[Vo]:Aetheric images - Please read if you didn't feel anything last time - Be brave, give it a try!
Hi, some of you may remember that I designed images that I claim effect the background energy of space (aether, dark matter/energy, higgs field, quantum foam) to the point of being felt by most people. Some people have felt the energy and inquired about why they can feel something hitting them (in public places with it out of sight and no introduction). Hence it is not just in the mind. How can it possibly work? Because light is a terrahertz electric and magnetic field, all EM effects the medium that it is manifested in making it a little bit more solid, that which is involved in light is not as free to move as that which is darker. Actually in quantum terms, the light could be said to be collapsing the quantum wave function where it passes, but allowing a greater degree of wave function elsewhere. Last time some people on the list felt it, some didn't and not enough were willing to answer to be terribly clear which group was in the majority, but probably feelers by a slim majority. Anyway I have improved the 'tech' enough that I would be very grateful if any who didn't feel anything, or were unsure last time would give it another shot. And if you haven't tried before, please try it. http://imageshack.com/a/img577/8635/7w1a.png (feel over the image and the line to the top right shoots energy out the side of your monitor) The sensation can differ from normal sensation, sometimes I will encounter this energy without expecting to, but it seems to require intent other times, it seems to depend on how this type of energy (chi?) is going in your body. You may feel warmth, cool, motion, tingle or buzz or some indescribable difference. It can be very obvious or very subtle, and change for the person in either direction. Feel free to answer in private if you prefer. Please answer either way. Thanks, John
Re: [Vo]:An Open Letter
Dear Lennart, Thank you, very nice! Good idea to imply Norse Gods you can see that Athena Zeusdottir is also in friendly terms with those gals and guys. BTW she likes Wagner operas much more than me- see my classic but unread opus about opera: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/03/explaining-opera-music-of-all-noises.html As I wrote the chances of success of the Open Letter are infinitisimal- any support is welcome. I have discovered the PC late, have followed the development of Web search by Google day by day from 1998 but in the glorious days of Windows Microsoft I still was working hard in the chemical industry. If you know somebody who knows somebody who know Bill Gates' cousin...In practice such things do not work well. Now the most serious part I like your website and the organization, I am reading leadership and have taught it to managers here at an US-Romanian universityof Eco Management. I would be very happy to collaborate with you on a friendly basis. If you have time please take a look to my blog's non-LENR writings as those labelled BASIC and PROBLEM SOLVING- possibly you will find something of interest and we will find a formula of working together- obviously if you wish. My problem solving rules are translated in Swedish- by Mats Lewan: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/02/first-translation-of-rules-in-swedish.htm l Selma Lagerlof's wonderful book has introduced me to the geography of your country and I had the privilege to visit it in 1980 (Stockholm and Sundsvall (Kema Nord) Peter On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.comwrote: Dear Peter, I like your letter. I am glad Athena has been consulting with you. The problem is that politics is involved. I have tried, for almost as long as you have done work in different areas, to move that hindrance out of the way. However, it seems as if when an organization (in a very generic meaning) grows larger than ten individuals that decease (politics) will take over common sense and then . . . I think that if your letter does not work I will call in Thor and Sleipner:). It might scare someone to action - let me know if you need support. Good Luck. BTW realism is built on dreams. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends, I think/hope Big Money is able to help both Deep Science and Savior Technology to achiev their aims and I have written: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/02/open-letter-to-bill-gates.html I am tired of being a realist all the time. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Aetheric images - Please read if you didn't feel anything last time - Be brave, give it a try!
Slight improvement: http://imageshack.com/a/img191/665/0o55.png On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:15 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, some of you may remember that I designed images that I claim effect the background energy of space (aether, dark matter/energy, higgs field, quantum foam) to the point of being felt by most people. Some people have felt the energy and inquired about why they can feel something hitting them (in public places with it out of sight and no introduction). Hence it is not just in the mind. How can it possibly work? Because light is a terrahertz electric and magnetic field, all EM effects the medium that it is manifested in making it a little bit more solid, that which is involved in light is not as free to move as that which is darker. Actually in quantum terms, the light could be said to be collapsing the quantum wave function where it passes, but allowing a greater degree of wave function elsewhere. Last time some people on the list felt it, some didn't and not enough were willing to answer to be terribly clear which group was in the majority, but probably feelers by a slim majority. Anyway I have improved the 'tech' enough that I would be very grateful if any who didn't feel anything, or were unsure last time would give it another shot. And if you haven't tried before, please try it. http://imageshack.com/a/img577/8635/7w1a.png (feel over the image and the line to the top right shoots energy out the side of your monitor) The sensation can differ from normal sensation, sometimes I will encounter this energy without expecting to, but it seems to require intent other times, it seems to depend on how this type of energy (chi?) is going in your body. You may feel warmth, cool, motion, tingle or buzz or some indescribable difference. It can be very obvious or very subtle, and change for the person in either direction. Feel free to answer in private if you prefer. Please answer either way. Thanks, John
Re: [Vo]:So close but so far away ... or was it?
just a side question. what are the exact link between SPAWAR researches and GEC and their GeNiE hybrid Fission/LENR incineration reactor. It seems some retired Spawar researchers are member. the link with some US invaded islands (Guamaround) is not clear... note that I don't see clearly the link between fission and LENR. if confirmed it is a safety problem. 2014-02-08 5:45 GMT+01:00 Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com: Jones-- Bob Cook here-- I doubt there was no connection. I would guess the work at SPAWAR became a black project. LENR clearly has potential for ship propulsion and other high energy density fuel needs in the Navy. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 1:24 PM Subject: [Vo]:So close but so far away ... or was it? http://www.google/patents/US4489049 In 1982 - several years before PF made the big splash, scientists working under US Navy contracts filed for what became US 4489049 for Solid state hydrogen pumping and storage material. Abstract: A solid-state hydrogen storage system. A layer of an amorphous binary metal alloy of a lanthanide and iron, nickel or cobalt is disposed on a suitable substrate and overcoated with palladium metal. Geeze, it would be a bit of a surprise, thirty+ years thereafter to learn that the nickel version of this hydrogen pump did not produce some small amount of anomalous heat. Of course, there would have been no reason to look for excess heat, at that time, but who knows how careful they were in the details? Funny that years later, on the cancellation of SPAWAR some doubts linger as to ultimate motivations and to what could be going on behind the scenes. Yet, on or about early November 2011, one Rear Admiral Patrick Brady, commander of SPAWAR, ordered researchers to terminate all LENR research. He may or may not have initiated the order, but one is left to wonders where Brady, or his superior, was located in 1982 and was he involved in continuing RD on the hydrogen storage system ? Anyway, his order came about a week after News broke about Rossi's October, 2011, demonstration of the E-Cat. Probably no connection just a coincidence... nothing to see here, please move on. Let's turn this over to the conspiracy theorists now so that it will be certain to be discredited as with the rest of LENR... Jones
Re: [Vo]:Aetheric images - Please read if you didn't feel anything last time - Be brave, give it a try!
BTW I looked at last time, many commented, but only 5 answered if they could feel it, 4 were positive and one negative. That's a pretty decent margin. So far better than I remembered. Mark Jordan was the one that didn't, though I encourage others to try. Mark, this one is for you: http://imageshack.com/a/img713/8647/megf.png Place your palm to the right side of your monitor in-line with the long string of methologies used in this one. Alternately feel the front of the screen. John On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 10:54 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Slight improvement: http://imageshack.com/a/img191/665/0o55.png On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:15 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, some of you may remember that I designed images that I claim effect the background energy of space (aether, dark matter/energy, higgs field, quantum foam) to the point of being felt by most people. Some people have felt the energy and inquired about why they can feel something hitting them (in public places with it out of sight and no introduction). Hence it is not just in the mind. How can it possibly work? Because light is a terrahertz electric and magnetic field, all EM effects the medium that it is manifested in making it a little bit more solid, that which is involved in light is not as free to move as that which is darker. Actually in quantum terms, the light could be said to be collapsing the quantum wave function where it passes, but allowing a greater degree of wave function elsewhere. Last time some people on the list felt it, some didn't and not enough were willing to answer to be terribly clear which group was in the majority, but probably feelers by a slim majority. Anyway I have improved the 'tech' enough that I would be very grateful if any who didn't feel anything, or were unsure last time would give it another shot. And if you haven't tried before, please try it. http://imageshack.com/a/img577/8635/7w1a.png (feel over the image and the line to the top right shoots energy out the side of your monitor) The sensation can differ from normal sensation, sometimes I will encounter this energy without expecting to, but it seems to require intent other times, it seems to depend on how this type of energy (chi?) is going in your body. You may feel warmth, cool, motion, tingle or buzz or some indescribable difference. It can be very obvious or very subtle, and change for the person in either direction. Feel free to answer in private if you prefer. Please answer either way. Thanks, John
RE: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
Perhaps the energy is coming from the rotational energy of the earth, i.e. Coriolis effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect ( which as I look at it, is a fudge factor needed to account for anomalies when you assume you're in an inertial frame of reference, but really aren't due to the rotation of the earth.). One could extract energy from the earth by raising a weight vertically, then letting it fall whilst letting it's east-west tendency generate force X distance. For example if the surface of the earth is moving at 1000 km/hour and you raise a weight such that the speed is now 1001 km/hour, as you let it fall you could extract 1 km/hour of kinetic energy from it. I think that'd be a pretty small effect, hence the huge machine to get anything useful. It would be interesting to see if it's orientation was north-south along its rotational axis. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:25 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, the person you want to convince is Terry Blanton. He is our resident expert in magnetic motors. He says he looked at some of them closely and found they did not work. Skeptical by experience. We tested spirals, pulsed, shielded . . . every configuration we could imagine and found them conservative. But, I'm still open if someone has a new idea. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
RE: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Perhaps the energy is coming from the rotational energy of the earth, i.e. Coriolis effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect Hoyt, Do we know the alignment of the structure which is housing the device? Your explanation only works as a longitudinal effect, correct? I like the explanation, because it does seem to require the large mass - and the device undoubtedly is asymmetrical in one vector. The crankshaft would need to be on the West facing wall. It would be amusing if this were true and builders did not realize it - so that the one in Brazil works, but the one in Illinois was not aligned correctly :-) According to Wiki the Eötvös effect would be the change in perceived gravitational force caused by the change in centrifugal acceleration resulting from eastbound or westbound velocity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Aetheric images - Please read if you didn't feel anything last time - Be brave, give it a try!
