Re: [Vo]:Hot Spot Fusion
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:43:21 -0400: Hi, [snip] What causes the defeat of coulomb barrier? Mixent - kinetic energy of nuclear collision. Axil EMF- namely charge concentration and anapole magnetism. The defeat of the coulomb barrier cant be kinetic energy because from the experience gained with the kinetic collisions of nuclei we know that the resultant nucleus would be left excited by the kinetic energy of that nuclear collision and affect the combined nucleus by exciting it leaving a radioactive isotope as an end product. Internal rearrangement of the combined nuclei by EMF does not carry excess energy of collision into the reaction therefore no radioactive isotope is produced Kinetic energy only contributes to the overall energy of the reaction. What comes out is not necessarily related to the fact that kinetic energy played a role. E.g. conventional fission in U235 is best triggered by a slow moving neutron with as little kinetic energy as possible, since low kinetic energy enhances the cross section. Despite the lack of initial kinetic energy, the result is usually a plethora of radioactive nuclei. The primary reason for this is simply that relative to its lighter daughter nuclei, U235 has an excess of neutrons. That means that the daughter nuclei are neutron rich, and hence radioactive. When light nuclei combine at high speed, the resultant momentary heavy nucleus is neutron poor (compared to normal stable nuclei of the same combined weight), hence the immediate fission nuclei from the combined nucleus will not be neutron rich, and hence not likely to be radioactive. If it doesn't have to, nature actually prefers not to make radioactive nuclei. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Technova Poster at ICCF 18: excess 20 watts over a week
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This would be great news if proven accurate. And no news at all if it is inaccurate! I would rather see the 20 watts of excess heat being generated with an input of less than 20 watts to prove that the thing has a good beginning COP before stability issues are handled. I think most researchers would agree with me that reproducibility and stability are the two critical issues. Once we nail them down the COP will probably take care of itself. As I have often mentioned here, with many cells there is no input power. The COP is infinite. There is no reason to think it cannot be engineered to any convenient level, even with Rossi's method of using heat to control the reaction. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
From: Peter Gluck Dear Jones How is connected GENIE with the Cincy Cell- in your opinion? The connection is that both use electrochemistry (and LENR techniques) to create nuclear reactions which secondarily transmute heavy metals. Here is an old IE article on the CGC http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/IE13-14CincinattiGroup.pdf But the dissimilarity outweighs the similarity, and there is no claim of excess heat in the CGC, whereas the GEC is based upon the prospect of having large excess heat, apparently as a replacement for a fission reactor - what Khim is calling Generation 5. However, the GEC reactor goes well beyond the Boss, Forsley et al patent -- which is simply a System and method for generating particles and that is where the injustice of selective USPTO patent-granting may lie. Not to mention the cleverness of Dr Khim. How did they get coverage for LENR techniques in this application - when all the many others in prior art did not? Does this relate to having the USN as the co-assignee? Yup, there is no doubt about that detail. Our patent office has been a massive failure to the general public in this regard. Europe allows patents for LENR, and even has a separate classification for them - so why not the USA? This puts our small inventors at massive disadvantage. What a bunch of incompetent and spineless yes-men we have in USPTO - and one can only suspect that this goes back to political pressure from the physics establishment and their cronies in congress. BTW, both the CC and GEC produce transmutation in heavy metals which may look like fission, but the GEC is reputed to produce actual fast neutrons for fast fission and excess heat. That would b a huge difference, if true and very valuable indeed. I can find no data indicating that fast fusion has been proved, however - does anyone have a citation for this detail (actual proof of fast fission) ? Probably not ... especially since such data would most likely trigger the 37 C.F.R. 5.2 Secrecy Order. http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/program.html Fast fission is not easy to prove since U235 will fission with thermal or fast neutrons, and one would need to show that the reaction in question was not thermal, if they want it to be novel. Of course this would be ideal for the nuclear submarine, so we have to ask - why has this not been applied to small reactors which are used in submarines and does that relate to Khim's strategy of not patenting the reactor itself? Very clever, Dr. Khim. It is almost as if this disclosure was part of a two-part strategy to avoid Navy oversight (being potentially valuable to some of our enemies for such things as nuclear powered submarines) ... and since they did let it through (without a secrecy order) Khim may have succeeded twice with this strategy - but whose side is he on, really? Is this starting to sound vaguely like an old James Bond plot? Please don't say: No, Dr. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Technova Poster at ICCF 18: excess 20 watts over a week
