Re: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
Jed: I'm starting to run into folks who think it's crazy to assert that the USPTO won't issue cold fusion patents. Is there a good LENR patent office survey paper you would recommend? On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: ***That reminds me. One thing I keep running into is how many articles and replications have been published in peer-reviewed journals? And skeptics do not consider the Journal of Nuclear Physics to be a real peer reviewed journal. Does LENR-CANR.org have these subcategorized somehow? No, but Britz does. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:AC/DC, power, etc.
I am not exactly sure of where you are going with this discussion. When I use the term RMS source voltage, I am referring to the RMS value of the source itself at its fundamental frequency which is the only drive signal present. DC voltage is not seen nor present at this point according to the written information supplied by one of the testers. The input from the socket is a sine wave during the test and was looked at visually by the same guy, so it does not make sense to consider DC voltage present. Now, go back and recalculate whatever you have in mind with the requirement that the source is a sine wave at 50 hertz and nothing more. Then, if questions still exist, I can clear them up for you. With a pure sine wave as an input voltage source, the input power measured, delivered and calculated does not depend upon anything except the fundamental component of the current passing through it. The important current frequency will be the same as the source, in this case 50 hertz. It makes no difference how much DC or other harmonic currents are flowing through the source due to rectification by the load. Notice that this anticipated problem is due only to rectification by the load, not hidden at the source. DC supplies hidden at the source in the wall or other rooms would indicate a scam, which would not be covered by my proof. This issue is dead and can not be used to sneak power into the test system. The guy that hypothesized this problem did not understand power delivery by sources. I proved him wrong with his hypothesis and he refused to acknowledge it even though my spice program run matched his replication.This proved to me that pseudo skeptics are not willing to admit that they harbor wrong ideas. He threatened me with a copyright notice which was loony. I made the run first then he copied me. His pride must have gotten in the way of his honor. I suspect that he was under the false impression that I was wrong and it would be easy to show that fact. The shoe ended up on the other foot. If you agree to accept that the only power source available is the sine wave voltage from the wall sockets then what I have said is absolutely correct. Let's drop any reference to a value of DC voltage appearing on the input voltage source for this discussion. Begin there and you should get the correct answer. Dave -Original Message- From: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jun 6, 2013 12:08 am Subject: [Vo]:AC/DC, power, etc. David Roberson wrote: I have not seen an indication that that power meter senses DC directly. The DC that flows into of from the source supply does not need to be sensed in order to calculate the power being delivered from that source. I realize that this seems contrary to common sense, but there is mathematical support as well as spice model demonstration of this behavior. I can directly measure all of the power being given to the series diode and load resistor by the AC sine wave source by multiplying the RMS source voltage times the RMS fundamental current magnitude and taking into account the phase shift between them. All other harmonics and DC make no difference to the determination. When you say RMS source voltage, that sounds like you're including DC. It's a bit confusing. I'm talking of the ability of the power meter to sense DC voltages. We agree that the current probes used don't provide DC current, however AFAIK it is perfectly possible that the power meter can read DC ***VOLTAGES***. Consider two circuits connected by a pair of wires. Assuming circuits do not accumulate charge nor radiate, whatever current goes in must eventually go out, therefore it is sufficient to specify the instantaneous current I(t) in one wire. If we take one of the wires as a voltage reference then let U(t) be the instantaneous voltage difference between the two. The instantaneous power exchanged between the two circuits circuits is then P(t) = U(t) * I(t). Assuming again that the system is stationary, each quantity has a DC component and an AC component: U(t) = U_DC + U_AC(t) and I(t) = I_DC + I_AC(t). It then follows that P(t) = (U_DC + U_AC(t))*(I_DC + I_AC(t)) = U_DC * I_DC + U_DC * I_AC(t) + U_AC(t) * I_DC + U_AC(t) * I_AC(t) We have a power meter that measures voltage and current separately to calculate instantaneous power. If it cannot measure DC currents NOR voltages, the meter will only be using U_AC(t) and I_AC(t) and the estimated power will be P_est_1(t) = U_AC(t) * I_AC(t) and the error will be P(t) - P_est_1(t) = U_DC * I_DC + U_DC * I_AC(t) + I_DC * U_AC(t). If the power meter can measure DC voltages but not currents, the estimated power will be P_est_2(t) = U_DC * I_AC(t) + U_AC(t) * I_AC(t) and the error will be P(t) - P_est_2(t) = U_DC * I_DC + I_DC * U_AC(t). If the power meter cannot see DC voltages then a DC voltage can be injected
Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?
That pretty well sums it up. Dave -Original Message- From: Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jun 6, 2013 12:11 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? Naval scientist Eldon Byrd put it rather succinctly when he said – “What major contribution has any sceptic made to the betterment of humankind? How many Mother Teresa’s have they produced? How many great scientific discoveries have they made? Many of them are like movie critics–useless and usually wrong.” Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? From: Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com Date: Thu, June 06, 2013 2:09 pm To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Robert Park is 82 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Park In my cabinet I have a bottle to celebrate his no longer finding a use for oxygen. Also..I will debunk his death...as will others. Ron Kita On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:06 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote: They only reacted this way to cold fusion. I will never understand why. Well, CF is an example of traditional alchemy: transmutation of elements via basic chemistry. If CF is real, then not only does this demonstrate that modern chemistry has a huge hole in it, and the hole has been carefully maintained by hundreds of experts over centuries ...but sitting in that hole are woo-woos: crowds of Crackpot CF True Believers who've been right all along. It means that the Knigts of Scientific Purity and Rightness are shown to be bullies who were beating up innocent victims, and worse, shown to be doing it because they never bothered to read a single thing about the topic that wasn't their own propaganda. If CF is real, then you just know that all the major magazines and news outlets will focus on how the disbelief caught fire; on a certain physics meeting where the outbreak of sneering first started, and on the ones who led it. The CF-supporters will be promoted, perhaps to department heads and controllers of funding. The powerful suddenly have bosses with old grudges to satisfy. CF-deniers are suddenly seen as the symbol of everything that's wrong with the modern world. Crowds of screaming undergrads dance around bonfires made of old paper journals and magazines, each copy found to contain a column by Park. Maybe even Physics itself will fall, losing any hope of major funding for decades as everyone piles onto the CF bandwagon, and all the young students will want to emulate famous chemists (or famous crazy gold-makers.) (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:AC/DC, power, etc.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:12 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This proved to me that pseudo skeptics are not willing to admit that they harbor wrong ideas. He threatened me with a copyright notice which was loony. Seriously? That's a little disheartening. We're talking about one of the two guys who briefly appeared on this list? Eric
[Vo]:Serious site, serious discussion about our tragic problem.
it is a site exterior to the LENR community I have joined this discussion, see please: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-serious-site-raises-most-serious.html This problem, reproducibility MUST be solved otherwise LENR is lost a) for technology..no energy source ever b) for scientific understanding. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Johannes Kepler's 4th Law of Planetary Motion
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:57 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: During the past decade or so... during what little free time I have had at my disposal, I have occasionally found myself constructing extensive computer simulations to study the physics known as planetary motion. You might find this of interest: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html
RE: [Vo]:Johannes Kepler's 4th Law of Planetary Motion
Thanks, Terry, Fun video. It strikes me that it's all just a matter of perspective. However, the author does make a good point that the creator of this video, while it IS a beautiful (philosophically speaking) construction, makes a critical and deceptive physics error by depicting the sun as always leading the spiral of planets. That's blatantly wrong, and misleading. BTW, I've seen similar arguments made about the orbit of the moon around the earth, but without the accompany spiritual philosophy included, where it is claimed that the truth of the matter is that moon and earth are simply orbiting around the Sun in a spiral-like manner. Again, it's all a matter of perspective. I'm reminded of a famous phrase uttered by the President (aka Jack Nicholson) , in Mars Attack's: Why Can't We All Just Get Along! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPMmC0UAnj0 Nah! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:AC/DC, power, etc.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:12 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am not exactly sure of where you are going with this discussion. When I use the term RMS source voltage, I am referring to the RMS value of the source itself at its fundamental frequency which is the only drive signal present. Dave, We're not talking of the same things it seems. Let's try to clear the confusion. The input from the socket is a sine wave during the test and was looked at visually by the same guy, so it does not make sense to consider DC voltage present. How was it looked at, though? Oscilloscope inputs have an option to select between AC and DC coupling. If you use AC coupling, you will still see a nice sine wave but you will be blind to DC offsets. An oscilloscope wasn't used; a three-phased power meter was. We don't know if the voltage input of the three-phase meter is DC or AC. DC voltage is not seen nor present at this point according to the written information supplied by one of the testers. Yes, it's true that we got a comment later in the discussion saying that, but it's not written black on white in the report. Apparently it wasn't enough for Cude et al. since they kept talking about DC trickery, which is why I'm addressing the issue. Now there have been two proposed modes of trickery: (1) Diode trickery: Is it possible to fool the power meter by using non-linear loads such as diodes? (2) Mains trickery: Is it possible to fool the power meter by manipulating the tree-phased power? You are saying that (1) is difficult and I agree. I believe I've shown that (2) (using low-frequency signals) is possible only if the power meter is insensitive to DC voltages. It is still highly implausible for practical and sociological reasons. It would be great to know that the power meter IS sensitive to DC voltages as that would rule out (2) in a bullet-proof way. As for HF cheating (i.e. 100 kHz)... it would take quite an RF genius to figure out a way of passing 3 kW unnoticed over a couple of random mains wires without starting a fire, damaging equipment nor giving RF burns to anyone. -- Berke Durak
RE: [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