Nothing special to feel on the hand that cannot be attributed to the Dell LCD monitor. However, the image is provocative in the sense of appealing to an overunity mentality, as a metaphor. The part on the left reminds me of Hans Coler's circuitry in the Stromerzeuger. From: John Berry Hi, some of you may remember that I designed images that I claim effect the background energy of space (aether, dark matter/energy, higgs field, quantum foam) to the point of being felt by most people. Some people have felt the energy and inquired about why they can feel something hitting them (in public places with it out of sight and no introduction). Hence it is not just in the mind. How can it possibly work? Because light is a terrahertz electric and magnetic field, all EM effects the medium that it is manifested in making it a little bit more solid, that which is involved in light is not as free to move as that which is darker. Actually in quantum terms, the light could be said to be collapsing the quantum wave function where it passes, but allowing a greater degree of wave function elsewhere. Last time some people on the list felt it, some didn't and not enough were willing to answer to be terribly clear which group was in the majority, but probably feelers by a slim majority. Anyway I have improved the 'tech' enough that I would be very grateful if any who didn't feel anything, or were unsure last time would give it another shot. And if you haven't tried before, please try it. http://imageshack.com/a/img577/8635/7w1a.png (feel over the image and the line to the top right shoots energy out the side of your monitor) The sensation can differ from normal sensation, sometimes I will encounter this energy without expecting to, but it seems to require intent other times, it seems to depend on how this type of energy (chi?) is going in your body. You may feel warmth, cool, motion, tingle or buzz or some indescribable difference. It can be very obvious or very subtle, and change for the person in either direction. Feel free to answer in private if you prefer. Please answer either way. Thanks, John
RE: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
Pretty good explanation http://www.cleonis.nl/physics/phys256/eotvos.php Here is how close it cuts. At 60 degrees latitude, any object co-moving with the Earth has its weight reduced by about 0.08 percent, thanks to the Earth's rotation... snip... but you only can capture half of that on paper, less friction, so the difference for 10,000 kg weight due to this East-West asymmetry is about 4 kg in measured weight, or perhaps about 400 ppm. Very doubtful a gain of 400 ppm will cover the losses due to friction and windage. From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Perhaps the energy is coming from the rotational energy of the earth, i.e. Coriolis effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect Hoyt, Do we know the alignment of the structure which is housing the device? Your explanation only works as a longitudinal effect, correct? I like the explanation, because it does seem to require the large mass - and the device undoubtedly is asymmetrical in one vector. The crankshaft would need to be on the West facing wall. It would be amusing if this were true and builders did not realize it - so that the one in Brazil works, but the one in Illinois was not aligned correctly :-) According to Wiki the Eötvös effect would be the change in perceived gravitational force caused by the change in centrifugal acceleration resulting from eastbound or westbound velocity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Bob, we are presented with a complex puzzle. A solution requires testing possibilities against what is observed. A solution is made difficult if mechanisms are proposed that can not be tasted. For example, spin coupling can not be tested against what is known and, in addition, it is not found to involve the magnitude of energy involved. The human mind can imagine an infinite number of possibilities. Some way must be used to limit these possibilities. I do this my making as few assumptions as possible and then limit these to the most basic possibilities. If this approach fits the data, then we have the answer. If the data are not fit, then additional assumptions are added only where absolutely necessary as exceptions. To start, you need to stop thinking of the LENR process as being caused by ordinary nuclear reactions. For example cross-section data have no application. This data is based on use of high energy particles for which a reaction rate is determined as this energy is changed. This process does not happen during LENR. If this process were operating, LENR could not happen. In fact, rejection of the claim results because this kind of thinking is used. We are dealing with a new kind of nuclear reaction. The challenge is to discover the rules that apply to this reaction, not keep using rules that apply to conventional reactions. The rules of conventional reactions make LENR impossible. The data show that Pd and Ni split into smaller parts. This data results from hundreds of studies and is not in doubt. This fact is the starting point for a search for an explanation. The first assumption results from the need to have something cause this result. That event is assumed to be addition of either one or more d or p to the nucleus by some unknown process, followed by fragmentation. Such a process requires the number of p and n in the initial nucleus to equal the total number in the fragments. As a result, if 2d entered the Ni, the fragments would have to contain a total of 30 p. This limits the element combinations that can result. Such calculations can be called nuclear chemistry because the same rule applies to chemical reactions. In the case of nuclear reactions, unlike chemistry, the number of neutrons also has to remain unchanged. Each isotope of an element has a different number of neutrons. Therefore, different isotope combinations are possible. At this point, we need one more assumption. This assumption says the isotope combination must always be non-radioactive, because that is what is observed most of the time. When this assumption is applied, the combinations are further limited, with some isotopes of Ni having many element combinations and some having only a few possibilities. The periodic table can be searched to discover which elements between He and Ni satisfy these two conditions. I have done this and obtained a distribution. This distribution matches what is observed. Therefore, the two assumptions appear to be correct. Once this information is obtained, the energy from each reaction can be calculated along with the frequency of each reaction, with no other assumptions being required. So you ask how the d or p got into the Ni nucleus. This is a separate question requiring different assumptions. First, energy must be available and it must be applied at the time and place where the nuclear event occurs. In addition, this energy must have a form that does not interact with the surrounding chemical structure. This requirement is unique to LENR, unlike what can happen in plasma. I propose a structure forms I call a Hydroton in which the fusion process takes place. This reaction, and only this reaction, has enough energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier for Ni or Pd. This fact further limits what can be proposed to happen. Of course, a person can imagine all kinds of novel quantum process that might operate, but these can not be tested and they all conflict with basic natural laws, which I will not explain here. I can test the consequence of the fusion reaction using the method applied above. I can add one or more d to the Ni or I can add one or more p. It turns out adding 2 d fit the observations. The question is, what kind of fusion reaction can generate two d? This can only happen as a result of a p-e-p reaction. Having 2d enter means the Ni had to be attracted to two Hydrotons, each of which produced and added 1d. Here we have used a few basic assumptions to explain transmutation and to describe the fusion reaction by showing how they are connected. No additional assumptions are required and no novel or untestable processes have to be suggested. This is how, I suggest, LENR be explored. If this approach is used, LENR can be explained and all the previously unexplained behavior makes sense. That is what I'm attempting to do in the book.
RE: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
But it's not the reduction in weight I'm referring to, it's the velocity increase of the mass as it rises ( rω ) which absorbs energy from the earth. Hoyt _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine Pretty good explanation http://www.cleonis.nl/physics/phys256/eotvos.php Here is how close it cuts. At 60 degrees latitude, any object co-moving with the Earth has its weight reduced by about 0.08 percent, thanks to the Earth's rotation… snip… but you only can capture half of that on paper, less friction, so the difference for 10,000 kg weight due to this East-West asymmetry is about 4 kg in measured weight, or perhaps about 400 ppm. Very doubtful a gain of 400 ppm will cover the losses due to friction and windage. From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. Perhaps the energy is coming from the rotational energy of the earth, i.e. Coriolis effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect Hoyt, Do we know the alignment of the structure which is housing the device? Your explanation only works as a longitudinal effect, correct? I like the explanation, because it does seem to require the large mass - and the device undoubtedly is asymmetrical in one vector. The crankshaft would need to be on the West facing wall. It would be amusing if this were true and builders did not realize it – so that the one in Brazil works, but the one in Illinois was not aligned correctly :-) According to Wiki the Eötvös effect would be the change in perceived gravitational force caused by the change in centrifugal acceleration resulting from eastbound or westbound velocity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
Jed Rothwell http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Jed+Rothwell%22 Fri, 07 Feb 2014 19:00:37 -0800 http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20140207 a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Let it run for a long time on a glass table. There is always some claim. It has a battery hidden in it etc. It is easy to eliminate that objection. Weigh the entire device and compute how much energy it could hold if the entire device is a battery. I am not sympathetic to inventors who will not make such an obvious demonstration and evaluation because they say there will be objections like this. It is easy to overrule such objections. The ultimate claim is that the observers are all paid and in on the fraud. For example, I have read that the Elforsk test of the Hot Cat can't be believed because (a) Levi is a biased friend (b) power was surreptitiously run to the device. (c) the heat measurements were in error. (d) the report was not peer reviewed. The fact remains, the Elforsk test should have been enough to persuade other scientists that LENR was real but it hasn't. DOE still have not changed their policy. No government organization is talking about LENR being the solution but just about funding ITER, solar power and wind turbines. I haven't seen one article in the mainstream press that states categorically LENR is proven. I tend to believe Rossi's comment that it will only be accepted after commercial units are out in the market place. There is no scientific explanation for the RAR device. Apart from being a spectacular machine that looks worthy of being in a museum, the only reason to believe it works is the thought that no one would build a second machine if it didn't. We will just have to wait and see.
[Vo]:New German LENR Company
E-Cat World website finds a new LENR company in Germany, PURRATIO AG - http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/02/german-article-on-cold-fusion-introduces-new-lenr-company-purratio-ag/ The Purratio homepage is: http://www.purratio.ag/
RE: [Vo]:New German LENR Company
-Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com E-Cat World website finds a new LENR company in Germany, PURRATIO AG - Here is their patent - it appears to be photoelectric https://www.google.com/patents/EP1924387B1?cl=endq=PURRATIOhl=ensa=Xei=8 mP2Uu6YKoXuyQGb74DgAwved=0CDMQ6AEwAA Method for producing thermal energy Abstract The invention relates to a method for producing thermal energy, wherein light, initial material is introduced into a plasma arc (10) which is located between a cathode (4) and an anode (3) and which is adapted to fusion processes by supplying electric energy into the plasma state. A metal cathode, which allows particles which are produced in the plasma to be diffused, is used and allows a fusion process to take place in the metal grid. The invention has a high degree of efficiency in corresponding systems such that said method can be used anywhere where fossils and/or renewable and/or chemical fuel can be used, in order to use the thermal energy directly or by conversion.
RE: [Vo]:Aetheric images
Some areas feel warmer than others, but they also do when there is another image or just text on the screen.
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: The ultimate claim is that the observers are all paid and in on the fraud. For example, I have read that the Elforsk test of the Hot Cat can't be believed because (a) Levi is a biased friend (b) power was surreptitiously run to the device. (c) the heat measurements were in error. (d) the report was not peer reviewed. Objections such as these cannot be tested or falsified by ordinary means, so they should be ignored. I meant technical objections. The surreptitious power objection is a fantasy objection, not technical. The skeptics cannot come up with an actual, testable scenario for this, so we should ignore it. The fact remains, the Elforsk test should have been enough to persuade other scientists that LENR was real but it hasn't. That is incorrect. Many scientists were persuaded -- or at le. So was the management at ELFORSK. The people in North Carolina cited the test, so evidently they were impressed. DOE still have not changed their policy. No government organization is talking about LENR being the solution but just about funding ITER, solar power and wind turbines. Government agencies will be the last to admit cold fusion is real. The DoE in particular has gone out an a limb denying it. We do not need them at this stage. I haven't seen one article in the mainstream press that states categorically LENR is proven. Again, they will be among the last to be convinced. The mass media never takes chances or does controversial things, or things the may look foolish. They did not even take sides in the recent debate over creationism between Nye and Ham. They will not do that because a large fraction of the U.S. population agrees with the young earth creationists, and the mass media outlets cannot afford to alienate people and lose customers. I tend to believe Rossi's comment that it will only be accepted after commercial units are out in the market place. Probably, but now that there is serious funding, it is more likely that commercial units will be made. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
From: Edmund Storms Bob, we are presented with a complex puzzle. A solution requires testing possibilities against what is observed. A solution is made difficult if mechanisms are proposed that cannot be tested. For example, spin coupling can not be tested against what is known and, in addition, it is not found to involve the magnitude of energy involved. The human mind can imagine an infinite number of possibilities. Some way must be used to limit these possibilities. But Ed - it is far worse to attempt to rationalize a mechanism which we know for sure cannot work, like P+P fusion to deuterium. Essentially this explanation is dead-in-the-water on two fronts - the lack of tritium, which must be there if the reaction can fuse two protons, and the lack of 1+ MeV quanta. Some kind of spin coupling is far preferable to a proposed reaction which cannot happen. Jones
RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
From: Jones Beene .it is far worse to attempt to rationalize a mechanism which we know for sure cannot work, like P+P fusion to deuterium. Essentially this explanation is dead-in-the-water on two fronts - the lack of tritium, which must be there if the reaction can fuse two protons, and the lack of 1+ MeV quanta. Some kind of spin coupling is far preferable to a proposed reaction which cannot happen. By the way - the S. Jones paper/slide-presentation mentioned last evening does in fact present a plausible method of spin coupling - PLUS he has real data of the RF signature for such coupling.
Re: [Vo]:New German LENR Company
I'm not sure its photoelectric. Looks more like the high voltage plasma arc through water system, and again very similar to the Graneau/Pappas system and featured on a good number of you tube videos, except that the last time I looked a number of these you tube videos had dissappeared, which I thought was a little odd. However, I have copies of a number of them if needed to demonstrate prior art. Nigel On 08/02/2014 17:08, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com E-Cat World website finds a new LENR company in Germany, PURRATIO AG - Here is their patent - it appears to be photoelectric https://www.google.com/patents/EP1924387B1?cl=endq=PURRATIOhl=ensa=Xei=8 mP2Uu6YKoXuyQGb74DgAwved=0CDMQ6AEwAA Method for producing thermal energy Abstract The invention relates to a method for producing thermal energy, wherein light, initial material is introduced into a plasma arc (10) which is located between a cathode (4) and an anode (3) and which is adapted to fusion processes by supplying electric energy into the plasma state. A metal cathode, which allows particles which are produced in the plasma to be diffused, is used and allows a fusion process to take place in the metal grid. The invention has a high degree of efficiency in corresponding systems such that said method can be used anywhere where fossils and/or renewable and/or chemical fuel can be used, in order to use the thermal energy directly or by conversion.
