Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
monopoly won't be official, but defacto because of moral regulation, like what is happening today. my nightmare, yet probable, scenario is that NGO try to block LENR because it oppose their marketing, funding, and Malthusian ideology. Big energy corps support those efforts to manipulate opinion so that LENr is perceived as evil. when LENr is told evil, big corps propose unicorn-shield to protect the population, and goverment accept the compromise. What can make that plan fail is tha in asia, an dprobably in US, this wont happens and we will lose competitivity and all that will became unsustainable. I feel that it is happening for similar story happened recently. We are facing such loss of competitivity and some lobbies emerge for more rationality. However they seems quite based on big corps. 2013/2/25 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: the other is that EU make a regulation to forbid LENR, but when big energy master LENR, they will obtain the monopoly to exploit LENR, keep the price, keep the grid, and waste most of LENR added value in useless safety measures. It might be possible to enforce a monopoly within the EU on any LENR use, apart from clandestine operation. But internationally I think an attempt to enforce a monopoly of some kind, involving licenses or otherwise, will end up providing the occasion for the revision of the relevant laws -- i.e., I think it might backfire, in a sense, although not in a bad way. China, India, Malaysia, Nigeria, etc., will simply not go along, unless one of them is a party that benefits. Also, if one trading zone has a monopoly in place for the use of LENR and others do not, any inefficiencies of the monopoly can be expected to put it at a disadvantage. What is your thinking on how such a monopoly would be created, and who would it affect? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: It might be possible to enforce a monopoly within the EU on any LENR use, apart from clandestine operation. I doubt it. The EU countries have democratically elected governments. Cold fusion will be save roughly $2,500 per person, per year, or ~$10,000 for a family of 4. The voters will demand it. That kind of money will produce overwhelming political pressure. Any elected official who opposes rapid implementation is sure to lose the next election. I do not think any government could resist it. I expect the fossil fuel companies will fight it, but they will quickly lose. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
From: Eric Walker Kevin O'Malley wrote: ***I do not understand why this isn't being investigated more thoroughly. It's not as if you've proposed some new physics. I think it is new physics, and that Jones will agree with this statement. He's proposing that the mass of the proton is not quantized, and that in certain circumstances such as H+H - [2H]* - H+H, there is a magnetic effect that causes the proton to shed some of its mass, possibly as low-energy photons or as kinetic energy (I'm speculating here on the output). Eric, That’s almost it – but the output of the “reversible proton fusion” reaction is seen to initiate with “magnons” instead of photons. Magnons can be converted to photons or kinetic energy in a secondary interaction. Also, in your equation above – the [2H]* should be [2He]* since the reaction does actually fuse to a transitory helium-2 nucleus, which has a very short lifetime (Pauli exclusion is not absolute). That is standard “old physics,” at least in cosmology. But in old physics (prior to QCD) the RPF reaction was deemed to be neutral (non-energetic) and on stars and on our Sun, it probably is net neutral. Magnons (Wiki has an entry) can interact with a ferromagnetic host like nickel. That’s how excess energy gets transferred. The nickel host heats up, in an effect which is almost the same as is seen in a transformer coil, when it is heating up from applied AC. Local hot spots can then create secondary reactions, but most of the gain is coming from spin interaction. Thus, the hypothesis at this point is similar to Ahern’s “nanomagnetism” where the gain comes from spin energy – not from photons per se (and not from fused nuclei – even though those can show up on rare occasions). In fact, any fusion, beta-decay or transmutation, is incidental. Typical beta reactions can occur at very low rates, which are orders of magnitude too low for the heat, due to enhanced QM probability. That is why Piantelli can see evidence of transmutation. The underlying source of the magnons is QCD “color change” in the quarks of the two fusing protons (which is the strong force). Wiki has an entry for that as well. The energy, at a deeper level, comes from a conversion of non-quark proton mass to energy without change to the identity of the two protons when they reverse from He2. There can be either a slight mass depletion (or slight mass gain) on color change, which explains why the statistical deviation of mass in protons is low. The mechanism works both ways. The “extra” proton mass, in the statistical fraction of hydrogen atoms (which are over the average-mass) is itself less than seen in beta decay. In most cases, where hydrogen comes from a pressure tank (and prior to that from natural gas) the average mass of the gas is very close to a standard mass, with a known deviation. However, hydrogen from other sources has been measured which is slightly heavier (or lighter) than what can be obtained from methane by steam reforming. BTW - the currently accepted standard Atomic Mass is 1.00794 ± 0.7 but that has changed over time due to measuring techniques, and is not rock-solid today. This number, as an average mass for an atom of hydrogen represents about the equivalent of ~1 billion eV, if it were all converted to energy. Thus, the 70 parts per million deviation from average is where the action is. On the high end, if the hydrogen being used is more active (heavier on average) - it can provide up to 40,000 times more energy than chemical reactions, in those circumstance which reduce it to the average mass level, or slightly below average. In some cases the RPF reaction can be endothermic, however. This complicated hypothesis – has matured rapidly in recent weeks, but is not easy to follow because it involves several overlapping layers that are each part of “old physics”. It is only in the completed picture for LENR gain - that the “new physics” emerges. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
Use a little imagination. They can can accuse LENR advocates as aiding terrorists. They can plant child porn on their computers. They can make an example of any one of them by murdering one of them and pretending it was a suicide - or just a random crime that never gets solved. And you think Europe is free and democratic? Do some research on Gladio - watch the BBC documentary on it and learn how innocent men, women and children were killed in false flag operations and blamed on radical leftists. If Europe - or the US - really had equal protection under law, then I would expect that at least ONE big/central banker would be sent to prison. Since that hasn't happened, who do you think is in charge?
Re: [Vo]:rather big fragment of the Chelyabinsk is discovered (fwd)
Hey, you left your lights on... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=dtFGBbRhdFQ On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 2:37 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Love you too man On Sunday, February 24, 2013, James Bowery wrote: Yeah what else is he joking about? On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I had a suspicion that you were joking about that. Dave -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 12:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:rather big fragment of the Chelyabinsk is discovered (fwd) Dave, I believe it was a chondrite: http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i8/Russian-Meteor-Chondrite.html Like my usual, I was joking a bit about the overall price, I agree on your economics. What is more interesting to me is to see how much of this object they actually retrieve. Life would be tragic if it were not funny - Stephen Hawking Stewart On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 10:54 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I believe it was an iron meteorite. The value of one of these items is proportional to what someone else is willing to pay for it. I have a strong suspicion that the amount of money you could get for it would be a lot less than you believe. Remember supply and demand? Too much supply of this one. Dave -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 24, 2013 6:52 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:rather big fragment of the Chelyabinsk is discovered (fwd) Based upon the size of the crater we should go dig it up then and erase our national debt On Saturday, February 23, 2013, David Roberson wrote: I visited it once and the story is that the meteorite came in at a steep angle and is buried under one of the rims. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 23, 2013 10:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:rather big fragment of the Chelyabinsk is discovered (fwd) In reply to Vorl Bek's message of Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:27:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] And I have always wondered about Meteor Crater in Arizona; I never understood why a little digging did not expose a big chunk of extraterrestrial rock at the centre of the crater; but there is nothing. Maybe it went deeper and molten rock covered it, so all you see now in the bottom of the crater is the cooled and solidified crust that was molten at the time. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV
On Feb 24, 2013, at 6:23 PM, David Roberson wrote: OK, I think I understand what you are describing after your detailed explanation. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears as though you are assuming that a random collection of individual events is leading to the crater formation and hot spots. This is a possible cause and might indeed be the final explanation. I see that you are still considering that the energy from each reaction is in the form of photons mainly which can penetrate fairly deeply into the metal. The heat is released when the photons are absorbed at some remote location. Correct That is what I remember you stating a few days ago. I countered with a slightly different concept as I was discussing blue sky thinking. I envision that the heat does not appear far removed from the reaction and therefore results in a large elevation to the temperature in the very nearby NAE. On many occasions a random fusion occurs at one of your sites that does not cause adjacent sites to significantly accelerate their activity. The probability of interaction instead is directly related to the density of NAE within the region according to my hypothesis. I see now how this differs from your process since it appears that each of your reactions proceeds slowly and there would not be a large concentration of heat energy to diffuse. I think we have a combination of what you describe and my description. The photons are absorbed as they move from the source. The greatest heat is produced near the source with the energy release dropping off with distance. Consequently, some local heating will occur where the photon flux is greatest. Do you think that the heating due to random addition of the events would be sufficient to cause the cratering and hot spots? I am not sure about how many of these random happenings would have to be coincident for the release of sufficient heat energy to form one of those craters. The melted spots are rare. Most apparent craters are not from this cause, as I said. Most result from deposited impurities. The appearance reminds me more of an explosion of some sort instead of a simple melting of the material. Please read: Nagel, D., Characteristics and Energetics of Craters in LENR Experimental Materials J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci. 10. 1-14 (2013) These craters you describe are from deposition of impurity. I suspect that a cone type shape does not originate from random melting of a bulk of material although I may be wrong. And the dept of the initial cone tip seems out of range for liquid metal to originate. These are the problems that I encounter when attempting to explain the size and shape of the end products. You need to consider that several sources of apparent craters are possible. If you think of the reaction as being a form of chain reaction then the shapes make more sense. There will generally be a single random triggered fusion reaction within the metal. These must be occurring for the device to initially generate excess heat. If, as I suspect, the adjacent NEA sites become triggered themselves then more heat is added to the mix. An interesting observation comes to light. Since the resulting structure has a cone shape, the suggestion becomes that the energy is released in that shape from each reaction. This cone of energy spreads outward from initiation and encounters additional NAE in its path. Many of these become triggered in some manner and the energy from them adds to the resulting cone shaped energy wave. We would need to understand what process could lead to a cone shaped energy release if my hypothesis has any likelihood of success. David, you are over thinking this process and ignoring much of what has to happen for any melting to occur. Consider that a large number of cracks form in one place. The fusion is then controlled by how fast the D can get to this region, which is determined by temperature and concentration of D in the surrounding PdD. The cracks start to produce energy slowly and the local area heats up, as seen by the flashes measured by Szpak et. al. The local area gets hotter, the D diffuses more rapidly, and the flash rate increases while becoming more intense each time. Finally, the flash creates a local temperature that exceeds the melting point of the alloy on the surface, which has a value significantly below that of Pd. This melting causes a sudden release of gas that blows the liquid away. Yes, the sites interact, but through local temperature and diffusion. Because this local region can be less than a square micron in size, the description has to take the conditions present on this scale into account. On this scale, the surface is very complex. I need to consider how shaped charges behave to clarify my understanding of how my assumed process proceeds. Someone in vortex
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
The problem, Bob, in applying any mechanism to the lattice, as you have done, is that it would affect chemical processes long before it could cause any interaction with a nucleus. As is well known, the chemical and nuclear worlds are very far apart in energy and in any observed interaction. Only the very rare and unidentified conditions required to initiate LENR provide an exception. Atoms are known to resonate and QM has been applied successfully to explain many behaviors. However, all the behaviors involve the electrons at low energy typical of and consistent with a chemical environment. Moving from this condition to what might affect nuclear interaction without out affecting chemical behavior is the problem. The more I study the problem, the harder the problem gets to find a satisfactory explanation. A critical insight is missing. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: Before I comment, I should caution that I am only an EE and not a trained nuclear physicist or chemist. It is only natural for me to try to understand behavior in more familiar, EE terms. I would not like to offer an explanation so much as a mental rationalization that I have constructed to help me understand what is being reported. Dr. Peter Hagelstein (MIT) has a theory and simulation about the effect of coupling of the deuteron(s) in the lattice to the other surrounding atoms in the lattice. We all know each of the atoms in solid condensed matter is highly coupled to its neighboring atoms by the shared electron orbitals. This is strong coupling - it is what makes a solid. I also know from my RF training about he behavior of coupled resonant structures. Take a single resonant structure having a single resonant frequency. It has a single eigenmode (resonance). Now take an identical resonant element and bring it into coupling with the first. What happens is that the eigenmode of each splits into two eigenmodes geometrically centered on the original eigenmode. If there are 3 coupled resonators, then EACH resonator will have 3 eigenmodes. Even weak coupling cause the multiple eigenmodes, but they may be close to each other. Now consider that each atom in a lattice is a resonant element that is coupled to all of the other surrounding atoms in the lattice - strongly coupled to the close ones, and weakly coupled to the more distant atoms. Also imagine that the nucleus is a resonant structure (vibrational, rotational, and maybe in other dimensions) and is coupled to the electron cloud and hence to all of the other neighboring atoms and their nuclei. This would mean that the nucleus itself could now have multiple eigenmodes through its coupling to the neighboring atoms - something that would really only occur in condensed matter. One way these nuclear eigenmodes could be visualized may be in terms of formation of shallow isomeric stabilities in the nucleus. Could then, transitions between the multiple shallow isomeric stabilities be equivalent in some way to the eigenmodes of the electron cloud and allow transitions between them? Could this allow the nucleus to de-excite via transitions between these coupled isomeric stabilities - giving off quanta that are defined by the difference in energy between the different nuclear isomeric states (the eigenvalues)? Of course, this doesn't explain or help understand how the Coulomb barrier is overcome, just how it may be possible in condensed matter to de-excite a nucleus via multiple small gamma photons. Also, by this hypothetical mechanism, this behavior would be possible anywhere in the lattice and is not special to cracks or to the surface of the solid where LENR appears evidenced to occur. Perhaps the de-excitation of a nucleus by small gamma photons is a property of the condensed matter and overcoming of the Coulomb barrier is something that only happens in special features (cracks, surface) in the condensed matter. Obviously the nuclear coupling nucleus eigenmode splitting would be affected by the atomic spacing; and a hydrogen/deuterium atom in a crack would certainly have a different couplings, and hence different eigenmodes, than a hydrogen/deuterium atom would have inside the more regular lattice. Could a unique coupling that could occur with just the right crack, split the eigenmodes of the nucleus in such a way that it matches phonon eigenmodes in the lattice? Bob On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Regardless of their involvement, the Coulomb reduction process must take place in a manner to allow the mass-energy to be released gradually in small quanta before the fusion process is complete. Otherwise, if mass-energy remains in the final structure, it must result in gamma emission to be consistent with known behavior. At this point in the model, we are faced with a
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** Use a little imagination. They can can accuse LENR advocates as aiding terrorists. They can plant child porn on their computers. They can do all kinds of things, and they already have. People such as Robert Park have deliberately and destroyed the reputations of distinguished scientists, fired many scientists, and interfered with funding. They have had members of Congress demand researchers' tax returns and personal papers. However, there is a limit to how they can do, because the information has spread far and wide. People have downloaded 2.6 million copies of the papers at LENR-CANR.org. There are copies of the LENR-CANR library in every nation listed on the Internet, except North Korea, and I expect they have made copies surreptitiously. There is no way that information can hidden. If it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real, millions more copies of the technical information will be downloaded. The facts about cold fusion will be obvious to every chemist and engineer on earth. The authorities can lie to some extent, but they cannot lie so much that they deceive every expert when accurate information is readily available, and cannot be suppressed or erased. They can make an example of any one of them by murdering one of them and pretending it was a suicide - or just a random crime that never gets solved. There are 4,700 authors in the LENR-CANR.org library database. Do you think the authorities are capable of killing off that many people? Even if they did kill them all, the information would still be in millions of computers worldwide. In any case, killing a dozen would attract enormous attention to the field. This is real life, not a third-rate made-for-TV thriller. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
ken deboer New Topic: Just happened upon a new patent , US app 20130044847 APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS' by Dan Steinberg of Blacksburg, Virginia. Obviously relevant but I am totally unqualifed to make any useful comments on it. 'Who are these guys?' On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** Use a little imagination. They can can accuse LENR advocates as aiding terrorists. They can plant child porn on their computers. They can do all kinds of things, and they already have. People such as Robert Park have deliberately and destroyed the reputations of distinguished scientists, fired many scientists, and interfered with funding. They have had members of Congress demand researchers' tax returns and personal papers. However, there is a limit to how they can do, because the information has spread far and wide. People have downloaded 2.6 million copies of the papers at LENR-CANR.org. There are copies of the LENR-CANR library in every nation listed on the Internet, except North Korea, and I expect they have made copies surreptitiously. There is no way that information can hidden. If it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real, millions more copies of the technical information will be downloaded. The facts about cold fusion will be obvious to every chemist and engineer on earth. The authorities can lie to some extent, but they cannot lie so much that they deceive every expert when accurate information is readily available, and cannot be suppressed or erased. They can make an example of any one of them by murdering one of them and pretending it was a suicide - or just a random crime that never gets solved. There are 4,700 authors in the LENR-CANR.org library database. Do you think the authorities are capable of killing off that many people? Even if they did kill them all, the information would still be in millions of computers worldwide. In any case, killing a dozen would attract enormous attention to the field. This is real life, not a third-rate made-for-TV thriller. - Jed
[Vo]:Any LENR wet cell work done at super critical temps and pressures?
