected - possibly increasing tunneling probability by dramatically increasing overlap of channel particle wave- functions. Ron Maimon was getting at a similar idea by having two deuterons meet near a palladium spectator nucleus, at the classical turning point where the strength of the positive charge of the palladium nucleus would push the positively charged deuterons back out again. With 20 keV of initial kinetic energy, the deuterons would penetrate the electron shells as far as the K shell before turning around again. At the turning point their de Broglie waves would be enhanced,, or, presumably, focused, and as a result overlap and tunneling would be more likely. Several significant difficulties with this approach were raised which have not yet been brought to Ron's attention. Presumably he would set us straight on what I misunderstood of what he was saying. Eric
Re: [Vo]:nanocavities
Lou, Any theory that proposes to use tunneling based on electrons being concentrated must at the same time show how the resulting energy is dissipated. Such energy is dissipated normally by the fusion product breaking into two parts, which go off with high energy in directions required to conserve momentum. This is called hot fusion and it is well known and understood. In contrast, during cold fusion the fusion product does not fragment. It remains as He, but without the gamma emission as is required to dissipate the energy. To be consistent with this observation, a theory MUST explain how this nuclear energy is dissipated. Simply proposing a process to overcome the barrier without showing how the next step violates normal behavior is not useful in explaining cold fusion. The Maimon theory is ok if it is used to explain hot fusion because this is what would be expected and what has been observed when tunneling conditions have been created. People have to accept that hot fusion and cold fusion are two entirely different phenomenon that play by different rules. Confusion keeps being produced by trying to mix these two different effects. Ed On Feb 9, 2013, at 10:09 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Ed, I assume you are referring to Maimon's theory, which I am not familiar with. When you say the expected reaction is hot fusion, are you only referring to highly energetic collisions? Do you think the theory X.Z.Li, et al, involving resonant tunneling (at low kinetic energy), allegedly avoiding energetic byproducts, might be correct? Some references -- Deuterium (Hydrogen) Flux Permeating through Palladium and Condensed Matter Nuclear Science http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/LENR%20home%20page/acrobat/WeiQdeuteriumh.pdf A Chinese view on summary of condensed matter nuclear science http://166.111.26.4/JOFE2004Sept.Vol23No3P217.pdf Fusion energy without strong nuclear radiation http://www.springerlink.com/index/w4721655219541kk.pdf Multiple Scattering Theory (MST) and Condensed Matter Nuclear Science—“Super-Absorption” in a Crystal Lattice— http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/LENR%20home%20page/acrobat/LiXZmultiplesc.pdf I am agnostic on this topic, and am very interested in your view. -- Lou Pagnucco The problem Eric is that once the math is solved, the expected nuclear reaction is hot fusion, not cold fusion. Consequently, this effort is a waste of time. This is something the hot fusion field needs to understand to explain the effect of bombarding materials with energetic deuterons. The effort has no application to cold fusion. Ed On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:13 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Eric, It's good to hear Ron Maimon is trying to develop this theory. But, the math is truly confusing, bewildering and intimidating - even to formulate the problem, let alone solve it. When composite particles are involved, calculating tunneling probability is almost intractable - even in free space, much less in condensed matter. A recent paper on composite particle tunneling - Tunneling of a molecule with many bound states in three dimensions http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-4075/46/4/045201 (free - with registration) - (and, the many references it cites) shows how tricky this is. There are some related papers on arxiv.org too. In the case of LENR, I think the empirical trumps the theoretical. -- Lou Pagnucco Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:08 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: While it discusses the extreme focusing of ~1 MeV proton wave- functions, perhaps particles/ions in micro-/nano-channels in zeolites, nano-crevices, nanostructures, ..., experience more wave-function focusing than expected - possibly increasing tunneling probability by dramatically increasing overlap of channel particle wave- functions. Ron Maimon was getting at a similar idea by having two deuterons meet near a palladium spectator nucleus, at the classical turning point where the strength of the positive charge of the palladium nucleus would push the positively charged deuterons back out again. With 20 keV of initial kinetic energy, the deuterons would penetrate the electron shells as far as the K shell before turning around again. At the turning point their de Broglie waves would be enhanced,, or, presumably, focused, and as a result overlap and tunneling would be more likely. Several significant difficulties with this approach were raised which have not yet been brought to Ron's attention. Presumably he would set us straight on what I misunderstood of what he was saying. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Urgent: Until Feb9, can vote for Dr Miley 10kw LENR Thermal Electric Generator