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Ed--Bob Here-- I would note that testing by the manipulation of spin is possible by changing the static magnetic fields or the oscillating fields given known nuclear magnetic resonance parameters. You suggest that energies associated with spin are not found to involve the magnitude of energy involved. Who determined this situation? Is there a reference supporting this conclusion other that mere assertion? I know of Japanese researcher data regarding the formation of various heavier isotopes after forcing D gas through thin films. However, I am not familiar with the data you suggest for the splitting of Pd and Ni. A couple references would be good. When do you expect to finish your book on the subject? If you have a partial bibliography of references, maybe that would give me the pertinent leads. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 7:12 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems Bob, we are presented with a complex puzzle. A solution requires testing possibilities against what is observed. A solution is made difficult if mechanisms are proposed that can not be tasted. For example, spin coupling can not be tested against what is known and, in addition, it is not found to involve the magnitude of energy involved. KThe human mind can imagine an infinite number of possibilities. Some way must be used to limit these possibilities. I do this my making as few assumptions as possible and then limit these to the most basic possibilities. If this approach fits the data, then we have the answer. If the data are not fit, then additional assumptions are added only where absolutely necessary as exceptions. To start, you need to stop thinking of the LENR process as being caused by ordinary nuclear reactions. For example cross-section data have no application. This data is based on use of high energy particles for which a reaction rate is determined as this energy is changed. This process does not happen during LENR. If this process were operating, LENR could not happen. In fact, rejection of the claim results because this kind of thinking is used. We are dealing with a new kind of nuclear reaction. The challenge is to discover the rules that apply to this reaction, not keep using rules that apply to conventional reactions. The rules of conventional reactions make LENR impossible. The data show that Pd and Ni split into smaller parts. This data results from hundreds of studies and is not in doubt. This fact is the starting point for a search for an explanation. The first assumption results from the need to have something cause this result. That event is assumed to be addition of either one or more d or p to the nucleus by some unknown process, followed by fragmentation. Such a process requires the number of p and n in the initial nucleus to equal the total number in the fragments. As a result, if 2d entered the Ni, the fragments would have to contain a total of 30 p. This limits the element combinations that can result. Such calculations can be called nuclear chemistry because the same rule applies to chemical reactions. In the case of nuclear reactions, unlike chemistry, the number of neutrons also has to remain unchanged. Each isotope of an element has a different number of neutrons. Therefore, different isotope combinations are possible. At this point, we need one more assumption. This assumption says the isotope combination must always be non-radioactive, because that is what is observed most of the time. When this assumption is applied, the combinations are further limited, with some isotopes of Ni having many element combinations and some having only a few possibilities. The periodic table can be searched to discover which elements between He and Ni satisfy these two conditions. I have done this and obtained a distribution. This distribution matches what is observed. Therefore, the two assumptions appear to be correct. Once this information is obtained, the energy from each reaction can be calculated along with the frequency of each reaction, with no other assumptions being required. So you ask how the d or p got into the Ni nucleus. This is a separate question requiring different assumptions. First, energy must be available and it must be applied at the time and place where the nuclear event occurs. In addition, this energy must have a form that does not interact with the surrounding chemical structure. This requirement is unique to LENR, unlike what can happen in plasma. I propose a structure forms I call a Hydroton in which the fusion process takes place. This reaction, and only this reaction, has enough energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier for Ni or Pd. This fact further limits what can be proposed to happen. Of course, a person can imagine all kinds of novel quantum
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Feb 8, 2014, at 10:13 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Bob, we are presented with a complex puzzle. A solution requires testing possibilities against what is observed. A solution is made difficult if mechanisms are proposed that cannot be tested. For example, spin coupling can not be tested against what is known and, in addition, it is not found to involve the magnitude of energy involved. The human mind can imagine an infinite number of possibilities. Some way must be used to limit these possibilities. But Ed – it is far worse to attempt to rationalize a mechanism which we know for sure cannot work, like P+P fusion to deuterium. But Jones, we do not know this can not work. You are taking the conventional approach that eventually proves that LENR is impossible. I'm proposing a new approach must be used. Suggesting obscure and untestable processes such as spin coupling does not help. The data can be explained without using these processes. Consequently, why insist they be used. Does nature's behavior not have the last word? We know that tritium is made when D and H are present and this can only result from p-e-d fusion. Is it unreasonable to assume p-e-p also occurs? Nevertheless, this proposal shows where to look for the evidence. I'm waiting for someone to find the d and the subsequent tritium when H+Ni is used. Absence of data is not absent of proof, as many people point out including yourself. What would you expect to find if spin coupling were the process? Ed Storms Essentially this explanation is dead-in-the-water on two fronts – the lack of tritium, which must be there if the reaction can fuse two protons, and the lack of 1+ MeV quanta. Some kind of spin coupling is far preferable to a proposed reaction which cannot happen. Jones
RE: [Vo]:New German LENR Company
This patent has been issued. Here is the latest version: Method for producing thermal energy - CA 2621914 Chttps://www.google.com/patents/CA2621914C Here are a couple of papers which one of the patent applicants may have co-authored. Simulation of boron nitride sputtering process and its comparison with experimental data ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel4/.../00747890.pdf Detection of Combustion Generated Nanoparticles (NOC) behind Vehicle Engines using Mass Spectrometry http://www.researchgate.net/publication/224790309_Detection_of_Combustion_Generated_Nanoparticles_(NOC)_behind_Vehicle_Engines_using_Mass_Spectrometry Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com E-Cat World website finds a new LENR company in Germany, PURRATIO AG - Here is their patent - it appears to be photoelectric https://www.google.com/patents/EP1924387B1?cl=endq=PURRATIOhl=ensa=Xei=8 mP2Uu6YKoXuyQGb74DgAwved=0CDMQ6AEwAA Method for producing thermal energy Abstract The invention relates to a method for producing thermal energy, wherein light, initial material is introduced into a plasma arc (10) which is located between a cathode (4) and an anode (3) and which is adapted to fusion processes by supplying electric energy into the plasma state. A metal cathode, which allows particles which are produced in the plasma to be diffused, is used and allows a fusion process to take place in the metal grid. The invention has a high degree of efficiency in corresponding systems such that said method can be used anywhere where fossils and/or renewable and/or chemical fuel can be used, in order to use the thermal energy directly or by conversion.
RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
From: Edmund Storms Bob, we are presented with a complex puzzle. A solution requires testing possibilities against what is observed. A solution is made difficult if mechanisms are proposed that cannot be tested. For example, spin coupling can not be tested against what is known and, in addition, it is not found to involve the magnitude of energy involved. The human mind can imagine an infinite number of possibilities. Some way must be used to limit these possibilities. JB: But Ed - it is far worse to attempt to rationalize a mechanism which we know for sure cannot work, like P+P fusion to deuterium. ES: But Jones, we do not know this can not work. You are taking the conventional approach that eventually proves that LENR is impossible. Not accurate! Let's be clear: I am very much taking an expanded conventional approach - but it is one which says that in order for LENR to be proved, there must be an energetic reaction for gain which does not produce gamma nor does it produce more than minimal transmutation. Spin coupling, for instance - is well known, and has not been ruled out. That does not mean it is correct, but at least it is not ruled out by experiment. Deuterium fusing from protons can be ruled out. I'm proposing a new approach must be used. Suggesting obscure and untestable processes such as spin coupling does not help. They are not obscure at all - and they are testable. You are incorrect on that point. Several of the alternative theories for Ni-H have a good chance even though real fusion as it is known to the mainstream, is not in evidence. We must find a way to convert nuclear mass to thermal heat and yes spin coupling can do that. Your approach, as it applies to Ni-H does not match experiment, and that is the bottom line. We must rule out fusion of protons to deuterium. That says nothing about the fusion of protons to helium in palladium, which can happen in that kind of reaction BUT NOT in Ni-H. The Rossi experiment absolutely rules out P+P - D. Jones
[Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum
I just wanted to make a statement about conservation of momentum. Linear momentum and angular momentum are different animals and can not be converted freely. Recently, I have seen proposals that suggest that one can convert linear momentum into angular momentum and that is clearly not possible. You can visualize linear momentum as pertaining to motion of an object or group of objects that are progressing as a group past an observer. The center of mass of the objects is in motion and can be used to calculate the total linear momentum of the subjects. Angular momentum is measured and calculated by observing the rotation of the center of mass of a system of objects. Think of a planet in motion around its central star as an example of this type of momentum. An observer can be stationary with respect to the center of mass of the objects and calculate the magnitude of the collective angular momentum they contain. And, since he is stationary with respect to the center of mass of the objects, they have no linear momentum according to his determination. Any forces which operate between the collection of objects taken as a system are not able to convert angular momentum into linear momentum or vice versa. Dave
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
You have an interesting concept Hoyt. Most of us are quite skeptical of a machine that generates work from out of thin air, but if the Earth's rotation slows down by the action of this device, perhaps so. You need to estimate the amount of energy that could be extracted in your proposed method before assuming that you have the problem solved. I like your idea of raising a mass upwards in the y direction and then dropping it. It should be possible to calculate the amount of energy added in the x direction due to rotation of the Earth. My gut feeling is that the extra energy is very tiny. Dave -Original Message- From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 8, 2014 8:18 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine Perhaps the energy is coming from the rotational energy of the earth, i.e. Coriolis effect ( which as I look at it, is a fudge factor needed to account for anomalies when you assume you're in an inertial frame of reference, but really aren't due to the rotation of the earth.). One could extract energy from the earth by raising a weight vertically, then letting it fall whilst letting it's east-west tendency generate force X distance. For example if the surface of the earth is moving at 1000 km/hour and you raise a weight such that the speed is now 1001 km/hour, as you let it fall you could extract 1 km/hour of kinetic energy from it. I think that'd be a pretty small effect, hence the huge machine to get anything useful. It would be interesting to see if it's orientation was north-south along its rotational axis. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:25 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, the person you want to convince is Terry Blanton. He is our resident expert in magnetic motors. He says he looked at some of them closely and found they did not work. Skeptical by experience. We tested spirals, pulsed, shielded . . . every configuration we could imagine and found them conservative. But, I'm still open if someone has a new idea. This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
Re: [Vo]:New German LENR Company
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Here is their patent - it appears to be photoelectric [snip] Abstract The invention relates to a method for producing thermal energy, wherein light, initial material is introduced into a plasma arc I don't think it claims to involve a photoelectric effect; it does not appear to make any attempt to explain what's going on. It seems to be a water torch invention in the lineage of Brown's gas, where water is dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen, and it tries to improve upon a 1990 cold fusion patent [1]. It refers to water rather than noble gasses, so I think the comparison to Papp's device only goes so far. But it definitely reminds me of many of the electric arc devices/experiments. The present patent focuses a lot on the electric arc and the waveform used to drive it. It is surprising to me that someone can write all of this stuff up and get a patent for it. There is very little to clearly differentiate this patent from any number of experiments and patents that are out there. I recall hearing that in the European patent system, you get a patent automatically upon application, but this does not imply that it is defendable. Eric [1] https://www.google.com/patents/EP0393465A2
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Feb 8, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Bob, we are presented with a complex puzzle. A solution requires testing possibilities against what is observed. A solution is made difficult if mechanisms are proposed that cannot be tested. For example, spin coupling can not be tested against what is known and, in addition, it is not found to involve the magnitude of energy involved. The human mind can imagine an infinite number of possibilities. Some way must be used to limit these possibilities. JB: But Ed – it is far worse to attempt to rationalize a mechanism which we know for sure cannot work, like P+P fusion to deuterium. ES: But Jones, we do not know this can not work. You are taking the conventional approach that eventually proves that LENR is impossible. Not accurate! Let’s be clear: I am very much taking an expanded conventional approach – but it is one which says that in order for LENR to be proved, there must be an energetic reaction for gain which does not produce gamma nor does it produce more than minimal transmutation. We agree on these two requirements. The mechanism is in question. Spin coupling, for instance - is well known, and has not been ruled out. That does not mean it is correct, but at least it is not ruled out by experiment. Deuterium fusing from protons can be ruled out. How is this ruled out? You only provide assertions. I consider this possibility based on evidence for tritium production and the assumption that a similar process applies to p and d. So far I see nothing that shows this is not a plausible assumption. I'm proposing a new approach must be used. Suggesting obscure and untestable processes such as spin coupling does not help. They are not obscure at all - and they are testable. You are incorrect on that point. Several of the alternative theories for Ni- H have a good chance even though real “fusion” as it is known to the mainstream, is not in evidence. We must find a way to convert nuclear mass to thermal heat and yes spin coupling can do that. So, you claim spin coupling can convert over 24 MeV/event to heat in the case of deuterium and over 11 MeV/event in the case of transmutation. Has anyone actually shown this amount of energy being involved in spin coupling, either by experiment or theory? Your approach, as it applies to Ni-H does not match experiment, and that is the bottom line. We must rule out fusion of protons to deuterium. That says nothing about the fusion of protons to helium in palladium, which can happen in that kind of reaction BUT NOT in Ni-H. The Rossi experiment absolutely rules out P+P - D. OK Jones, I accept we have a different approach. Nevertheless, your statement above is about a fact. Where does this fact come from? I have seen no evidence supporting such a conclusion. As far as I know, no effort has been described about a search for deuterium. Tritium would be produced in such a small amount, it would be missed unless it was sought with care. In addition, Rossi has no reason to acknowledge tritium production for obvious reasons. Please explain why you make the above statement. Ed Storms Jones
Re: [Vo]:New German LENR Company
Jones-- Why do you say the patent appears to be photoelectric? It seems to identify another way of loading a Pd or other metal with D or H or both at the surface of the metal and inducing solid state fusion of the loaded materials--probably D based on what the inventers say. Bob - Original Message - From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 9:32 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:New German LENR Company This patent has been issued. Here is the latest version: Method for producing thermal energy - CA 2621914 Chttps://www.google.com/patents/CA2621914C Here are a couple of papers which one of the patent applicants may have co-authored. Simulation of boron nitride sputtering process and its comparison with experimental data ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel4/.../00747890.pdf Detection of Combustion Generated Nanoparticles (NOC) behind Vehicle Engines using Mass Spectrometry http://www.researchgate.net/publication/224790309_Detection_of_Combustion_Generated_Nanoparticles_(NOC)_behind_Vehicle_Engines_using_Mass_Spectrometry Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com E-Cat World website finds a new LENR company in Germany, PURRATIO AG - Here is their patent - it appears to be photoelectric https://www.google.com/patents/EP1924387B1?cl=endq=PURRATIOhl=ensa=Xei=8 mP2Uu6YKoXuyQGb74DgAwved=0CDMQ6AEwAA Method for producing thermal energy Abstract The invention relates to a method for producing thermal energy, wherein light, initial material is introduced into a plasma arc (10) which is located between a cathode (4) and an anode (3) and which is adapted to fusion processes by supplying electric energy into the plasma state. A metal cathode, which allows particles which are produced in the plasma to be diffused, is used and allows a fusion process to take place in the metal grid. The invention has a high degree of efficiency in corresponding systems such that said method can be used anywhere where fossils and/or renewable and/or chemical fuel can be used, in order to use the thermal energy directly or by conversion.