In reviewing what has been done in the field I see the LENR effect seems to have some positive correlation with both elevated temperature and elevated pressures. Has anyone attempted to do LENR type electrolytic experiments at super critical temperatures and pressures? Not even sure how a plain chemical wet cell would behave at supercritical temps and pressures... The resulting bleve if it gets away from you does not make this option very laboratory friendly... Paul
Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV
Crater formation is an instance of reaction meltdown. In a bulk material, random processes will produce some cases of crack formation in terms of size and shape that will be subject to a runaway reaction. Once the reaction gets underway, the speed of the reaction gets to the point where it occurs in an extremely short timeframe, an explosion. The almost instantaneous release of heat takes a finite time to spread out from its site of creation. After this reaction pulse of heat, the explosion will destroy the crack system that created the reaction in the first place. As we all now realize, control of the reaction is top priority. To insure control of the reaction, random processes must be eliminated to keep the flow of power constant and within limits. This is done by controlling the many layers of resonances and positive feedback loops that give the reaction it’s amazing power. Success in engineering LENR involves identifying these resonant processes and properly controlling them. This interesting engineering exericse will be the subject of my next post. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Feb 24, 2013, at 6:23 PM, David Roberson wrote: OK, I think I understand what you are describing after your detailed explanation. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears as though you are assuming that a random collection of individual events is leading to the crater formation and hot spots. This is a possible cause and might indeed be the final explanation. I see that you are still considering that the energy from each reaction is in the form of photons mainly which can penetrate fairly deeply into the metal. The heat is released when the photons are absorbed at some remote location. Correct That is what I remember you stating a few days ago. I countered with a slightly different concept as I was discussing blue sky thinking. I envision that the heat does not appear far removed from the reaction and therefore results in a large elevation to the temperature in the very nearby NAE. On many occasions a random fusion occurs at one of your sites that does not cause adjacent sites to significantly accelerate their activity. The probability of interaction instead is directly related to the density of NAE within the region according to my hypothesis. I see now how this differs from your process since it appears that each of your reactions proceeds slowly and there would not be a large concentration of heat energy to diffuse. I think we have a combination of what you describe and my description. The photons are absorbed as they move from the source. The greatest heat is produced near the source with the energy release dropping off with distance. Consequently, some local heating will occur where the photon flux is greatest. Do you think that the heating due to random addition of the events would be sufficient to cause the cratering and hot spots? I am not sure about how many of these random happenings would have to be coincident for the release of sufficient heat energy to form one of those craters. The melted spots are rare. Most apparent craters are not from this cause, as I said. Most result from deposited impurities. The appearance reminds me more of an explosion of some sort instead of a simple melting of the material. Please read: Nagel, D., Characteristics and Energetics of Craters in LENR Experimental Materials J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci. 10. 1-14 (2013) These craters you describe are from deposition of impurity. I suspect that a cone type shape does not originate from random melting of a bulk of material although I may be wrong. And the dept of the initial cone tip seems out of range for liquid metal to originate. These are the problems that I encounter when attempting to explain the size and shape of the end products. You need to consider that several sources of apparent craters are possible. If you think of the reaction as being a form of chain reaction then the shapes make more sense. There will generally be a single random triggered fusion reaction within the metal. These must be occurring for the device to initially generate excess heat. If, as I suspect, the adjacent NEA sites become triggered themselves then more heat is added to the mix. An interesting observation comes to light. Since the resulting structure has a cone shape, the suggestion becomes that the energy is released in that shape from each reaction. This cone of energy spreads outward from initiation and encounters additional NAE in its path. Many of these become triggered in some manner and the energy from them adds to the resulting cone shaped energy wave. We would need to understand what process could lead to a cone shaped energy release if my hypothesis has any likelihood of success. David, you are over thinking this process and ignoring much of what has to happen
Re: [Vo]:Any LENR wet cell work done at super critical temps and pressures?
It is unfortunate the Fleischmann Pons Effect was the first instance of the LENR reaction’s manifestation. I liken the FP effect to the analogy of starting a fire in a flooded forest drenched in a perpetual downpour. Dry firewood is hard to find and if found, it continually gets wet. It is better to start a fire in a very dry place filled with dry tinder. By this I mean that there is a coupling between the high ambient heat in the environment were the reaction takes place and the basic mechanisms of the reaction. Rossi has shown this to be true. The Fleischmann Pons Effect does not optimally exist in the parameter space conducive to the development of the LENR reaction. A LENR theorist should properly look into the conditions where heat can affect the relaxation of the coulomb barrier. This might seem illogical at first, but such a connection must and does properly exist. The preservation and management of heat is critical in stabilizing the reaction. Wet operation defeats this goal. The dry gas environment is the way to go. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: In reviewing what has been done in the field I see the LENR effect seems to have some positive correlation with both elevated temperature and elevated pressures. Has anyone attempted to do LENR type electrolytic experiments at super critical temperatures and pressures? Not even sure how a plain chemical wet cell would behave at supercritical temps and pressures... The resulting bleve if it gets away from you does not make this option very laboratory friendly... Paul
Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV
Ed, perhaps we are discussing the details in this case, but many times the details reveal an underlying behavior that offers important clues. I believe that I have a good understanding of your assumed mechanism at this time since you did a good job of describing it. The hot spot evidence suggests that more is going on than just simple addition of heat that is released throughout a wide region due to penetrating radiation. The effect appears to be much more focused than what would be expected under those conditions. Do you have an estimate of how far a typical X-Ray generated by your mechanism would penetrate before its energy is deposited? I can not locate that information in the reports that you have written, but it is possible that I overlooked it some how. I just recall several discussions with Horace about the distance that relatively low energy gammas would travel and the numbers implied that the heat would not be correlated to any significant degree around the local NAE in those cases. It would take gamma energy of much less than 100 keV to be captured in the same device. Ed, what energy level of X-Ray are you anticipating to be given off by your mechanism as each NAE allows fusion? We should be able to take that estimate and figure out the penetration distance. On the other hand, if you determine that direct local point heating is generated, then the process that I am envisioning would be active. This would happen if for instance a kinetic kick is given to the metal surrounding the fusing D's and possibly to the Helium formed itself. Some form of electromagnetic or mechanical coupling would achieve this result and I suspect that this is happening. We tend to speak of this type of process as heat energy, but it is just local coupling that ends up dissipating in that form. These types of processes would likely demonstrate directivity since they form in a Newtonian manner. There will be equal and opposite reactions when two bodies interact to conserve momentum and energy. If it is assumed that there is no overall directed energy released and that it is indeed random as you imply, then the diffusing heat will propagate away from each active site in a radially symmetrical manner and influence its neighbors without a preferred direction. This does not seem to be what is observed. In the crater formations, a conic propagation appears to be in play. I realize that these are rare and the hot spots are the main phenomena observed. The supposition that gas generated at an interior site is adequate to cause a large crater to be blown out of the material is not proven and I suspect is not likely. Do you have evidence that these conic plugs of blown out material are being projected at high velocity into the nearby experiment? It seems far more likely that the cone of matter is heated to melting by a directed flow of heat of a conic form and then gently expelled by a moderate amount of internal pressure. There is a large difference between these two processes. Hot spot formation is most likely the main observation that strongly supports the local heating hypothesis. Your penetrating radiation theory should not result in this type of behavior. The X-Rays would travel too far before depositing their energy unless you now assume that the X-Rays themselves directly impact the additional release of energy by nearby NAE. This has not been a part of you theory so far, but it would offer some of the desired characteristics. These types of penetrating radiation have been known to initiate nuclear reactions before as in the hydrogen bomb case, so perhaps here as well. Also, the lack of X-Rays being detected in the numbers required to explain the LENR energy release is a big problem. Any release near the surface of the metal should result in penetration and external detection. This is much like the problem that we all realize is faced by the WL theory. I think that any mechanism that relies upon gammas or X-Rays is going to be hard to justify. If you can maneuver your theory to be restricted to the release of radiation that gets captured quickly such as UV or very low energy X-Rays, then all is well. This short range local conversion into heat would fit into my hypothesis quite well. Then, the high temperature impulses would immediately influence the nearby NAE. This close coupling would result in chain reactions and the corresponding hot spots. All of the papers that I have read about your theories thus far have concentrated upon the local, single NAE environment. That is of the utmost importance in our obtaining an explanation as to how LENR actually in initiated and represents an interesting hypothetical process as to the sequence of events leading to the ultimate goal of fusion. I have extended that concept to the system level of behavior with my current hypothesis which can explain the hot spot as well as
RE: [Vo]:Any LENR wet cell work done at super critical temps and pressures?
From: paulsphone.uroc...@gmail.com Has anyone attempted to do LENR type electrolytic experiments at super critical temperatures and pressures? Brillouin Energy. They claimed COP of about 2 on electrolytic - but have since moved on to gas phase (dry).
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
You are right that the blocking of LENR should be done with the complicity of the population. My vision is that it will be done through manipulation of fear and morality. What you cannot force people to surrender, they can give it to you with a good manipulation, with a series of TV documentary and campaign by citizen morality commando, with implied social pressure and media self-censorship. It works well, and there are very experienced groups in that business. just need to trigger their interest, by fear of losing funding for example. 2013/2/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: It might be possible to enforce a monopoly within the EU on any LENR use, apart from clandestine operation. I doubt it. The EU countries have democratically elected governments. Cold fusion will be save roughly $2,500 per person, per year, or ~$10,000 for a family of 4. The voters will demand it. That kind of money will produce overwhelming political pressure. Any elected official who opposes rapid implementation is sure to lose the next election. I do not think any government could resist it. I expect the fossil fuel companies will fight it, but they will quickly lose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
Jed, Have you ever discussed with Mr. Park the reason for his behavior? Why does he have such a strong aversion to research in this field? What main industrial or military projects did he participate in during his formative years? Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 1:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: Use a little imagination. They can can accuse LENR advocates as aiding terrorists. They can plant child porn on their computers. They can do all kinds of things, and they already have. People such as Robert Park have deliberately and destroyed the reputations of distinguished scientists, fired many scientists, and interfered with funding. They have had members of Congress demand researchers' tax returns and personal papers. However, there is a limit to how they can do, because the information has spread far and wide. People have downloaded 2.6 million copies of the papers at LENR-CANR.org. There are copies of the LENR-CANR library in every nation listed on the Internet, except North Korea, and I expect they have made copies surreptitiously. There is no way that information can hidden. If it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real, millions more copies of the technical information will be downloaded. The facts about cold fusion will be obvious to every chemist and engineer on earth. The authorities can lie to some extent, but they cannot lie so much that they deceive every expert when accurate information is readily available, and cannot be suppressed or erased. They can make an example of any one of them by murdering one of them and pretending it was a suicide - or just a random crime that never gets solved. There are 4,700 authors in the LENR-CANR.org library database. Do you think the authorities are capable of killing off that many people? Even if they did kill them all, the information would still be in millions of computers worldwide. In any case, killing a dozen would attract enormous attention to the field. This is real life, not a third-rate made-for-TV thriller. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
You acknowledge the problem - and I think the good guys will win ultimately. However, all those papers downloaded so far mean nothing - until you can produce something simple, reliable and affordable for common useage. I consider the situation nothing less than astonishing that, after the first experiments, we're approaching 30 years without mainstream acceptance. A week ago, I tried posting the NASA info elsewhere and triggered a s**tstorm of ridicule and denial about 'scams' and 'hoaxes'.
RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Any LENR wet cell work done at super critical temps and pressures?
I have also envisioned combining extreme environments to lessen the requirements or possibly enable a synergetic relationship between the individual environments such that the anomaly becomes easier to initiate.. I think the Papp engine may be doing this with a piston supplying a mechanical assist to the anomally.. Re: [Vo]:new Infinite Energy combustion engine using inert gaseshttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37858.html and I think you could incorporate a water hammer like effect to your wet cell such that the pressure is a less dangerous transient force that can be repeated in synch with other resonant characteristics to both encourage the process or act as a damper according to your control loop. Many people have mentioned same and the list of different stimuli includes lasers, sonics, magnetic ect..ect.. I do agree a certain minimal pressure is probably needed.. The gases are not normally as strongly coupled like the lattice atoms but when pressurized and fully loaded into a lattice they demonstrate a lockstep motion meaning that they too are coupled - IMHO getting a resonance motion of this gas across a defect is equivalent to the cutting tooth of a saw blade.. it allows changes in the QM field [changes in lattice geometry] to concentrate the effect of dissimilar geometry on either side of the defect on only a few gas atoms that happen to present in the cavity while at another scale the bulk of the gas atoms are lock stepping back and forth in resonance across the defect. Fran From: paulsphone.uroc...@gmail.com [mailto:paulsphone.uroc...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paul Breed Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 2:00 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Any LENR wet cell work done at super critical temps and pressures? In reviewing what has been done in the field I see the LENR effect seems to have some positive correlation with both elevated temperature and elevated pressures. Has anyone attempted to do LENR type electrolytic experiments at super critical temperatures and pressures? Not even sure how a plain chemical wet cell would behave at supercritical temps and pressures... The resulting bleve if it gets away from you does not make this option very laboratory friendly... Paul
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
I agree Chris. This delay is embarrassing. However, if you examine the nature of the ridicule, you will see a common feature. The writers are generally ignorant, angry, and without any ability to understand logic. Consequently, CF has become a test of the mental health of society. This behavior and what we see happening in the US Congress and in a few other countries reveals a deterioration of education and mental health. THAT is what people should worry about. Ed On Feb 25, 2013, at 1:02 PM, Chris Zell wrote: You acknowledge the problem - and I think the good guys will win ultimately. However, all those papers downloaded so far mean nothing - until you can produce something simple, reliable and affordable for common useage. I consider the situation nothing less than astonishing that, after the first experiments, we're approaching 30 years without mainstream acceptance. A week ago, I tried posting the NASA info elsewhere and triggered a s**tstorm of ridicule and denial about 'scams' and 'hoaxes'.