Hi, Anyone any idea of the end result of the voting? Kind regards, Rob Energy Ξ Communication
Re: [Vo]:Urgent: Until Feb9, can vote for Dr Miley 10kw LENR Thermal Electric Generator
#01 - 2030 BDL water technologies #02 - 1764 HEVO Power: Wireless Charging #03 - 1523 Gravaton Energy Resources #04 - 565 Military OceanEnergy Microgrids #05 - 522 Altenera #06 - 513 Transatomic Power Inc #07 - 450 Solar Wind Energy Tower #08 - 390 Sail Carousel Wind Turbine #09 - 340 LENR distributed power units #10 - 318 AC Kinetics Motor Drive #11 - 309 HighSeasWind #12 - 282 Arc Fault Detection Miley came in #9. On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: Hi, Anyone any idea of the end result of the voting? Kind regards, Rob Energy Ξ Communication
Re: [Vo]:nanocavities
Experiments by Piantelli and information about early Rossi systems indicate that a cold LENR system will produce high energy radiation, but a hot system will not. How can we understand the physical meaning of these experimental results? It has been shown that coherent EMF in the form of time-dependent potentials can lead to substantial cooling in Bose Einstein condensates in an open system that allows entropy to be removed. Formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate is routinely accomplished by using laser light to cool the system – in laser cooling in the form of scattered photons, in evaporative cooling in the form of discarded atoms. Energy is transferred from atoms to be cooled to atoms which are rejected from the system. In another example, this cooling technique is also used in cooling elements in the formation of clusters. Ionic clusters consist of a single ion surrounded by one or more neutral molecules. They are created when a gas is cooled. Molecules in the gaseous state are widely separated and move about in continual motion. So widely separated in space are these molecules that they exert no force of attraction upon one another, and although they frequently collide, their kinetic energy is so high they will not stick together. These gas molecules must be cooled to reduce their kinetic energy and associated random motion. As the temperature in the gas drops, however, molecular motion slows and the molecules begin to gather and stick together. Eventually, the motion slows sufficiently for intermolecular forces of attraction to bind the molecules together into clusters that number from a few to a few hundred individual molecules in size. If the number of neutral molecules surrounding the ion in each cluster becomes sufficiently large, an assemblage of clusters will resemble a conventional bulk material--either a liquid or a solid. Three common ways exist to produce clusters: a) Gas aggregation sources: This is the oldest and easiest method for cluster production. Atoms or molecules are evaporated into a flow of rare gas atoms. The evaporated atoms are cooled in collision with the rare gas. When the atoms or molecules loose enough energy the cluster production is started. b) Laser-ablation sources (surface sources, sputtering): Photon or heavy particle impact on a surface leads to the desorption of atoms or molecules. The released atoms or molecules are partially ionized and form plasma. Similar like in the gas aggregation sources the plasma is cooled by present rare gas that removes kinetic energy from the system and cluster formation is achieved c) Supersonic cluster sources: A gas under high pressure is expanded adiabatically through a small nozzle. This is how noble gases are liquefied. In a LENR system where a metal lattice is present, the coherent motion of the lattice will remove kinetic energy from the active nuclear sites containing the Bose-Einstein condensates by rejecting kinetic energy produced in these structures by nuclear processes contained the metal lattice. If the coherent motion of the lattice is not robust enough, the radiation produced by the nuclear reactions will be unmodified by the cold lattice and escape as gamma rays. Cheers: Axil On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Lou, Any theory that proposes to use tunneling based on electrons being concentrated must at the same time show how the resulting energy is dissipated. Such energy is dissipated normally by the fusion product breaking into two parts, which go off with high energy in directions required to conserve momentum. This is called hot fusion and it is well known and understood. In contrast, during cold fusion the fusion product does not fragment. It remains as He, but without the gamma emission as is required to dissipate the energy. To be consistent with this observation, a theory MUST explain how this nuclear energy is dissipated. Simply proposing a process to overcome the barrier without showing how the next step violates normal behavior is not useful in explaining cold fusion. The Maimon theory is ok if it is used to explain hot fusion because this is what would be expected and what has been observed when tunneling conditions have been created. People have to accept that hot fusion and cold fusion are two entirely different phenomenon that play by different rules. Confusion keeps being produced by trying to mix these two different effects. Ed On Feb 9, 2013, at 10:09 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Ed, I assume you are referring to Maimon's theory, which I am not familiar with. When you say the expected reaction is hot fusion, are you only referring to highly energetic collisions? Do you think the theory X.Z.Li, et al, involving resonant tunneling (at low kinetic energy), allegedly avoiding energetic byproducts, might be correct? Some references -- Deuterium (Hydrogen) Flux Permeating through
