Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Sent from my iPad On Feb 14, 2014, at 12:31 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: about tritium, and NiH, in your vision, does this mean some d+e+p, or d+e+d happen like p+e+p depending on the available reactant (and I imagine the geometric structure of the fields around). the fact that d and p have different mass, make the reaction p+e+d very different from p+e+p or d+e+d, more asymetrical... maybe it is more collective to make it symmetrical again? Yes Alain, that is my claim. I assume that all hydrogen isotopes experience the same mechanism. How this happens is a different issue. I remember that some tritium experiments show that maximum tritium was produced with 50%D 50%H... in that vision NiH reactors would produce D, then some T (anv much less He4) after some time if the fuel is much consumed. That is true. This observation has now been replicated. by the way, why is p+p impossible ? too much energy needed ? even in collective context (hard to imagine MeV piled upon thousands of coherent p) p-p is not possible using LENR because too much energy is required to get over the barrier and the expected products are not observed. The idea that gamma or neutrons cannot be filtered at 10^-6 whatever is the mechanism is anyway a strong point... I feel now that it cannot be produced. Neutrons can not be easily removed but neutrons are not produced. The weak photon s that are detected can be easily removed by the walls of the apparatus. People need to read what is know to occur rather than speculate from ignorance. the way the reaction behave in lattice, near the surface, in abnormal places (vacancies, cracks, nanostructures) say geometry and electronic field geometry are important... There is something about interference... I have no idea what interference means. Ed Storms 2014-02-14 1:23 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them into account. Ed Storms. Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the math... 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: H Veeder (this also answers Robin’s more recent posting) The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 … so we have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes differ. JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is twofold 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is ingrained and systemic. 2) Therefore … even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p
RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Labeling the mainstream climate narrative as 'true' or 'false' perpetuates the 'black or white' fallacy. The elite controlled media helps by labeling prominent skeptics as deniers even if they openly acknowledge a rise in temperature over decades (Lindzen). Eliminating a moderate view serves political and economic interests especially of the elite. Being naive about the power of the elite - and the TBTJ banks in particular might be fatal. Just ask Andrew Maguire and read the details of his accident on Wikipedia. Or think about the recent rash of suicides in the big banking community among those who had connections to matters under investigation. Calling these things circumstantial can lead to being 'carried by six'. I sincerely hope the truth about LENR emerges suddenly upon the world and is disbelieved until the 'last minute'. Otherwise, there's no telling what the sociopaths in charge might do..
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: From the website: A person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. In a strict sense, this is true. But people are inherently intuitive, and intuition goes beyond cut-and-dry logic. . . . It is (or should be) a logical fallacy to hew too strictly to whether a conclusion is based on a logical fallacy. This is not quite right. What you are saying is that when a person makes an assertion X, such that if the public believed X this would benefit that person, we have reason to doubt the assertion. The person may be lying, because people often lie in their own interests. The person has a motive to lie. So it would be wise to check the veracity of the statement. That is not a logical fallacy. The fallacy would be to state that: we know this is a lie because it serves the speaker's best interests. That would only be true if people invariably, automatically lied whenever it was in their best interest to do so. We know they do not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Atlanta is in a tizzy
How in the world do they synchronize all the 60 hz signals from different power stations? A capacitive bank at each power station? What about the different phase angles that would be received at distant locations? At 186,000 miles per second after 775 miles the ending signal would be full magnitude of cycle , but the sending station would be at its zero crossing on the cycle. Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ On Thursday, February 13, 2014 10:51 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Oh its strange to associate the south with lynching or is it strange to associate the south with a particular potential to recognize how much damage has been done by suppression of cold fusion's potential for home generators now that they've experienced catastrophic cold cutting the lifeblood of modern society: electricity? On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:32 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Why? Do you think the rule of law is going to deal justice to those responsible for suppressing cold fusion? Do you think blacks will be targeted by lynch mobs because blacks suppressed cold fusion? I just think that it is a strange association.