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Have you ever discussed with Mr. Park the reason for his behavior? Dr. Park. I don't mean that he is the only one. He is particularly prominent. I use him as a stand-in for others at the DoE, the Jasons and elsewhere. I have only spoken with him on a few occasions, briefly. However, he has explained his reasons many times, in his APS blog, in the Washington Post, and at presentations at conferences and so on. He has said: Cold fusion is entirely wrong. All of the reported experimental results are the product of incompetence, criminal fraud, or lunacy. Cold fusion is physically impossible, like homeopathy. It is utterly unscientific, like creationism. If I believed what he believes, I might be campaigning against cold fusion too. Why does he have such a strong aversion to research in this field? I take him at his word. I assume he sincerely believes the cold fusion researchers are committing fraud and besmirching the good name of science. He sees them as people like the fake scientists who sell snake oil cancer cures. What main industrial or military projects did he participate in during his formative years? I do not know. It doesn't matter. There are hundreds more like him. Some people assume that opponents are faking it, and they actually know that cold fusion is real. They are trying to defend their turf. Or they are working for fossil fuel companies and trying to prevent the use of a technology that will wipe out these companies. I doubt that. I have no way of knowing. As I have often said, if there is a conspiracy, they do not invite me to the meetings. However, based on what these people say and write, and based on my experiences interacting with some of them, such as Park and Huizenga, I have the strong impression they mean what they say. They are giving us their honest reasons for attacking the field. They see themselves as working to prevent fake scientists and lunatics from stealing research money. Robert Park also claims that he has never read any cold fusion papers. He says he does not need to. No one needs to; anyone can tell at a glance that the claims are preposterous. This is what I would say if a doctor presented papers claiming he could bring to life a rotting corpse, like Lazarus. I suppose that Park may have glanced at one or two papers, but I take him at his word that he has not read any carefully, because every assertion he makes about this subject is technically wrong. He knows nothing about it. Ditto the editors of the Scientific American, who also told me -- explicitly -- that they have read no papers, because reading papers is not our job. Most so-called skeptics have read nothing and know nothing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: You acknowledge the problem - and I think the good guys will win ultimately. However, all those papers downloaded so far mean nothing . . . I am saying they will mean something if it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real. The authorities or Men in Black will not be able to spread lies about the cold fusion effect because the facts will be available in millions of computers already. - until you can produce something simple, reliable and affordable for common useage. That is not likely to happen in the present circumstances. If that is the only way we can succeed, we will probably fail. Unless Rossi has something up his sleeve. You never know with him. He might have something, but he might cling to it and take it to the grave, the way Patterson did. I consider the situation nothing less than astonishing that, after the first experiments, we're approaching 30 years without mainstream acceptance. It isn't that surprising. Look at the history of other innovations and you will find similar delays, caused by human nature. A week ago, I tried posting the NASA info elsewhere and triggered a s**tstorm of ridicule and denial about 'scams' and 'hoaxes'. That's what I was saying about Robert Park. He sincerely believes this is a scam and hoax, as do many other people. As long as the belief remains widespread I see little hope of success. It is impossible to dissuade people convinced of this, because they will not look at the evidence. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
Its probably a mistake to try to psychoanalyze these guys. I've described the phenomenon as institutional incompetencehttp://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2011/07/institutional-incompetence-conspiracy.html. These people are not acting as individual at all but as parts of institutions that are structurally incompetent. They don't really think in the way we conceive of thinking. They don't really even *perceive* in the way we conceive of perceiving. In order to be a competent part of something bigger than yourself you need to sacrifice your individual integrity. If the something bigger than yourself is an institution without integrity then your behavior reflects that. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Have you ever discussed with Mr. Park the reason for his behavior? Dr. Park. I don't mean that he is the only one. He is particularly prominent. I use him as a stand-in for others at the DoE, the Jasons and elsewhere. I have only spoken with him on a few occasions, briefly. However, he has explained his reasons many times, in his APS blog, in the Washington Post, and at presentations at conferences and so on. He has said: Cold fusion is entirely wrong. All of the reported experimental results are the product of incompetence, criminal fraud, or lunacy. Cold fusion is physically impossible, like homeopathy. It is utterly unscientific, like creationism. If I believed what he believes, I might be campaigning against cold fusion too. Why does he have such a strong aversion to research in this field? I take him at his word. I assume he sincerely believes the cold fusion researchers are committing fraud and besmirching the good name of science. He sees them as people like the fake scientists who sell snake oil cancer cures. What main industrial or military projects did he participate in during his formative years? I do not know. It doesn't matter. There are hundreds more like him. Some people assume that opponents are faking it, and they actually know that cold fusion is real. They are trying to defend their turf. Or they are working for fossil fuel companies and trying to prevent the use of a technology that will wipe out these companies. I doubt that. I have no way of knowing. As I have often said, if there is a conspiracy, they do not invite me to the meetings. However, based on what these people say and write, and based on my experiences interacting with some of them, such as Park and Huizenga, I have the strong impression they mean what they say. They are giving us their honest reasons for attacking the field. They see themselves as working to prevent fake scientists and lunatics from stealing research money. Robert Park also claims that he has never read any cold fusion papers. He says he does not need to. No one needs to; anyone can tell at a glance that the claims are preposterous. This is what I would say if a doctor presented papers claiming he could bring to life a rotting corpse, like Lazarus. I suppose that Park may have glanced at one or two papers, but I take him at his word that he has not read any carefully, because every assertion he makes about this subject is technically wrong. He knows nothing about it. Ditto the editors of the Scientific American, who also told me -- explicitly -- that they have read no papers, because reading papers is not our job. Most so-called skeptics have read nothing and know nothing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I agree Chris. This delay is embarrassing. However, if you examine the nature of the ridicule, you will see a common feature. The writers are generally ignorant, angry, and without any ability to understand logic. You mean the people who denounce cold fusion as a scam and a hoax. They may understand logic in other contexts but they have not bothered to apply it to this one. I am sure Robert Park is capable of understanding calorimetry but I do not think he has ever bothered to look at the data from McKubre and others. He assumes they made it up. Actually, he and some others once claimed that *I*, Jed, made it up! I felt flattered. Imagine thinking that I am capable of writing something like the ICCF3 proceedings, by myself! Consequently, CF has become a test of the mental health of society. This behavior and what we see happening in the US Congress and in a few other countries reveals a deterioration of education and mental health. I do not see any sign of deterioration. The situation is about what it was in the past. Read history and you will find countless examples of irrationality as bad as this, and some far worse, such as World War I and World War II. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Its probably a mistake to try to psychoanalyze these guys. I agree! I have said that before. I am not trying to psychoanalyze anyone. I take them at their word. They say cold fusion is lunacy and hoax and blah, blah. I assume they mean what they say. I think they are lazy and they should take the trouble to read the literature more carefully, but after all these years I am sure they will not. If they would just ignore the field they would cause no harm. I've described the phenomenon as institutional incompetencehttp://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2011/07/institutional-incompetence-conspiracy.html. These people are not acting as individual at all but as parts of institutions that are structurally incompetent. That seems likely. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:06:28 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] The big question is whether or not a single fusion event is capable of doing this degree of damage and creating the relatively large heating associated with hot spots. It is well established that temperature does effect the LENR systems in a positive manner. Elevated metal temperature is required to obtain any significant LENR and it is apparent that the higher the temperature of a device such as the ECAT, the more heat is produced. Assuming a fairly typical crater is a cone with a radius of 1 micron, and a depth of 2 microns, and a face centered cubic lattice (I used Ni), then such a cone would contain about 2E11 Ni atoms. For a metal to melt, the kinetic energy of the atoms needs to exceed the bond energy of the metal, so by calculating the average kinetic energy associated with the melting point of the metal, we can get a rough idea of the energy required to melt the material in the crater. That works out to be 2E11 atoms x 0.233 eV / atom ~= 43000 MeV, or roughly 10 thousand fusion reactions. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
On Feb 25, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I agree Chris. This delay is embarrassing. However, if you examine the nature of the ridicule, you will see a common feature. The writers are generally ignorant, angry, and without any ability to understand logic. You mean the people who denounce cold fusion as a scam and a hoax. They may understand logic in other contexts but they have not bothered to apply it to this one. I am sure Robert Park is capable of understanding calorimetry but I do not think he has ever bothered to look at the data from McKubre and others. He assumes they made it up. Actually, he and some others once claimed that I, Jed, made it up! I felt flattered. Imagine thinking that I am capable of writing something like the ICCF3 proceedings, by myself! I do not think Park is irrational or has any mental problems. I think he is a sincere closed-minded person, which is the most common type of person. However, irrational behavior exists as a separate aspect of the mind, which as you note has caused terrible consequences. I find that this kind of thinking is increasing and will have similar terrible consequences. Consequently, CF has become a test of the mental health of society. This behavior and what we see happening in the US Congress and in a few other countries reveals a deterioration of education and mental health. I do not see any sign of deterioration. The situation is about what it was in the past. Read history and you will find countless examples of irrationality as bad as this, and some far worse, such as World War I and World War II. All aspect of human behavior goes through cycles. The question is only where in the cycle we happen to be at the present time. I find that the system of human behavior is getting more irrational at the level of policy. Of course, ordinary people have always been nuts, but they have no influence except when they vote, riot, or shoot up a school. Sooner or later, these people gain control. That is when the cycle starts down again. I believe we are on a downward slope once again. Ed - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
The reason I was asking about his background is that I wonder if some in government circles are concerned that LENR can be weaponized. If this is true, you can bet that somewhere a black project is taking place to enhance the potential of such a device. They may already have a prototype and would do anything to keep others from developing similar devices. I hope that this is not possible. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 3:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Have you ever discussed with Mr. Park the reason for his behavior? Dr. Park. I don't mean that he is the only one. He is particularly prominent. I use him as a stand-in for others at the DoE, the Jasons and elsewhere. I have only spoken with him on a few occasions, briefly. However, he has explained his reasons many times, in his APS blog, in the Washington Post, and at presentations at conferences and so on. He has said: Cold fusion is entirely wrong. All of the reported experimental results are the product of incompetence, criminal fraud, or lunacy. Cold fusion is physically impossible, like homeopathy. It is utterly unscientific, like creationism. If I believed what he believes, I might be campaigning against cold fusion too. Why does he have such a strong aversion to research in this field? I take him at his word. I assume he sincerely believes the cold fusion researchers are committing fraud and besmirching the good name of science. He sees them as people like the fake scientists who sell snake oil cancer cures. What main industrial or military projects did he participate in during his formative years? I do not know. It doesn't matter. There are hundreds more like him. Some people assume that opponents are faking it, and they actually know that cold fusion is real. They are trying to defend their turf. Or they are working for fossil fuel companies and trying to prevent the use of a technology that will wipe out these companies. I doubt that. I have no way of knowing. As I have often said, if there is a conspiracy, they do not invite me to the meetings. However, based on what these people say and write, and based on my experiences interacting with some of them, such as Park and Huizenga, I have the strong impression they mean what they say. They are giving us their honest reasons for attacking the field. They see themselves as working to prevent fake scientists and lunatics from stealing research money. Robert Park also claims that he has never read any cold fusion papers. He says he does not need to. No one needs to; anyone can tell at a glance that the claims are preposterous. This is what I would say if a doctor presented papers claiming he could bring to life a rotting corpse, like Lazarus. I suppose that Park may have glanced at one or two papers, but I take him at his word that he has not read any carefully, because every assertion he makes about this subject is technically wrong. He knows nothing about it. Ditto the editors of the Scientific American, who also told me -- explicitly -- that they have read no papers, because reading papers is not our job. Most so-called skeptics have read nothing and know nothing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:rather big fragment of the Chelyabinsk is discovered (fwd)
Such a large impact means it had a high speed on impact and distintegrated. David On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 5:29 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I visited it once and the story is that the meteorite came in at a steep angle and is buried under one of the rims. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 23, 2013 10:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:rather big fragment of the Chelyabinsk is discovered (fwd) In reply to Vorl Bek's message of Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:27:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] And I have always wondered about Meteor Crater in Arizona; I never understood why a little digging did not expose a big chunk of extraterrestrial rock at the centre of the crater; but there is nothing. Maybe it went deeper and molten rock covered it, so all you see now in the bottom of the crater is the cooled and solidified crust that was molten at the time. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:rather big fragment of the Chelyabinsk is discovered (fwd)
Crater?
Disintegration implies transfer of kinetic energy.
Wonder how many pieces it exploded into?
I heard they found a 1 kg chunk
On Monday, February 25, 2013, David Jonsson wrote:
Such a large impact means it had a high speed on impact and
distintegrated.
David
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 5:29 AM, David Roberson
dlrober...@aol.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'dlrober...@aol.com');
wrote:
I visited it once and the story is that the meteorite came in at a steep
angle and is buried under one of the rims.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'mix...@bigpond.com');
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
Sent: Sat, Feb 23, 2013 10:51 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:rather big fragment of the Chelyabinsk is discovered
(fwd)
In reply to Vorl Bek's message of Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:27:07 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
And I have always wondered about Meteor Crater in Arizona; I never
understood why a little digging did not expose a big chunk of
extraterrestrial rock at the centre of the crater; but there is
nothing.
Maybe it went deeper and molten rock covered it, so all you see now in the
bottom of the crater is the cooled and solidified crust that was molten at
the
time.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The reason I was asking about his background is that I wonder if some in government circles are concerned that LENR can be weaponized. You mean to make it go bang. Martin Fleischmann and Edward Teller worried about that. I do not know anyone else. I think it may be a legit worry, as I point out in chapter 12 of my book. Despite that, I don't worry much. I am sure that cold fusion will have a profound effect on every aspect of conventional weapons, as I said in chapter 11. If Country A with cold fusion powered weapons attacks Country B without them, country A will win with overwhelming force, as quickly and easily as the British won the Opium Wars, and the U.S. won the Spanish American naval Battle of Manila Bay, with essentially no casualties on the U.S. side and the complete destruction of the Spanish fleet. Military people are not fools. They are aware of these things to some extent. That is why DARPA continues to support cold fusion despite tremendous opposition, albeit only to a microscopic extent. I have had discussions with the people who wrote the Defense Intelligence Agency report: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf If this is true, you can bet that somewhere a black project is taking place to enhance the potential of such a device. I doubt it. Those people are not so smart. They have no special insight. They never did have any. Read the inside story of WWII operations and you will see they made profound mistakes at every level, in every military, on both sides. There are stark limits to our abilities. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I do not think Park is irrational or has any mental problems. I do not think so either. He is, however, what the British call a nasty piece of work. Huizenga was affable in person, but awfully closed-minded in his book. Such people are as common in academia as any other walk of life. I have not found academic scientists to be especially open-minded or willing to look at new ideas. They have a reputation for that, but it is overblown. I think he is a sincere closed-minded person, which is the most common type of person. Very common indeed. I find that the system of human behavior is getting more irrational at the level of policy. Compared to what? George W. Bush's reasons for attacking Iraq? The U.S. Navy's deployment of ships and troops to guard Pearl Harbor in December 1941? The economic policies that led to the Great Depression? The build-up of thermonuclear weapons during the cold war? People have done many stupid things in the past! We are coming up on the 100th anniversary of the First World War, which was arguably the most irrational event in history. Irrational on so many levels, it boggles the mind. The causes of the war, the way it was planned, and the way it was carried out are so outlandish, so destructive, futile, inhuman and wasteful, you can't help thinking that everyone at all levels was crazy. While it was happening many people such as Winston Churchill and Wilfred Owen pointed out the insanity of it, in vain. When I look back at things like that I feel optimistic. Things aren't as bad as all that! - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
I apologize if it seems that I introduce material associated with conspiracies but I feel I have been driven to them, having no alternative. At present, the world looks so bizarre to me, I cannot satisfy my sense of logic otherwise - and if it isn't obvious already, the adventure of trying to confirm LENR in the minds of others tends to justify such an outlook IMHO. Saying that the human race - and its elite - are no more irrational than in the past is no comfort if technology could give anyone the power of a weapon of mass destruction. Worrying about assault rifles looks like small potatoes, over the long road. Thus, unless we gain the oversight of benevolent aliens or develop a mass psychic consciousness that protects us, the future looks more like Afghanistan. Do some say that SETI can't find aliens because they probably advanced far enough to blow themselves up?