Re: [Vo]:New German LENR Company
Eric---Bob here-- I agree with your assessment. However, it does imply fusion of D and in fact uses the term fusion. The following is a copy (translated from German with some mistakes) of the paragraph 12 of the patent : Particularly preferably, the cathode material has been found to palladium, which is a result of its comparison to the other in the given materials high electron work function of 5.6 eV particularly well. With corresponding cooling of the cathode can thus much more of a produced by the resulting at the cathode heat electron current through the plasma arc can be prevented, as this for the heat generation process contributes nothing or these rather hindered as to produce a desired direction cathode particle to trigger fusion of the not produced in the cathode or impeded. Similar to achieve with other materials, it is necessary because of the lower work function of a much higher expense of cooling in order to prevent the undesired electrode current from the cathode and to minimize. Reading the whole patent is interesting, especially noting the timing of controlling input energy pulses. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New German LENR Company On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Here is their patent - it appears to be photoelectric [snip] Abstract The invention relates to a method for producing thermal energy, wherein light, initial material is introduced into a plasma arc I don't think it claims to involve a photoelectric effect; it does not appear to make any attempt to explain what's going on. It seems to be a water torch invention in the lineage of Brown's gas, where water is dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen, and it tries to improve upon a 1990 cold fusion patent [1]. It refers to water rather than noble gasses, so I think the comparison to Papp's device only goes so far. But it definitely reminds me of many of the electric arc devices/experiments. The present patent focuses a lot on the electric arc and the waveform used to drive it. It is surprising to me that someone can write all of this stuff up and get a patent for it. There is very little to clearly differentiate this patent from any number of experiments and patents that are out there. I recall hearing that in the European patent system, you get a patent automatically upon application, but this does not imply that it is defendable. Eric [1] https://www.google.com/patents/EP0393465A2
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Skeptical by experience. We tested spirals, pulsed, shielded . . . every configuration we could imagine and found them conservative. But, I'm still open if someone has a new idea. Just to give you an idea of how far we went, this assembly of spiral magnet cost over $100k. http://imgur.com/c4dGBtI Exciting night when this puppy came in. For scale, the machinist is about 5'4.
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Jones--Bob Cook here-- I saw that mention also and planned to follow up to address some of Ed concerns about it not being possible. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 9:24 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems From: Jones Beene .it is far worse to attempt to rationalize a mechanism which we know for sure cannot work, like P+P fusion to deuterium. Essentially this explanation is dead-in-the-water on two fronts - the lack of tritium, which must be there if the reaction can fuse two protons, and the lack of 1+ MeV quanta. Some kind of spin coupling is far preferable to a proposed reaction which cannot happen. By the way - the S. Jones paper/slide-presentation mentioned last evening does in fact present a plausible method of spin coupling - PLUS he has real data of the RF signature for such coupling.
RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
From: Edmund Storms * Deuterium fusing from protons can be ruled out. How is this ruled out? You only provide assertions. No, I provide two facts from the Rossi experiments. No gamma. No tritium. These are facts, not assertions. Rossi is presently the best hope for the future of LENR and it does little good for anyone to try to confuse the broader field by hopelessly trying to explain another anomaly in another context. The Rossi effect, at this point in time, is worth dropping everything else for - in order to understand it. I consider this possibility based on evidence for tritium production and the assumption that a similar process applies to p and d. Tritium is not seen in Rossi, nor is it seen from protons alone, and it is not relevant to the Rossi effect, except in its absence. There is no evidence that a similar process to Rossi is involved in Pd-D of PF and it is counter-productive to confuse the two. In fact, all the important evidence shows the two cannot be similar in any meaningful way. So, you claim spin coupling can convert over 24 MeV/event to heat in the case of deuterium and over 11 MeV/event in the case of transmutation. You must be kidding, right? There is no high energy event in the Rossi effect, or it would have been seen in the Bianchini radiation monitoring. Spin coupling does not apply to the fusion of deuterium into helium. You are intentionally conflating two unrelated effects. PF is different from Rossi - end of story ...unless someone can supply real proof of a connection. None has been shown. Ockham is not proof of anything, and has never provided a valid level of understanding to any field of science, especially since parsimony is completely adverse to QM. QM is anti-Ockham. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
Was the clear fluid in the stemmed glasses and important part of the design? Some kind of special lubricant, perhaps :) -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Skeptical by experience. We tested spirals, pulsed, shielded . . . every configuration we could imagine and found them conservative. But, I'm still open if someone has a new idea. Just to give you an idea of how far we went, this assembly of spiral magnet cost over $100k. http://imgur.com/c4dGBtI Exciting night when this puppy came in. For scale, the machinist is about 5'4.
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Feb 8, 2014, at 12:11 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms * Deuterium fusing from protons can be ruled out. How is this ruled out? You only provide assertions. No, I provide two facts from the Rossi experiments. No gamma. No tritium. But Jones, Rossi detected radiation, made efforts to shield, and this radiation was detected at the time by Celani and other people detect rasdiation using light water. As for tritium, do you actually believe Rossi? I don't! He has given no indication of how or when this detection was made. These are facts, not assertions. Rossi is presently the best hope for the future of LENR and it does little good for anyone to try to confuse the broader field by hopelessly trying to explain another anomaly in another context. The Rossi effect, at this point in time, is worth dropping everything else for - in order to understand it. That is what I'm trying to do, but using information from other sources. Rossi made heat. He has shown no ability to explain the process. He has limited ability to make suitable measurements. And he is a confused source of information. Why would you accept him as an authority about science? I consider this possibility based on evidence for tritium production and the assumption that a similar process applies to p and d. Tritium is not seen in Rossi, nor is it seen from protons alone, and it is not relevant to the Rossi effect, except in its absence. Tritium has been made using normal water in an electrolytic cell. Do you think a different mechanism applies here compared to Ni-H2? There is no evidence that a similar process to Rossi is involved in Pd-D of PF and it is counter-productive to confuse the two. In fact, all the important evidence shows the two cannot be similar in any meaningful way. OK Jones, this is a difference of opinion only nature will resolve. So, you claim spin coupling can convert over 24 MeV/event to heat in the case of deuterium and over 11 MeV/event in the case of transmutation. You must be kidding, right? There is no high energy event in the Rossi effect, or it would have been seen in the Bianchini radiation monitoring. Spin coupling does not apply to the fusion of deuterium into helium. You are intentionally conflating two unrelated effects. Transmutation, even using Cu production. generates about 6 MeV of energy/event. The products detected by DGT and other people require about 12 MeV/event to be released. This is fact based on the mass change. PF is different from Rossi - end of story ...unless someone can supply real proof of a connection. None has been shown. Ockham is not proof of anything, and has never provided a valid level of understanding to any field of science, especially since parsimony is completely adverse to QM. QM is anti-Ockham. You opened a can of worms I don't have time to kill. Nevertheless, what you said has no justification. Ed Storms Jones winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No, I provide two facts from the Rossi experiments. No gamma. No tritium. ... These are facts, not assertions. Jones, your analysis is often insightful. But here you're stating facts, and then implying assumptions on the basis of those facts as facts as well. You assume that d+d fusion will result in a gamma, and then when no gamma is seen, you assume that d+d fusion in NiH is not possible. You have assumed away some mechanism that might be fractionating the gamma. And then later you draw upon related arguments to support this assumption. In repeating this line of reasoning, you are as guilty of simple, repetitive assertion of your assumptions as Ed is of his. Simply asserting an assumption to be true, or drawing upon such an assumption implicitly to reason about other things, does not make the assumption true. I suspect d+d fusion is not going on in Rossi's reactor either, but for reasons other than a missing gamma. We have no evidence one way or another about tritium, but no specific reason to believe it is there either. In fact, all the important evidence shows the two cannot be similar in any meaningful way. This is an overstatement. Can we all adopt a more measured tone? There is no high energy event in the Rossi effect, or it would have been seen in the Bianchini radiation monitoring. Can you provide a link to the Bianchini report? For some reason I'm having trouble finding it. I assume that this was the appendix provided in connection with the Elforsk test? The only report I'm finding deals with a different subject relating to the E-Cat, in 2010 [1]. In the Elforsk test, no radiation was seen. There were obviously working parameters for the radiation monitor and an upper and lower threshold beyond which it would not have been effective. I do not know what type of monitor was used or what these thresholds were. But what we can deduce from this situation is that no penetrating radiation was escaping the system. It is a nonsequitor to conclude anything about the amount of energy being dissipated, let alone to conclude something about spin coupling as a possible mechanism. Spin coupling does not apply to the fusion of deuterium into helium. You are intentionally conflating two unrelated effects. This is a simple assertion. Can we lay off of these a little? Eric [1] http://e-cataustralia.com/pdf/Levi_Bianchini_and_Villa_Reports.pdf
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Feb 8, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No, I provide two facts from the Rossi experiments. No gamma. No tritium. ... These are facts, not assertions. Jones, your analysis is often insightful. But here you're stating facts, and then implying assumptions on the basis of those facts as facts as well. You assume that d+d fusion will result in a gamma, and then when no gamma is seen, you assume that d+d fusion in NiH is not possible. You have assumed away some mechanism that might be fractionating the gamma. And then later you draw upon related arguments to support this assumption. In repeating this line of reasoning, you are as guilty of simple, repetitive assertion of your assumptions as Ed is of his. Simply asserting an assumption to be true, or drawing upon such an assumption implicitly to reason about other things, does not make the assumption true. I suspect d+d fusion is not going on in Rossi's reactor either, but for reasons other than a missing gamma. We have no evidence one way or another about tritium, but no specific reason to believe it is there either. Eric, no one believes d+d fusion occurs in the Rossi reactor. The d we are discussing results from p-e-p fusion only. I agree with the other comments you make. Ed Storms In fact, all the important evidence shows the two cannot be similar in any meaningful way. This is an overstatement. Can we all adopt a more measured tone? There is no high energy event in the Rossi effect, or it would have been seen in the Bianchini radiation monitoring. Can you provide a link to the Bianchini report? For some reason I'm having trouble finding it. I assume that this was the appendix provided in connection with the Elforsk test? The only report I'm finding deals with a different subject relating to the E-Cat, in 2010 [1]. In the Elforsk test, no radiation was seen. There were obviously working parameters for the radiation monitor and an upper and lower threshold beyond which it would not have been effective. I do not know what type of monitor was used or what these thresholds were. But what we can deduce from this situation is that no penetrating radiation was escaping the system. It is a nonsequitor to conclude anything about the amount of energy being dissipated, let alone to conclude something about spin coupling as a possible mechanism. Spin coupling does not apply to the fusion of deuterium into helium. You are intentionally conflating two unrelated effects. This is a simple assertion. Can we lay off of these a little? Eric [1] http://e-cataustralia.com/pdf/Levi_Bianchini_and_Villa_Reports.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Aetheric images
The energy it stirs up can persist for a while. If these spots are where various parts of the image are, it is more likely you are feeling a non-physical energy effected by the images. John On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:10 AM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Some areas feel warmer than others, but they also do when there is another image or just text on the screen.
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
Terry, did you come to the conclusion that most if not all of these magnet motors operated by extracting the energy stored within the magnets? Of course, that would imply that only a finite amount of total energy could be extracted. I would be afraid to remain close to the motor pictured. How much force is internally generated and could it self destruct? Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 8, 2014 2:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Skeptical by experience. We tested spirals, pulsed, shielded . . . every configuration we could imagine and found them conservative. But, I'm still open if someone has a new idea. Just to give you an idea of how far we went, this assembly of spiral magnet cost over $100k. http://imgur.com/c4dGBtI Exciting night when this puppy came in. For scale, the machinist is about 5'4.
RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
From: Eric Walker I provide two facts from the Rossi experiments. No gamma. No tritium. ... These are facts, not assertions. [snip] You assume that d+d fusion will result in a gamma, and then when no gamma is seen, you assume that d+d fusion in NiH is not possible. You have assumed away some mechanism that might be fractionating the gamma. Not exactly. I’m glad you brought this particular detail up - because that is not precisely what I am assuming away. What I am stating is that even if “fractionating” some gamma radiation is remotely possible, in principal or as a hypothesis - and there is no proof or even good evidence in physics that this is possible, or can be accomplished at all at high temperature … but even if it can - that problem pales when it is realized that any such mechanism MUST be completely leak-proof or else there will be fatalities. Complete shielding by fractionation would be infinitely more unlikely with highly penetrating radiation than good shielding. We know from cosmology that gamma radiation can escape from neutron stars – yet, give me a break, proponents want to suggest that a few grams of nickel powder will shield for gammas- and not just a little bit but completely 100% shield. Think about the absurdity. The risk/reward situation is such that 99% or four nines for leakage is not nearly good enough. One cannot simply propose the leap that goes all the way from partial fractionation to complete blockage. Do not overlook that fact that at the intense level of thermal output of the Rossi reactor, even a leakage of one part per billion would be fatal to Rossi or anyone else. That is the problem. Not so much that it might work some of the time, but that do be valid as a commercial item - it has to happen all the time with no exceptions. It is not merely the lack of a known phenomenon in mainstream physics for “fractionating gammas” but the fact that for fifty years, billions have been spent by the US and USSR looking for light weight gamma shielding in order to have reactors carried by bombers. There is no indication that had any success at all. Gammas are very penetrating, and that makes it baffling tome - as to how this fractionation thing has gotten any momentum at all.