It is doubtful that there can be a useful USPTO survey on this topic, since no competent attorney these days would use the phrase cold fusion in a disclosure. A case in point is Ahern's application. The title is: Amplification of Energetic Reactions in Metal Nanoparticles. It does not mention cold fusion, and more importantly, Ahern does NOT believe that nuclear fusion is involved in LENR anyway, but essentially the application has been held up for the reason that the examiner believes it applies to cold fusion. In fact the examiner himself cited the Ben Breed application, which is also in litigation. Low temperature fusion US 20090122940 A1 I think Ahern's application will go through eventually, and possibly Breed as well - and that the examiner could be reprimanded for overreaching- but that is because the filing was carefully crafted NOT to mention the PF or cold fusion, and because Ahern believes that the energy comes from a non-nuclear source. However, this kind of challenge by an examiner is costly to pursue. BTW R. Ben Breed was formerly with Raytheon and Hughes (as best I can tell) so he is no lightweight . and he may have an IP ace in the hole. From: Kevin O'Malley Jed: I'm starting to run into folks who think it's crazy to assert that the USPTO won't issue cold fusion patents. Is there a good LENR patent office survey paper you would recommend? On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: ***That reminds me. One thing I keep running into is how many articles and replications have been published in peer-reviewed journals? And skeptics do not consider the Journal of Nuclear Physics to be a real peer reviewed journal. Does LENR-CANR.org have these subcategorized somehow? No, but Britz does. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf - Jed
[Vo]:on the presumption of privacy in communications
Fyi, there is a very interesting redaction of a note by Horace Heffner to the CMNS list concerning privacy in personal correspondence that was included in a 2008 issue of the New Energy Times: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml#opinion Eric
[Vo]:Pathological skepticism and LENR
Someone asked why pseu-skeps are so relentless in their refusal to believe anything new could happen. Let me try to put it in perspective. Pardon the merely personal in what follows. I think we have to see this in a larger context. There's a guy who has been doing general relativity for many years. He's approaching - or may have reached - emeritus status at the University of Victoria in BC. His specialty is to investigate fundamental question of interpretation that arise in Einstein's theory. So, he's spent a great deal of time working in the very guts of that theory. His expertise is unquestionable. He's published dozens of papers. He's not going to make an elementary mistake at this late stage. The most salient issue in GR that distinguishes it as a field theory is non-linearity. This means that each situation is essentially sui generis - solutions must be had entire, and cannot be made up piecemeal from other, more elementary solutions, as one can in say electromagnetism. (Radios and TVs and cell repeaters work because electromagnetism is linear.) One day it dawned on Cooperstock to model a galaxy as an entire matter distribution and use the weakest approximation of GR that did not throw out the non-linearity. Amazingly, no one had ever done this, in spite of it being right on the tip of the nose to do so. When he solved the equations, an amazing thing happened - the rotation curve of the galaxy turned out to be highly non-Keplerian, and in fact he was able to easily match the observed rotation curves to his theoretical non-linear model. Now, the closest analogous system to GR is not field theory (EM, weak interaction etc). It is fluid flow - fluid dynamics. The Navier-Stokes equations that govern the motion of water, air, etc. are also non-linear. There is only one way to linearize them - to throw out viscosity, which leaves you with a fluid that is almost nothing like real world fluids. Essentially every interesting property of fluids is determined by viscosity. The lesson is - linearizing general relativity in order to apply computer models via addition of piecemeal solutions is guaranteed to produce non-physical results. Cooperstock retained the non-linearity in the weakest possible way, and immediately explained the rotation curves of galaxies. No need for dark matter. So here's your choice - you can believe in dark matter and say Cooperstock is full of it, and convince yourself that 90+ percent of the universe cannot be observed, or you can admit that it was a mistake to linearize GR in the case of medium-scale smeared-out matter distributions like a galaxy or a cluster of them, solve the equations, and explain the anomalous rotation curves. Which do you think is right? Of course the answer is completely obvious. An elementary blunder has been committed. But is absolutely impossible to convince anyone who will not be convinced, that errors were made. Many people see themselves as infallible, and incapable of error, like that sterilization satellite from Star Trek. They are understandably reluctant to admit errors, because they may melt down - maybe it's a good thing, because it would be hard to strap antigravs onto all the pathoskeps and beam them into deep space! So where does this attitude originate? My own personal belief is that it starts very early. We created an ultra-competitive science and math world in which those who progress are the ones with the largest and most fragile egos, and not those who are the deepest thinkers. The trueness or falseness of a thing is secondary to these competitors - what is important is to win. Anyone who has a real love for thinking and has been through an academic science program, particularly in the hard sciences, will remember many moments of utter disgust, because more often than not, the main purpose for doing science - a love for knowledge and the excitement of being on the frontier - is usually the last thing on the agenda. The pathoskeps are simply the products of a collectivization of what I call competitive mediocrity. The only way to always win is to have weak opponents. And so an entire system has emerged in which there is tacit agreement to not look hard, to ignore anomalies, to attack those who would question things and point out real problems. The mediocre-competitive have a tacit agreement among themselves to play a game they cannot lose. The worst example is Robert Park - a fulminating blow-hard who actually brags about his ignorance. Feynman warned us in his lectures about these people. No one listened to him either. There is no point in arguing with them. They are best ignored. Somehow a second culture of science has to be created, in which *they* are the outsiders. PS - a good read - The Twilight of the Scientific Era by Martin Lopez-Corredoira. -drl --- I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin
Re: [Vo]:AC/DC, power, etc.
Berke, We have no reason to suspect that the tester who stated that there was no DC at the input pins was not capable of coming to that conclusion. He would have been stretching the facts quite a bit to say that and not have equipment that would enable it to be detected. Cude and the others have been stretching the facts in order to leave a shred of doubt for their position. The diode trick absolutely will not work and spice demonstrates this statement is true. The power being delivered by a sine wave source can absolutely be determined 100% by measuring the current flowing through it at only the fundamental drive frequency. DC and all other harmonics are not required for that determination. So, the first trick you call number 1 is off the table. I have worked with RF for many years and I can assure you that most instruments are not capable of working properly when the amount of RF needed to propagate the scam is passed closely by them in an open conductor system. The readings become very unstable and extremely inaccurate. When you physically move around the instruments, and especially when they are touched, they encounter great difficulty. This is because the path leading into the instruments due to RF escaping the conductors varies enormously. Of course the third reason to conclude that the test is above board is that Rossi is an intelligent guy. He would be ignorant to attempt an external DC supply trick or RF trick that could so easily be detected by these testers. That would immediately be the end of any game that he might be playing and his reputation trashed. It is absurd to think that he would try anything of this nature. I want to express my distaste for anyone suggesting the dumb wire tricks. Who can really doubt that the input drive power is not being modulated? The output temperature excursions exhibit the proper shape as expected and this curve matches in time the drive waveform from the mains. I do not see any room for fakery with the input power measurements unless someone was able to modify the instruments internally. I understand that the testers could choose the equipment for this experiment as further evidence. So, stolen DC power due to load rectification is off the table. This can be stated with certainty. Dave -Original Message- From: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jun 6, 2013 9:54 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:AC/DC, power, etc. On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:12 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am not exactly sure of where you are going with this discussion. When I use the term RMS source voltage, I am referring to the RMS value of the source itself at its fundamental frequency which is the only drive signal present. Dave, We're not talking of the same things it seems. Let's try to clear the confusion. The input from the socket is a sine wave during the test and was looked at visually by the same guy, so it does not make sense to consider DC voltage present. How was it looked at, though? Oscilloscope inputs have an option to select between AC and DC coupling. If you use AC coupling, you will still see a nice sine wave but you will be blind to DC offsets. An oscilloscope wasn't used; a three-phased power meter was. We don't know if the voltage input of the three-phase meter is DC or AC. DC voltage is not seen nor present at this point according to the written information supplied by one of the testers. Yes, it's true that we got a comment later in the discussion saying that, but it's not written black on white in the report. Apparently it wasn't enough for Cude et al. since they kept talking about DC trickery, which is why I'm addressing the issue. Now there have been two proposed modes of trickery: (1) Diode trickery: Is it possible to fool the power meter by using non-linear loads such as diodes? (2) Mains trickery: Is it possible to fool the power meter by manipulating the tree-phased power? You are saying that (1) is difficult and I agree. I believe I've shown that (2) (using low-frequency signals) is possible only if the power meter is insensitive to DC voltages. It is still highly implausible for practical and sociological reasons. It would be great to know that the power meter IS sensitive to DC voltages as that would rule out (2) in a bullet-proof way. As for HF cheating (i.e. 100 kHz)... it would take quite an RF genius to figure out a way of passing 3 kW unnoticed over a couple of random mains wires without starting a fire, damaging equipment nor giving RF burns to anyone. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:AC/DC, power, etc.
Dave we're basically agreeing on everything and I'm confident that the experimenters properly checked for DC, however I know how the skeptical minds work and unless they put it clearly in writing (e.g. in the report) there will be some small lingering doubt. To summarize: 1) Diode rectification tricks - provided the mains source is AC, this will be caught by the power meter. A sine wave has no net integral over time. 2) HF power injection - not possible, at the power levels required it would bleed everywhere and cause equipment malfunction or damage. 3) DC injection - foolish and dangerous, but seems to be the only possible way, with a big IF. (3) would still be foolish because the experimenters can very easily check for DC at any time, and they did (but it's not in the report, unfortunately). A 10-year old can check for DC. But it wasn't continuously checked, so cudeologists could say that they switched DC off while they had a multimeter hooked. My point is then that even (3) IS IMPOSSIBLE IF the power meter can sense DC voltages. That holds true even if the experimenters hadn't checked for DC, because it would require very high currents. -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:Rossi in Florida
Wow!! The main stream media finally acknowledge Rossi !!! Andrea to make landfall in Florida http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/06/us/tropical-weather-andrea/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 They mention it being hot and disruptive .. I guess they couldn't decide between Cold fusion or LENR.