[Vo]:The Hunts on local TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5dmEBbKtHo attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:nanocavities
On Feb 9, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Experiments by Piantelli and information about early Rossi systems indicate that a cold LENR system will produce high energy radiation, but a hot system will not. Alix, this statement does not describe the evidence. All we know is what Rossi claims, i.e. that INITIALLY radiation is produced that is reduced as the process continues. Many people have detected radiation under various conditions. How can we understand the physical meaning of these experimental results? It has been shown that coherent EMF in the form of time-dependent potentials can lead to substantial cooling in Bose Einstein condensates in an open system that allows entropy to be removed. Formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate is routinely accomplished by using laser light to cool the system – in laser cooling in the form of scattered photons, in evaporative cooling in the form of discarded atoms. Energy is transferred from atoms to be cooled to atoms which are rejected from the system. In another example, this cooling technique is also used in cooling elements in the formation of clusters. Yes, but all of these processes you describe are done near absolute zero while using complex apparatus. This has no relationship to cold fusion. Ionic clusters consist of a single ion surrounded by one or more neutral molecules. They are created when a gas is cooled. Molecules in the gaseous state are widely separated and move about in continual motion. So widely separated in space are these molecules that they exert no force of attraction upon one another, and although they frequently collide, their kinetic energy is so high they will not stick together. These gas molecules must be cooled to reduce their kinetic energy and associated random motion. As the temperature in the gas drops, however, molecular motion slows and the molecules begin to gather and stick together. Eventually, the motion slows sufficiently for intermolecular forces of attraction to bind the molecules together into clusters that number from a few to a few hundred individual molecules in size. If the number of neutral molecules surrounding the ion in each cluster becomes sufficiently large, an assemblage of clusters will resemble a conventional bulk material--either a liquid or a solid. Three common ways exist to produce clusters: a) Gas aggregation sources: This is the oldest and easiest method for cluster production. Atoms or molecules are evaporated into a flow of rare gas atoms. The evaporated atoms are cooled in collision with the rare gas. When the atoms or molecules loose enough energy the cluster production is started. b) Laser-ablation sources (surface sources, sputtering): Photon or heavy particle impact on a surface leads to the desorption of atoms or molecules. The released atoms or molecules are partially ionized and form plasma. Similar like in the gas aggregation sources the plasma is cooled by present rare gas that removes kinetic energy from the system and cluster formation is achieved c) Supersonic cluster sources: A gas under high pressure is expanded adiabatically through a small nozzle. This is how noble gases are liquefied. In a LENR system where a metal lattice is present, the coherent motion of the lattice will remove kinetic energy from the active nuclear sites containing the Bose-Einstein condensates by rejecting kinetic energy produced in these structures by nuclear processes contained the metal lattice. This description has no justification in theory or in observation. Coherent motion of atoms does no occur spontaneously in a lattice. If the coherent motion of the lattice is not robust enough, the radiation produced by the nuclear reactions will be unmodified by the cold lattice and escape as gamma rays. I have no idea what you are describing by the above comment. Ed Cheers: Axil On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Lou, Any theory that proposes to use tunneling based on electrons being concentrated must at the same time show how the resulting energy is dissipated. Such energy is dissipated normally by the fusion product breaking into two parts, which go off with high energy in directions required to conserve momentum. This is called hot fusion and it is well known and understood. In contrast, during cold fusion the fusion product does not fragment. It remains as He, but without the gamma emission as is required to dissipate the energy. To be consistent with this observation, a theory MUST explain how this nuclear energy is dissipated. Simply proposing a process to overcome the barrier without showing how the next step violates normal behavior is not useful in explaining cold fusion. The Maimon theory is ok if it is used to explain hot fusion because this is what would be expected and