RE: [Vo]:Not from Fusion paper by Steven Jones Jones Beene
Jones, Thank you for that link. It was fascinating. What I find hard to understand is why ALL these miraculous inventions go to the grave with their inventors. For example T. Henry Moray and Popp. There were plenty of well witnessed demos yet the devices ALWAYS faded away. It seems strange to me. It makes it too easy to dismiss them as frauds yet when I look at LENR I can see how that might happen.
RE: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum
I understand that is the textbook answer but I have wondered if there are exceptions. For example, imagine a nozzle discharging gas at high velocity into a large volume of gas. Why isn't that momentum converted into heat? If it were, the heat energy could be converted into something else.
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The risk/reward situation is such that 99% or four nines for leakage is not nearly good enough. One cannot simply propose the leap that goes all the way from partial fractionation to complete blockage. That is precisely what is being proposed. Whether this suggestion is amenable to you is a different question. But such 100 percent efficiency in fractionation is what is implied in the PdD research. You take deuterium, you place it with a palladium system using electrolysis or gas pressure, and in important experiments you get both excess heat and 4He above background at an order of magnitude correlation with the heat. E.g., on the order of 24 MeV heat leaving the system above what has been put in in terms of input energy per 4He observed. Despite what some journalists might want to believe, that suggests exactly d+d → 4He + Q, with no gamma, brought about through one mechanism or another, direct or indirect. Unless the 4He/heat experiments are to be set aside or dramatically reinterpreted, there's no escaping that Q. The question is what happens to it. Do not overlook that fact that at the intense level of thermal output of the Rossi reactor, even a leakage of one part per billion would be fatal to Rossi or anyone else. Yes -- which is precisely why a mechanism that is thought to intercept any gammas in flight is untenable. Not mentioned is the possibility that the conditions under which such fractionation occurs are a requirement for cold fusion to even happen. This does not seem like too much of a stretch of the imagination. There is no indication that had any success at all. Gammas are very penetrating, and that makes it baffling tome - as to how this fractionation thing has gotten any momentum at all. It's the PdD research and the 4He/heat correlation. You're overlooking this or ignoring it, or assuming as one might that PdD and NiH have nothing in common. But if we accept what the correlation implies, and we are willing to draw weak conclusions from PdD to NiH, as I would venture the large majority of folks are, then it is not a long-shot to assume that something analogous, although perhaps different in components, is also occurring in NiH. Once it's been established that a Q of 24 MeV can be fractionated without penetrating radiation in *some* context, it is not a leap of faith to conclude that similar behavior can be sought in other contexts. Eric
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Terry, did you come to the conclusion that most if not all of these magnet motors operated by extracting the energy stored within the magnets? Of course, that would imply that only a finite amount of total energy could be extracted. The only pure magnet motor used magnets in opposition and those would rapidly deplete their strength. You can also take a hammer and tap on a magnet and accomplish the same thing. All others used some type of electrical assist. I would be afraid to remain close to the motor pictured. How much force is internally generated and could it self destruct? It was a concern. We had a prony brake in case of runaway. Alas, we never got it to run since we could not get the solenoid close enough to the sticky spot due to the required size. I was just an advisor and on-looker for the first 18 months. I got suspicious when the prony brakes showed much lower torque than the $15,000 meter. I got permission from the angel investor to work without anyone present one weekend lifting weights with the motors; and, well, none of them were OU. You can't fool gravity.
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Was the clear fluid in the stemmed glasses and important part of the design? Some kind of special lubricant, perhaps :) We were exhausted after mounting that 600 lb monster in the frame. It kept jerking our chain lift out of our hands. One metal hook actually chipped the magnet. We needed lubricating after that.
RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
From: Eric Walker Jones Beene wrote: The risk/reward situation is such that 99% or four nines for leakage is not nearly good enough. One cannot simply propose the leap that goes all the way from partial fractionation to complete blockage. That is precisely what is being proposed. Then that is precisely why it is wrong. If complete leak-proof gamma shielding is possible - we do not need LENR and we can go directly to subcritical fission, photofission or a small scale hybrid with a desktop accelerator - which is known, proved and reliable. Natural uranium is two orders of magnitude cheaper than deuterium. Who needs deuterium if gammas can be perfectly shielded by grams of loaded metal? Whether this suggestion is amenable to you is a different question. Forget me. Who is it amenable to? Answer: a handful of LENR proponents who started out in PdD and refuse to see that Rossi is very different, or who would love to find something better but have no option? Where is the kilowatt PdD reactor? Cough… cough… Rossi is the future of LENR and it is counterproductive to be lost in the past. PdD is an exercise in futility. But such 100 percent efficiency in fractionation is what is implied in the PdD research. No it isn’t. Lack of gammas ab initio is what is implied in LENR research. The two are completely different, not different ways of saying the same thing. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Aetheric images - Please read if you didn't feel anything last time - Be brave, give it a try!
I believe I mentioned this before when you requested experimental subjects: Its trivial to run double blind controls over the internet. Why don't you? On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:15 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, some of you may remember that I designed images that I claim effect the background energy of space (aether, dark matter/energy, higgs field, quantum foam) to the point of being felt by most people. Some people have felt the energy and inquired about why they can feel something hitting them (in public places with it out of sight and no introduction). Hence it is not just in the mind. How can it possibly work? Because light is a terrahertz electric and magnetic field, all EM effects the medium that it is manifested in making it a little bit more solid, that which is involved in light is not as free to move as that which is darker. Actually in quantum terms, the light could be said to be collapsing the quantum wave function where it passes, but allowing a greater degree of wave function elsewhere. Last time some people on the list felt it, some didn't and not enough were willing to answer to be terribly clear which group was in the majority, but probably feelers by a slim majority. Anyway I have improved the 'tech' enough that I would be very grateful if any who didn't feel anything, or were unsure last time would give it another shot. And if you haven't tried before, please try it. http://imageshack.com/a/img577/8635/7w1a.png (feel over the image and the line to the top right shoots energy out the side of your monitor) The sensation can differ from normal sensation, sometimes I will encounter this energy without expecting to, but it seems to require intent other times, it seems to depend on how this type of energy (chi?) is going in your body. You may feel warmth, cool, motion, tingle or buzz or some indescribable difference. It can be very obvious or very subtle, and change for the person in either direction. Feel free to answer in private if you prefer. Please answer either way. Thanks, John
Re: [Vo]:Aetheric images - Please read if you didn't feel anything last time - Be brave, give it a try!
Ok, so have 2 images, one active and one inactive. See if people can establish which is which? Good idea, I will mock one up. On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:01 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I believe I mentioned this before when you requested experimental subjects: Its trivial to run double blind controls over the internet. Why don't you? On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:15 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, some of you may remember that I designed images that I claim effect the background energy of space (aether, dark matter/energy, higgs field, quantum foam) to the point of being felt by most people. Some people have felt the energy and inquired about why they can feel something hitting them (in public places with it out of sight and no introduction). Hence it is not just in the mind. How can it possibly work? Because light is a terrahertz electric and magnetic field, all EM effects the medium that it is manifested in making it a little bit more solid, that which is involved in light is not as free to move as that which is darker. Actually in quantum terms, the light could be said to be collapsing the quantum wave function where it passes, but allowing a greater degree of wave function elsewhere. Last time some people on the list felt it, some didn't and not enough were willing to answer to be terribly clear which group was in the majority, but probably feelers by a slim majority. Anyway I have improved the 'tech' enough that I would be very grateful if any who didn't feel anything, or were unsure last time would give it another shot. And if you haven't tried before, please try it. http://imageshack.com/a/img577/8635/7w1a.png (feel over the image and the line to the top right shoots energy out the side of your monitor) The sensation can differ from normal sensation, sometimes I will encounter this energy without expecting to, but it seems to require intent other times, it seems to depend on how this type of energy (chi?) is going in your body. You may feel warmth, cool, motion, tingle or buzz or some indescribable difference. It can be very obvious or very subtle, and change for the person in either direction. Feel free to answer in private if you prefer. Please answer either way. Thanks, John
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Let me see if I understand your position, Jones. You believe the behavior using deuterium has no relationship to the behavior when H is used. You believe nature has several ways to initiate LENR depending on which isotope of hydrogen is used, with the mechanism for D only working in Pd and the mechanism for H only working in Ni. You accept what Rossi has said without question and apply it only to the Ni-H2 system. Consequently, nothing observed by anyone else applies. You propose the mechanism that works for Ni+H2 is outside of conventional nuclear behavior including not producing the calculated amount of energy the mass change requires. Is that a fair description? Ed Storms On Feb 8, 2014, at 1:56 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Eric Walker Jones Beene wrote: The risk/reward situation is such that 99% or four nines for leakage is not nearly good enough. One cannot simply propose the leap that goes all the way from partial fractionation to complete blockage. That is precisely what is being proposed. Then that is precisely why it is wrong. If complete leak-proof gamma shielding is possible - we do not need LENR and we can go directly to subcritical fission, photofission or a small scale hybrid with a desktop accelerator - which is known, proved and reliable. Natural uranium is two orders of magnitude cheaper than deuterium. Who needs deuterium if gammas can be perfectly shielded by grams of loaded metal? Whether this suggestion is amenable to you is a different question. Forget me. Who is it amenable to? Answer: a handful of LENR proponents who started out in PdD and refuse to see that Rossi is very different, or who would love to find something better but have no option? Where is the kilowatt PdD reactor? Cough… cough… Rossi is the future of LENR and it is counterproductive to be lost in the past. PdD is an exercise in futility. But such 100 percent efficiency in fractionation is what is implied in the PdD research. No it isn’t. Lack of gammas ab initio is what is implied in LENR research. The two are completely different, not different ways of saying the same thing. Jones winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum
If you look into this scenario in detail, you will see how the total angular and linear momentum is conserved separately. The high velocity gas impacts the large volume of gas and sends the total mass at an average slower velocity in the direction that the input stream is moving. The total momentum of the system would be conserved as always. In the type of system you are describing, the center of mass of the particles of gas, etc. continues to move at a constant rate relative to external observers. Kinetic energy is present in a significant amount within the high velocity gas according to most observers and that can be converted into other forms of energy. Heating of the larger gas cloud would likely be seen in this case, but other conversions are possible as long as the total amount of energy is conserved. The conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy both apply separately. This can lead to some interesting behavior. If you accept that the center of mass of a system continues at a constant rate before and after any local closed system interactions, then the conservation of momentum is directly demonstrated. If conserved it cannot be converted into anything else such as energy. I find it easier to visualize by taking simple systems such as two balls that collide to understand how the rules apply. Choose the best observation frame to simplify the calculations. Dave -Original Message- From: a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 8, 2014 3:18 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum I understand that is the textbook answer but I have wondered if there are exceptions. For example, imagine a nozzle discharging gas at high velocity into a large volume of gas. Why isn't that momentum converted into heat? If it were, the heat energy could be converted into something else.