Re: [Vo]:Pathological skepticism and LENR
Here's a paper that explains his theory. http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.3224 Also, I am a fan of a, perhaps complementary, approach, that uses graviton-graviton scatering: http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4005 2013/6/6 Danny Ross Lunsford antimatte...@yahoo.com Someone asked why pseu-skeps are so relentless in their refusal to believe anything new could happen. Let me try to put it in perspective. Pardon the merely personal in what follows. I think we have to see this in a larger context. There's a guy who has been doing general relativity for many years. He's approaching - or may have reached - emeritus status at the University of Victoria in BC. His specialty is to investigate fundamental question of interpretation that arise in Einstein's theory. So, he's spent a great deal of time working in the very guts of that theory. His expertise is unquestionable. He's published dozens of papers. He's not going to make an elementary mistake at this late stage. The most salient issue in GR that distinguishes it as a field theory is non-linearity. This means that each situation is essentially sui generis - solutions must be had entire, and cannot be made up piecemeal from other, more elementary solutions, as one can in say electromagnetism. (Radios and TVs and cell repeaters work because electromagnetism is linear.) One day it dawned on Cooperstock to model a galaxy as an entire matter distribution and use the weakest approximation of GR that did not throw out the non-linearity. Amazingly, no one had ever done this, in spite of it being right on the tip of the nose to do so. When he solved the equations, an amazing thing happened - the rotation curve of the galaxy turned out to be highly non-Keplerian, and in fact he was able to easily match the observed rotation curves to his theoretical non-linear model. Now, the closest analogous system to GR is not field theory (EM, weak interaction etc). It is fluid flow - fluid dynamics. The Navier-Stokes equations that govern the motion of water, air, etc. are also non-linear. There is only one way to linearize them - to throw out viscosity, which leaves you with a fluid that is almost nothing like real world fluids. Essentially every interesting property of fluids is determined by viscosity. The lesson is - linearizing general relativity in order to apply computer models via addition of piecemeal solutions is guaranteed to produce non-physical results. Cooperstock retained the non-linearity in the weakest possible way, and immediately explained the rotation curves of galaxies. No need for dark matter. So here's your choice - you can believe in dark matter and say Cooperstock is full of it, and convince yourself that 90+ percent of the universe cannot be observed, or you can admit that it was a mistake to linearize GR in the case of medium-scale smeared-out matter distributions like a galaxy or a cluster of them, solve the equations, and explain the anomalous rotation curves. Which do you think is right? Of course the answer is completely obvious. An elementary blunder has been committed. But is absolutely impossible to convince anyone who will not be convinced, that errors were made. Many people see themselves as infallible, and incapable of error, like that sterilization satellite from Star Trek. They are understandably reluctant to admit errors, because they may melt down - maybe it's a good thing, because it would be hard to strap antigravs onto all the pathoskeps and beam them into deep space! So where does this attitude originate? My own personal belief is that it starts very early. We created an ultra-competitive science and math world in which those who progress are the ones with the largest and most fragile egos, and not those who are the deepest thinkers. The trueness or falseness of a thing is secondary to these competitors - what is important is to win. Anyone who has a real love for thinking and has been through an academic science program, particularly in the hard sciences, will remember many moments of utter disgust, because more often than not, the main purpose for doing science - a love for knowledge and the excitement of being on the frontier - is usually the last thing on the agenda. The pathoskeps are simply the products of a collectivization of what I call competitive mediocrity. The only way to always win is to have weak opponents. And so an entire system has emerged in which there is tacit agreement to not look hard, to ignore anomalies, to attack those who would question things and point out real problems. The mediocre-competitive have a tacit agreement among themselves to play a game they cannot lose. The worst example is Robert Park - a fulminating blow-hard who actually brags about his ignorance. Feynman warned us in his lectures about these people. No one listened to him either. There is no point in arguing with them. They are best ignored. Somehow a second culture of
[Vo]: Positive Feedback and Temperature Movement
I have been posting various descriptions of my ECAT spice model behavior and I continue to get feedback that suggests that I have done a poor job of teaching. I want to discuss one issue during this post which will allow those sitting on the fence to understand how positive feedback impacts the ECAT. Visualize that you are measuring an ECAT that for this discussion is at a fixed core temperature. By some miracle you have been able to get the device to temporarily stop changing temperature and reach a state where this parameter is constant without moving up or down. This condition can be thought of as a steady state operating point and the heat inputs are exactly balanced by heat escaping. We are supplying some amount of drive to the resistor heating elements which is included in the heat input balance. Now, if we increase the power to the heating resistors slightly, the temperature of the ECAT will begin to rise in response. The delta increase in core temperature causes a corresponding increase in core power generation. The positive feedback with a loop gain of greater than 1 causes the response temperature increase to be slightly greater than the drive that initiated it. This results in a continuous rise in the core temperature which does not cease until some form of limit is encountered. A similar type of behavior is observed with electronic comparators and many other positive feedback devices having a loop gain of greater than 1. This would eventually lead to thermal run away which is encountered when the ECAT looses control and should be avoided. Suppose that we had reduced the drive at that balanced point described above. In that case, the delta temperature would have been negative. Operating the core at a lower temperature results in the generation of less heat. If the reduced core heating leads to a drop in temperature that is greater than the drop that initiated it a process begins which causes the device to cool down in temperature. This cooling rate gets ever greater with time and the ECAT heads toward a temperature set by the drive power heating. It is safe to assume that this resting point will be at a temperature where the positive feedback loop gain is less than 1 in practical cases. With this type of process an uncontrolled system will never be stable unless it becomes located at a stop of some sort where it likely will fail due to heat or becomes too cool to be of much use. This is how my model suggests that the ECAT should behave and why control must be by some well regulated and constantly adjusted duty cycle modulation of the drive waveform. I am limiting the scope of this posting so that this important process can be well understood prior to getting into other model described issues. I hope that I have done a better job of explaining how my model of the ECAT functions, at least for this portion of its operation. Dave
RE: [Vo]:Rossi in Florida
-Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher Wow!! The main stream media finally acknowledge Rossi !!! Andrea to make landfall in Florida http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/06/us/tropical-weather-andrea/index.html?hpt=hp_ t1 They mention it being hot and disruptive .. I guess they couldn't decide between Cold fusion or LENR. LOL. But Andrea notwithstanding, there is a serious (fringe science) side to the possible interplay of tropical storm dynamics and hydrogen thermal anomalies. Vortex storms - hurricanes and/or tornados are electrostatically driven to some degree. The charge comes from triboelectrics (friction) caused by heat and evaporation. Charge translates into the anomalous acceleration. Electrical storms are common. Anyway - some time ago we talked about a possible remedy to nip a tropical storm in the bud, so to speak, using Pentagon technology … which is actually available now. Circle the wagons, boys. Assuming that continually shorting-out the pre-hurricane charge build-up over tens of hours, around the periphery of any emergent Vortex would do the trick of throttling back the storm system by depriving it of charge differential, then why not borrow the military Helladds airborne laser defense system and circle the storm. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html while using the airborne laser beams to continually ionize a conductive path to ground (or water) in order to cancel charge accumulation all along the storm front? It requires hundreds of plane, and we can see the front from space - PLUS this is win-win-win-win (if it works) and everybody is happy in the end. The military gets more lasers, the oil companies sell lots of aviation fuel to keep hundreds of planes airborne, the citizens have less worry about storm damages and more jobs are created while FEMA gets to do sit on their collective arses and nothing productive, as usual. Probably too simple a solution to be implemented, and maybe the party in power actually wants to have the occasional disaster, in order to keep the populace from thinking about all the other problems, not to mention the party not in power needs the opportunity to blame everything on the party in power. In the end - bureaucratic inertia. Get used to it. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Rossi in Florida
I disagree about the win^4. Hurricanes are nature's way of transporting excess energy from the tropics away from the tropics. If your scheme worked, the energy would build up such that eventually a hurricane would develop that was too strong for your 100 planes to stop and would in fact be MUCH stronger than anything that we have ever seen before. The take away lesson here is don't mess with Mother Nature, particularly on that ginormous of a scale. However, it might be possible to use this idea with fewer planes to guide the hurricane to dissipate in the North Atlantic so that there would be considerably less damage. This would be working with Nature, not suppressing Nature. On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher Wow!! The main stream media finally acknowledge Rossi !!! Andrea to make landfall in Florida http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/06/us/tropical-weather-andrea/index.html?hpt=hp_ t1 They mention it being hot and disruptive .. I guess they couldn't decide between Cold fusion or LENR. LOL. But Andrea notwithstanding, there is a serious (fringe science) side to the possible interplay of tropical storm dynamics and hydrogen thermal anomalies. Vortex storms - hurricanes and/or tornados are electrostatically driven to some degree. The charge comes from triboelectrics (friction) caused by heat and evaporation. Charge translates into the anomalous acceleration. Electrical storms are common. Anyway - some time ago we talked about a possible remedy to nip a tropical storm in the bud, so to speak, using Pentagon technology … which is actually available now. Circle the wagons, boys. Assuming that continually shorting-out the pre-hurricane charge build-up over tens of hours, around the periphery of any emergent Vortex would do the trick of throttling back the storm system by depriving it of charge differential, then why not borrow the military Helladds airborne laser defense system and circle the storm. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html while using the airborne laser beams to continually ionize a conductive path to ground (or water) in order to cancel charge accumulation all along the storm front? It requires hundreds of plane, and we can see the front from space - PLUS this is win-win-win-win (if it works) and everybody is happy in the end. The military gets more lasers, the oil companies sell lots of aviation fuel to keep hundreds of planes airborne, the citizens have less worry about storm damages and more jobs are created while FEMA gets to do sit on their collective arses and nothing productive, as usual. Probably too simple a solution to be implemented, and maybe the party in power actually wants to have the occasional disaster, in order to keep the populace from thinking about all the other problems, not to mention the party not in power needs the opportunity to blame everything on the party in power. In the end - bureaucratic inertia. Get used to it. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi in Florida