Re: [Vo]:nanocavities
*Yes, but all of these processes you describe are done near absolute zero while using complex apparatus. This has no relationship to cold fusion.* http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/bose-einstein-condensate-created-at-room-temperature/ From the article: Bose-Einstein condensate created at room temperature The current study embedded a very thin wire—a nanowire—in a cavity designed to produce standing waves of microwave photons. The nanowire was an alloy of aluminum, gallium, and nitrogen, but with varying amounts of aluminum. The irregular composition created a de facto trap for the polaritons. A wire of uniform composition couldn't form a BEC—fluctuations within the material would destroy the condensation, even at low temperatures. To bypass this, the researchers gradually decreased the amount of aluminum in the alloy to zero in the center of the nanowire, then bookended the aluminum-free segment with a region containing a relatively high amount of aluminum. The microwaves from the cavity interacted with the material, generating polaritons. These drifted preferentially along the wire toward the aluminum-free zone, where they collected and condensed. In other words, the electronic properties of the material itself replaced the need for cooling, allowing the quasiparticles to gather and condense into a BEC. The experimenters confirmed this effect by detecting the telltale light emission. As in your theory about cracks: topological material considerations provide the needed mechanism to form the condensate. In addition, Superconductivity has been found to exist in one dimensional topological materials at temperatures as high as 700C These topological materials can produce conditions at high temperatures that have heretofore only been studied at very low temperatures using complex apparatus. This is similar in concept to how materials can be engineered to produce high temperature superconductivity. In this respect, LENR and superconductivity are similar. Cheers: Axil On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 9, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Experiments by Piantelli and information about early Rossi systems indicate that a cold LENR system will produce high energy radiation, but a hot system will not. Alix, this statement does not describe the evidence. All we know is what Rossi claims, i.e. that INITIALLY radiation is produced that is reduced as the process continues. Many people have detected radiation under various conditions. How can we understand the physical meaning of these experimental results? It has been shown that coherent EMF in the form of time-dependent potentials can lead to substantial cooling in Bose Einstein condensates in an open system that allows entropy to be removed. Formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate is routinely accomplished by using laser light to cool the system – in laser cooling in the form of scattered photons, in evaporative cooling in the form of discarded atoms. Energy is transferred from atoms to be cooled to atoms which are rejected from the system. In another example, this cooling technique is also used in cooling elements in the formation of clusters. Yes, but all of these processes you describe are done near absolute zero while using complex apparatus. This has no relationship to cold fusion. Ionic clusters consist of a single ion surrounded by one or more neutral molecules. They are created when a gas is cooled. Molecules in the gaseous state are widely separated and move about in continual motion. So widely separated in space are these molecules that they exert no force of attraction upon one another, and although they frequently collide, their kinetic energy is so high they will not stick together. These gas molecules must be cooled to reduce their kinetic energy and associated random motion. As the temperature in the gas drops, however, molecular motion slows and the molecules begin to gather and stick together. Eventually, the motion slows sufficiently for intermolecular forces of attraction to bind the molecules together into clusters that number from a few to a few hundred individual molecules in size. If the number of neutral molecules surrounding the ion in each cluster becomes sufficiently large, an assemblage of clusters will resemble a conventional bulk material--either a liquid or a solid. Three common ways exist to produce clusters: a) Gas aggregation sources: This is the oldest and easiest method for cluster production. Atoms or molecules are evaporated into a flow of rare gas atoms. The evaporated atoms are cooled in collision with the rare gas. When the atoms or molecules loose enough energy the cluster production is started. b) Laser-ablation sources (surface sources, sputtering): Photon or heavy particle impact on a surface leads to the desorption of atoms or molecules. The released atoms or molecules
Re: [Vo]:nanocavities