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 7 Feb 2014 22:05:07 -0800: Hi Eric, [snip] On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I think you have the decay scheme for Ni-59 wrong. It has a 76,000 year half life and decays by electron capture as you said. It's good that you seem to know your way around these nuclear transitions. That makes you and Robin and a few others who can keep the rest of us honest. The data I have indicate no gamma activity, in the transition to the Cu-59 nucleus. I'm thinking of this reaction: https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/servlet/X4sSearch5?reacc=28-NI-62(P%2CG)29-CU-63%2C%2CSIG If you check the boxes for the A.Simon data, and quick plot on the this page, then click retrieve, you will get a cross section plot for the reaction. The cross sections are in barns, and the proton energy is in MeV. Note that all proton fusion related cross sections happen at high energy, because until the advent of CF, no one was able to fuse protons with heavy nuclei by any other means than high kinetic energy. (And the CF method is still not understood, if it works at all.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
-Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Let me see if I understand your position, Jones. You believe the behavior using deuterium has no relationship to the behavior when H is used. No relationship is too strong. After all, both involve hydrogen loaded metal and QM. But the assessment is almost correct if you base it on two different types of tunneling with vastly different outcomes. If PdD does result in fusion to helium, then my answer is almost yes, there is almost no relevance of that dynamic to the Rossi effect of Ni-H, which is not a known fusion reaction, and may not technically be fusion at all. However, I am not convinced that PdD works this way, and frankly - it is a diversion to even bring it up for now, since it detracts from the really important issue - which is the proper understanding of the Rossi effect. The two are almost as unrelated as mainstream fission is from mainstream fusion. You believe nature has several ways to initiate LENR depending on which isotope of hydrogen is used. Absolutely yes - to the degree that the name: LENR includes any thermal anomaly, not necessarily related to a known nuclear reaction, and there are 12 or more distinct routes to thermal gain. You accept what Rossi has said without question LOL. No one can accept Rossi's full account, as it is self-contradictory; but it is the totality of the evidence that matters especially the lack of gammas and that detail comes from experts, not Rossi. You propose the mechanism that works for Ni+H2 is outside of conventional nuclear behavior - including not producing the calculated amount of energy the mass change requires. Exactamundo. This is where one must depart from the original Focardi/Rossi account. The most prevalent active mechanism is not proton addition to nickel, with transmutation to copper. The facts do not support that. There could be a small contribution but the main reaction is different. Like it or not, Steven Jones - and his new slides do support the viewpoint of Bob Cook and many others on spin coupling - due to magnetic field collapse and with real data, and a photon signature in the RF. He also disputes the connection of Helium to excess heat. I would not go that far, but it is sufficient to say the PdD and NiH are very different. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: However, I am not convinced that PdD works this way, and frankly - it is a diversion to even bring it up for now, since it detracts from the really important issue - which is the proper understanding of the Rossi effect. How is it a diversion to bring up an apparently well-established conclusion that a large quantum of mass energy can be fractionated without penetrating radiation? That was the point that was at issue. Answer: it's not a diversion. The conclusion may be flawed, the evidence may be flawed, the interpretation may be flawed, and/or the research may be flawed. But a consensus conclusion about the fractionation of a 24 MeV quantum into non-penetrating radiation is something to be addressed in a conversation dealing with the question of whether fractionation is possible. I'm not trying to say that the fractionation conclusion is for sure what is going on, either in NiH or in PdD. Only that it's not out in the wilderness either, as some would tendentiously make it out to be. :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Thanks Jones, you make our difference in approach very clear. In contrast, I assume all LENR results from the same process regardless of which isotope of hydrogen is used or which metal lattice contains the NAE. Of course, different nuclear products result from D and H, and different transmutation products result from Pd and Ni. We will see which approach is most useful in making the effect work better and is consistent with the observed behaviors. Let the games begin. :-) Ed Storms On Feb 8, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Let me see if I understand your position, Jones. You believe the behavior using deuterium has no relationship to the behavior when H is used. No relationship is too strong. After all, both involve hydrogen loaded metal and QM. But the assessment is almost correct if you base it on two different types of tunneling with vastly different outcomes. If PdD does result in fusion to helium, then my answer is almost yes, there is almost no relevance of that dynamic to the Rossi effect of Ni-H, which is not a known fusion reaction, and may not technically be fusion at all. However, I am not convinced that PdD works this way, and frankly - it is a diversion to even bring it up for now, since it detracts from the really important issue - which is the proper understanding of the Rossi effect. The two are almost as unrelated as mainstream fission is from mainstream fusion. You believe nature has several ways to initiate LENR depending on which isotope of hydrogen is used. Absolutely yes - to the degree that the name: LENR includes any thermal anomaly, not necessarily related to a known nuclear reaction, and there are 12 or more distinct routes to thermal gain. You accept what Rossi has said without question LOL. No one can accept Rossi's full account, as it is self- contradictory; but it is the totality of the evidence that matters especially the lack of gammas and that detail comes from experts, not Rossi. You propose the mechanism that works for Ni+H2 is outside of conventional nuclear behavior - including not producing the calculated amount of energy the mass change requires. Exactamundo. This is where one must depart from the original Focardi/ Rossi account. The most prevalent active mechanism is not proton addition to nickel, with transmutation to copper. The facts do not support that. There could be a small contribution but the main reaction is different. Like it or not, Steven Jones - and his new slides do support the viewpoint of Bob Cook and many others on spin coupling - due to magnetic field collapse and with real data, and a photon signature in the RF. He also disputes the connection of Helium to excess heat. I would not go that far, but it is sufficient to say the PdD and NiH are very different. winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Aetheric images - Please read if you didn't feel anything last time - Be brave, give it a try!
From Wikipedia's article on double blind experimentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment#Double-blind_trials : In a double-blind experiment, neither the participants nor the researchers know which participants belong to the control group, as opposed to the test group. Only after all data have been recorded (and in some cases, analyzed) do the researchers learn which participants were which. This effect is almost an inevitable consequence of doing on-line testing aka AB testing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/B_testing: The subject hits the experiment's URL. The server selects which treatment is given to the subject (in this case, which image is presented to him). Measurement of the results of the treatment are recorded by submitting a response form (in this case, a simple (Y) yeah I felt something I do not attribute to my own psychology or (N) nah, i don't think I really felt anything that was caused by anything but my psychology The case is recorded as a database row. Later the researcher, who had no hand in selecting which images were presented to which subjects nor even communicating with the subjects anything but the conditions of the experiment, can analyze the data. Better yet, outsiders can inspect the data and supply their own interpretations. On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 3:06 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, so have 2 images, one active and one inactive. See if people can establish which is which? Good idea, I will mock one up. On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:01 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I believe I mentioned this before when you requested experimental subjects: Its trivial to run double blind controls over the internet. Why don't you? On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:15 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, some of you may remember that I designed images that I claim effect the background energy of space (aether, dark matter/energy, higgs field, quantum foam) to the point of being felt by most people. Some people have felt the energy and inquired about why they can feel something hitting them (in public places with it out of sight and no introduction). Hence it is not just in the mind. How can it possibly work? Because light is a terrahertz electric and magnetic field, all EM effects the medium that it is manifested in making it a little bit more solid, that which is involved in light is not as free to move as that which is darker. Actually in quantum terms, the light could be said to be collapsing the quantum wave function where it passes, but allowing a greater degree of wave function elsewhere. Last time some people on the list felt it, some didn't and not enough were willing to answer to be terribly clear which group was in the majority, but probably feelers by a slim majority. Anyway I have improved the 'tech' enough that I would be very grateful if any who didn't feel anything, or were unsure last time would give it another shot. And if you haven't tried before, please try it. http://imageshack.com/a/img577/8635/7w1a.png (feel over the image and the line to the top right shoots energy out the side of your monitor) The sensation can differ from normal sensation, sometimes I will encounter this energy without expecting to, but it seems to require intent other times, it seems to depend on how this type of energy (chi?) is going in your body. You may feel warmth, cool, motion, tingle or buzz or some indescribable difference. It can be very obvious or very subtle, and change for the person in either direction. Feel free to answer in private if you prefer. Please answer either way. Thanks, John
Re: [Vo]:Aetheric images - Please read if you didn't feel anything last time - Be brave, give it a try!
Ah, I was thinking that since there are so few participants, and to reduce false positives, 2 images could be presented. This way if they were able to feel something slight with one image that might have been in the mind but the other produced a clearly obvious energy/sensation, they could answer correctly. This could lead to a far better result, if someone is sensitive to energy they might well feel the energy that remains in the relatively inactive image. I have made an inactive version of the image I sent earlier, it required sabotaging every component and the energy is greatly reduced while still looking very similar to the other version. But I have not been able to get it to go away entirely. Additionally I have shared with people who are sensitive and they feel energy from the images, but they also feel energy from my emails. (I felt the same off one paragraph of a book when someone was writing about a company in Russia making pyramids and energy associated). Interestingly the Russian company makes and sells substances that have changed state in the pyramid as a way to connect to the energy in a more convenient manner. The problem is that if any unique pattern is formed in an energy field, it forms a connection to that energy. So I can't make an image with no energy, I can however make 2 similar looking images with very different (contrasting) energy activity levels. John On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:28 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: From Wikipedia's article on double blind experimentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment#Double-blind_trials : In a double-blind experiment, neither the participants nor the researchers know which participants belong to the control group, as opposed to the test group. Only after all data have been recorded (and in some cases, analyzed) do the researchers learn which participants were which. This effect is almost an inevitable consequence of doing on-line testing aka AB testing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/B_testing: The subject hits the experiment's URL. The server selects which treatment is given to the subject (in this case, which image is presented to him). Measurement of the results of the treatment are recorded by submitting a response form (in this case, a simple (Y) yeah I felt something I do not attribute to my own psychology or (N) nah, i don't think I really felt anything that was caused by anything but my psychology The case is recorded as a database row. Later the researcher, who had no hand in selecting which images were presented to which subjects nor even communicating with the subjects anything but the conditions of the experiment, can analyze the data. Better yet, outsiders can inspect the data and supply their own interpretations. On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 3:06 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, so have 2 images, one active and one inactive. See if people can establish which is which? Good idea, I will mock one up. On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:01 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I believe I mentioned this before when you requested experimental subjects: Its trivial to run double blind controls over the internet. Why don't you? On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:15 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, some of you may remember that I designed images that I claim effect the background energy of space (aether, dark matter/energy, higgs field, quantum foam) to the point of being felt by most people. Some people have felt the energy and inquired about why they can feel something hitting them (in public places with it out of sight and no introduction). Hence it is not just in the mind. How can it possibly work? Because light is a terrahertz electric and magnetic field, all EM effects the medium that it is manifested in making it a little bit more solid, that which is involved in light is not as free to move as that which is darker. Actually in quantum terms, the light could be said to be collapsing the quantum wave function where it passes, but allowing a greater degree of wave function elsewhere. Last time some people on the list felt it, some didn't and not enough were willing to answer to be terribly clear which group was in the majority, but probably feelers by a slim majority. Anyway I have improved the 'tech' enough that I would be very grateful if any who didn't feel anything, or were unsure last time would give it another shot. And if you haven't tried before, please try it. http://imageshack.com/a/img577/8635/7w1a.png (feel over the image and the line to the top right shoots energy out the side of your monitor) The sensation can differ from normal sensation, sometimes I will encounter this energy without expecting to, but it seems to require intent other times, it seems to depend on how this type of energy (chi?) is going in your body. You may feel warmth, cool, motion, tingle or buzz or some indescribable
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Eric-- I agree with your observation about Jones and Ed. In their give and take just before this message I was not sure who was saying what. The symbol seemed to have no significance as to who was talking. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No, I provide two facts from the Rossi experiments. No gamma. No tritium. ... These are facts, not assertions. Jones, your analysis is often insightful. But here you're stating facts, and then implying assumptions on the basis of those facts as facts as well. You assume that d+d fusion will result in a gamma, and then when no gamma is seen, you assume that d+d fusion in NiH is not possible. You have assumed away some mechanism that might be fractionating the gamma. And then later you draw upon related arguments to support this assumption. In repeating this line of reasoning, you are as guilty of simple, repetitive assertion of your assumptions as Ed is of his. Simply asserting an assumption to be true, or drawing upon such an assumption implicitly to reason about other things, does not make the assumption true. I suspect d+d fusion is not going on in Rossi's reactor either, but for reasons other than a missing gamma. We have no evidence one way or another about tritium, but no specific reason to believe it is there either. In fact, all the important evidence shows the two cannot be similar in any meaningful way. This is an overstatement. Can we all adopt a more measured tone? There is no high energy event in the Rossi effect, or it would have been seen in the Bianchini radiation monitoring. Can you provide a link to the Bianchini report? For some reason I'm having trouble finding it. I assume that this was the appendix provided in connection with the Elforsk test? The only report I'm finding deals with a different subject relating to the E-Cat, in 2010 [1]. In the Elforsk test, no radiation was seen. There were obviously working parameters for the radiation monitor and an upper and lower threshold beyond which it would not have been effective. I do not know what type of monitor was used or what these thresholds were. But what we can deduce from this situation is that no penetrating radiation was escaping the system. It is a nonsequitor to conclude anything about the amount of energy being dissipated, let alone to conclude something about spin coupling as a possible mechanism. Spin coupling does not apply to the fusion of deuterium into helium. You are intentionally conflating two unrelated effects. This is a simple assertion. Can we lay off of these a little? Eric [1] http://e-cataustralia.com/pdf/Levi_Bianchini_and_Villa_Reports.pdf
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
Yes, some combination of that and tidal forces from the moon, perhaps. On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:18 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.netwrote: Perhaps the energy is coming from the rotational energy of the earth, i.e. Coriolis effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect ( which as I look at it, is a fudge factor needed to account for anomalies when you assume you're in an inertial frame of reference, but really aren't due to the rotation of the earth.). One could extract energy from the earth by raising a weight vertically, then letting it fall whilst letting it's east-west tendency generate force X distance. For example if the surface of the earth is moving at 1000 km/hour and you raise a weight such that the speed is now 1001 km/hour, as you let it fall you could extract 1 km/hour of kinetic energy from it. I think that'd be a pretty small effect, hence the huge machine to get anything useful. It would be interesting to see if it's orientation was north-south along its rotational axis. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:25 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, the person you want to convince is Terry Blanton. He is our resident expert in magnetic motors. He says he looked at some of them closely and found they did not work. Skeptical by experience. We tested spirals, pulsed, shielded . . . every configuration we could imagine and found them conservative. But, I'm still open if someone has a new idea. -- http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/protection is active.
Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum
David Roberson http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22David+Roberson%22 Sat, 08 Feb 2014 13:32:56 -0800 http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20140208 If you look into this scenario in detail, you will see how the total angular and linear momentum is conserved separately. The high velocity gas impacts the large volume of gas and sends the total mass at an average slower velocity in the direction that the input stream is moving. The total momentum of the system would be conserved as always. I have trouble with that standard answer. I don't see how the large volume of gas ends up with the same momentum if part of the energy has been inevitably converted into heat. Where does the extra energy come from?
[Vo]:Spin this ...