[Vo]:Rethinking wind power
“People have often thought there’s no upper bound for wind power—that it’s one of the most scalable power sources,” says Harvard University applied physicist David Keith. After all, gusts and breezes don’t seem likely to “run out” on a global scale in the way oil wells might run dry. Yet the latest research in mesoscale atmospheric modeling, published in Environmental Research Letters, suggests that the generating capacity of large-scale wind farms has been overestimated. Each wind turbine creates behind it a wind shadow in which the air has been slowed down by drag on the turbine's blades. The ideal wind farm strikes a balance, packing as many turbines onto the land as possible, while also spacing them enough to reduce the impact of these wind shadows. But as wind farms grow larger, they start to interact, and the regional-scale wind patterns matter more. Keith’s research has shown that the generating capacity of very large wind power installations (larger than 100 square kilometers) may peak at between 0.5 and 1 Watts per square meter. Previous estimates, which ignored the turbines' slowing effect on the wind, had put that figure at between 2 and 7 Watts per square meter. In short, we may not have access to as much wind power as scientists thought. http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/02/rethinking-wind-power?et_cid=3110245et_rid=523913766linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.rdmag.com%2fnews%2f2013%2f02%2frethinking-wind-power
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: Saying that the human race - and its elite - are no more irrational than in the past is no comfort if technology could give anyone the power of a weapon of mass destruction. That does not seem likely. Don't fret about it. Even if there is a potential for small nuclear bombs, I suppose cold fusion devices will remain high-tech machines that can only be produced in large factories, like NiCad batteries. We might be able to keep tabs on all factories capable of making devices. It seems unlikely to me that anyone will be able to fabricate a cold fusion device at home, using 3-D printers or what-have-you. Not for the next thousand years or so, until those machines evolve into Clarke's universal replicators. By the time that happens, the machines will be so sophisticated, they will have enough artificial intelligence to prevents such misuse. Look at it this way: there are many industrial products available right now, in mass quantities, that would cause mass destruction if someone deliberately used them. For example, passenger airplanes can be flown into large buildings like bombs. Fuel storage tanks can be ignited, causing tremendous explosions. Sarin can be manufactured by small groups of fanatics. All these things have happened, and might happen again. Yet the world goes on, and things are reasonably secure. We have managed to find ways to reduce the likelihood of these events. If it becomes apparent that a small cold fusion nuclear bomb is possible, perhaps we will find technical methods of keeping tabs on the production of cold fusion devices, and preventing anyone from making a bomb. Worrying about assault rifles looks like small potatoes, over the long road. That's true. If it does come to pass, it will be hell of a mess. If you are looking for things to worry about, maybe you should turn your attention to robots the size of mice or birds that can fly into windows and assassinate people. I predict that cold fusion will make such robots easier, more practical, and with an unlimited range. Yikes! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV
Thanks Robin, That is a good estimate of the melting energy and it demonstrates that a coordinated reaction is required in order to generate one of the crater events. I hope that a chain reaction of this type will always proceed at a slow enough rate to limit the heat released to a safe value. This overall process reminds me of the behavior of a laser medium. It will emit continuous radiation when the pump energy is below a certain value, but a chain reaction begins in earnest once the system gain exceeds a threshold. The activity and density of the NAE sets the effective system gain in the LENR case. Here, the equivalent to lasing is the generation of hot spots and in the spectacular case, a crater. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 3:43 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:06:28 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] The big question is whether or not a single fusion event is capable of doing this degree of damage and creating the relatively large heating associated with hot spots. It is well established that temperature does effect the LENR systems in a positive manner. Elevated metal temperature is required to obtain any significant LENR and it is apparent that the higher the temperature of a device such as the ECAT, the more heat is produced. Assuming a fairly typical crater is a cone with a radius of 1 micron, and a depth of 2 microns, and a face centered cubic lattice (I used Ni), then such a cone would contain about 2E11 Ni atoms. For a metal to melt, the kinetic energy of the atoms needs to exceed the bond energy of the metal, so by calculating the average kinetic energy associated with the melting point of the metal, we can get a rough idea of the energy required to melt the material in the crater. That works out to be 2E11 atoms x 0.233 eV / atom ~= 43000 MeV, or roughly 10 thousand fusion reactions. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rethinking wind power
That's an interesting article. But this sentence is silly: 'It’s clear the theoretical upper limit to wind power is huge, if you don't care about the impacts of covering the whole world with wind turbines,' says Keith. No one is thinking of covering the whole world with wind turbines. That would make no sense. Many areas such Georgia are not suitable for wind turbines. A wind map shows the distribution of wind is uneven: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.asp If the author is correct, it means high-wind areas such as North Dakota will not be able to produce as much as previously thought. That would be a problem. But it is not a problem that we might fix by putting wind turbines in Georgia or Florida. By present estimates, North Dakota has ~770 GW of potential wind energy. The U.S. has a total of just over 1000 GW of total generating capacity. If this author is right, and interference reduces this by a factor of 7, that would still be a lot of capacity but it might be uneconomical. Needless to say, with present day transmission technology there would be no point to constructing 770 GW of wind generation in North Dakota! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:rather big fragment of the Chelyabinsk is discovered (fwd)
In the case of meteor crater in Az., they claim to have located a large iron meteorite fragment under one rim that could be used to make many cars. There is a museum where they described the projectile. Wiki has an article that says that the nickel-iron meteorite was 50 meters wide before most of it was vaporized. Dave -Original Message- From: David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 3:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:rather big fragment of the Chelyabinsk is discovered (fwd) Such a large impact means it had a high speed on impact and distintegrated. David On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 5:29 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I visited it once and the story is that the meteorite came in at a steep angle and is buried under one of the rims. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 23, 2013 10:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:rather big fragment of the Chelyabinsk is discovered (fwd) In reply to Vorl Bek's message of Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:27:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] And I have always wondered about Meteor Crater in Arizona; I never understood why a little digging did not expose a big chunk of extraterrestrial rock at the centre of the crater; but there is nothing. Maybe it went deeper and molten rock covered it, so all you see now in the bottom of the crater is the cooled and solidified crust that was molten at the time. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rethinking wind power
I wrote: Needless to say, with present day transmission technology there would be no point to constructing 770 GW of wind generation in North Dakota! ND has 6 GW of summertime power generation capacity. See: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/northdakota/pdf/north_dakota.pdf I am confident they could produce 20% of that with wind even if there are interference problems, as described by this author. No one in the U.S. can produce more than ~20% with wind because of transmission and network limitations, and intermittency. If this author is right, wind may be limited pretty much the why hydroelectric power is. Hydro produces ~6% of electricity in the U.S. It is maxed out already. There are no major rivers left to dam. Hydro is limited but important. No one would say we should abandon it because it is only 6%. Wind will 6% before long. It will be important enough to sustain even if it turns out to be limited the way this author suggests. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
We have survived this long by some means so I assume that we will continue to do so into the future. I consider SETI as being limited in scope. How long does a civilization continue to use powerful radio signals to communicate? The fact that we have not detected any aliens so far suggests that there is a far better way to send information that we are not yet aware of. During the next century many advancements will come along and radio might look ancient and virtually useless for anything but remotes. Dave -Original Message- From: Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 4:42 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Tech Predictions I apologize if it seems that I introduce material associated with conspiracies but I feel I have been driven to them, having no alternative. At present, the world looks so bizarre to me, I cannot satisfy my sense of logic otherwise - and if it isn't obvious already, the adventure of trying to confirm LENR in the minds of others tends to justify such an outlook IMHO. Saying that the human race - and its elite - are no more irrational than in the past is no comfort if technology could give anyone the power of a weapon of mass destruction. Worrying about assault rifles looks like small potatoes, over the long road. Thus, unless we gain the oversight of benevolent aliens or develop a mass psychic consciousness that protects us, the future looks more like Afghanistan. Do some say that SETI can't find aliens because they probably advanced far enough to blow themselves up?
Re: [Vo]:Explaining the Rossi type LENR reaction
Post 2 Micro-particles provide another means for the amplification of the LENR effect through resonances. In a bulk material, there are hot spots and thermally dead areas in the lattice that result in an uneven distribution of heat and associated phonon choppiness. Breaking up the lattice into equal size pieces mitigates this issue. In addition, micro-particles provide a regular structure that can ring like a bell when the proper resonance EMF frequency is applied to them. Just like crystal glass broken by an opera singer, the micro-particle will respond with pronounced resonant gain when it feels the proper EMF frequency applied to it. This EMF is heat or infrared black body radiation. There is a specific black body infrared frequency that each micro-particle will respond to when it is exposed to it. The response of the particle will be relatively week if the frequency is above or below the resonant frequency. The resonant frequency provides a set point temperature that is proportional to the size of the micro-particle. The applied EMF will give the vibrations inside the particle ever increasing constructive gain that can achieve a very high phonon intensity limit. The micro-particle system will tend to settle on the resonant temperature because when the temperature is high the temperature of the system will drop until the system hits the resonant frequency. The system will fail to startup if the resonant temperature is not reached or exceeded. The micro-particle system will be the most productive when a large fraction of the particles are the same size. I consider this behavior as another resonant mechanism that amplifies electron photoelectric production. To make the system start up more easily, however, as a compromise to practicality, some deviation from the particle sizing rule should be allowed. The larger particles size distribution arrays will gradually ratchet up the startup temperature in steps proportional to the sizes of the startup particles until the temperature of the system corresponds to the set point temperature. The set point temperature provides the minimum size that the micro-particle should be configured to. This disciplined particle sizing practice will avoid runaway burn up. A small sized particle will result in a higher set point temperature. A large particle will produce a lower temperature. Photoelectric resonance. When the temperature of the particle is optimum, the phonon vibrations will couple to the electron gas most strongly. The key to LENR is to get that electron gas as dense as possible to support coulomb screening through charge screening. This is another example of how resonance supports the LENR+ intensity difference over the random LENR process. Resonance count in the micro-particle based LENR reaction is up to six with the addition of particle usage, equal particle sizing, blackbody temperature resonance, and optimum photoelectric/EMF coupling. I will next cover how a positive feedback loop with the clusters in the hydrogen envelope will increase the electron gas density. Cheers: axil On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Post 1 The key to understanding how to control the Rosssi type Ni/H reaction is to grasp how heat, radiation and electrons affect each other in the lattice and in the surrounding gas envelope and how to control this interaction. There is a half dozen reinforcing processes that increase both heat and electron density on the surface of the lattice. This description of the LENR reaction assumes that the Plexciton is the lattice structure that is the active agent of Micro-particle LENR. Defining terms and laying out the basics of the LENR reaction: Heat interacts with the lattice at the sites of lattice imperfections to activate NAE. This is the exciton: a bound state of an electron and hole which are attracted to each other by the electrostatic Coulomb force. It is an electrically neutral quasiparticle. The lattice must be excited so that these dipoles are formed. Heat, the first important LENR parameter is applied to the lattice to produce excitons. Excitons are bosions with spin one. Next, A plasmon is a quantum of plasma oscillation. Plasmons are collective oscillations of the free electron gas density. In explanation, at optical frequencies of heat through the photoelectric effect, heat (infrared light) coupes with free electrons and causes them to oscillate on the surface of the lattice forming plasmons. The photoelectric effect aggregates negatively charged plasma of the free electron gas and a positively charged background of atomic cores. The background is the rather stiff and massive background of atomic nuclei and core electrons which we will consider being infinitely massive and fixed in space. The negatively charged plasma is formed by the valence electrons of nickel hydride that are uniformly distributed over the surface of the lattice. If an
Re: [Vo]:Rethinking wind power
Most resources have a finite limit. There must be some price to pay for taking energy from the environment and putting it to use. I can imagine that one day the environmental groups will begin to object strenuously to the extreme degradation of scenery, the killing of millions of birds, and perhaps many other problems that are now overlooked. Dave -Original Message- From: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 4:47 pm Subject: [Vo]:Rethinking wind power “People have often thought there’s no upper bound for wind power—that it’s one of the most scalable power sources,” says Harvard University applied physicist David Keith. After all, gusts and breezes don’t seem likely to “run out” on a global scale in the way oil wells might run dry. Yet the latest research in mesoscale atmospheric modeling, published in Environmental Research Letters, suggests that the generating capacity of large-scale wind farms has been overestimated. Each wind turbine creates behind it a wind shadow in which the air has been slowed down by drag on the turbine's blades. The ideal wind farm strikes a balance, packing as many turbines onto the land as possible, while also spacing them enough to reduce the impact of these wind shadows. But as wind farms grow larger, they start to interact, and the regional-scale wind patterns matter more. Keith’s research has shown that the generating capacity of very large wind power installations (larger than 100 square kilometers) may peak at between 0.5 and 1 Watts per square meter. Previous estimates, which ignored the turbines' slowing effect on the wind, had put that figure at between 2 and 7 Watts per square meter. In short, we may not have access to as much wind power as scientists thought. http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/02/rethinking-wind-power?et_cid=3110245et_rid=523913766linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.rdmag.com%2fnews%2f2013%2f02%2frethinking-wind-power
Re: [Vo]:NIF Laser Fusion--Bad as Expected
At least they know how to make a laser powerful enough to shoot down a flying saucer if the need arises. Dave -Original Message- From: Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 5:17 pm Subject: [Vo]:NIF Laser Fusion--Bad as Expected Greetings All, NIF...more wasted money: http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/search-for-modifications-and.html Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:Explaining the Rossi type LENR reaction
Post 2 (corrected) Micro-particles provide another means for the amplification of the LENR effect through resonances. In a bulk material, there are hot spots and thermally dead areas in the lattice that result in an uneven distribution of heat and associated phonon choppiness. Breaking up the lattice into equal size pieces mitigates this issue. In addition, micro-particles provide a regular structure that can ring like a bell when the proper resonance EMF frequency is applied to them. The large number of micro-particles provides a large surface area multiplication factor which greatly increases the surface area on which the LENR reaction can take place Just like crystal glass broken by an opera singer, the micro-particle will respond with pronounced resonant gain when it feels the proper EMF frequency applied to it. This EMF is heat or infrared black body radiation. There is a specific black body infrared frequency that each micro-particle will respond to when it is exposed to it. The response of the particle will be relatively week if the frequency is above or below the resonant frequency. The resonant frequency provides a set point temperature that is proportional to the size of the micro-particle. The applied EMF will give the vibrations inside the particle ever increasing constructive gain that can achieve a very high phonon intensity limit. The micro-particle system will tend to settle on the resonant temperature because when the temperature is high the temperature of the system will drop until the system hits the resonant frequency. The system will fail to startup if the resonant temperature is not reached or exceeded. The micro-particle system will be the most productive when a large fraction of the particles are the same size. I consider this behavior as another resonant mechanism that amplifies electron photoelectric production. To make the system start up more easily, however, as a compromise to practicality, some deviation from the particle sizing rule should be allowed. The larger particles size distribution arrays will gradually ratchet up the startup temperature in steps proportional to the sizes of the startup particles until the temperature of the system corresponds to the set point temperature. The set point temperature provides the minimum size that the micro-particle should be configured to. This disciplined particle sizing practice will avoid runaway burn up. A small sized particle will result in a higher set point temperature. A large particle will produce a lower temperature. Photoelectric resonance. When the temperature of the particle is optimum, the phonon vibrations will couple to the electron gas most strongly. The key to LENR is to get that electron gas as dense as possible to support coulomb screening through charge screening. This is another example of how resonance supports the LENR+ intensity difference over the random LENR process. Resonance count in the micro-particle based LENR reaction is up to seven with the addition of micro-particle usage, lattice surface area increase, equal particle sizing, blackbody temperature resonance, and optimum photoelectric/EMF coupling. I will next cover how a positive feedback loop with the clusters in the hydrogen envelope will increase the electron gas density. Cheers: axil On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Post 2 Micro-particles provide another means for the amplification of the LENR effect through resonances. In a bulk material, there are hot spots and thermally dead areas in the lattice that result in an uneven distribution of heat and associated phonon choppiness. Breaking up the lattice into equal size pieces mitigates this issue. In addition, micro-particles provide a regular structure that can ring like a bell when the proper resonance EMF frequency is applied to them. Just like crystal glass broken by an opera singer, the micro-particle will respond with pronounced resonant gain when it feels the proper EMF frequency applied to it. This EMF is heat or infrared black body radiation. There is a specific black body infrared frequency that each micro-particle will respond to when it is exposed to it. The response of the particle will be relatively week if the frequency is above or below the resonant frequency. The resonant frequency provides a set point temperature that is proportional to the size of the micro-particle. The applied EMF will give the vibrations inside the particle ever increasing constructive gain that can achieve a very high phonon intensity limit. The micro-particle system will tend to settle on the resonant temperature because when the temperature is high the temperature of the system will drop until the system hits the resonant frequency. The system will fail to startup if the resonant temperature is not reached or exceeded. The micro-particle system will be the most productive when a large fraction of the