*This description has no justification in theory or in observation. Coherent motion of atoms does no occur spontaneously in a lattice.* Here is where the size of the micro-particle becomes important. A 5 micron particle will resonate coherently at a temperature of about 400C, Nano particles will not work well in LENR because there thermal vibrations will not resonate at the proper temperature range. Cheers: Axil On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 9, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Experiments by Piantelli and information about early Rossi systems indicate that a cold LENR system will produce high energy radiation, but a hot system will not. Alix, this statement does not describe the evidence. All we know is what Rossi claims, i.e. that INITIALLY radiation is produced that is reduced as the process continues. Many people have detected radiation under various conditions. How can we understand the physical meaning of these experimental results? It has been shown that coherent EMF in the form of time-dependent potentials can lead to substantial cooling in Bose Einstein condensates in an open system that allows entropy to be removed. Formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate is routinely accomplished by using laser light to cool the system – in laser cooling in the form of scattered photons, in evaporative cooling in the form of discarded atoms. Energy is transferred from atoms to be cooled to atoms which are rejected from the system. In another example, this cooling technique is also used in cooling elements in the formation of clusters. Yes, but all of these processes you describe are done near absolute zero while using complex apparatus. This has no relationship to cold fusion. Ionic clusters consist of a single ion surrounded by one or more neutral molecules. They are created when a gas is cooled. Molecules in the gaseous state are widely separated and move about in continual motion. So widely separated in space are these molecules that they exert no force of attraction upon one another, and although they frequently collide, their kinetic energy is so high they will not stick together. These gas molecules must be cooled to reduce their kinetic energy and associated random motion. As the temperature in the gas drops, however, molecular motion slows and the molecules begin to gather and stick together. Eventually, the motion slows sufficiently for intermolecular forces of attraction to bind the molecules together into clusters that number from a few to a few hundred individual molecules in size. If the number of neutral molecules surrounding the ion in each cluster becomes sufficiently large, an assemblage of clusters will resemble a conventional bulk material--either a liquid or a solid. Three common ways exist to produce clusters: a) Gas aggregation sources: This is the oldest and easiest method for cluster production. Atoms or molecules are evaporated into a flow of rare gas atoms. The evaporated atoms are cooled in collision with the rare gas. When the atoms or molecules loose enough energy the cluster production is started. b) Laser-ablation sources (surface sources, sputtering): Photon or heavy particle impact on a surface leads to the desorption of atoms or molecules. The released atoms or molecules are partially ionized and form plasma. Similar like in the gas aggregation sources the plasma is cooled by present rare gas that removes kinetic energy from the system and cluster formation is achieved c) Supersonic cluster sources: A gas under high pressure is expanded adiabatically through a small nozzle. This is how noble gases are liquefied. In a LENR system where a metal lattice is present, the coherent motion of the lattice will remove kinetic energy from the active nuclear sites containing the Bose-Einstein condensates by rejecting kinetic energy produced in these structures by nuclear processes contained the metal lattice. This description has no justification in theory or in observation. Coherent motion of atoms does no occur spontaneously in a lattice. If the coherent motion of the lattice is not robust enough, the radiation produced by the nuclear reactions will be unmodified by the cold lattice and escape as gamma rays. I have no idea what you are describing by the above comment. Ed Cheers: Axil On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Lou, Any theory that proposes to use tunneling based on electrons being concentrated must at the same time show how the resulting energy is dissipated. Such energy is dissipated normally by the fusion product breaking into two parts, which go off with high energy in directions required to conserve momentum. This is called hot fusion and it is well known and understood. In contrast, during cold fusion the fusion product does not fragment. It remains as
Re: [Vo]:nanocavities