For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex - Here is a magnon-ymous tribute to John Bockris, who passed away last summer. Bockris authored over 700 papers and 24 books. This blip is courtesy of Brian Ahern who has been developing a nanomagnetism hypothesis for non-nuclear gain in LENR which involves magnons, spin coupling and Curie point recycling. It does not necessarily replace fusion, but may be another (one of many) sources of thermal gain. In fact there is the possibility that given the strangeness of QM - the way that one gets to a reactionless version of helium fusion is to already have given up the 24 MeV with spin coupling !!! This finding below should be a strong indication that even Pd-D has a robust spin coupling mechanism, which is unrelated to fusion - but which is definitely thermally gainful and could precede fusion. I mean to say probably unrelated to fusion since in the following - there was NO ENERGY applied, simply a magnetic field. Most proponents of Pd-D realize that helium cannot arise without some energy input, but the point is that even here, there could be another distinct route to thermal gain. From Bockris and Sundaresan 1994 2.3. Magnetic Stimulation After the cathode had been charged with deuterium for 48 hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the field of a permanent magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte temperature rose to 5 ° C (Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds, the magnet was replaced by two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss field placed as described earlier. The temperature immediately started increasing and reached 13.5 ° C in about 15 minutes and remained constant. The temperature returned to 3.5 ° C when the magnet was removed. attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
Geez Terry, three people standing around drinking white wine, while watching one guy do all the work! Can I get a job there?? ;-) -m -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:06 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Skeptical by experience. We tested spirals, pulsed, shielded . . . every configuration we could imagine and found them conservative. But, I'm still open if someone has a new idea. Just to give you an idea of how far we went, this assembly of spiral magnet cost over $100k. http://imgur.com/c4dGBtI Exciting night when this puppy came in. For scale, the machinist is about 5'4.
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
I am not going to try to quote who and what from this thread regarding fractionating gammas (too long of a story line now). What I have come to believe and what I initially missed, and what I think many Vorts may be missing in this, is that the LENR reaction and the fractionating are not two separate processes. Jones (et al) are correct that if there is a fractionating mechanism that is an independent effect, it could not be 100% efficient and some high energy photons would escape as a marker of this inefficiency. The important possibility to realize is that the fractionating and the LENR are both part of the SAME mechanism. There can be no leaks because without the fractionating mechanism operating, there would not be any LENR. On each pair of hydrons, the fractionating mechanism is required to allow the nuclear reaction to occur. This guarantees no leakage, except for secondary effects. So in this scenario, 100% efficient fractionating is possible. Bob Higgins
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Hi Eric, I have made progress and have constructed a new reactor optimized to allow low energy photons to escape. These would be unmistakable signatures of LENR without having to be so optimized to show excess heat to the extent it proves a nuclear source. I have seen transient heat bursts and I want to correlate these with emitted photons. Unfortunately, I am on a temporary hold to get myself and my little lab moved across the US to NM. Bob On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: Rossi has stated that he starts with 10 micron sized particles (since identified as a nickel powder produced from the carbonyl process), adds a catalyst (widely believed to be a nanopowder of some kind), and processes the mix in a way that leads to amplified tubercles on the surface. Thanks for the helpful clarification. I didn't realize that. The main reference I have found is Hank Mills's PESN article [1]. I'm curious where Mills got this information. It sounds like you have made a lot of progress on getting an NiH reactor set up. Have you seen anything interesting? Eric [1] http://pesn.com/2012/01/02/9601998_Defkalion_Claims_No_Problem_with_Revealing_Cold_Fusion_Catalyst/
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Eric, Jones and Ed--Bob Cook here-- Note that Pam Mosier Boss and Larry (the radiation count specialist consultant for SPAWAR) talked about the CR-39 scheme for monitoring radiation from the Pd-D system they worked with. (This was 2009 at the U of Mo.) They saw evidence of tritium, neutrons, and high energy alphas and He-3. Gamma radiation was also apparent.However there was no apparent gamma radiation associated with the major reaction of 2 D's going to He-4, only the evidence of large melted areas in the Pd electrode and no apparent kinetic energy associated with those alphas. They alphas from the D-D fusion were produced in the Pd electrode, apparently standing, yet there was distribution of the excess energy to the electrode to cause the significant melting of the Pd. They did not see any indication of fission parts of the Pd. . At least if there was any they did not report it. If such fission products were energetic they would have been observed in their CR-39 detector. The reaction (D-D fusion) was real and with no irradiation measured. My assessment is that it happened much like a small nuclear explosion except much faster--instantaneously--once the quantum system was properly stimulated. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:32 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems On Feb 8, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No, I provide two facts from the Rossi experiments. No gamma. No tritium. ... These are facts, not assertions. Jones, your analysis is often insightful. But here you're stating facts, and then implying assumptions on the basis of those facts as facts as well. You assume that d+d fusion will result in a gamma, and then when no gamma is seen, you assume that d+d fusion in NiH is not possible. You have assumed away some mechanism that might be fractionating the gamma. And then later you draw upon related arguments to support this assumption. In repeating this line of reasoning, you are as guilty of simple, repetitive assertion of your assumptions as Ed is of his. Simply asserting an assumption to be true, or drawing upon such an assumption implicitly to reason about other things, does not make the assumption true. I suspect d+d fusion is not going on in Rossi's reactor either, but for reasons other than a missing gamma. We have no evidence one way or another about tritium, but no specific reason to believe it is there either. Eric, no one believes d+d fusion occurs in the Rossi reactor. The d we are discussing results from p-e-p fusion only. I agree with the other comments you make. Ed Storms In fact, all the important evidence shows the two cannot be similar in any meaningful way. This is an overstatement. Can we all adopt a more measured tone? There is no high energy event in the Rossi effect, or it would have been seen in the Bianchini radiation monitoring. Can you provide a link to the Bianchini report? For some reason I'm having trouble finding it. I assume that this was the appendix provided in connection with the Elforsk test? The only report I'm finding deals with a different subject relating to the E-Cat, in 2010 [1]. In the Elforsk test, no radiation was seen. There were obviously working parameters for the radiation monitor and an upper and lower threshold beyond which it would not have been effective. I do not know what type of monitor was used or what these thresholds were. But what we can deduce from this situation is that no penetrating radiation was escaping the system. It is a nonsequitor to conclude anything about the amount of energy being dissipated, let alone to conclude something about spin coupling as a possible mechanism. Spin coupling does not apply to the fusion of deuterium into helium. You are intentionally conflating two unrelated effects. This is a simple assertion. Can we lay off of these a little? Eric [1] http://e-cataustralia.com/pdf/Levi_Bianchini_and_Villa_Reports.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...
What accounts for the Heat/Helium correlation in this reaction mechanism? Is it discounted? On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex - Here is a magnon-ymous tribute to John Bockris, who passed away last summer. Bockris authored over 700 papers and 24 books. This blip is courtesy of Brian Ahern who has been developing a nanomagnetism hypothesis for non-nuclear gain in LENR which involves magnons, spin coupling and Curie point recycling. It does not necessarily replace fusion, but may be another (one of many) sources of thermal gain. In fact there is the possibility that given the strangeness of QM - the way that one gets to a reactionless version of helium fusion is to already have given up the 24 MeV with spin coupling !!! This finding below should be a strong indication that even Pd-D has a robust spin coupling mechanism, which is unrelated to fusion - but which is definitely thermally gainful and could precede fusion. I mean to say probably unrelated to fusion since in the following - there was NO ENERGY applied, simply a magnetic field. Most proponents of Pd-D realize that helium cannot arise without some energy input, but the point is that even here, there could be another distinct route to thermal gain. From Bockris and Sundaresan 1994 2.3. Magnetic Stimulation After the cathode had been charged with deuterium for 48 hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the field of a permanent magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte temperature rose to 5 ° C (Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds, the magnet was replaced by two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss field placed as described earlier. The temperature immediately started increasing and reached 13.5 ° C in about 15 minutes and remained constant. The temperature returned to 3.5 ° C when the magnet was removed.
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 7:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Geez Terry, three people standing around drinking white wine, while watching one guy do all the work! Can I get a job there?? We had the worker and Quality Inspector Safety Officer Project Manager Trade Labor Foreman Standard government project.
Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum
There should not be any extra energy than was present in the high velocity gas and other cloud before the impact. The energy after the collision is distributed differently since the large volume of gas would likely be heated by the collision. Any additional heat energy that is passed to the large volume of gas is extracted from the high velocity stream. Of course there may be other places that energy can be deposited after the collision, but the total before and after should be the same. Consider that the high velocity incoming gas has a significant quantity of kinetic energy due to its motion. Once it has collided, it slows down as it becomes a portion of the larger gas cloud. That is the source of the extra energy you are seeking. I suppose that what I am discussing is the standard answer, but it is the way I understand the physics. So far, I have never been able to prove that it is in error. I have studied many cases and they all match the theory. Dave -Original Message- From: a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 8, 2014 7:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Linear and Angular Momentum David Roberson Sat, 08 Feb 2014 13:32:56 -0800 If you look into this scenario in detail, you will see how the total angular and linear momentum is conserved separately. The high velocity gas impacts the large volume of gas and sends the total mass at an average slower velocity in the direction that the input stream is moving. The total momentum of the system would be conserved as always. I have trouble with that standard answer. I don't see how thelarge volume of gas ends up with the same momentum if part of theenergy has been inevitably converted into heat. Where does theextra energy come from?
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: However there was no apparent gamma radiation associated with the major reaction of 2 D's going to He-4, only the evidence of large melted areas in the Pd electrode and no apparent kinetic energy associated with those alphas. The finding of standing/low-energy alphas is very common in the older PdD research. It took me literally years to accept that this was possible. Ed Storms has been insisting on it, and I just didn't see how it was consistent with fusion, so I assumed that the alphas were being stopped in the material and the accompanying Bremsstrahlung screened out by the substrate and the material intervening between the substrate and the measurement device. Realistically, this is improbable, because holding an alpha emitter behind a sheet of palladium will give rise to Bremsstrahlung as the alphas collide with the far side of the sheet, as was seen in a control in one early experiment. I now am willing to accept the experimental finding of alphas being born without kinetic energy. The reason for this is that I think there is something along the lines that Bob Higgins described here [1] going on. It was not until I had some kind of explanation that made sense to me that I was able to go along with what the experimenters were saying. Note that in a lot of the CR-39 experiments (there have been many over the years), there is evidence for ~10 MeV alphas and ~1-3 MeV protons. But the important question is whether they are at a sufficient level to explain what is going on, and I think the consensus is that they are not. All of that is of interest in the context of NiH insofar as it points out the possibility of the gamma energy being dissipated in a benign way. Eric [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg89992.html
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
I agree with you Eric, the jury is still out. Ed's way of thinking is more in line with my recent thoughts about a retarding magnetic field effect. He may not agree, but it is easier for me to understand how a process that slows down the snap action associated with the acceleration of the charged particles by the strong force could allow the energy to be dissipated slowly instead of in one large pulse. I visualize forcing the proton(s) to crawl to the nickel nucleus or each other kind of like moving through molasses. After all, it is well known that electromagnetic radiation is generated by the acceleration of charged particles and the rate of that acceleration must determine the spectrum of the radiation emitted. Large magnetic fields have been shown to divert moving charged particles. As I have mentioned previously, DGT has reported the presence of a much larger external magnetic field that anyone would have expected and I assume that they would not have placed that report into the public arena had it been false. I am taking them at their word about this measurement until proven otherwise. A large external magnetic field might well translate into an extremely large internal field at the active sites. Couple that with positive feedback and you get a significant amount of power generation. So far this is the theory that I favor. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 8, 2014 5:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: However, I am not convinced that PdD works this way, and frankly - it is a diversion to even bring it up for now, since it detracts from the really important issue - which is the proper understanding of the Rossi effect. How is it a diversion to bring up an apparently well-established conclusion that a large quantum of mass energy can be fractionated without penetrating radiation? That was the point that was at issue. Answer: it's not a diversion. The conclusion may be flawed, the evidence may be flawed, the interpretation may be flawed, and/or the research may be flawed. But a consensus conclusion about the fractionation of a 24 MeV quantum into non-penetrating radiation is something to be addressed in a conversation dealing with the question of whether fractionation is possible. I'm not trying to say that the fractionation conclusion is for sure what is going on, either in NiH or in PdD. Only that it's not out in the wilderness either, as some would tendentiously make it out to be. :) Eric
RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...