Re: [Vo]:Rethinking wind power
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I can imagine that one day the environmental groups will begin to object strenuously to the extreme degradation of scenery, the killing of millions of birds . . . Many people do complain about the degradation of the scenery. I think they have a point, but I would far rather see a wind turbine than the smoke from a coal fired plant. When you take off in an airplane over Georgia or some other state with many coal fired plants, you can see the smoke trailing over the landscape for 20 to 50 miles, blanketing rural areas in brown and gray smoke. There have been claims that wind turbines kill millions of birds but these claims are utterly false. They kill very few, I suppose because birds are evolved to avoid large moving objects in the sky such as tree branches waving in the wind. Coal fired plants kill millions of birds, as does reflective glass on large buildings and houses. Domesticated cats kill so many birds that New Zealand is thinking of outlawing cats. (Seriously.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NIF Laser Fusion--Bad as Expected
It is apparent to me from this event where the unbelief of internal confinement plasma scientist comes from and the distain they show to us who advocate fusion with little energy input. These poor people are applying instantaneous pulsed energy equal to all the power produce throughout the entire world to fuse hydrogen and they still can’t do it. Our explanations must show how LENR and produce power greater than the incomprehensible amounts they are using if we would convince these good fellows among others that LENR is real. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:55 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: At least they know how to make a laser powerful enough to shoot down a flying saucer if the need arises. Dave -Original Message- From: Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 5:17 pm Subject: [Vo]:NIF Laser Fusion--Bad as Expected Greetings All, NIF...more wasted money: http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/search-for-modifications-and.html Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: We have survived this long by some means so I assume that we will continue to do so into the future. I do not see the logic of that! That is like saying we have survived countless wars, so why should we worry about a full-scale nuclear war? In 1914 people said war is war, machine guns will not make much difference, and valor will win the day just as it always has. They were wrong. 9 million soldiers were killed. Valor made no difference in the face of artillery and poison gas. Technology can profoundly affect the nature of war, or domestic violence, for that matter. Suppose those autonomous little cold fusion powered robot killing machines I have predicted become possible. Suppose they become very cheap and reliable. Anyone, anywhere will be able to murder anyone else. I mean anyone anywhere in the world, without getting caught, and without leaving a trace of evidence. Think about *that* if you want a case of the heebee jeebees! Think of all the people who want to kill political leaders. Or the jihadists who have it in for authors such as Rusdie, and film makers. Or any disgruntled ex-husband, or some nut who has it in for one group or another: homosexuals, black people, Catholic School girls . . . I can think of many other nightmare scenarios. I put a few in my book. I left out some, too. I do not think cold fusion can easily be used to make small nuclear bombs. But if it can, it might lead to worst catastrophe in human history. I have been aware of this for a long time. I discussed it with Martin Fleischmann and others. As I said, we have been thinking about ways to deal with the problem. There may not be any good way! - Jed
[Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators
I wrote: It seems unlikely to me that anyone will be able to fabricate a cold fusion device at home, using 3-D printers or what-have-you. Not for the next thousand years or so, until those machines evolve into Clarke's universal replicators. Maybe 1,000 years is too much, but it will be a long while. There has been a lot of enthusiastic talk about these 3-D printer replicator things. I am all for them! I think they are great. But I think some naive commentators fail to recognize some crucial limitations to today's versions: 1. They use only material. Plastic. They cannot be used to fabricate metal, wood, silicon or nickel. You cannot make a NiCad battery or a cold fusion device with that. 2. Resolution is limited. You could not make a computer chip, even if the devices could lay down silicon and metal. I do not think resolution is fine enough for a cold fusion device. Certainly not nanoparticle devices. Despite these limitations, I expect these things will become useful for making parts in the lab such as the fitting that holds the cathode and anode in place. In the distant future, the capabilities of these machines may gradually expand, until they can lay down any element in any configuration. Such as, for example: a fried egg, the Hope Diamond, a copy of the Mona Lisa correct down to the molecule, or a thermonuclear bomb. That is what Clarke predicted. By the time that happens we can hope that the machines will have so much built-in intelligence, it will refuse to fabricate a thermonuclear bomb. The process will be so complicated that no human will be able to override the build-in protections, or run the machine manually. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
Now Jed, you are agreeing with my conclusion. Should I take the opposite view as you normally do? My belief is that mankind will eventually find ways and means to destroy all life as we know it. We are almost at this level now. The only question is whether these means will be used. That is where the nature of the mind and its irrational features become important. Will the leaders be able to control insanity in the population effectively or will these leaders be insane themselves? People in the US are now trying to find ways to control the insanity that occurs on a small but growing scale, which shows itself most vividly when schools are shot up. How do we control the insanity that the suicide bomber exhibits by exploding car bombs in the heart of a city? Where does the insanity of leaders in North Korea end? Now, as you note, drones may give everyone a tool to gum up the works. Ed On Feb 25, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: We have survived this long by some means so I assume that we will continue to do so into the future. I do not see the logic of that! That is like saying we have survived countless wars, so why should we worry about a full-scale nuclear war? In 1914 people said war is war, machine guns will not make much difference, and valor will win the day just as it always has. They were wrong. 9 million soldiers were killed. Valor made no difference in the face of artillery and poison gas. Technology can profoundly affect the nature of war, or domestic violence, for that matter. Suppose those autonomous little cold fusion powered robot killing machines I have predicted become possible. Suppose they become very cheap and reliable. Anyone, anywhere will be able to murder anyone else. I mean anyone anywhere in the world, without getting caught, and without leaving a trace of evidence. Think about that if you want a case of the heebee jeebees! Think of all the people who want to kill political leaders. Or the jihadists who have it in for authors such as Rusdie, and film makers. Or any disgruntled ex-husband, or some nut who has it in for one group or another: homosexuals, black people, Catholic School girls . . . I can think of many other nightmare scenarios. I put a few in my book. I left out some, too. I do not think cold fusion can easily be used to make small nuclear bombs. But if it can, it might lead to worst catastrophe in human history. I have been aware of this for a long time. I discussed it with Martin Fleischmann and others. As I said, we have been thinking about ways to deal with the problem. There may not be any good way! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators
The strength of 3D-printed titanium can equal that of the traditionally machined metal, says Dan Johns, who is printing strong, lightweight metal parts for Bloodhound SSC, the rocket car aiming to break the land-speed record in 2013. http://www.uasvision.com/2011/08/01/worlds-first-unmanned-aircraft-built-by-3d-printer/ On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: It seems unlikely to me that anyone will be able to fabricate a cold fusion device at home, using 3-D printers or what-have-you. Not for the next thousand years or so, until those machines evolve into Clarke's universal replicators. Maybe 1,000 years is too much, but it will be a long while. There has been a lot of enthusiastic talk about these 3-D printer replicator things. I am all for them! I think they are great. But I think some naive commentators fail to recognize some crucial limitations to today's versions: 1. They use only material. Plastic. They cannot be used to fabricate metal, wood, silicon or nickel. You cannot make a NiCad battery or a cold fusion device with that. 2. Resolution is limited. You could not make a computer chip, even if the devices could lay down silicon and metal. I do not think resolution is fine enough for a cold fusion device. Certainly not nanoparticle devices. Despite these limitations, I expect these things will become useful for making parts in the lab such as the fitting that holds the cathode and anode in place. In the distant future, the capabilities of these machines may gradually expand, until they can lay down any element in any configuration. Such as, for example: a fried egg, the Hope Diamond, a copy of the Mona Lisa correct down to the molecule, or a thermonuclear bomb. That is what Clarke predicted. By the time that happens we can hope that the machines will have so much built-in intelligence, it will refuse to fabricate a thermonuclear bomb. The process will be so complicated that no human will be able to override the build-in protections, or run the machine manually. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators
3D printers can use metal, glass and various other materials. Semiconductors can be printed, as can batteries. Now I don't think there is any that can do all of these things of course. On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I wrote: It seems unlikely to me that anyone will be able to fabricate a cold fusion device at home, using 3-D printers or what-have-you. Not for the next thousand years or so, until those machines evolve into Clarke's universal replicators. Maybe 1,000 years is too much, but it will be a long while. There has been a lot of enthusiastic talk about these 3-D printer replicator things. I am all for them! I think they are great. But I think some naive commentators fail to recognize some crucial limitations to today's versions: 1. They use only material. Plastic. They cannot be used to fabricate metal, wood, silicon or nickel. You cannot make a NiCad battery or a cold fusion device with that. 2. Resolution is limited. You could not make a computer chip, even if the devices could lay down silicon and metal. I do not think resolution is fine enough for a cold fusion device. Certainly not nanoparticle devices. Despite these limitations, I expect these things will become useful for making parts in the lab such as the fitting that holds the cathode and anode in place. In the distant future, the capabilities of these machines may gradually expand, until they can lay down any element in any configuration. Such as, for example: a fried egg, the Hope Diamond, a copy of the Mona Lisa correct down to the molecule, or a thermonuclear bomb. That is what Clarke predicted. By the time that happens we can hope that the machines will have so much built-in intelligence, it will refuse to fabricate a thermonuclear bomb. The process will be so complicated that no human will be able to override the build-in protections, or run the machine manually. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
Ed, Jed I have to poke my head up on this one. All you have to do is look at the SBIR I believe its called. Been a while since I looked at it. It's the DOD/DOE wish list they publish for public bidding. Small tech firms can look at this list and propose creating the item. They get multiple rounds of funding etc.. yah dee ya dee ya. So I was looking at this thing what 10 years ago. On the list were EATER, a robot capable of harvesting organic material in the field for fuel. Any organic matter. Just think, robots that clean up all evidence, grass, trees, people, animals, yes you saw correct PEOPLE. We are after all organic. The second project that struck me as particularly terrifying was another project for robotics designs that can re/assemble themselves, yeah it's the golden army, it WILL run autonomously until all life on the planet is destroyed. All it will take is one hacker, one glitch, one terrorist who doesn't realize what he's done. Gibson From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions Now Jed, you are agreeing with my conclusion. Should I take the opposite view as you normally do? My belief is that mankind will eventually find ways and means to destroy all life as we know it. We are almost at this level now. The only question is whether these means will be used. That is where the nature of the mind and its irrational features become important. Will the leaders be able to control insanity in the population effectively or will these leaders be insane themselves? People in the US are now trying to find ways to control the insanity that occurs on a small but growing scale, which shows itself most vividly when schools are shot up. How do we control the insanity that the suicide bomber exhibits by exploding car bombs in the heart of a city? Where does the insanity of leaders in North Korea end? Now, as you note, drones may give everyone a tool to gum up the works. Ed On Feb 25, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: We have survived this long by some means so I assume that we will continue to do so into the future. I do not see the logic of that! That is like saying we have survived countless wars, so why should we worry about a full-scale nuclear war? In 1914 people said war is war, machine guns will not make much difference, and valor will win the day just as it always has. They were wrong. 9 million soldiers were killed. Valor made no difference in the face of artillery and poison gas. Technology can profoundly affect the nature of war, or domestic violence, for that matter. Suppose those autonomous little cold fusion powered robot killing machines I have predicted become possible. Suppose they become very cheap and reliable. Anyone, anywhere will be able to murder anyone else. I mean anyone anywhere in the world, without getting caught, and without leaving a trace of evidence. Think about that if you want a case of the heebee jeebees! Think of all the people who want to kill political leaders. Or the jihadists who have it in for authors such as Rusdie, and film makers. Or any disgruntled ex-husband, or some nut who has it in for one group or another: homosexuals, black people, Catholic School girls . . . I can think of many other nightmare scenarios. I put a few in my book. I left out some, too. I do not think cold fusion can easily be used to make small nuclear bombs. But if it can, it might lead to worst catastrophe in human history. I have been aware of this for a long time. I discussed it with Martin Fleischmann and others. As I said, we have been thinking about ways to deal with the problem. There may not be any good way! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
In the event that anyone is interested in the opinion of what many believe to be the world's foremost living naturalist, E. O. Wilson, it is worth getting his latest book The Social Conquest of Earth wherein he describes the phenomenon of eusociality -- whether in animals or humans -- as a driver of ecological dominance. In particular, human eusociality as exhibited by the extremes of specialization of technological civilization, does represent a potential threat to all life on the planet including itself. In my taxonomy, institutional incompetence is a symptom of technological civilization viewed as a multicellular organism, the primary cells of which are erstwhile human beings. I say erstwhile in the sense that we really can't think of the beings who have sacrificed their individual integrity on behalf of nascent institutional integrity as separable organisms anymore -- which is why so many humans behave in such incomprehensible ways: they aren't humans -- they are parts. The problem is that unlike the billions of years leading up to the evolution of meiotic reproduction via haploid gametes (sex) as the ultimate expression of multicellular eusociality, we have had only a blink of the eye to evolve institutional integrity. E. O. Wilson ends his book on a hopeful note that seems to me to be more an expression of religious dogma than anything resembling even true religiousity. We have to grow up and we have to do so fast. My answer is to sort proponents of political theories into governments that test them: Sortocracy http://sortocracy.org. This has the added side benefit of enforcing strict consent of the *individual* against group preferences -- group preferences as expressed in, say, liberal democracy among a wide array of other eusocial semi-organisms. A feature of sortocracy is that individuals who refuse to fit into any body politic can be relegated to nature with the recognition that human eusociality must be vigorously suppressed in human societies that are to coexist with nature. This can be thought of as using nature as a substitute for prisons while also using nature to evolve humans more predisposed toward individual integrity that will co-exist with nature without subjecting nature to the social conquest nature. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Now Jed, you are agreeing with my conclusion. Should I take the opposite view as you normally do? My belief is that mankind will eventually find ways and means to destroy all life as we know it. We are almost at this level now. The only question is whether these means will be used. That is where the nature of the mind and its irrational features become important. Will the leaders be able to control insanity in the population effectively or will these leaders be insane themselves? People in the US are now trying to find ways to control the insanity that occurs on a small but growing scale, which shows itself most vividly when schools are shot up. How do we control the insanity that the suicide bomber exhibits by exploding car bombs in the heart of a city? Where does the insanity of leaders in North Korea end? Now, as you note, drones may give everyone a tool to gum up the works. Ed On Feb 25, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: We have survived this long by some means so I assume that we will continue to do so into the future. I do not see the logic of that! That is like saying we have survived countless wars, so why should we worry about a full-scale nuclear war? In 1914 people said war is war, machine guns will not make much difference, and valor will win the day just as it always has. They were wrong. 9 million soldiers were killed. Valor made no difference in the face of artillery and poison gas. Technology can profoundly affect the nature of war, or domestic violence, for that matter. Suppose those autonomous little cold fusion powered robot killing machines I have predicted become possible. Suppose they become very cheap and reliable. Anyone, anywhere will be able to murder anyone else. I mean anyone anywhere in the world, without getting caught, and without leaving a trace of evidence. Think about *that* if you want a case of the heebee jeebees! Think of all the people who want to kill political leaders. Or the jihadists who have it in for authors such as Rusdie, and film makers. Or any disgruntled ex-husband, or some nut who has it in for one group or another: homosexuals, black people, Catholic School girls . . . I can think of many other nightmare scenarios. I put a few in my book. I left out some, too. I do not think cold fusion can easily be used to make small nuclear bombs. But if it can, it might lead to worst catastrophe in human history. I have been aware of this for a long time. I discussed it with Martin Fleischmann and others. As I said, we have been thinking about ways to deal
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