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 10:20:07 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi in Florida ... Anyway - some time ago we talked about a possible remedy to nip a tropical storm in the bud, so to speak, using Pentagon technology … which is actually available now. ... http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html while using the airborne laser beams to continually ionize a conductive path to ground (or water) in order to cancel charge accumulation all along the storm front? In the end - bureaucratic inertia. Get used to it. Once a month I travel a road which is susceptible to landslides. (They've even installed gates at each end, which they close while it's blocked). I stopped one time to take some photos of a slide, and chatted to the Caltran (California Transport Authority) guy in charge. I asked him why they didn't just take a bulldozer up the cliff and clean out a section which is likely to fall in the next couple of years. Liability, he said. If they leave it alone, it's an act of god. They meddle with it, they own it, and the liability of not doing it right.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi in Florida
So stupid. Act of god, lol. Act of a fantasy. We need to update our laws to reality and modern times. We are nature, the idea that humans should not mess with Nature is silly. Giovanni On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 10:20:07 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi in Florida ... Anyway - some time ago we talked about a possible remedy to nip a tropical storm in the bud, so to speak, using Pentagon technology … which is actually available now. ... http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html while using the airborne laser beams to continually ionize a conductive path to ground (or water) in order to cancel charge accumulation all along the storm front? In the end - bureaucratic inertia. Get used to it. Once a month I travel a road which is susceptible to landslides. (They've even installed gates at each end, which they close while it's blocked). I stopped one time to take some photos of a slide, and chatted to the Caltran (California Transport Authority) guy in charge. I asked him why they didn't just take a bulldozer up the cliff and clean out a section which is likely to fall in the next couple of years. Liability, he said. If they leave it alone, it's an act of god. They meddle with it, they own it, and the liability of not doing it right.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi in Florida
This is an interesting paper on the non equilibrium dynamics of Earth atmosphere: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19948550 Giovanni On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.comwrote: So stupid. Act of god, lol. Act of a fantasy. We need to update our laws to reality and modern times. We are nature, the idea that humans should not mess with Nature is silly. Giovanni On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 10:20:07 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi in Florida ... Anyway - some time ago we talked about a possible remedy to nip a tropical storm in the bud, so to speak, using Pentagon technology … which is actually available now. ... http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_darpa_lasers_050830.html while using the airborne laser beams to continually ionize a conductive path to ground (or water) in order to cancel charge accumulation all along the storm front? In the end - bureaucratic inertia. Get used to it. Once a month I travel a road which is susceptible to landslides. (They've even installed gates at each end, which they close while it's blocked). I stopped one time to take some photos of a slide, and chatted to the Caltran (California Transport Authority) guy in charge. I asked him why they didn't just take a bulldozer up the cliff and clean out a section which is likely to fall in the next couple of years. Liability, he said. If they leave it alone, it's an act of god. They meddle with it, they own it, and the liability of not doing it right.
Re: [Vo]: Positive Feedback and Temperature Movement
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 10:08:50 AM I have been posting various descriptions of my ECAT spice model behavior and I continue to get feedback that suggests that I have done a poor job of teaching. Since you're not releasing your model (mine is available to anyone who wants it) can you give me a couple of hints on how to play with this in Spice? (I made the most obvious addition with a B-element voltage-controlled current source and spice failed to converge). I have little background (well, something about poles etc etc) and NO experience in control theory . My professional use of spice was in modelling the detailed behavior of critical logic circuits, and RC clock distribution networks. The only guide I've found so far is Understanding and Applying Current-Mode Control Theory http://www.ti.com/lit/an/snva555/snva555.pdf Is that worth pursuing?
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
Ed, On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Jun 4, 2013, at 11:11 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Jun 2, 2013, at 12:15 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is pull away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down the line. Each ball will alternately move away and then toward its neighbor. If outside energy is supplied, this resonance will continue. If not, it will damp out. At this stage, this is a purely mechanical action that is well understood. In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused along the length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well understood behavior. The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a critical distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This distance is less than is possible in any other material because of the high concentration of negative charge that can exist in this structure and environment. The barrier is not eliminated. It is only reduced enough to allow the distance to become small enough so that the two nuclei can see and respond. The response is to emit a photon from each nuclei because this process lowers the energy of the system. Ed, With each cycle energy of the system is only lowered if the energy of the emitted photon is greater than the work done by the random vibration of atoms on the system. NO Harry! Ed, I am trying to help you understand your model. I am not trying to tear it down. I know and I appreciate the effort. However, I want you to accurately understand what I'm proposing. Only then can you add a new insight. You are not accurately describing what I proposing. There is no work done by the random vibrations. These are the result of normal temperature. The photon is emitted from the nucleus and carries with it the excess mass-energy of the nucleus. Let us return to your ball and spring model of the hydroton and assume an ideal spring which doesn't dissipate energy by getting warm during compressions. If heat energy is the vibration of atoms in the lattice, then the spring is compressed by atoms from the lattice pushing on the spring. As the spring is compressed work is done on the spring, however, the spring will eventually bounce back to its original length so no net work is done on the spring in the course of one oscillation. The oscillations will repeat indefinitely with the same amplitude as long as the temperature remains constant. However, in your model the spring does not return to its original length. Now for sake argument assume no photon is emitted. This means some work has been performed on the spring, which means the spring has effectively turned a little thermal energy into potential energy and thereby slightly cooled the lattice. Now assume a photon is emitted. The subsequent temperature of the lattice will depend on the energy of this emitted photon. If the energy of the photon is less than the work done (W) then the temperature of the lattice will not return to the initial the temperature. The cycle can repeat until the protons fuse but the temperature will gradually decline and the end result can aptly be described as cold fusion! On the other hand if the energy of the photon is greater than W then the temperature of the lattice will be greater after fusion. No analogy is perfect and you are extending my effort to get one idea understood and applying it to a different idea, which is not correct. The vibration is like a periodic switch acting on the nucleus. The vibration itself does not release energy. It has no friction. Energy is totally conserved during the vibration. However, the vibration causes the nuclei to emit a proton because the vibration periodically causes them to get within a critical distance of each other. Getting closer _and_ staying closer means work has been done on the system since there is a mutual force of repulsion keeping them apart. The kinetic energy of the lattice is transformed into potential energy of repulsion according to the principle of CoE. Whether the temperature of the environment cools, stays constant or warms depends on whether the energy of the emitted photon is less than / equal to / greater than the work done. Your model at the present time is silent on these possibilities. Harry, you don't seem to understand the concept of work. Consider that atoms in a lattice are held together by a force. They vibrate and this vibration contains energy as the heat capacity. Is a piece of salt doing
Re: [Vo]:Pathological skepticism and LENR
Danny Ross Lunsford antimatte...@yahoo.com wrote: Anyone who has a real love for thinking and has been through an academic science program, particularly in the hard sciences, will remember many moments of utter disgust, because more often than not, the main purpose for doing science - a love for knowledge and the excitement of being on the frontier - is usually the last thing on the agenda. I agree this is widespread. I think it more common nowadays than in the past because scientists are better paid than they used to be. Around 1900 it was said you should not become a professor or a doctor unless you first marry money. Another dynamic works with people who sincerely love knowledge and science. It was described by Tolstoy, and quoted in Fire from Ice: I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they reached perhaps with great difficulty, conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives. PS - a good read - The Twilight of the Scientific Era by Martin Lopez-Corredoira. You mean, The Twilight of the Scientific Age http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Scientific-Mart%C3%ADn-L%C3%B3pez-Corredoira/dp/1612336345/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Photos and slides from June 3rd meeting on LENR @ Brussels
I posted this on my home social media site (members only) ... A so-called scientist makes some bizarre claims about work done between a hick university and some minor military lab ... to some insignificant furrin gummint body. Leaked to an Italian site, but the relevant stuff is in English -- Google translate for the rest : Invite : http://22passi.blogspot.it/2013/05/la-risposta-fa-36213.html Presentations http://22passi.blogspot.com/2013/06/new-advancements-on-fleischmann-pons.html Huber (SKINR) http://22passi.blogspot.it/2013/06/new-advancements-on-fleischmann-pons_5.html eg http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/passi_nato_huber_P1070417.png What's that? COP=30 for 960 hours -- 40 days?