From: Foks0904 What accounts for the Heat/Helium correlation in this reaction mechanism? Is it discounted? My guess is that no helium at all is seen in this experiment - only thermal gain. In a perfect world with decent funding - this would have been run dozens of times with more care. It was not, and it is doubtful that they looked for helium at all - only excess heat. The evidence for thermal gain in Pd-D is convincing - extraordinary actually - far more so than the controversial claims for an actual correlation of helium to thermal gain. There are people who everyone respects - experts - on both sides of the helium correlation issue, but it is undecided. For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex - Here is a magnon-ymous tribute to John Bockris, who passed away last summer. Bockris authored over 700 papers and 24 books. This blip is courtesy of Brian Ahern who has been developing a nanomagnetism hypothesis for non-nuclear gain in LENR which involves magnons, spin coupling and Curie point recycling. It does not necessarily replace fusion, but may be another (one of many) sources of thermal gain. In fact there is the possibility that given the strangeness of QM - the way that one gets to a reactionless version of helium fusion is to already have given up the 24 MeV with spin coupling !!! This finding below should be a strong indication that even Pd-D has a robust spin coupling mechanism, which is unrelated to fusion - but which is definitely thermally gainful and could precede fusion. I mean to say probably unrelated to fusion since in the following - there was NO ENERGY applied, simply a magnetic field. Most proponents of Pd-D realize that helium cannot arise without some energy input, but the point is that even here, there could be another distinct route to thermal gain. From Bockris and Sundaresan 1994 2.3. Magnetic Stimulation After the cathode had been charged with deuterium for 48 hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the field of a permanent magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte temperature rose to 5 ° C (Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds, the magnet was replaced by two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss field placed as described earlier. The temperature immediately started increasing and reached 13.5 ° C in about 15 minutes and remained constant. The temperature returned to 3.5 ° C when the magnet was removed. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:More Magnetic Coupling Thoughts
There is no limit on the strength of a magnetic field. From the inverse square law, how strong can a magnetic field be at one nanometer on the walls of a nano-cavity, when it is detected at 18cm to be 1.6 tesla? It is at least atomic level (10^5 tesla) or on the high end about 10^12 to 10^16 tesla. On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Looking deeper into the magnetic coupled positive feedback LENR reaction, I have a few ideas to pass along. I understand that a magnetic field has essentially unlimited access to the atomic structure. By this I mean that a large, static external field can penetrate through the electron cloud surrounding atoms as well as proceed directly throughout the region of the nucleus. The same is certainly not true for an electric field since movement of charged particles takes place to eliminate any internal field outside the atoms themselves. This freedom of magnetic field movement enables coupling to exist among electrons and protons that make up the atomic structures of all connected, and particularly nearby, atoms. i suspect that any magnetic coupling path which transports a significant quantity of energy away from a reaction site would exhibit rapid variations in its magnitude and direction. This rapid flux change would likely be attenuated as it passes through the conductive metal lattice and tends to limit the distance of the effective coupling. The expected attenuation is proportional to the rate of fluxuation. Another interesting feature of the magnetic field behavior is that nickel has magnetic domains that modify the local field pattern within the metal at low to moderate temperatures. At above the Curie temperature(355C) this effect goes away and that also happens to be in the range of temperatures at which LENR activity begins to become important. This may be a coincidence, but I suspect not. I believe that a positive feedback mechanism is in play because of the large magnitude of the measured external magnetic field reported by DGT. Any random process that results in charge movement must tend to cancel out the field when integrated over a significant volume of material. So, if the magnetic coupling among the active sites enhances the reaction rate and those induced reactions increase the initial field in phase, then both build to a large level as I have mentioned previously. A characteristic of this type of system would be for it to exhibit a threshold effect. Until adequate coupling between sites exists, very little LENR activity would be expected to occur. Too few of what we typically refer to as NAE and you only see weak nuclear activity. Perhaps the normal magnetic domains of moderate temperature nickel disrupt the process which again might attenuate the coupling. Impurities within the metal could be a factor to contend with in some instances. The list of problems which prevent the positive feedback from reaching the required threshold may be extensive and has done a significant job of obscuring LENR. DGT apparently has discovered the recipe that enables the magnetic coupling to occur. The same likely is true of Rossi, although he has not publicly described any magnetic field effects except in coded terms. The recent revelation that PF used a large external magnetic field supports the present concept. If their system had adequate natural internal magnetic coupling and the associated feedback, then the external field may not have been necessary. Is anyone aware of how a strong magnetic field from an external source effects the structure of atoms? Do the electrons adjust their orbits in such a manner as to eliminate the external field that extends into the nucleus in a manner similar to the behavior of a super conductor? This is important to understand if we are to determine how the nearby nuclei couple via the field. Also, movement of the charges associated with the metal atoms as well as the hydrogen might reveal the hidden mechanism responsible for the fusion. The exact cause is still lacking explanation. The question remains as to how a strong guiding magnetic field can enhance a fusion reaction that then makes a significant contribution to the driving field. Axil has one general proposal to consider, but there may be a more specific one. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...
Foks0904, Brian and Jones--Bob Cook here-- Thanks for the reference to spin coupling. If electrons love to pair up in atoms because of spin coupling, why not protons in a metal lattice quantum system? Kim seems to think that D's with integral spin can get together at significant temperatures in a BEC and act like one entity. Maybe 2 paired protons act like a Bose particle with parallel and anti-parallel spins in a Pd or Ni lattice. A magnetic field would help the protons to align themselves to pair up, particular at higher temperatures. Excited D particles, above their ground spin state of 0, in a magnetic field may pair up to regain a 0 spin combination; they would need to react with a pair of electrons at the same time to form highly stable He-4 with 0 spin at the end of the reaction. Energy of course would be fractioned to other nuclei and electrons in small spin quanta and hence to the lattice as thermal heat during this reaction. It would all depend on a coherent quantum system and coupling between the various particles. Such a reaction may be what Bockris and Sundaresan encountered and were able to control with the external magnetic field. 800 gauss applied field would produce a tremendous B magnetic field in the Pd electrode with corresponding higher spin energy quantum states for excited particles. Nuclear based gamma lasers studied extensively in the 1970's and 80' make use of excited nuclear spin/energy states which are induced to decay in a coherent manner. I note this in way of pointing that exciting nuclei with tuned radiation or other means (not generally neutrons to my knowledge) is not unheard of. I make the above conjectures for protons and D particles to make a point that spin coupling may be important in both Pd and Ni lattices with the hope of making LENR theory simple--connecting the various dots in the multitude of experiments. I will check out Bockris and Sundaresan ASAP. They may have checked the Pd for He-4 or other potential reaction products. George Miley should have a good handle on this issue, since he has worked with the Pd system extensively. He's another researcher to check out. SPAWAR seems to have blacked out so I would not look to them for additional information on the Pd system and spin coupling. SRI, well maybe. Thanks to all that contribute ideas to this conversation, Bob - Original Message - From: Foks0904 . To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spin this ... What accounts for the Heat/Helium correlation in this reaction mechanism? Is it discounted? On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex - Here is a magnon-ymous tribute to John Bockris, who passed away last summer. Bockris authored over 700 papers and 24 books. This blip is courtesy of Brian Ahern who has been developing a nanomagnetism hypothesis for non-nuclear gain in LENR which involves magnons, spin coupling and Curie point recycling. It does not necessarily replace fusion, but may be another (one of many) sources of thermal gain. In fact there is the possibility that given the strangeness of QM - the way that one gets to a reactionless version of helium fusion is to already have given up the 24 MeV with spin coupling !!! This finding below should be a strong indication that even Pd-D has a robust spin coupling mechanism, which is unrelated to fusion - but which is definitely thermally gainful and could precede fusion. I mean to say probably unrelated to fusion since in the following - there was NO ENERGY applied, simply a magnetic field. Most proponents of Pd-D realize that helium cannot arise without some energy input, but the point is that even here, there could be another distinct route to thermal gain. From Bockris and Sundaresan 1994 2.3. Magnetic Stimulation After the cathode had been charged with deuterium for 48 hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the field of a permanent magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte temperature rose to 5 ° C (Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds, the magnet was replaced by two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss field placed as described earlier. The temperature immediately started increasing and reached 13.5 ° C in about 15 minutes and remained constant. The temperature returned to 3.5 ° C when the magnet was removed.
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Bob Higgins--Bob Cook here-- I agree with your logic regarding 100% efficient fractionating as possible. As I noted in an earlier comment Mosier-Boss etal at SPAWAR saw two separate reactions, the one LENR with no radiation being D-D going to He-4. It was also the dominant reaction that happened in their Pd-D unshielded cell. Bob - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Bob Higgins Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems I am not going to try to quote who and what from this thread regarding fractionating gammas (too long of a story line now). What I have come to believe and what I initially missed, and what I think many Vorts may be missing in this, is that the LENR reaction and the fractionating are not two separate processes. Jones (et al) are correct that if there is a fractionating mechanism that is an independent effect, it could not be 100% efficient and some high energy photons would escape as a marker of this inefficiency. The important possibility to realize is that the fractionating and the LENR are both part of the SAME mechanism. There can be no leaks because without the fractionating mechanism operating, there would not be any LENR. On each pair of hydrons, the fractionating mechanism is required to allow the nuclear reaction to occur. This guarantees no leakage, except for secondary effects. So in this scenario, 100% efficient fractionating is possible. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
A better scheme to extract energy from the Coriolis force is the spinning earth creates is to erect a windmill or your sailboat in the trade winds which are caused by this effect. Bob - Original Message - From: Blaze Spinnaker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 4:14 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine Yes, some combination of that and tidal forces from the moon, perhaps. On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:18 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net wrote: Perhaps the energy is coming from the rotational energy of the earth, i.e. Coriolis effect ( which as I look at it, is a fudge factor needed to account for anomalies when you assume you're in an inertial frame of reference, but really aren't due to the rotation of the earth.). One could extract energy from the earth by raising a weight vertically, then letting it fall whilst letting it's east-west tendency generate force X distance. For example if the surface of the earth is moving at 1000 km/hour and you raise a weight such that the speed is now 1001 km/hour, as you let it fall you could extract 1 km/hour of kinetic energy from it. I think that'd be a pretty small effect, hence the huge machine to get anything useful. It would be interesting to see if it's orientation was north-south along its rotational axis. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:25 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, the person you want to convince is Terry Blanton. He is our resident expert in magnetic motors. He says he looked at some of them closely and found they did not work. Skeptical by experience. We tested spirals, pulsed, shielded . . . every configuration we could imagine and found them conservative. But, I'm still open if someone has a new idea. This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
Re: [Vo]:More Magnetic Coupling Thoughts
Dave--Bob Cook here Pd has one of the highest magnetic susceptibility of any metal. The electrons line up in an applied field to establish a very large B field in the Pd matrix. The susceptibility determines the relative intensity of the internal and external magnetic fields. I am not sure how the susceptibity changes with temperature. It may also decrease as with Ni. Nuclei with high nuclear magnetic moments would respond to this B field and line up their spin vector parallel or anti-parallel to the local B field. Thus, impurities may make for local variations in the B field or magnetic traps for particles which have a magnetic moment and are free to move through the matrix. Ni is a ferro magnetic metal which can retain an alignment of the electrons so as to create a permanent magnet and B field after the elimination of an external field. Pd which is paramagnetic* loses its internal B field when an external magnetic field is removed. Some compounds, for example rare earth oxides, magnetic susceptibilities 20 to 30 times the susceptibility of Pd. They might be the catalyst that Rossi talks about. The following link identifies magnetic susceptibities for various compounds and metals. http://www.reade.com/Particle_Briefings/magnetic_susceptibilities.html *Diamagnetic atoms have only paired electrons, whereas paramagnetic atoms, which can be made magnetic, have at least one unpaired electron. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More Magnetic Coupling Thoughts There is no limit on the strength of a magnetic field. From the inverse square law, how strong can a magnetic field be at one nanometer on the walls of a nano-cavity, when it is detected at 18cm to be 1.6 tesla? It is at least atomic level (10^5 tesla) or on the high end about 10^12 to 10^16 tesla. On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Looking deeper into the magnetic coupled positive feedback LENR reaction, I have a few ideas to pass along. I understand that a magnetic field has essentially unlimited access to the atomic structure. By this I mean that a large, static external field can penetrate through the electron cloud surrounding atoms as well as proceed directly throughout the region of the nucleus. The same is certainly not true for an electric field since movement of charged particles takes place to eliminate any internal field outside the atoms themselves. This freedom of magnetic field movement enables coupling to exist among electrons and protons that make up the atomic structures of all connected, and particularly nearby, atoms. i suspect that any magnetic coupling path which transports a significant quantity of energy away from a reaction site would exhibit rapid variations in its magnitude and direction. This rapid flux change would likely be attenuated as it passes through the conductive metal lattice and tends to limit the distance of the effective coupling. The expected attenuation is proportional to the rate of fluxuation. Another interesting feature of the magnetic field behavior is that nickel has magnetic domains that modify the local field pattern within the metal at low to moderate temperatures. At above the Curie temperature(355C) this effect goes away and that also happens to be in the range of temperatures at which LENR activity begins to become important. This may be a coincidence, but I suspect not. I believe that a positive feedback mechanism is in play because of the large magnitude of the measured external magnetic field reported by DGT. Any random process that results in charge movement must tend to cancel out the field when integrated over a significant volume of material. So, if the magnetic coupling among the active sites enhances the reaction rate and those induced reactions increase the initial field in phase, then both build to a large level as I have mentioned previously. A characteristic of this type of system would be for it to exhibit a threshold effect. Until adequate coupling between sites exists, very little LENR activity would be expected to occur. Too few of what we typically refer to as NAE and you only see weak nuclear activity. Perhaps the normal magnetic domains of moderate temperature nickel disrupt the process which again might attenuate the coupling. Impurities within the metal could be a factor to contend with in some instances. The list of problems which prevent the positive feedback from reaching the required threshold may be extensive and has done a significant job of obscuring LENR. DGT apparently has discovered the recipe that enables the magnetic coupling to occur. The same likely is true of Rossi, although he has not publicly described any magnetic field effects except in coded terms. The recent revelation that PF