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Can I just say how cool it is that someone can point to a blog post in Italian, and the non-Italian speakers can go read a decent automatic translation of it without skipping a beat, as though they were reading a post written in English? Well, the quality not that good, but it is remarkable that works at all. As you say this ability snuck up on us over time. Machine translation works well with Italian, Swedish and other European languages. It does not work well with Japanese or Chinese. That is what you would expect from linguistics. The difficulty or a foreign language is a function of how different it is from your native language. How far apart the roots are. We know that no language is inherently difficult because children master their own language by age 5. It is less well known that no language is inherently easy. They all include complexities, for reasons I do not think linguists understand. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The connection is that both use electrochemistry (and LENR techniques) to create nuclear reactions which secondarily transmute heavy metals. Here is an old IE article on the CGC http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/IE13-14CincinattiGroup.pdf As noted here, those people died of cancer at a fairly young age. I cannot judge, but I got the impression their techniques and measurements were crude. That is also what others said. McKubre told me they scared the hell out of him. He thought they were reducing radioactivity by spewing dangerous radioactive isotopes into the air around the device. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
From: Jed Rothwell As noted here, those people died of cancer at a fairly young age. I cannot judge, but I got the impression their techniques and measurements were crude. That is also what others said. McKubre told me they scared the hell out of him. He thought they were reducing radioactivity by spewing dangerous radioactive isotopes into the air around the device. . spewing may not be accurate, if you mean that a solid or a liquid is carelessly released. Their reactors were sealed and pressurized, so that if anything was released, a slow leak of a radioactive gas (radon, tritium or xenon) is the best candidate. But they rand these reactors for long periods so even a slow leak could be fatal. When one reduces radioactivity by increasing the decay rate of thorium, assuming it is possible to do so, then radon can be expected to increase rapidly. Radon is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas with a short half-life. Typically it causes lung cancer. This would be hastened if the victim was also a cigarette smoker. But these researchers were said to have died from leukemia according to Peter. However, there are a dozen suppression sites on the web that claim that Stan Gleeson of the Cincinnati Group seemed to be perfectly well when he suddenly died at age 48 of a stroke. These sites are going for the conspiracy angle. In any event, when one is afflicted with any kind of advanced cancer - the proximate cause of death is often stroke which itself was caused by the stress of having the cancer. These same websites want us to believe that the MIB were behind the Mallove murder too. Ridiculous. However, in the case of Gleeson, a fatal stroke at age 48 is not inconsistent with radon exposure for only a few years, especially if he was a life-long smoker. No conspiracy is apparent in this case either - but it is a sad way to prove the device works.
Re: [Vo]:U.S. Navy LENR patent
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: … “spewing” may not be accurate, if you mean that a solid or a liquid is carelessly released. Their reactors were sealed and pressurized, so that if anything was released, a slow leak of a radioactive gas (radon, tritium or xenon) is the best candidate. . . . I do not know. I never saw one and even if I did I cannot judge seals. But Mike was of the opinion the seals were inadequate, the devices were dangerous, and the reason the radioactivity was decreasing was because the radioactive material was escaping. He may have actually used the word spew -- no doubt hyperbole. You would have to ask him for details. I have seen a number of dangerous and poorly done experiments. Even when every precaution is taken, experiments can be dangerous. No one knows that better than McKubre. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Proton-21 and LeClair
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 4 Jul 2013 16:17:29 -0400: Hi Axil, [snip] This particle could well be a magnetic vortex current that is mobile well beyond its location of creation. Like a nano-sized ball lightning, this vortex current is attracted to a solid surface where it induces nuclear reactions as a result of its unique electromagnetic nature. You may also find the work of the late Arie De Geus interesting. see a.o. http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=WO2002031833wo=2002031833DISPLAY=DESC and this web site: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:AMDG_Scientific_Corp Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Hot Spot Fusion
The discussion was predicated on this reaction as follows: Si28 + O16 - Ca40 + He4 + 6.2 MeV Now you are changing the playing field to U236 fission. Let us continue to talk about the fusion of highly stable elements. On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 3:35 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:43:21 -0400: Hi, [snip] What causes the defeat of coulomb barrier? Mixent - kinetic energy of nuclear collision. Axil – EMF- namely charge concentration and anapole magnetism. The defeat of the coulomb barrier can’t be kinetic energy because from the experience gained with the kinetic collisions of nuclei we know that the resultant nucleus would be left excited by the kinetic energy of that nuclear collision and affect the combined nucleus by exciting it leaving a radioactive isotope as an end product. Internal rearrangement of the combined nuclei by EMF does not carry excess energy of collision into the reaction therefore no radioactive isotope is produced Kinetic energy only contributes to the overall energy of the reaction. What comes out is not necessarily related to the fact that kinetic energy played a role. E.g. conventional fission in U235 is best triggered by a slow moving neutron with as little kinetic energy as possible, since low kinetic energy enhances the cross section. Despite the lack of initial kinetic energy, the result is usually a plethora of radioactive nuclei. The primary reason for this is simply that relative to its lighter daughter nuclei, U235 has an excess of neutrons. That means that the daughter nuclei are neutron rich, and hence radioactive. When light nuclei combine at high speed, the resultant momentary heavy nucleus is neutron poor (compared to normal stable nuclei of the same combined weight), hence the immediate fission nuclei from the combined nucleus will not be neutron rich, and hence not likely to be radioactive. If it doesn't have to, nature actually prefers not to make radioactive nuclei. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