Re: [Vo]:Pathological skepticism and LENR
I guarantee that we are not seeing the twilight of the scientific age, but there will need to be some people getting their a55es kicked. On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Danny Ross Lunsford antimatte...@yahoo.com wrote: Anyone who has a real love for thinking and has been through an academic science program, particularly in the hard sciences, will remember many moments of utter disgust, because more often than not, the main purpose for doing science - a love for knowledge and the excitement of being on the frontier - is usually the last thing on the agenda. I agree this is widespread. I think it more common nowadays than in the past because scientists are better paid than they used to be. Around 1900 it was said you should not become a professor or a doctor unless you first marry money. Another dynamic works with people who sincerely love knowledge and science. It was described by Tolstoy, and quoted in Fire from Ice: I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they reached perhaps with great difficulty, conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives. PS - a good read - The Twilight of the Scientific Era by Martin Lopez-Corredoira. You mean, The Twilight of the Scientific Age http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Scientific-Mart%C3%ADn-L%C3%B3pez-Corredoira/dp/1612336345/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pathological skepticism and LENR
Scientific discovery comes from independent minds. Independent minds come from independent bodies. Independent bodies require self-sufficiency. On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Danny Ross Lunsford antimatte...@yahoo.com wrote: Anyone who has a real love for thinking and has been through an academic science program, particularly in the hard sciences, will remember many moments of utter disgust, because more often than not, the main purpose for doing science - a love for knowledge and the excitement of being on the frontier - is usually the last thing on the agenda. I agree this is widespread. I think it more common nowadays than in the past because scientists are better paid than they used to be. Around 1900 it was said you should not become a professor or a doctor unless you first marry money. Another dynamic works with people who sincerely love knowledge and science. It was described by Tolstoy, and quoted in Fire from Ice: I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they reached perhaps with great difficulty, conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives. PS - a good read - The Twilight of the Scientific Era by Martin Lopez-Corredoira. You mean, The Twilight of the Scientific Age http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Scientific-Mart%C3%ADn-L%C3%B3pez-Corredoira/dp/1612336345/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Q's
I've been too busy with analysing the latest Rossi test to follow this. I've got the following official links to Storms' NAE 2012 Paper : http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEanapproach.pdf Feb 2013 Kick-off post : http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77023.html I have a strong forgettery feeling that I'm missing one. What's the present state of the temperature-dependent aspects: 1. At what temperature does it start ? (Lower limit: when the metal hydride source activates, typically 200C) 2. Is there a temperature at which it stops? (Upper limit, Ni melting point) 3. Is it linear in-between? 4 What's the estimated SIZE for a NAE (eg assuming a crack) --- Sure LOOKS like cracks! http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/passi_nato_huber_P1070423.png (My new policy -- when I steal/ borrow a picture I annotate where I got it) Except that the cracks look about 1um wide (If I read '5000x 1u' correctly) .. and Rossi's powder is in the 1u range : a 1u crack won't fit!!?? Also, I don't see any more detail IN the SKINR cracks. And the reaction (let's use p+p+e = D + 1.4MEV for discussion purposes) 5. Is one NAE destroyed by the reaction, never to fire again? Or is it poisoned and recovers? eg a chain of H-H-H-H will resonate and is active at T1, but H-D-H won't resonate, so the NAE is poisoned. D diffuses away, two H diffuse in : then it's ready again? 6. If so, what is the typical time between firing? (ns,us,ms,sec,minutes?)
Re: [Vo]:Pathological skepticism and LENR
And skeptopaths are dependent thinkers. Use that word when conversing with them. It should make them upset. For example, point out that their insistence upon peer review is dependent thinking, which in fact it is. Stuff like that. On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Scientific discovery comes from independent minds. Independent minds come from independent bodies. Independent bodies require self-sufficiency. On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Danny Ross Lunsford antimatte...@yahoo.com wrote: Anyone who has a real love for thinking and has been through an academic science program, particularly in the hard sciences, will remember many moments of utter disgust, because more often than not, the main purpose for doing science - a love for knowledge and the excitement of being on the frontier - is usually the last thing on the agenda. I agree this is widespread. I think it more common nowadays than in the past because scientists are better paid than they used to be. Around 1900 it was said you should not become a professor or a doctor unless you first marry money. Another dynamic works with people who sincerely love knowledge and science. It was described by Tolstoy, and quoted in Fire from Ice: I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they reached perhaps with great difficulty, conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives. PS - a good read - The Twilight of the Scientific Era by Martin Lopez-Corredoira. You mean, The Twilight of the Scientific Age http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Scientific-Mart%C3%ADn-L%C3%B3pez-Corredoira/dp/1612336345/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Q's
7. Where is the thermalization? I think it's on the inner steel cylinder, not in the Nickel If that's so, then (based on my thermal model) the December COP=6 had an outside temperature of 500C and a central temperature of 750C
[Vo]:ideas for materials screening and LENR
Hi All, I've been considering ideas for running LENR experiments in parallel. I know PF and others have done some experiments like this in the past with running multiple electrolytic cells simultaneously, so this is certainly an option. I'm wondering if there are any other thoughts on parallel experimental methods to screen materials. If we know that the effect appears maybe 1/20 to 1/7 times can a pre-screening process be performed in a relatively rapid manner to narrow down the material that works the best. One idea I had was to take a quartz tube (e.g., Celani/MFMP original cell design) with a heating element and loaded with hydrogen. In the bottom of the tube, have several types of materials (e.g., different nickel powder mixtures/sizes etc..) discretely separated and monitored with an IR camera similar to the setup for the E-cat test. The image could be monitored to determine which samples give off the most heat. Since the reproducibility problem is in part a materials problem, then it makes sense to me to develop a screening method to more quickly find samples that work and discard those that don't. A process using a method to simultaneously screen many samples would seem to be the most efficient way to empirically screen materials. NASA's chip array design would have some promise in this area, but would seem less practical, more expensive, and limited compared to other possibilities (e.g., IR camera). Any thoughts on this matter or other ideas on efficient materials screening processes? Best regards, Jack
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Q's
On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: I've been too busy with analysing the latest Rossi test to follow this. I've got the following official links to Storms' NAE 2012 Paper : http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEanapproach.pdf Feb 2013 Kick-off post : http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77023.html I have a strong forgettery feeling that I'm missing one. Yes Alan, you are missing several papers, but this is a good start. What's the present state of the temperature-dependent aspects: 1. At what temperature does it start ? (Lower limit: when the metal hydride source activates, typically 200C) According to my theory, the rate is totally controlled by how fast the hydrogen can get to the NAE. This rate is determined by temperature and concentration of hydrogen in the surrounding metal. If the heat detector is sufficiently sensitive, the effect could be detected at room temperature. 2. Is there a temperature at which it stops? (Upper limit, Ni melting point) The upper limit is unknown, but the NAE is certainly destroyed at the melting point. \ 3. Is it linear in-between? Rate=A*C*exp (B/T), where A is proportional to the concentration of NAE , C is the concentration of hydrogen isotope in the metal, and B is related to the matertial in which the NAE forms. T is the average temperature of the material in which the NAE forms. 4 What's the estimated SIZE for a NAE (eg assuming a crack) --- Sure LOOKS like cracks! The size is unknown but less than a nm. http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/passi_nato_huber_P1070423.png (My new policy -- when I steal/ borrow a picture I annotate where I got it) Except that the cracks look about 1um wide (If I read '5000x 1u' correctly) .. and Rossi's powder is in the 1u range : a 1u crack won't fit!!?? Also, I don't see any more detail IN the SKINR cracks. A crack that is visible on an SEM is too big to be active. However, where large cracks are present, small cracks are surely present also. And the reaction (let's use p+p+e = D + 1.4MEV for discussion purposes) 5. Is one NAE destroyed by the reaction, never to fire again? Or is it poisoned and recovers? I believe the NAE (nano gap), once it forms, is very stable and is the host of many Hydrotons, with each forming, fusing, and reforming. eg a chain of H-H-H-H will resonate and is active at T1, but H- D-H won't resonate, so the NAE is poisoned. The -H-e-D-e- etc makes tritium. The NAE is not poisoned, but simply creates a different nuclear product. That is why I want Rossi to look for tritium. He makes D that than fuses with H to make tritium. D diffuses away, two H diffuse in : then it's ready again? 6. If so, what is the typical time between firing? (ns,us,ms,sec,minutes?) I would guess that once a Hydroton forms and starts to resonate, the fusion process in that one Hydroton is finished in a few ns. However, thousands of Hydrotons are going through their life cycle at the same time. Ed Storms
RE: [Vo]:Celani, Rossi Ni62
Jones, On enrichment vs geometry do you think it is both that are needed for robust operation? Can Ni Cu wire be leached out like Ni Al to form a skeletal catalyst on the wire surface? Celani must be querying his vendor for clues into what changed.. Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 1:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Celani, Rossi Ni62 Here is the $64 question... or should I say $62 dollar question. Does Celani's success last year, combined with the failure of (many) others to replicate the Celani effect in constantan wire- tell us anything about Rossi's claim of Ni-62 activity? They seem completely unconnected, at first take. However, on closer analysis they may actually explain each other. One interpretation of this combination of factors is to suggest that YES - Celani may have found, by accident, that there is a treatment process for the copper-nickel wire which has the side-effect of isotope transport (and subsequent enrichment) to the surface of the wire. But Celani never realized that this was the precise reason why some wires worked and some did not, and now - the most effective treatment process has been lost. (because he did not connect cause-and-effect soon enough?). Even without isotope separation, if - during some type of heat-treatment and oxidation - the active nickel isotope migrates to the surface layer of a wire, the statistical probability of contact with hydrogen is increased by a large factor (possibly a hundred-fold) - there is no need for an expensive isotope to be purchased if this can be done with chemistry. Why did others not replicate Celani's early results, and why does Celani's own work recently seem to have stagnated? AHA! That could related to changes in the treatment process. Celani has stated before that he bought the wire pretreated and samples were seen that had a visible wire coating which was burnt off - but then perhaps the processing was changed. There were many version of his wire - yet he is apparently NO LONGER able to provide working wires - even for himself. BTW - Can anyone confirm that his work has stagnated ? For those that would say that chemical process cannot fractionate nickel isotopes, consider this piece of evidence: http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3171/ Apparently, this is fairly firm proof that bacteria can enrich nickel isotopes (there must be a survival benefit). Even if those are not the isotopes useful in the Rossi effect, the fact that chemistry can do this -in principle- has rather profound implications, no? Jones BTW - in testing of the ratio of Ni58 and Ni60, which are the most abundant isotopes, analysis of cultures of three archaea - Methanosarcina barkeri etc-- showed that all the bacteria fractionated nickel so that the isotope selected was lighter relative to the starting isotopic value of the growth medium. The further implication of this datum is that the bacteria are selecting against excess energy possibilities (if Rossi is correct). That goes against common sense. except when you realize that this period of Earth was one of very high ambient heat conditions, and the one thing these organisms wanted to avoid most was excess heat :) This assumes that if they had not selected the lighter isotopes then the excess heat would be unavoidable, meaning that simple exposure of protons to heavy nickel is all that is needed- and survivability is enhanced by isotopic selectivity. Rather perverse logic, no?