If we do not survive into the future then no one will be there to see that we failed. This is kind of like the old question about whether or not a tree falling in the woods makes a sound if no one hears it. On occasions I have wondered if there have been other civilizations many millions of yours before that were destroyed in some way. Would there be enough of a trace remaining for us to prove their prior existence? All the buildings would have long since gone away except perhaps some that were buried. Most metals would have rusted by now. Perhaps the roads would retain a recognizable form, but I am not sure this would be true after 100 million years passes. Jed, unless the robots hunt all of us down and finish us off, I think that we will have some of our species retained. Maybe this is a job that the benevolent aliens will take on. Then again, maybe we are in their zoo at the moment on Earth. Wouldn't that be a twist of fate. I doubt a nuclear war would put an end to all of us. A large asteroid might be a different problem. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 6:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: We have survived this long by some means so I assume that we will continue to do so into the future. I do not see the logic of that! That is like saying we have survived countless wars, so why should we worry about a full-scale nuclear war? In 1914 people said war is war, machine guns will not make much difference, and valor will win the day just as it always has. They were wrong. 9 million soldiers were killed. Valor made no difference in the face of artillery and poison gas. Technology can profoundly affect the nature of war, or domestic violence, for that matter. Suppose those autonomous little cold fusion powered robot killing machines I have predicted become possible. Suppose they become very cheap and reliable. Anyone, anywhere will be able to murder anyone else. I mean anyone anywhere in the world, without getting caught, and without leaving a trace of evidence. Think about that if you want a case of the heebee jeebees! Think of all the people who want to kill political leaders. Or the jihadists who have it in for authors such as Rusdie, and film makers. Or any disgruntled ex-husband, or some nut who has it in for one group or another: homosexuals, black people, Catholic School girls . . . I can think of many other nightmare scenarios. I put a few in my book. I left out some, too. I do not think cold fusion can easily be used to make small nuclear bombs. But if it can, it might lead to worst catastrophe in human history. I have been aware of this for a long time. I discussed it with Martin Fleischmann and others. As I said, we have been thinking about ways to deal with the problem. There may not be any good way! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators
Artificial intelligence will be in control of us if we are not smart enough to place limits upon it. If the human brain can be effectively duplicated with electronics it will become impossible to tell the difference between an android with one and a normal person without difficulty. Will it be fair to consider a creature of this type as expendable when it has real feelings and emotions? Is it right to make these androids our slaves to do all the dirty work? I can imagine some tough questions for future folks to answer. Why would anyone want to build a nuclear weapon in the future when all of the peoples needs are being met? There should be no resources in short supply to fight over. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 6:34 pm Subject: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators I wrote: It seems unlikely to me that anyone will be able to fabricate a cold fusion device at home, using 3-D printers or what-have-you. Not for the next thousand years or so, until those machines evolve into Clarke's universal replicators. Maybe 1,000 years is too much, but it will be a long while. There has been a lot of enthusiastic talk about these 3-D printer replicator things. I am all for them! I think they are great. But I think some naive commentators fail to recognize some crucial limitations to today's versions: 1. They use only material. Plastic. They cannot be used to fabricate metal, wood, silicon or nickel. You cannot make a NiCad battery or a cold fusion device with that. 2. Resolution is limited. You could not make a computer chip, even if the devices could lay down silicon and metal. I do not think resolution is fine enough for a cold fusion device. Certainly not nanoparticle devices. Despite these limitations, I expect these things will become useful for making parts in the lab such as the fitting that holds the cathode and anode in place. In the distant future, the capabilities of these machines may gradually expand, until they can lay down any element in any configuration. Such as, for example: a fried egg, the Hope Diamond, a copy of the Mona Lisa correct down to the molecule, or a thermonuclear bomb. That is what Clarke predicted. By the time that happens we can hope that the machines will have so much built-in intelligence, it will refuse to fabricate a thermonuclear bomb. The process will be so complicated that no human will be able to override the build-in protections, or run the machine manually. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
Fukushima remains an unsolved technical threat to us all. A M8 earthquake alert has been issued by two Japanese government agencies. “Another earthquake 8.0 or higher at Fukushima-Daiichi could topple the spent fuel pool sitting 100 feet in the air on top of the damaged building of Unit 4. This would start an unquenchable nuclear fire, forcing evacuation of the entire site. Within a week or two the other 3 reactors would heat up and explode. The resulting release of radioactivity would equal between 40 and 85 Chernobyls, which, according to some sources would be enough to (cause sufficient deadly cancers to) render Japan, the U.S. west coast, and perhaps the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable.”Carol Wolman M.D. See FUKUSHIMA, A NEW FIX by W. Scott Smith If you know any top flight structural engineers, give him a call at 509 216 3545 or drop him a line at scott...@hotmail.com This is an existing technical problem and I'm sure he would welcome your suggestions. Mark Mark Goldes Co-Founder, Chava Energy CEO, Aesop Institute www.chavaenergy.com www.aesopinstitute.org 707 861-9070 707 497-3551 fax From: Edmund Storms [stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 3:42 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions Now Jed, you are agreeing with my conclusion. Should I take the opposite view as you normally do? My belief is that mankind will eventually find ways and means to destroy all life as we know it. We are almost at this level now. The only question is whether these means will be used. That is where the nature of the mind and its irrational features become important. Will the leaders be able to control insanity in the population effectively or will these leaders be insane themselves? People in the US are now trying to find ways to control the insanity that occurs on a small but growing scale, which shows itself most vividly when schools are shot up. How do we control the insanity that the suicide bomber exhibits by exploding car bombs in the heart of a city? Where does the insanity of leaders in North Korea end? Now, as you note, drones may give everyone a tool to gum up the works. Ed On Feb 25, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: We have survived this long by some means so I assume that we will continue to do so into the future. I do not see the logic of that! That is like saying we have survived countless wars, so why should we worry about a full-scale nuclear war? In 1914 people said war is war, machine guns will not make much difference, and valor will win the day just as it always has. They were wrong. 9 million soldiers were killed. Valor made no difference in the face of artillery and poison gas. Technology can profoundly affect the nature of war, or domestic violence, for that matter. Suppose those autonomous little cold fusion powered robot killing machines I have predicted become possible. Suppose they become very cheap and reliable. Anyone, anywhere will be able to murder anyone else. I mean anyone anywhere in the world, without getting caught, and without leaving a trace of evidence. Think about that if you want a case of the heebee jeebees! Think of all the people who want to kill political leaders. Or the jihadists who have it in for authors such as Rusdie, and film makers. Or any disgruntled ex-husband, or some nut who has it in for one group or another: homosexuals, black people, Catholic School girls . . . I can think of many other nightmare scenarios. I put a few in my book. I left out some, too. I do not think cold fusion can easily be used to make small nuclear bombs. But if it can, it might lead to worst catastrophe in human history. I have been aware of this for a long time. I discussed it with Martin Fleischmann and others. As I said, we have been thinking about ways to deal with the problem. There may not be any good way! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators
Can he build me a P-08 luger? I would like to have one of these to collect. They have a great appearance. All kidding aside, this is going to be a problem in the future. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 7:03 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators The strength of 3D-printed titanium can equal that of the traditionally machined metal, says Dan Johns, who is printing strong, lightweight metal parts for Bloodhound SSC, the rocket car aiming to break the land-speed record in 2013. http://www.uasvision.com/2011/08/01/worlds-first-unmanned-aircraft-built-by-3d-printer/ On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: It seems unlikely to me that anyone will be able to fabricate a cold fusion device at home, using 3-D printers or what-have-you. Not for the next thousand years or so, until those machines evolve into Clarke's universal replicators. Maybe 1,000 years is too much, but it will be a long while. There has been a lot of enthusiastic talk about these 3-D printer replicator things. I am all for them! I think they are great. But I think some naive commentators fail to recognize some crucial limitations to today's versions: 1. They use only material. Plastic. They cannot be used to fabricate metal, wood, silicon or nickel. You cannot make a NiCad battery or a cold fusion device with that. 2. Resolution is limited. You could not make a computer chip, even if the devices could lay down silicon and metal. I do not think resolution is fine enough for a cold fusion device. Certainly not nanoparticle devices. Despite these limitations, I expect these things will become useful for making parts in the lab such as the fitting that holds the cathode and anode in place. In the distant future, the capabilities of these machines may gradually expand, until they can lay down any element in any configuration. Such as, for example: a fried egg, the Hope Diamond, a copy of the Mona Lisa correct down to the molecule, or a thermonuclear bomb. That is what Clarke predicted. By the time that happens we can hope that the machines will have so much built-in intelligence, it will refuse to fabricate a thermonuclear bomb. The process will be so complicated that no human will be able to override the build-in protections, or run the machine manually. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
It will probably be a comet that takes us out at some point. Looks like Mars may be in the crosshairs for Early Next Year. Best we hope those big comets approaching the Sun don't break up and get squirrly. Uncertainty Certainly http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/could-a-comet-hit-mars-in-2014-130225.htm On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:27 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If we do not survive into the future then no one will be there to see that we failed. This is kind of like the old question about whether or not a tree falling in the woods makes a sound if no one hears it. On occasions I have wondered if there have been other civilizations many millions of yours before that were destroyed in some way. Would there be enough of a trace remaining for us to prove their prior existence? All the buildings would have long since gone away except perhaps some that were buried. Most metals would have rusted by now. Perhaps the roads would retain a recognizable form, but I am not sure this would be true after 100 million years passes. Jed, unless the robots hunt all of us down and finish us off, I think that we will have some of our species retained. Maybe this is a job that the benevolent aliens will take on. Then again, maybe we are in their zoo at the moment on Earth. Wouldn't that be a twist of fate. I doubt a nuclear war would put an end to all of us. A large asteroid might be a different problem. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 6:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: We have survived this long by some means so I assume that we will continue to do so into the future. I do not see the logic of that! That is like saying we have survived countless wars, so why should we worry about a full-scale nuclear war? In 1914 people said war is war, machine guns will not make much difference, and valor will win the day just as it always has. They were wrong. 9 million soldiers were killed. Valor made no difference in the face of artillery and poison gas. Technology can profoundly affect the nature of war, or domestic violence, for that matter. Suppose those autonomous little cold fusion powered robot killing machines I have predicted become possible. Suppose they become very cheap and reliable. Anyone, anywhere will be able to murder anyone else. I mean anyone anywhere in the world, without getting caught, and without leaving a trace of evidence. Think about *that* if you want a case of the heebee jeebees! Think of all the people who want to kill political leaders. Or the jihadists who have it in for authors such as Rusdie, and film makers. Or any disgruntled ex-husband, or some nut who has it in for one group or another: homosexuals, black people, Catholic School girls . . . I can think of many other nightmare scenarios. I put a few in my book. I left out some, too. I do not think cold fusion can easily be used to make small nuclear bombs. But if it can, it might lead to worst catastrophe in human history. I have been aware of this for a long time. I discussed it with Martin Fleischmann and others. As I said, we have been thinking about ways to deal with the problem. There may not be any good way! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: 3D printers can use metal, glass and various other materials. Semiconductors can be printed, as can batteries. Now I don't think there is any that can do all of these things of course. I did not know that! They have made progress. I suppose you could more piecework from one machine to another, with no more difficulty than it takes with ordinary machine tools. I guess the plastic ones I have been following are the ultra-cheap, do-it-yourself models. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Now, as you note, drones may give everyone a tool to gum up the works. Once the hummingbird drones become armed and readily available, at least on the black market, as I assume will happen before too long, they will be a painful lesson for humanity in dealing with the unintended consequences of technological change. A LENR powerplant will not be necessary for them to be dismayingly dangerous. My guess as to the general gist of the resolution that will be worked out: detailed tracking of inventories and the transit and purchase of supplies, along with records of the purchasers, backed by a vast international database of identities, sort of like Facebook but in the hands of governments. That in turn will bring in other unintended consequences of the kind addressed in dystopian science fiction. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rethinking wind power
I wrote: They kill very few, I suppose because birds are evolved to avoid large moving objects in the sky such as tree branches waving in the wind. Also, birds avoid whacking into other birds in crowded flocks, as we discussed here recently. I think there was a problem with small, rapidly spinning, first generation wind turbines in the 1970s. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:37:28 -0500 (EST) David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Artificial intelligence will be in control of us if we are not smart enough to place limits upon it. If the human brain can be effectively duplicated with electronics it will become impossible to tell the difference between an android with one and a normal person without difficulty. Really? Can you tell the difference between Charlize Theron and a Mars rover? If you were an android, you might get confused; but evolution allows us to know and appreciate Charlize theron when we see her. Trust your multi-trillion-cell nervous system: it will steer you right, and it will take a lot more to confuse us than an artificial brain, even with the deluxe super-duper-titaniumx skeleton with vat-grown skin and patented fuck-me facial contortions and lower-body gyrations.
Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators
additionally they are working on perfecting the ability to print organs, arteries, ears, ect. using living cells and they are making incredible strides in theses areas and i would expect by next decade amazing advances in these technologies. there are projects on the internet where people are currently working on being able to print working guns. i actually just bought an ultimaker from europe and had it delivered. now i just have to put it together. Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: 3D printers can use metal, glass and various other materials. Semiconductors can be printed, as can batteries. Now I don't think there is any that can do all of these things of course. I did not know that! They have made progress. I suppose you could more piecework from one machine to another, with no more difficulty than it takes with ordinary machine tools. I guess the plastic ones I have been following are the ultra-cheap, do-it-yourself models. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators
Jed, It seems your forecast maybe slightly off. See /3D printing with metal: The final frontier of additive manufacturing/ http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/143552-3d-printing-with-metal-the-final-frontier-of-additive-manufacturing. I see no intrinsic problem with using other materials and much higher resolutions either. Adrian Ashfield On 2/25/2013 6:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: It seems unlikely to me that anyone will be able to fabricate a cold fusion device at home, using 3-D printers or what-have-you. Not for the next thousand years or so, until those machines evolve into Clarke's universal replicators. Maybe 1,000 years is too much, but it will be a long while. There has been a lot of enthusiastic talk about these 3-D printer replicator things. I am all for them! I think they are great. But I think some naive commentators fail to recognize some crucial limitations to today's versions: 1. They use only material. Plastic. They cannot be used to fabricate metal, wood, silicon or nickel. You cannot make a NiCad battery or a cold fusion device with that. 2. Resolution is limited. You could not make a computer chip, even if the devices could lay down silicon and metal. I do not think resolution is fine enough for a cold fusion device. Certainly not nanoparticle devices. Despite these limitations, I expect these things will become useful for making parts in the lab such as the fitting that holds the cathode and anode in place. In the distant future, the capabilities of these machines may gradually expand, until they can lay down any element in any configuration. Such as, for example: a fried egg, the Hope Diamond, a copy of the Mona Lisa correct down to the molecule, or a thermonuclear bomb. That is what Clarke predicted. By the time that happens we can hope that the machines will have so much built-in intelligence, it will refuse to fabricate a thermonuclear bomb. The process will be so complicated that no human will be able to override the build-in protections, or run the machine manually. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rethinking wind power
Can you imagine a large flock of birds traveling through a windmill farm? Avoiding two types of collisions at the same time might overpower their abilities. Someone should arrange it so that the windmills are along the migration roots of starlings. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 8:04 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rethinking wind power I wrote: They kill very few, I suppose because birds are evolved to avoid large moving objects in the sky such as tree branches waving in the wind. Also, birds avoid whacking into other birds in crowded flocks, as we discussed here recently. I think there was a problem with small, rapidly spinning, first generation wind turbines in the 1970s. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators
I hope so but I am not convinced that this will be so easy in the distant future. I bet you will have great difficulty being sure about the species in less than 100 years of development. Hey, by the way the new generations are changing, I am not sure what regular people will look like by then! Dave -Original Message- From: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 8:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:37:28 -0500 (EST) David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Artificial intelligence will be in control of us if we are not smart enough to place limits upon it. If the human brain can be effectively duplicated with electronics it will become impossible to tell the difference between an android with one and a normal person without difficulty. Really? Can you tell the difference between Charlize Theron and a Mars rover? If you were an android, you might get confused; but evolution allows us to know and appreciate Charlize theron when we see her. Trust your multi-trillion-cell nervous system: it will steer you right, and it will take a lot more to confuse us than an artificial brain, even with the deluxe super-duper-titaniumx skeleton with vat-grown skin and patented fuck-me facial contortions and lower-body gyrations.
Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators
That is amazing. Let me know what you are able to build with this device. Perhaps we all need one. Dave -Original Message- From: Joe Hughes jhughe...@comcast.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 8:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators additionally they are working on perfecting the ability to print organs, arteries, ears, ect. using living cells and they are making incredible strides in theses areas and i would expect by next decade amazing advances in these technologies. there are projects on the internet where people are currently working on being able to print working guns. i actually just bought an ultimaker from europe and had it delivered. now i just have to put it together. Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: 3D printers can use metal, glass and various other materials. Semiconductors can be printed, as can batteries. Now I don't think there is any that can do all of these things of course. I did not know that! They have made progress. I suppose you could more piecework from one machine to another, with no more difficulty than it takes with ordinary machine tools. I guess the plastic ones I have been following are the ultra-cheap, do-it-yourself models. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:41 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is amazing. Let me know what you are able to build with this device. Perhaps we all need one. http://www.ted.com/talks/anthony_atala_printing_a_human_kidney.html
Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:26:49 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] The local heat energy release is large and can not escape the area except through diffusion which is a slow process compared to the reaction time associated with nuclear effects. If the energy is released in the form of a fast particle, then it does not have to depend on diffusion. A fast particle will rip through a lattice at high speed, leaving a trail of ionized atoms in it's wake. Note that if this fast particle then goes on to trigger other fusion reactions, which also create fast particles, then you get a branching effect, the debris of which looks like an inverted cone. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Responses to four questions from Ron Maimon
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:59 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: If the energy is released in the form of a fast particle, then it does not have to depend on diffusion. A fast particle will rip through a lattice at high speed, leaving a trail of ionized atoms in it's wake. That provides a nice segue to a recent set of responses from Ron Maimon to questions that have been raised here about his Auger deuteron proposal. The questions he is responding to have been posted here [1], as is his reply in the comments section. Copied below is the text of the reply with brief notes referring to the questions. Eric 1+2 [concerning the probability of deuterons meeting and ROI in general]. The dynamics of charged particles in materials is not as frictional as you imagine. Charged particles don't slow down through bulk dynamics like a baseball in water, they have to transfer their energy through ionization of atoms, and in the case of 20KeV deuterons, they need to ionize other inner shells. They will eventually slow down, but it isn't clear how quickly, because it depends the precise density of states. If you have banded excitations, there are sometimes band-gaps where you have no states, so you can sometimes have extremely long-lived high energy states just because there aren't any available states to allow a simple de-excitation process. So if there are no available states at 17 KeV to transition to when you kick out 3KeV in exciting the n=1 p-wave electrons, these things could live a long time. I am not saying that this is necessarily so, I have no idea how long lived a 20 KeV deuteron is, but it can have a lifetime from a fraction of a second to minutes. But in any case, there is certainly not a barrier to having a 20KeV particle go microns or a millimeter through a metal before slowing down to 5KeV. The penetration depth of 20 KeV charged particles is not 10 atoms. In order to have the cold-fusion proceed, you do need a region with high density of deuterons, high enough for 2 deuterons to fuse. When this is so, this first happens right near a nucleus, because this is where the wavefunction of 20KeV deuterons are most concentrated. The wavefunction of such a deuteron has turning points near the nucleus, and you can describe it semi-classically, and the thing is peaked at the K-shell radius, about 100 fermis from the nucleus. The concentration of deuterons can plausibly happen in many ways, just from local electric fields concentrating the positively charged fluid into some region, it doesn't require conspiracy. The deuterons are charged and macroscopically flowing through the metal, like electrons, except at much higher energy. The result is that they can concentrate in regions where the electric field is big. Whether they flow in the direction of E or paradoxically against the direction of E depends on details of the energy as a function of wavenumber in the high-energy band, but my intuition is that they will flow like positively charged objects, in the direction of E, and opposite the direction of electron flow. This is a bit confusing, because this means they flow away from the surface of the cathode toward the interior. But they could also flow the other way, if their effective mass is negative, meaning if you produce them near a maximum of the band dispersion relation. 3 [concerning a novel, radiation-free d+d→4He+Q branch]. The whole point is that the process is d+d fusion right next to a Pd nucleus, so that the process completes with electrostatic energy transfer to the nucleus, not with the standard transfer of energy to an ejected proton or neutron. Then the result is an ejected He4 and a fragmented nucleus. We have no data on three-body fusion collisions, they never occur in dilute plasmas, so we don't even have an estimate for the cross section (except order of magnitude it should be not too many orders of magnitude larger than usual fusion, and this is ok for the theory to work). The point here is that due to the concentration of the wavefunction of the deuterons near the Pd nuclei, from the turning-point, you get a larger density of deuterium near the Pd, and you can have fusion when the local density of deuterium exceeds a certain threshhold. 4 [concerning the generation of neutrons]. The random bumping around fusion will occur in this theory, you will get occasional sporadic neutrons from the system. I don't consider this a problem, as it explains the neutron signal people see. Neutrons are not easy to detect anyway. [1] http://rolling-balance.blogspot.com/2013/02/ron-maimons-theory-2.html
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Now Jed, you are agreeing with my conclusion. Should I take the opposite view as you normally do? The difference is this. You think these things are increasingly likely and we should worry about them. I think that in general the world is getting better, less dangerous and more stable. So, while I acknowledge there are scary possibilities, I don't worry about them much. For example, I expect we will find a way to control small killer robots. If a cold fusion bomb is possible, all bets are off, but I doubt it is possible, and I am not going to worry about it. Things like wars are actually becoming less common. The number of people killed in wars as a fraction of the population has been going down since the Middle Ages. People did dreadful things in ancient times with hand-held weapons and fire. They wiped out cities and killed hundreds of thousands of people. You mentioned people massacring children in schools. That happens infrequently in the U.S. It does not happen in other countries at all. If they can prevent it, we can too. We need to adjust gun control laws. Sooner or later we will. At present there is a lot of talk about Second Amendment rights, but that is a fairly recent trend in U.S. history and I doubt it will last for long. In the 1950s, for example. Pres. Eisenhower's brother was in charge of a panel on gun control. It recommended that handguns be made illegal in the U.S. The recommendation did not go through, but it did not cause much of a dispute either. People in those days gave the government more power over our lives than we do now. That has been the norm throughout most U.S. history. In the 19th century and most of the 20th, the police could arrest you on a whim, or -- for example -- force you to get your hair cut, and hold you in jail if you refused. I doubt we will return to that. I hope we do not. But I expect we will again impose more restrictions on deadly weapons, and probably more involuntary commitments for dangerous mentally ill people. I predict that 50 to 100 years from now, small robots, smart guns, extensive surveillance cameras, databases and whatnot will go a long way to preventing crime. Cell phone technology already exists that recognize people by their face in a matter of seconds, from Facebook. This was demonstrated on NHK the other night. Not only does the web software recognize you, it pulls up your Social Security Number in a flash. So there is no question that robots will recognize people by their face or voice, just as humans do. It will not be possible for you to commit an anonymous crime in public such as robbery. Every person will have something like a cell phone with camera, and if you attack that person, the police will know you did it a moment later. They will have a video of you committing the crime. Every robot in the world will be looking for you. In a world where robots are everywhere and they outnumber people by a wide margin, you will have no place to run. Or, if you step out of the house with an assault weapon, your car robot and every other robot on the block will see you and report you. Privacy as we know it will not exist. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: It will probably be a comet that takes us out at some point. Those things are not that difficult to stop, if we have 20 to 100 years warning. We have successfully sent semi-autonomous robots to Mars. That level of technology would be sufficient to stop just about any comet with a 20-year warning. A century from now we will have far better space technology. 500 to 1,000 years from now I expect most of the solar system will be inhabited and we will be harvesting comets and asteroids. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators
The DMLS (discrete metal laser sintered) printers by EOS industries can do all sorts of metal. I had a 3d regenativly cooled rocket motor built out of both stainless and aluminum. Not cheap, but amazing, one can build things 80% as strong as the base metal, and one can build things that would be impossible any other way. The down side is the machine to do this is $750K My 3D stailess rocket nozzle before it was welded up and fired. http://unreasonablerocket.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-motor-has-horns.html This one was build by http://gpiprototype.com (It run h2O2 and hydrocarbon, and now has more than 25 minutes of firing time on it, and I believe it was the first 3d printed regen cooled liquid rocket motor ever fired in the world.) The aluminum version of the same thing (sorry no picture) was built by http://www.morristech.com/ I previously tried to use the low cost stainless service from shpaeways and it had issues with hollow parts and dimensional precision. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: It seems unlikely to me that anyone will be able to fabricate a cold fusion device at home, using 3-D printers or what-have-you. Not for the next thousand years or so, until those machines evolve into Clarke's universal replicators. Maybe 1,000 years is too much, but it will be a long while. There has been a lot of enthusiastic talk about these 3-D printer replicator things. I am all for them! I think they are great. But I think some naive commentators fail to recognize some crucial limitations to today's versions: 1. They use only material. Plastic. They cannot be used to fabricate metal, wood, silicon or nickel. You cannot make a NiCad battery or a cold fusion device with that. 2. Resolution is limited. You could not make a computer chip, even if the devices could lay down silicon and metal. I do not think resolution is fine enough for a cold fusion device. Certainly not nanoparticle devices. Despite these limitations, I expect these things will become useful for making parts in the lab such as the fitting that holds the cathode and anode in place. In the distant future, the capabilities of these machines may gradually expand, until they can lay down any element in any configuration. Such as, for example: a fried egg, the Hope Diamond, a copy of the Mona Lisa correct down to the molecule, or a thermonuclear bomb. That is what Clarke predicted. By the time that happens we can hope that the machines will have so much built-in intelligence, it will refuse to fabricate a thermonuclear bomb. The process will be so complicated that no human will be able to override the build-in protections, or run the machine manually. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV
I agree. That is along the lines of what I was thinking since the linear momentum appears to encourage that to happen. The angle of the cone shape is not quite so easy to determine as far as I know. Are you aware of a method that can be used to establish the expected cone opening angle if the effect is due to particle interaction? Here I am interchanging heat for kinetic energy of a particle that is being ejected. I do not think that extremely energetic particles are being released since they would be easy to detect. Perhaps the helium or other ash of the fusion event is ejected with only a fraction of the total energy at the conclusion of a reaction such as Ed's. If most of the energy escaped as photons and only a smaller portion escaped with the fusion product, then all we need is enough initial energy in the particle to overcome the losses it encounters along its path as it seeks additional NAE sites to trigger. If instead of a direct trigger by impact of the lower energy particle we depend upon the instantaneous elevated kinetic energy absorbed by the nearby sites then it is important to understand why the momentum continues in the same general direction for new reactions. It appears as if the momentum from the projectile particle is in the correct direction, so the reactions of the NAE sites appear to follow its lead. We know that laser emissions are in sync with the incoming wave front, so perhaps this is true for other systems. This concept need to be fleshed out. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 10:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:26:49 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] The local heat energy release is large and can not escape the area except through diffusion which is a slow process compared to the reaction time associated with nuclear effects. If the energy is released in the form of a fast particle, then it does not have to depend on diffusion. A fast particle will rip through a lattice at high speed, leaving a trail of ionized atoms in it's wake. Note that if this fast particle then goes on to trigger other fusion reactions, which also create fast particles, then you get a branching effect, the debris of which looks like an inverted cone. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators
I previously tried to use the low cost stainless service from shpaeways and it had issues with hollow parts and dimensional precision. Indeed, their method can't do hollow, and the other method can't do overhanging pieces. So you can design something that is impossible to be made by either method, at least without temporary supports, or the possibility of making a printer that can use both methods in selective parts of a model. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I wrote: It seems unlikely to me that anyone will be able to fabricate a cold fusion device at home, using 3-D printers or what-have-you. Not for the next thousand years or so, until those machines evolve into Clarke's universal replicators. Maybe 1,000 years is too much, but it will be a long while. There has been a lot of enthusiastic talk about these 3-D printer replicator things. I am all for them! I think they are great. But I think some naive commentators fail to recognize some crucial limitations to today's versions: 1. They use only material. Plastic. They cannot be used to fabricate metal, wood, silicon or nickel. You cannot make a NiCad battery or a cold fusion device with that. 2. Resolution is limited. You could not make a computer chip, even if the devices could lay down silicon and metal. I do not think resolution is fine enough for a cold fusion device. Certainly not nanoparticle devices. Despite these limitations, I expect these things will become useful for making parts in the lab such as the fitting that holds the cathode and anode in place. In the distant future, the capabilities of these machines may gradually expand, until they can lay down any element in any configuration. Such as, for example: a fried egg, the Hope Diamond, a copy of the Mona Lisa correct down to the molecule, or a thermonuclear bomb. That is what Clarke predicted. By the time that happens we can hope that the machines will have so much built-in intelligence, it will refuse to fabricate a thermonuclear bomb. The process will be so complicated that no human will be able to override the build-in protections, or run the machine manually. - Jed
[Vo]:D or H loading...and other questions..