*If the coherent motion of the lattice is not robust enough, the radiation produced by the nuclear reactions will be unmodified by the cold lattice and escape as gamma rays.* *I have no idea what you are describing by the above comment.* In my post titled “Right Sizing Nickel Particles” I address this issue. If the temperature does not reach the black body resonant temperature of the micro-particle, gamma radiation will be produced. Here is the referenced post: In physics, Planck's law describes the amount of energy emitted by a black body in radiation of a certain wavelength (i.e. the spectral radiance of a black body). The law is named after Max Planck, who originally proposed it in 1900. The law was the first to accurately describe black body radiation, and resolved the ultraviolet catastrophe. It is a pioneer result of modern physics and quantum theory. For a given black body temperature, the wavelength at the peak of the Planck curve is called maximum lambda. This value gives a fell for the minimum relative size that an radiating object must be to optimally support photons associated with a give temperature. Like and antenna, a particle of nickel will best support the photons at a given temperature if the particle size is the adjusted to the ideal size. For a temperature of 700k or about 400C, the Lambda(max) must be 4.14 microns. This is why Rossi uses very large micro sized nickel particles in his reactor. Nano sized particles will not properly support the ideal photon wavelength needed to force protons into quantum mechanical coherence. Rossi undoubtedly found this optimal size through trial and error but science is easier. For a Planck function Infrared Radiance Calculator see the following: https://www.sensiac.org/external/resources/calculators/infrared_radiance_calculator.jsf%3bjsessionid=D08873244D6904EE654DBCDF0391F95E On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 9, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Experiments by Piantelli and information about early Rossi systems indicate that a cold LENR system will produce high energy radiation, but a hot system will not. Alix, this statement does not describe the evidence. All we know is what Rossi claims, i.e. that INITIALLY radiation is produced that is reduced as the process continues. Many people have detected radiation under various conditions. How can we understand the physical meaning of these experimental results? It has been shown that coherent EMF in the form of time-dependent potentials can lead to substantial cooling in Bose Einstein condensates in an open system that allows entropy to be removed. Formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate is routinely accomplished by using laser light to cool the system – in laser cooling in the form of scattered photons, in evaporative cooling in the form of discarded atoms. Energy is transferred from atoms to be cooled to atoms which are rejected from the system. In another example, this cooling technique is also used in cooling elements in the formation of clusters. Yes, but all of these processes you describe are done near absolute zero while using complex apparatus. This has no relationship to cold fusion. Ionic clusters consist of a single ion surrounded by one or more neutral molecules. They are created when a gas is cooled. Molecules in the gaseous state are widely separated and move about in continual motion. So widely separated in space are these molecules that they exert no force of attraction upon one another, and although they frequently collide, their kinetic energy is so high they will not stick together. These gas molecules must be cooled to reduce their kinetic energy and associated random motion. As the temperature in the gas drops, however, molecular motion slows and the molecules begin to gather and stick together. Eventually, the motion slows sufficiently for intermolecular forces of attraction to bind the molecules together into clusters that number from a few to a few hundred individual molecules in size. If the number of neutral molecules surrounding the ion in each cluster becomes sufficiently large, an assemblage of clusters will resemble a conventional bulk material--either a liquid or a solid. Three common ways exist to produce clusters: a) Gas aggregation sources: This is the oldest and easiest method for cluster production. Atoms or molecules are evaporated into a flow of rare gas atoms. The evaporated atoms are cooled in collision with the rare gas. When the atoms or molecules loose enough energy the cluster production is started. b) Laser-ablation sources (surface sources, sputtering): Photon or heavy particle impact on a surface leads to the desorption of atoms or molecules. The released atoms or molecules are partially ionized and form plasma. Similar like in the gas aggregation sources the plasma is cooled by present rare gas that removes kinetic
Re: [Vo]:nanocavities
Hi Ed, On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Any theory that proposes to use tunneling based on electrons being concentrated must at the same time show how the resulting energy is dissipated. This appears to be different from what Ron Maimon is proposing. The connection between electrons and what he's describing is the Auger process, not screening, per se. Such energy is dissipated normally by the fusion product breaking into two parts, which go off with high energy in directions required to conserve momentum. This is called hot fusion and it is well known and understood. I'm agnostic with regard to any fundamental distinction between hot fusion and cold fusion, although I believe by this you mean primarily that hot fusion has certain byproducts which are different from what is seen in cold fusion. This point concerning evidence is very important and is well taken. Ron is suggesting that the deuterons, in fusing in the immediate vicinity of the palladium spectator nucleus (at a distance of the K shell), achieve two things that are not normally seen in hot fusion: 1. The resulting energy of the fusion is shared with the palladium spectator nucleus, such that there is no gamma for the d+d - 4He branch, but instead a transfer of momentum to two things -- the palladium nucleus, on one hand, and the resulting alpha, on the other. 