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Q's
Alan, The Rossi tubules are on the 1u scale but are bumpy with protrusions that must form much smaller geometry between the grains as the bulk powder is contained..My posit for Rossi is that his NAE geometry is between these grains and protrusions. It is a reverse of a skeletal catalyst where Al is leached of the Ni-Al alloy leaving pits in the bulk. Fran On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: I've been too busy with analysing the latest Rossi test to follow this. I've got the following official links to Storms' NAE 2012 Paper : http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEanapproach.pdf Feb 2013 Kick-off post : http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77023.html I have a strong forgettery feeling that I'm missing one. Yes Alan, you are missing several papers, but this is a good start. What's the present state of the temperature-dependent aspects: 1. At what temperature does it start ? (Lower limit: when the metal hydride source activates, typically 200C) According to my theory, the rate is totally controlled by how fast the hydrogen can get to the NAE. This rate is determined by temperature and concentration of hydrogen in the surrounding metal. If the heat detector is sufficiently sensitive, the effect could be detected at room temperature. 2. Is there a temperature at which it stops? (Upper limit, Ni melting point) The upper limit is unknown, but the NAE is certainly destroyed at the melting point. \ 3. Is it linear in-between? Rate=A*C*exp (B/T), where A is proportional to the concentration of NAE , C is the concentration of hydrogen isotope in the metal, and B is related to the matertial in which the NAE forms. T is the average temperature of the material in which the NAE forms. 4 What's the estimated SIZE for a NAE (eg assuming a crack) --- Sure LOOKS like cracks! The size is unknown but less than a nm. http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/passi_nato_huber_P1070423.png (My new policy -- when I steal/ borrow a picture I annotate where I got it) Except that the cracks look about 1um wide (If I read '5000x 1u' correctly) .. and Rossi's powder is in the 1u range : a 1u crack won't fit!!?? Also, I don't see any more detail IN the SKINR cracks. A crack that is visible on an SEM is too big to be active. However, where large cracks are present, small cracks are surely present also. And the reaction (let's use p+p+e = D + 1.4MEV for discussion purposes) 5. Is one NAE destroyed by the reaction, never to fire again? Or is it poisoned and recovers? I believe the NAE (nano gap), once it forms, is very stable and is the host of many Hydrotons, with each forming, fusing, and reforming. eg a chain of H-H-H-H will resonate and is active at T1, but H- D-H won't resonate, so the NAE is poisoned. The -H-e-D-e- etc makes tritium. The NAE is not poisoned, but simply creates a different nuclear product. That is why I want Rossi to look for tritium. He makes D that than fuses with H to make tritium. D diffuses away, two H diffuse in : then it's ready again? 6. If so, what is the typical time between firing? (ns,us,ms,sec,minutes?) I would guess that once a Hydroton forms and starts to resonate, the fusion process in that one Hydroton is finished in a few ns. However, thousands of Hydrotons are going through their life cycle at the same time. Ed Storms
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Q's
In reply to Alan Fletcher's message of Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:30:02 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] 7. Where is the thermalization? I think it's on the inner steel cylinder, not in the Nickel If that's so, then (based on my thermal model) the December COP=6 had an outside temperature of 500C and a central temperature of 750C You left out a possibility:- The gas. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:ideas for materials screening and LENR
For a simple electrochem sort see:http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDfactorsaff.pdf you can tell a lot by looking at the bubble patterns. (fine good, coarse bad). Mike M and Fran T. were able to test loading with a wire system moving a R tester along the wire to locate loaded areas. For co-deposit you can make a cell farm with multiple cells in the same water bath and compare temps and get relative numbers. That is how I did http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDpracticalta.pdf see slide 11 You can also plate Au onto thermistors and then co-dep and compare temps. it works well but the cost of thermistors limits the use for the self funded. Another farm system - is to run the cells in series (I1=I2) and put zeners in a tube and across the cell (to the keep the V's about equal- zeners you will need to think about that one- the electrodes dump some heat and the zeners dump the rest). I am still struggling in searches for powder based systems. Their R is all over the map. (packing, oxidation levels, surface area.) However, one way I have been experimenting with is to pack a tube with several powders (various loading, additives.) then passing pulsed current through the stack. I measure the temp of the outside of the tube. Using a Al2O3 ceramic tube. But it relies on the R through the various powders to be nearly the same. It is only good for large variations. I use a dilute stack with most of the stack unloaded C and then adding only a little of the (hopefully) various active materials along the tube. I doubt that this would be good for a spark like system, but I am doing a straight excitation of powder via currents. Good luck. D2 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:35:42 -0500 From: jcol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:ideas for materials screening and LENR Hi All, I've been considering ideas for running LENR experiments in parallel. I know PF and others have done some experiments like this in the past with running multiple electrolytic cells simultaneously, so this is certainly an option. I'm wondering if there are any other thoughts on parallel experimental methods to screen materials. If we know that the effect appears maybe 1/20 to 1/7 times can a pre-screening process be performed in a relatively rapid manner to narrow down the material that works the best. One idea I had was to take a quartz tube (e.g., Celani/MFMP original cell design) with a heating element and loaded with hydrogen. In the bottom of the tube, have several types of materials (e.g., different nickel powder mixtures/sizes etc..) discretely separated and monitored with an IR camera similar to the setup for the E-cat test. The image could be monitored to determine which samples give off the most heat. Since the reproducibility problem is in part a materials problem, then it makes sense to me to develop a screening method to more quickly find samples that work and discard those that don't. A process using a method to simultaneously screen many samples would seem to be the most efficient way to empirically screen materials. NASA's chip array design would have some promise in this area, but would seem less practical, more expensive, and limited compared to other possibilities (e.g., IR camera). Any thoughts on this matter or other ideas on efficient materials screening processes? Best regards,Jack
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Q's
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 1:37:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Thanks. (Not necessarily the answer I was hoping for !!!)
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Q's
What answer were you hoping for? Ed Storms On Jun 6, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 1:37:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Thanks. (Not necessarily the answer I was hoping for !!!)
Re: [Vo]:AC/DC, power, etc.
Nice analysis erke, I agree... Rectifier change nothing (DC current if AC voltage produce no power). HF will kill many devices,can be detected, can cause subharmonic, be blocked by wires and cause heat. DC voltage is the only option, assuming no device use a switching power supply... it will kill a switching power supply without transformer. And it is easy to detect, thus the most stupid option... 2013/6/6 Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com Dave we're basically agreeing on everything and I'm confident that the experimenters properly checked for DC, however I know how the skeptical minds work and unless they put it clearly in writing (e.g. in the report) there will be some small lingering doubt. To summarize: 1) Diode rectification tricks - provided the mains source is AC, this will be caught by the power meter. A sine wave has no net integral over time. 2) HF power injection - not possible, at the power levels required it would bleed everywhere and cause equipment malfunction or damage. 3) DC injection - foolish and dangerous, but seems to be the only possible way, with a big IF. (3) would still be foolish because the experimenters can very easily check for DC at any time, and they did (but it's not in the report, unfortunately). A 10-year old can check for DC. But it wasn't continuously checked, so cudeologists could say that they switched DC off while they had a multimeter hooked. My point is then that even (3) IS IMPOSSIBLE IF the power meter can sense DC voltages. That holds true even if the experimenters hadn't checked for DC, because it would require very high currents. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Q's
From: mix...@bigpond.com Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 2:20:29 PM You left out a possibility:- The gas. I suspect it's pretty thin, relatively speaking , both as a target for futon absorption (a technical term, laymen don't have to use it [note 1]) and heat capacity (specific heat * mass). I think it's NAE-to-steel by futon, and then steel-to-nickel by radiation. I'm not sure that NAE-to-H by futon, and H-to-Ni by conduction would be much different. It's a constant-temperature thermal bath either way. A peek into the tube of the Penon version is equivalent to looking into the central cavity, which is in thermal equilibrium. I think that NAE-futon-Ni will make the Ni to hot. It may happen accidentally (OCCASIONAL craters seen on SEM's) but it's not the norm. ps I misread my own plot -- a 500C output has a 510C center --- except that I think that my thermal resistivity for ceramic is WAY too low -- The Penon picture shows the center red hot and the outside black. (Could be an emissivity difference too). [note 1] : From an ABC weatherperson. It's my current favorite phrase.