Ok for an electrolytic cell loading seems conceptually simple. For a dry gas cell, it seems more difficult... Rossi and Delalkian seem to just do temperature... (if you believe their devices work at all) Some have talked about Rossi doing some sort of thermo-electic effect Celani uses a big voltage drop across a long thin wire to migrate all the D to one end... Others have tried plasma discharge... Has any one just tried a large DC bias just below the H(or D) break down voltage? Any general thoughts on H or D loading test samples in a gas cell? The loading over 0.8 or so is absolutely necessary seems to get repeated a lot, what is everyones confidence in this statement? Brillouin claims that their Ni-H wet cell works with only 15% loading, by applying their magic Q wave, the Q waves seem to be about the same magnitiude (voltage and current) as many LENR inducing waves in the literature. Do people generally believe the 15% loading number? Note one of Brilloin's claims was that any Ni will work, yet in the same sentence they said all xx ft of a roll on Ni worked any sign that they ever got it to work with a different Ni supply? They clearly transitioned from the wet cells to a pressurized gas cell and got power gains of 2X A general comment: If as many suspect Pd-D is more energetic than Ni-H by 20X then a Pd-D version fo the same cell would have a power gain of 40 at 200 to 300C, that would actually be enough to close the loop and make real power... Delkalion seems to have an independently verified claim of 3X in power gain' What is the highest realized power gain anyone has confidence is real? Are there any interesting LENR experiments that led to a run away explosion that have not been repeated? I helped build a facility, the Friends of Amateur rocketry, that is properly equipped to build and test things that might go bang... We have fire fighting, 18 think concrete bunkers etc this is a Normal day : ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEv8-7UleDclist=UUZI0BwkiC2Vm9VuIeliRxmgindex=46 )
Re: [Vo]:Explaining the Rossi type LENR reaction
Post 3 The design priority for the LENR+ developer of the micro-particle based LENR+ system is to pack as many electrons into the volume of the reactor as is conceivably possible. The best way that this objective can be met is by using the photoelectric production of electrons to its best effect. Photo-electrically active additives can be added to the hydrogen envelope to produce electrons from the radiation that the NAE on the surface of the micro-particles generate. In the photoelectric effect, electrons are emitted from electropositive matter (metals, compounds, non-metallic solids, vapors or gases) as a consequence of their absorption of energy from electromagnetic radiation of very short wavelengths and high frequency, such as ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma radiation. Electrons emitted in this manner are called photoelectrons. These additives generally have a low work function to favor the production of electrons. The energy of the emitted photoelectrons does not depend on the intensity of the incoming light, but only on the energy or frequency of the individual photons. It is an interaction between the incident photon and the outermost electron of the electron emitting elements. The activity of these electron emitting elements is greatly enhanced if they form multi-atom clusters in which ion explosion can occur. Radio frequency stimulation activates this cluster formation process. Being a coherent source of radiation, the RF cools the photoactive elements into cluster formation. Such clusters provide great high energy stopping power in which inner electrons of the cluster are displaced from the ion core of the cluster and moved to the loosely coupled electron cloud orbiting the outer boundaries of the cluster The more a cluster is ionized, the easier it gets for x-ray photons to further ionize additional electrons in that cluster. Energy levels in bulk materials are significantly different from materials in the nanoscale. Let’s, put it this way: Adding energy to a confined system such as a cluster is like putting a tiger in a cage. A tiger in a big zoo with open fields will act more relaxed, because he has a lot of room to wander around. If you now confine him in smaller and smaller areas, he gets nervous and agitated. It's a lot that way with electrons. If they're free to move all around through a metal, they have low energy. Put them together in a cluster and beam x-rays on them, they get very excited and try to get out of the structure. In getting to the breaking point, when the ionized cluster eventually reaches an ionization limit where the remaining electrons cannot sustain the structural integrity of the cluster any longer, an explosive disintegration of the cluster and subsequent plasma expansion of the positive ions and electrons which once formed the cluster occurs. Multi-electron ionization of molecules and clusters can be realized by photoionization of strong x-ray photons. The multi-electron ionization leads to an explosive disintegration of the cluster together with the production of multi-charged atomic ion fragments. This photoelectric positive feedback process produces large numbers of high energy electrons injected into the hydrogen envelope that surrounds the micro-powder that is producing the x-rays. What causes this accelerating weakening of the structure under the onslaught of x-ray photons radiation is “barrier suppression ionization”. The initial arrival of x-ray photons begin the formation of plasma that is localized within the cluster itself. The electrons initially dislodged by the x-ray photons orbit around the outside of the cluster. These electrons lower the coulomb barrier holding the electrons that remain orbiting the cluster’s inner atoms. These remaining electrons reside in the inner orbits closer in to the nuclei of their atoms. Excess electric negative charge in the gas carrying the clusters will also add to the suppression of the coulomb barrier further supporting cascading cluster ionization. The LENR+ designer must use every trick in the book to pack as many electrons in the hydrogen envelope as he possibly can. When enough electrons are removed, the structure of the cluster cannot sustain itself any longer and the cluster explodes. In order to take advantage of the energy produced by “barrier suppression ionization”, the designers of the LENR+ reaction must satisfy two main engineering goals: first, large photoactive clusters must be formulated, and two, copious amounts of high energy x-ray photons must be produced. The negative charge that this additional ionization supports reduces the tunneling losses suffered by the electrons confined inside the NAE volumes thus allowing this confined negative charge to increase. The more equalized negative charge on either side of the walls of the NAE will tend to keep electrons inside the NAE. In addition as an added bonus, these all pervasive high energy electrons will form a collection of
Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators
Actually not quite true... I have hollow parts from shapeways... and overhung parts built with DMLS To be more precise shapeways can not build hollow parts with small passages that can not be emptied while the part is in the green clay intermediate state before sintering. Since both DMLS and the shapaways inkjet process are full powder enclosed, then the over hang capabilities of the two process should be identical. The DMLS has limits on overhangs, either support is added, or the slope has to be limited to something like 45 degrees Realize that the finished DMLS part is fully buried in powder so one should be able to build any overhung shape with the possible problem of the powder spreader moving the first layers of a detached overhang around If the part can be built with no detached overhang island, or with a temporary suoport making no detached island then DMLS should be capable of building any shape. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:18 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I previously tried to use the low cost stainless service from shpaeways and it had issues with hollow parts and dimensional precision. Indeed, their method can't do hollow, and the other method can't do overhanging pieces. So you can design something that is impossible to be made by either method, at least without temporary supports, or the possibility of making a printer that can use both methods in selective parts of a model. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I wrote: It seems unlikely to me that anyone will be able to fabricate a cold fusion device at home, using 3-D printers or what-have-you. Not for the next thousand years or so, until those machines evolve into Clarke's universal replicators. Maybe 1,000 years is too much, but it will be a long while. There has been a lot of enthusiastic talk about these 3-D printer replicator things. I am all for them! I think they are great. But I think some naive commentators fail to recognize some crucial limitations to today's versions: 1. They use only material. Plastic. They cannot be used to fabricate metal, wood, silicon or nickel. You cannot make a NiCad battery or a cold fusion device with that. 2. Resolution is limited. You could not make a computer chip, even if the devices could lay down silicon and metal. I do not think resolution is fine enough for a cold fusion device. Certainly not nanoparticle devices. Despite these limitations, I expect these things will become useful for making parts in the lab such as the fitting that holds the cathode and anode in place. In the distant future, the capabilities of these machines may gradually expand, until they can lay down any element in any configuration. Such as, for example: a fried egg, the Hope Diamond, a copy of the Mona Lisa correct down to the molecule, or a thermonuclear bomb. That is what Clarke predicted. By the time that happens we can hope that the machines will have so much built-in intelligence, it will refuse to fabricate a thermonuclear bomb. The process will be so complicated that no human will be able to override the build-in protections, or run the machine manually. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The limits of 3-D replicators
When I said hollow I meant entirely, like a hollow sphere. And when I was talking about overhangs I meant he non-powder method without support. The powder method has a weakness in a literal sense of the unfired part being too fragile, shapways say to consider if it could be made with wet sand. On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: Actually not quite true... I have hollow parts from shapeways... and overhung parts built with DMLS To be more precise shapeways can not build hollow parts with small passages that can not be emptied while the part is in the green clay intermediate state before sintering. Since both DMLS and the shapaways inkjet process are full powder enclosed, then the over hang capabilities of the two process should be identical. The DMLS has limits on overhangs, either support is added, or the slope has to be limited to something like 45 degrees Realize that the finished DMLS part is fully buried in powder so one should be able to build any overhung shape with the possible problem of the powder spreader moving the first layers of a detached overhang around If the part can be built with no detached overhang island, or with a temporary suoport making no detached island then DMLS should be capable of building any shape. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:18 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: I previously tried to use the low cost stainless service from shpaeways and it had issues with hollow parts and dimensional precision. Indeed, their method can't do hollow, and the other method can't do overhanging pieces. So you can design something that is impossible to be made by either method, at least without temporary supports, or the possibility of making a printer that can use both methods in selective parts of a model. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I wrote: It seems unlikely to me that anyone will be able to fabricate a cold fusion device at home, using 3-D printers or what-have-you. Not for the next thousand years or so, until those machines evolve into Clarke's universal replicators. Maybe 1,000 years is too much, but it will be a long while. There has been a lot of enthusiastic talk about these 3-D printer replicator things. I am all for them! I think they are great. But I think some naive commentators fail to recognize some crucial limitations to today's versions: 1. They use only material. Plastic. They cannot be used to fabricate metal, wood, silicon or nickel. You cannot make a NiCad battery or a cold fusion device with that. 2. Resolution is limited. You could not make a computer chip, even if the devices could lay down silicon and metal. I do not think resolution is fine enough for a cold fusion device. Certainly not nanoparticle devices. Despite these limitations, I expect these things will become useful for making parts in the lab such as the fitting that holds the cathode and anode in place. In the distant future, the capabilities of these machines may gradually expand, until they can lay down any element in any configuration. Such as, for example: a fried egg, the Hope Diamond, a copy of the Mona Lisa correct down to the molecule, or a thermonuclear bomb. That is what Clarke predicted. By the time that happens we can hope that the machines will have so much built-in intelligence, it will refuse to fabricate a thermonuclear bomb. The process will be so complicated that no human will be able to override the build-in protections, or run the machine manually. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV
In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:01:17 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] If instead of a direct trigger by impact of the lower energy particle we depend upon the instantaneous elevated kinetic energy absorbed by the nearby sites then it is important to understand why the momentum continues in the same general direction for new reactions. It appears as if the momentum from the projectile particle is in the correct direction, so the reactions of the NAE sites appear to follow its lead. We know that laser emissions are in sync with the incoming wave front, so perhaps this is true for other systems. This concept need to be fleshed out. You don't need this if fast particles are the trigger. As I said previously, the natural branching will automatically lead to a cone shape, because more energy is released at the end than at the start (more reactions at the end), and it increases as it goes from start to end. The actual angle of the cone will depend on how many new events an originating event triggers on average. If the number is small, then you end up with a deep narrow cone. If large, then a wide shallow one. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Explaining the Rossi type LENR reaction
The large concentrations of energetic electrons in the NAE will drive the hydrogen ion and the positive nickel core of the atoms in the walls of the NAE together under the influence of the Shukla Eliasson effect. This condition can be briefly summarized conceptually as a nano-scale patch of quantum mechanically entangled strongly-correlated subsystems of oppositely charged particles that are mutually coupled to each other via the electromagnetic fields of the dipoles and to ‘underlying’ substrate subsystem in the walls of the NAE; these charged Cooper pairs like collections of electrons and ions form a two item matched subsystem that could be viewed as ‘mirror’ quantum condensate. Caused by the Shukla Eliasson effect, the resultant attractive force between positively-charged ions would help facilitate formation of proton/ion Cooper pairing: while it is not terribly difficult to imagine creation of Cooper pairs of entangled electrons in an confined electron subsystem, the issue of comparable pairing for protons/ions is somewhat unfamiliar - more problematic. But because the Plexcitons are bosons (particles with integer spin) above a critical density to temperature ratio may macroscopically populate the ground state of a system, in an effect known as Bose-Einstein Condensation (BEC). Under the coherent influence of the infrared background supported by both the hydrogen envelope and the lattices of the micro-particles, the Plexcitons population will settle into a common state which results in condensation. Surface plasmon polaritons in a periodic array of metallic nanorods couple strongly to excitons in a steady-temperature hydrogen envelop acting as a heat bath, and bosonic quasiparticles known as plexcitons are formed. By increasing the plexciton density through optical thermal pumping, the thermalisation and ground state accumulation of the plexcitons in the angular spectrum and in real-space will result. Jointly, polarization build-up of the emission takes place. A new state of light-matter emerges upon plexciton condensation, and a coherent thermal radiation field emanates from this quantum phase transition. Plexciton condensates are the warmest and least massive of any condensate yet reported which is well beyond the melting point of most metals The resonant count continues to increase. It now stands at 14 and we are not done yet. Added to the resonance list is Plexciton condensation and ion cooper pairing in the walls of the NAE. Cheers:axil On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Post 3 The design priority for the LENR+ developer of the micro-particle based LENR+ system is to pack as many electrons into the volume of the reactor as is conceivably possible. The best way that this objective can be met is by using the photoelectric production of electrons to its best effect. Photo-electrically active additives can be added to the hydrogen envelope to produce electrons from the radiation that the NAE on the surface of the micro-particles generate. In the photoelectric effect, electrons are emitted from electropositive matter (metals, compounds, non-metallic solids, vapors or gases) as a consequence of their absorption of energy from electromagnetic radiation of very short wavelengths and high frequency, such as ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma radiation. Electrons emitted in this manner are called photoelectrons. These additives generally have a low work function to favor the production of electrons. The energy of the emitted photoelectrons does not depend on the intensity of the incoming light, but only on the energy or frequency of the individual photons. It is an interaction between the incident photon and the outermost electron of the electron emitting elements. The activity of these electron emitting elements is greatly enhanced if they form multi-atom clusters in which ion explosion can occur. Radio frequency stimulation activates this cluster formation process. Being a coherent source of radiation, the RF cools the photoactive elements into cluster formation. Such clusters provide great high energy stopping power in which inner electrons of the cluster are displaced from the ion core of the cluster and moved to the loosely coupled electron cloud orbiting the outer boundaries of the cluster The more a cluster is ionized, the easier it gets for x-ray photons to further ionize additional electrons in that cluster. Energy levels in bulk materials are significantly different from materials in the nanoscale. Let’s, put it this way: Adding energy to a confined system such as a cluster is like putting a tiger in a cage. A tiger in a big zoo with open fields will act more relaxed, because he has a lot of room to wander around. If you now confine him in smaller and smaller areas, he gets nervous and agitated. It's a lot that way with electrons. If they're free to move all around through a metal, they have
Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV
I see what you refer to and this may be an important piece of the puzzle. The main thing that concerns me is that we should be able to see the fast moving energetic particles outside the material. Do you recall reports of high energy radiation emerging from the crater type regions or possibly hot spots? If these are not measured then we would need an explanation as to why this is true. Presently, I am attempting to see if it is possible to define away the problem by eliminating the high energy particles and replacing them with low energy ones. If I recall the video that showed the hot spots was taken with a PdD system. Perhaps the high energy alphas would be stopped easily by the electrolyte and not seen outside of the experiment. Do you recall the penetration distance of an alpha under these conditions and is it likely for them to be produced but not be measured? The cone shape of the crater fits well into the picture provided the triggering particle or process is not expected to escape and be detected. If a kinetic wave(heat) is the trigger then it would not be expected to escape from the metal surface so external detection is not an issue. I am suspicious that alphas would escape and be seen. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 26, 2013 12:39 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Explaining Cold fusion -IV In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:01:17 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] If instead of a direct trigger by impact of the lower energy particle we depend upon the instantaneous elevated kinetic energy absorbed by the nearby sites then it is important to understand why the momentum continues in the same general direction for new reactions. It appears as if the momentum from the projectile particle is in the correct direction, so the reactions of the NAE sites appear to follow its lead. We know that laser emissions are in sync with the incoming wave front, so perhaps this is true for other systems. This concept need to be fleshed out. You don't need this if fast particles are the trigger. As I said previously, the natural branching will automatically lead to a cone shape, because more energy is released at the end than at the start (more reactions at the end), and it increases as it goes from start to end. The actual angle of the cone will depend on how many new events an originating event triggers on average. If the number is small, then you end up with a deep narrow cone. If large, then a wide shallow one. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:D or H loading...and other questions..
In my thread, explaining the “Rossi type LENR reaction,” I have list 14 different reaction amplification processes so far with more to come. The strength of the LENR reaction depends on the number of amplification methods that the LENR designer can add to his design. A high Proton packing level is only one of them. No one of these resonances will put the reaction into the useful zone. It takes the full set of design tolls to get LENR to produce any useful volume of heat. On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: Ok for an electrolytic cell loading seems conceptually simple. For a dry gas cell, it seems more difficult... Rossi and Delalkian seem to just do temperature... (if you believe their devices work at all) Some have talked about Rossi doing some sort of thermo-electic effect Celani uses a big voltage drop across a long thin wire to migrate all the D to one end... Others have tried plasma discharge... Has any one just tried a large DC bias just below the H(or D) break down voltage? Any general thoughts on H or D loading test samples in a gas cell? The loading over 0.8 or so is absolutely necessary seems to get repeated a lot, what is everyones confidence in this statement? Brillouin claims that their Ni-H wet cell works with only 15% loading, by applying their magic Q wave, the Q waves seem to be about the same magnitiude (voltage and current) as many LENR inducing waves in the literature. Do people generally believe the 15% loading number? Note one of Brilloin's claims was that any Ni will work, yet in the same sentence they said all xx ft of a roll on Ni worked any sign that they ever got it to work with a different Ni supply? They clearly transitioned from the wet cells to a pressurized gas cell and got power gains of 2X A general comment: If as many suspect Pd-D is more energetic than Ni-H by 20X then a Pd-D version fo the same cell would have a power gain of 40 at 200 to 300C, that would actually be enough to close the loop and make real power... Delkalion seems to have an independently verified claim of 3X in power gain' What is the highest realized power gain anyone has confidence is real? Are there any interesting LENR experiments that led to a run away explosion that have not been repeated? I helped build a facility, the Friends of Amateur rocketry, that is properly equipped to build and test things that might go bang... We have fire fighting, 18 think concrete bunkers etc this is a Normal day : ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEv8-7UleDclist=UUZI0BwkiC2Vm9VuIeliRxmgindex=46 )