2. The other d+d branches, namely d+d - t+p and d+d - 3He+n, are suppressed. Item (2) is something we reverse engineered as a requirement of his description in an earlier thread on Vortex, and it is possible that he explicitly addresses it somewhere, although I do not recall where this was done. He's too familiar with the math and the physics of the system to have overlooked item (2), but I am interested to know more about how he proposes to bring it about. The electrons enter into this description via the Auger process. When an x-ray interacts with a lattice atom, often an electron will be ejected via the photoelectric effect, and then you might get a follow-on Auger cascade. Ron is saying that the math also leaves open the possibility that the electron hole created by the incoming x-ray will decay by imparting energy to a nearby deuterium nucleus, creating an Auger deuteron. If an x-ray ejects a K-shell electron and creates a K-shell electron hole, the resulting transfer of energy to the deuterium nucleus would be ~20 keV. If Ron is correct and has not overlooked something important, the main byproducts will be heat, 4He, soft x-rays and a side channel of transmutations above and below the mass of palladium, which are useful for understanding the system but do not provide the main source of energy. The energy is largely dissipated in the system in the form of the momenta of the 4He and the palladium lattice atoms. There are several problems left open by this description, many or most of which are no doubt due to limitations in my own understanding, which Robin has been adept at calling out. For a layman's overview of Ron's approach, see [1]. I see that Ron has recently clarified a few points in a comment to that blog post. I appreciate that there are various theories out there of differing levels of plausibility, and it is easy for one's eyes to glaze over when reading an abstract of yet another theory, but Ron's approach seems well worth taking the additional time to understand. Personally, I have no strong investment in a mathematical description of these systems, and I am not persuaded of much in hearing that the quantum field theory equations for a given system are easy or hard to solve -- I get the distinct impression that any analytical solutions will be useful here primarily as a post hoc way of refining one's numerical model of the system, something that has been arrived at only after the basics have already been worked out qualitatively. It is the qualitative description that is most of interest to me at this point. Eric [1] http://rolling-balance.blogspot.com/2013/01/ron-maimons-theory.html
Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 8 Feb 2013 10:47:10 -0500: Hi, [snip] Here is a ring island proposal for pumped hydro in the North Sea. This is basically a large hole in the ocean: http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2013/january/belgium-considers-ring-island-energy-storage-scheme.html - Jed This would seem to go very well with North Sea wind. A large part of the North sea is quite shallow, so wind farms could be placed far from shore and have built in storage at the base of the wind farm. In fact if walls were constructed first, then soil could be dredged up from the seabed in the center to fill the space between the walls, constructing an artificial island upon which the turbines could be mounted. The empty space in the middle would be extra deep because of the sand/soil that had been removed, thus increasing the capacity of the pumped storage. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info
In reply to de Bivort Lawrence's message of Thu, 7 Feb 2013 23:28:29 -0500: Hi, Wouldn't blowing up an asteroid merely create a lot of smaller pieces raining down on earth, with only a few deflected into non-collision paths. If the pieces are small enough, they will burn up in the atmosphere harmlessly. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:The Hunts on local TV
You gotta love those people! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info
This would be true if the pieces came down over a large area and at a moderate number per hour. I suspect that a large mass of individual pieces coming down close together would behave a lot like one big one. The energy contained within the large mass of individual meteorites would be about the same as that in one. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 9, 2013 10:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info In reply to de Bivort Lawrence's message of Thu, 7 Feb 2013 23:28:29 -0500: Hi, Wouldn't blowing up an asteroid merely create a lot of smaller pieces raining down on earth, with only a few deflected into non-collision paths. If the pieces are small enough, they will burn up in the atmosphere harmlessly. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:The Hunts on local TV
Yep, a great bunch of guys. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 9, 2013 11:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Hunts on local TV You gotta love those people! - Jed