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Q's
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com What answer were you hoping for? Ten minutes =8-(
Re: [Vo]:ideas for materials screening and LENR
Thanks Dennis, I will read those papers and consider your ideas and methods. Looks like some good ideas there. I have an electrochem method that is kind of expensive on the supply and control side (multiple programmable power supplies controlled by a computer - each delivering power to a single cell and constantly adjusted input power to deliver the same power levels to each cell regardless of resistance). I'm also not just interested for my own experimentation, but feel that this is a significant area of concern that may affect the general reproducibility of the effect. In your experience, when you screen out materials that show an effect, can you reproduce the effect more often with those materials? Along similar lines, has anyone tried a large quantity of micro or nano particle nickel (e.g., 10kg in a large chamber). I realize that would probably be dangerous (and wouldn't want to try it myself), but one would think with that much material that somewhere within that massive surface area would be the right conditions. Best regards, Jack On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:25 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: For a simple electrochem sort see: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDfactorsaff.pdf you can tell a lot by looking at the bubble patterns. (fine good, coarse bad). Mike M and Fran T. were able to test loading with a wire system moving a R tester along the wire to locate loaded areas. For co-deposit you can make a cell farm with multiple cells in the same water bath and compare temps and get relative numbers. That is how I did http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDpracticalta.pdf see slide 11 You can also plate Au onto thermistors and then co-dep and compare temps. it works well but the cost of thermistors limits the use for the self funded. Another farm system - is to run the cells in series (I1=I2) and put zeners in a tube and across the cell (to the keep the V's about equal- zeners you will need to think about that one- the electrodes dump some heat and the zeners dump the rest). I am still struggling in searches for powder based systems. Their R is all over the map. (packing, oxidation levels, surface area.) However, one way I have been experimenting with is to pack a tube with several powders (various loading, additives.) then passing pulsed current through the stack. I measure the temp of the outside of the tube. Using a Al2O3 ceramic tube. But it relies on the R through the various powders to be nearly the same. It is only good for large variations. I use a dilute stack with most of the stack unloaded C and then adding only a little of the (hopefully) various active materials along the tube. I doubt that this would be good for a spark like system, but I am doing a straight excitation of powder via currents. Good luck. D2 -- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:35:42 -0500 From: jcol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:ideas for materials screening and LENR Hi All, I've been considering ideas for running LENR experiments in parallel. I know PF and others have done some experiments like this in the past with running multiple electrolytic cells simultaneously, so this is certainly an option. I'm wondering if there are any other thoughts on parallel experimental methods to screen materials. If we know that the effect appears maybe 1/20 to 1/7 times can a pre-screening process be performed in a relatively rapid manner to narrow down the material that works the best. One idea I had was to take a quartz tube (e.g., Celani/MFMP original cell design) with a heating element and loaded with hydrogen. In the bottom of the tube, have several types of materials (e.g., different nickel powder mixtures/sizes etc..) discretely separated and monitored with an IR camera similar to the setup for the E-cat test. The image could be monitored to determine which samples give off the most heat. Since the reproducibility problem is in part a materials problem, then it makes sense to me to develop a screening method to more quickly find samples that work and discard those that don't. A process using a method to simultaneously screen many samples would seem to be the most efficient way to empirically screen materials. NASA's chip array design would have some promise in this area, but would seem less practical, more expensive, and limited compared to other possibilities (e.g., IR camera). Any thoughts on this matter or other ideas on efficient materials screening processes? Best regards, Jack
RE: [Vo]:Celani, Rossi Ni62
Fran, The Celani wire treatment is not the same as what happens with Raney nickel, after aluminum is leached out. The oxidation step of Celani migrates or draws copper to the surface of the wire as an oxide - and hydrogen reduction then adds porosity, and those pores are mainly in the copper. Are there pores in the nickel which is left behind? Doubt it. As for enrichment . since we do see copper migration - we could ask this: does copper take along a nickel isotope preferentially when it migrates? Copper is mostly the isotope 63Cu which has the identical number of neutrons as Rossi's active nickel - 62Ni. Does that kind of shared neutron identity mean that copper migration would correlate with isotope enrichment somehow? Hmmm... It is a stretch but perhaps there is some latent property of neutrons in a spatial array in a nucleus which encourages this. Maybe the is something like a quantum entanglement of neutrons :-) It is a bit surprising that Celani's treatment works (when it does work) - except for a Casimir - DCE contribution. Were it more reliable, it would be good evidence for your theory of cavity QED effects, as opposed to nuclear effects, but there could be a bit of both. The Celani effect which looked so promising months ago - is now a huge disappointment. From: Roarty, Francis X Jones, On enrichment vs geometry do you think it is both that are needed for robust operation? Can Ni Cu wire be leached out like Ni Al to form a skeletal catalyst on the wire surface? Celani must be querying his vendor for clues into what changed.. Fran
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Q's
I assume you hit send before you were finished. Otherwise, this makes no sense. Ed Storms On Jun 6, 2013, at 3:44 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com What answer were you hoping for? Ten minutes =8-(
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
On Jun 6, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Jun 4, 2013, at 11:11 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Jun 2, 2013, at 12:15 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is pull away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down the line. Each ball will alternately move away and then toward its neighbor. If outside energy is supplied, this resonance will continue. If not, it will damp out. At this stage, this is a purely mechanical action that is well understood. In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused along the length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well understood behavior. The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a critical distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This distance is less than is possible in any other material because of the high concentration of negative charge that can exist in this structure and environment. The barrier is not eliminated. It is only reduced enough to allow the distance to become small enough so that the two nuclei can see and respond. The response is to emit a photon from each nuclei because this process lowers the energy of the system. Ed, With each cycle energy of the system is only lowered if the energy of the emitted photon is greater than the work done by the random vibration of atoms on the system. NO Harry! Ed, I am trying to help you understand your model. I am not trying to tear it down. I know and I appreciate the effort. However, I want you to accurately understand what I'm proposing. Only then can you add a new insight. You are not accurately describing what I proposing. There is no work done by the random vibrations. These are the result of normal temperature. The photon is emitted from the nucleus and carries with it the excess mass-energy of the nucleus. Let us return to your ball and spring model of the hydroton and assume an ideal spring which doesn't dissipate energy by getting warm during compressions. If heat energy is the vibration of atoms in the lattice, then the spring is compressed by atoms from the lattice pushing on the spring. As the spring is compressed work is done on the spring, however, the spring will eventually bounce back to its original length so no net work is done on the spring in the course of one oscillation. The oscillations will repeat indefinitely with the same amplitude as long as the temperature remains constant. However, in your model the spring does not return to its original length. Now for sake argument assume no photon is emitted. This means some work has been performed on the spring, which means the spring has effectively turned a little thermal energy into potential energy and thereby slightly cooled the lattice. Now assume a photon is emitted. The subsequent temperature of the lattice will depend on the energy of this emitted photon. If the energy of the photon is less than the work done (W) then the temperature of the lattice will not return to the initial the temperature. The cycle can repeat until the protons fuse but the temperature will gradually decline and the end result can aptly be described as cold fusion! On the other hand if the energy of the photon is greater than W then the temperature of the lattice will be greater after fusion. No analogy is perfect and you are extending my effort to get one idea understood and applying it to a different idea, which is not correct. The vibration is like a periodic switch acting on the nucleus. The vibration itself does not release energy. It has no friction. Energy is totally conserved during the vibration. However, the vibration causes the nuclei to emit a proton because the vibration periodically causes them to get within a critical distance of each other. Getting closer _and_ staying closer means work has been done on the system since there is a mutual force of repulsion keeping them apart. The kinetic energy of the lattice is transformed into potential energy of repulsion according to the principle of CoE. Whether the temperature of the environment cools, stays constant or warms depends on whether the energy of the emitted photon is less than / equal to / greater than the work done. Your model at the present time is silent on these possibilities. Harry, you don't seem to understand the concept of work. Consider that atoms in a lattice are held together
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Harry, you don't seem to understand the concept of work. Consider that atoms in a lattice are held together by a force. They vibrate and this vibration contains energy as the heat capacity. Is a piece of salt doing work as it sits in the salt shaker? No, the material is doing no work even though a force is present and atoms are vibrating. Steady-state conditions, of which this is an example, do not involve work. Work is based on a net change in position as result of applied force. The salt sits still. It does not move. There is no net change in position of the atoms. If they move in one direction, they immediately move just as much in the opposite direction. If you want to imagine work being done during the first motion, it is immediately undone by the second motion. No net change has resulted. The system is fixed in space and it is not doing work. Ok, I realise why we diverge in our approaches to your model. I don't start with the assumption that the lattice is in a state of thermal equilibrium. I assume the presence of thermal fluxes and perhaps other energy fluxes as well which can do small amounts of work on the hydrotons. If these local fluxes are sporadic excess heat production will be sporadic as well. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
Is there some way to be a part of this that does not involve dozens of email messages per waking day to my account? Is there not some way to make an online forum? --- I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin --- On Thu, 6/6/13, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Date: Thursday, June 6, 2013, 7:22 PM On Jun 6, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Jun 4, 2013, at 11:11 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Jun 2, 2013, at 12:15 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On May 30, 2013, at 11:39 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Harry, imagine balls held in line by springs. If the end ball is pull away with a force and let go, a resonance wave will pass down the line. Each ball will alternately move away and then toward its neighbor. If outside energy is supplied, this resonance will continue. If not, it will damp out. At this stage, this is a purely mechanical action that is well understood. In the case of the Hydroton, the outside energy is temperature. The temperature creates random vibration of atoms, which is focused along the length of the molecule. Again, this is normal and well understood behavior. The strange behavior starts once the nuclei can get within a critical distance of each other as a result of the resonance. This distance is less than is possible in any other material because of the high concentration of negative charge that can exist in this structure and environment. The barrier is not eliminated. It is only reduced enough to allow the distance to become small enough so that the two nuclei can see and respond. The response is to emit a photon from each nuclei because this process lowers the energy of the system. Ed, With each cycle energy of the system is only lowered if the energy of the emitted photon is greater than the work done by the random vibration of atoms on the system. NO Harry! Ed, I am trying to help you understand your model. I am not trying to tear it down. I know and I appreciate the effort. However, I want you to accurately understand what I'm proposing. Only then can you add a new insight. You are not accurately describing what I proposing. There is no work done by the random vibrations. These are the result of normal temperature. The photon is emitted from the nucleus and carries with it the excess mass-energy of the nucleus. Let us return to your ball and spring model of the hydroton and assume an ideal spring which doesn't dissipate energy by getting warm during compressions. If heat energy is the vibration of atoms in the lattice, then the spring is compressed by atoms from the lattice pushing on the spring. As the spring is compressed work is done on the spring, however, the spring will eventually bounce back to its original length so no net work is done on the spring in the course of one oscillation. The oscillations will repeat indefinitely with the same amplitude as long as the temperature remains constant. However, in your model the spring does not return to its original length. Now for sake argument assume no photon is emitted. This means some work has been performed on the spring, which means the spring has effectively turned a little thermal energy into potential energy and thereby slightly cooled the lattice. Now assume a photon is emitted. The subsequent temperature of the lattice will depend on the energy of this emitted photon. If the energy of the photon is less than the work done (W) then the temperature of the lattice will not return to the initial the temperature. The cycle can repeat until the protons fuse but the temperature will gradually decline and the end result can aptly be described as cold fusion! On the other hand if the energy of the photon is greater than W then the temperature of the lattice will be greater after fusion. No analogy is perfect and you are extending my effort to get one idea understood and applying it to a different idea, which is not correct. The vibration is like a periodic switch acting on the nucleus. The vibration itself does not release energy. It has no friction. Energy is totally conserved during the vibration. However, the vibration causes the nuclei to emit a proton because the vibration periodically causes them to get within a critical distance of each other. Getting closer _and_ staying closer means work has been done on the system since there is a mutual force of repulsion keeping them apart. The kinetic energy of the lattice is
[Vo]:Superabsorbers
A new arxiv paper, possibly related to missing LENR em-emissions - Superabsorption of light via quantum engineering ABSTRACT: Almost 60 years ago Dicke introduced the term superradiance to describe a signature quantum effect: N atoms can collectively emit light at a rate proportional to N^2. Even for moderate N this represents a significant increase over the prediction of classical physics, and the effect has found applications ranging from probing exciton delocalisation in biological systems, to developing a new class of laser, and even in astrophysics. Structures that super-radiate must also have enhanced absorption, but the former always dominates in natural systems. Here we show that modern quantum control techniques can overcome this restriction. Our theory establishes that superabsorption can be achieved and sustained in certain simple nanostructures, by trapping the system in a highly excited state while extracting energy into a non-radiative channel. The effect offers the prospect of a new class of quantum nanotechnology, capable of absorbing light many times faster than is currently possible; potential applications of this effect include light harvesting and photon detection. An array of quantum dots or a porphyrin ring could provide an implementation to demonstrate this effect. http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1483 Perhaps also of interest - SUPER-ABSORPTION ABSTRACT: The concept of Super-Absorption has been proposed based on the correlation between deuterium flux and excess heat, and based on the selective resonant tunneling model. The experimental evidence for this correlation is shown in the D/Pd system with a Calvet high precision calorimeter. A theoretical model is set-up to show how the resonant tunneling effect will correlate the deuterium flux to the generation of excess heat. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LiXZsuperabsor.pdf http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LiXZsuperabsor.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Danny Ross Lunsford antimatte...@yahoo.comwrote: Is there some way to be a part of this that does not involve dozens of email messages per waking day to my account? Is there not some way to make an online forum? It would be very difficult to deal with Vortex emails going to one's inbox, given the volume of traffic here. In a Gmail account, it is possible to set up a filter that routes Vortex emails to a subfolder (label) and bypass the inbox entirely. There may be something comparable with Yahoo! mail. If Yahoo! does not give you a way to do this, you might set up a Gmail account specifically for mailing list traffic. Eric
[Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
*Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed*: a veteran finally gets optimistic following a technological breakthrough. Please see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
http://help.yahoo.com/tutorials/mmail/mmail/mm_filter1.html (although, as a new Google employee, I guess I really should be encouraging you to switch to gmail :-) On 6/6/2013 7:46 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Danny Ross Lunsford antimatte...@yahoo.com mailto:antimatte...@yahoo.com wrote: Is there some way to be a part of this that does not involve dozens of email messages per waking day to my account? Is there not some way to make an online forum? It would be very difficult to deal with Vortex emails going to one's inbox, given the volume of traffic here. In a Gmail account, it is possible to set up a filter that routes Vortex emails to a subfolder (label) and bypass the inbox entirely. There may be something comparable with Yahoo! mail. If Yahoo! does not give you a way to do this, you might set up a Gmail account specifically for mailing list traffic. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 8:14:45 PM Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed : a veteran finally gets optimistic following a technological breakthrough. Please see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html A great interview ... and excellent news about transplanted Defkalion! Particularly that they are inviting theorists to take a look.
RE: [Vo]:Superabsorbers
-Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com A new arxiv paper, possibly related to missing LENR em-emissions - Superabsorption of light via quantum engineering ABSTRACT: Almost 60 years ago Dicke introduced the term superradiance to describe a signature quantum effect: N atoms can collectively emit light at a rate proportional to N^2... Structures that super-radiate must also have enhanced absorption... Robert Dicke is one of the true heroes of Modern Science. He is not generally credited with inventing the laser but in 1956 Dicke filed a patent entitled Molecular Amplification Generation Systems and Methods with a claim for an infrared laser. Townes usually gets the credit, but his patent was not filed until 1958. B.V. Zhdanov has done extensive work on potassium lasers, so we know this is possible. There is a pretty good chance that the Rossi HotCat is a resonant IR device using potassium stimulated emission, which may involve superabsorption and superradiance. This could be a photon chain reaction of some type/ attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Superabsorbers
Perhaps, this early e-catworld report is relevant - Report From Visitor to Defkalion http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/03/report-from-visitor-to-defkalion/ Excerpt: ...I was told that they were trying to actually see what happens in their device with some glass with a melting point of 1500degc. They saw it light up like the sun and then it melted the glass. This just took a second or two. I was told what their working theory was, but they really dont know what is going on. They have brought in several academics with a myraid of explanations ... Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com A new arxiv paper, possibly related to missing LENR em-emissions - Superabsorption of light via quantum engineering ABSTRACT: Almost 60 years ago Dicke introduced the term superradiance to describe a signature quantum effect: N atoms can collectively emit light at a rate proportional to N^2... Structures that super-radiate must also have enhanced absorption... Robert Dicke is one of the true heroes of Modern Science. He is not generally credited with inventing the laser but in 1956 Dicke filed a patent entitled Molecular Amplification Generation Systems and Methods with a claim for an infrared laser. Townes usually gets the credit, but his patent was not filed until 1958. B.V. Zhdanov has done extensive work on potassium lasers, so we know this is possible. There is a pretty good chance that the Rossi HotCat is a resonant IR device using potassium stimulated emission, which may involve superabsorption and superradiance. This could be a photon chain reaction of some type/
Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Jun 6, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Harry, you don't seem to understand the concept of work. Consider that atoms in a lattice are held together by a force. They vibrate and this vibration contains energy as the heat capacity. Is a piece of salt doing work as it sits in the salt shaker? No, the material is doing no work even though a force is present and atoms are vibrating. Steady-state conditions, of which this is an example, do not involve work. Work is based on a net change in position as result of applied force. The salt sits still. It does not move. There is no net change in position of the atoms. If they move in one direction, they immediately move just as much in the opposite direction. If you want to imagine work being done during the first motion, it is immediately undone by the second motion. No net change has resulted. The system is fixed in space and it is not doing work. I agree this the case when the average separation distance between the protons is steady. Consequently, the NiH or PdD are doing no work by simply existing. On the other hand, if the NAE forms, then energy can be released from the nucleus as an emitted photon. This energy was trapped before the photon was released. Once photons are released, they are gradually absorbed by the surrounding material as they pass through, thereby causing local heating. This heating can be made to do work. No work was done before this heating occurred. Hypothetically speaking, do you agree that if the protons were to gradually get closer without photon emission that the lattice would tend to cool ? Protons can not get closer for no reason. You have to ask what is causing the reduction in distance. The distance can be reduced by applying pressure, which causes the temperature to increase because work is being done on the system. The distance can be reduced by cooling, but in this case, the cooling is a cause rather than a result. A phase change can be caused, which will release energy. Events only occur spontaneously in a system because energy is released. Any event that would actually happen to bring the protons closer MUST release energy. Otherwise, it will not happen. Ed, Logically speaking, if spontaneous emission is a sufficient cause and work is not a necessary cause, then the hydroton could be chilled to absolute zero and gradually shrink by spontaneously emitting photons. On the other hand if spontaneous emission is essential but not sufficient then some work is necessary. Spontaneous emission in this regard would serve to maintain the distance reduced through work. It would be like climbing an icy slope without the need to expend energy to maintain traction. If the latter is true then hot fusion and cold fusion do not differ in absolute terms. It is not that cold fusion depends on spontaneity and hot fusion doesn't. In the case of hot fusion, although a great deal of work is performed, work is not a sufficient cause since one big spontaneous emission is required to achieve fusion. The difference between hot and cold fusion is in the mix of time, work and spontaneity. Harry Harry
RE: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change
Good news from Dr. Kim, and about DGT, however, what I find even more interesting are the number of pageviews: 138,263. Peter, is this number a total for your entire site, or just that page? Because if it was just the page, then you had 138K views in one day! That is hard to believe. but if so, that means the world is waking up to LENR and is showing a lot of interest. -Mark Iverson From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 8:15 PM To: akira shirakawa; Arik El Boher; Brian Ahern; CMNS; Dagmar Kuhn; doug marker; Dr. Braun Tibor; eCatNews; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian; Gary; Haiko Lietz; jeff aries; Lewan Mats; Nicolaie N. Vlad; Peter Mobberley; Pierre Clauzon; Roberto Germano; Roy Virgilio; Steven Krivit; Sunwon Park; Tsirlin, Mark; vlad; VORTEX Subject: [Vo]:A 1989er CF scientist committed to paradigm change Prof. Yeong Kim interviewed: a veteran finally gets optimistic following a technological breakthrough. Please see: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