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
I wrote: The fallacy would be to state that: we know this is a lie because it serves the speaker's best interests. That would only be true if people invariably, automatically lied whenever it was in their best interest to do so. We know they do not. In this discussion, I have made a prediction that fossil fuel companies will lie about cold fusion, because it is in their interests to lie. That is not a logical deduction. It is a prediction based on my knowledge of history and human nature. I may well be wrong. I will be delighted if it turns out I am wrong. - Jed
[Vo]:Rossi's 3rd Order Claim
I saw Rossi make the claim that the power generated by different sized ECAT like devices varies as the 3rd order of the linear dimensional size change. This was in response to a question by one of his readers and it may be more Rossi speak. Of course volume is usually associated with the 3rd order dimension growth, but surface area is proportional to 2nd order. Heat energy must escape through surface area so I am inclined to believe that Rossi is interpreting the question differently than I would. I suspect that Rossi is mainly posing the idea that if one doubles the mass of the active ingredients then he will get double the amount of power generated. The mass is directly proportional to the volume and that would explain the 3rd order statement. This is entirely different than assuming a growth in the size of the actual ECAT device along 3 dimensions. Do you think that this might be another attempt at misdirection, or perhaps just a lack of common terminology? Dave
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
The usual fallacy I see often is of that family: - there are possibility that X is false/fake/artifact - thus sure X is is false/fake/artifact there is the symmetrical believers equivalent, possible- true 2014-02-14 18:33 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: From the website: A person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. In a strict sense, this is true. But people are inherently intuitive, and intuition goes beyond cut-and-dry logic. . . . It is (or should be) a logical fallacy to hew too strictly to whether a conclusion is based on a logical fallacy. This is not quite right. What you are saying is that when a person makes an assertion X, such that if the public believed X this would benefit that person, we have reason to doubt the assertion. The person may be lying, because people often lie in their own interests. The person has a motive to lie. So it would be wise to check the veracity of the statement. That is not a logical fallacy. The fallacy would be to state that: we know this is a lie because it serves the speaker's best interests. That would only be true if people invariably, automatically lied whenever it was in their best interest to do so. We know they do not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: The usual fallacy I see often is of that family: - there are possibility that X is false/fake/artifact - thus sure X is is false/fake/artifact Exactly. Well said. there is the symmetrical believers equivalent, possible- true Yup. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
It seems oils companies like Amoco, Shell have participated the research. Today they participate investment in renewables, like do oild kingdoms, to prepare for the transition... what you describe is better explained by self-delusion like the one of hot fusionist... I feel that oil companies won't be the most victims of that delusion (they will have few decade to die). hot fusionist and renewable, plus advising agencies benefiting from expensive or carboned energy (they will die instantly). 2014-02-14 19:26 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: I wrote: The fallacy would be to state that: we know this is a lie because it serves the speaker's best interests. That would only be true if people invariably, automatically lied whenever it was in their best interest to do so. We know they do not. In this discussion, I have made a prediction that fossil fuel companies will lie about cold fusion, because it is in their interests to lie. That is not a logical deduction. It is a prediction based on my knowledge of history and human nature. I may well be wrong. I will be delighted if it turns out I am wrong. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com It seems oils companies like Amoco, Shell have participated the research. Today they participate investment in renewables, like do oil kingdoms, to prepare for the transition... There is the cynical PoV, which should not be overlooked. The Exxons of the world do not necessarily see themselves as oil companies so much as enablers of personal transportation. They want your $30 and up, per week, and do not care if they get it by leasing to you a device or an alternative fuel. They are not going away. If LENR turns out to be long-term commercial reality, then the initial cost of the devices will be higher than most of us want to believe, since that price will be governed by typical supply and demand dynamics - with demand pushing prices to the limit. The savings will not be passed on to the end user. The oil companies have cash. They can, and will, buy the entire output of an LENR factory and control the supply. Then they can use LENR to make a substitute for gasoline, and they will be happy to do it that way. This is why hydrogen fuel has appeal to Big Oil and is not a threat. The auto engine is adaptable to hydrogen. The cynics-amongst-us suspect that the price of LENR devices to most consumers will appear to be higher than the cost of a substitute fuel made from electricity, and that although the price of electricity may stabilize, it will never go down, even as costs to produce it go down. The filling station of the future may be a fast-recharging station, or a hydrogen fuel station, or a drop-in LENR device supplier - owned by Exxon and powered by Hot-Cats. That is the cynical PoV. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: It seems oils companies like Amoco, Shell have participated the research. Today they participate investment in renewables, like do oild kingdoms, to prepare for the transition... A few scientists at these companies did research. I doubt that upper management was aware of their work. Furthermore, even if management was aware, I doubt they would look at these results and think that they might result in practical technology any time in the next 50 years. what you describe is better explained by self-delusion like the one of hot fusionist... I feel that oil companies won't be the most victims of that delusion (they will have few decade to die). Studies by Christensen (the author of The Innovator's Dilemma) show that existing corporations seldom survive the transition to a radical new technology. He has many case studies. For example, he showed that when ships converted from sail to steam power, the leading ship builders did not survive the transition. They did not even try to make steamships. They did make steel hulls for sailing ships, so they might have built steamships. In some sense it did not even occur to them. He has many 20th century examples. I happen to like that one. One of the problems for the oil companies will be that they will have no relevant experience, research capabilities, or marketing skills for cold fusion. Selling cold fusion will mainly be the business of selling household appliances, automobiles, and factory equipment. This is not something an oil company does. They are less qualified to do it than, say, Dell computer, and far less qualified than General Electric or Toshiba. Having a ton of money and a bunch of petroleum engineers will not give them the skills they need in this market. Digging wells and shipping millions of tons of oil is not remotely like manufacturing a battery or a cold fusion device. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is the cynical PoV, which should not be overlooked. The Exxons of the world do not necessarily see themselves as oil companies so much as enablers of personal transportation. They want your $30 and up, per week, and do not care if they get it by leasing to you a device or an alternative fuel. They are not going away. Christensen and others often quote the Pennsylvania Railroad executives circa 1950. We are not in the railroad business. We are in the transportation business. Meaning they were lean, mean, competitive fighting machines. They could take on airlines, trucks, and any other method of moving goods and people. After all, the Pennsylvania Railroad was the largest, most profitable, most politically powerful company in the U.S. in 1900. So they knew the transportation business inside and out. Right? Nope. They went clean out of business in 1970. It turns out, they understood how to lay railroad tracks and maintain rolling stock, but they did not know a thing about air transport. They never even tried to break into that market. Or any other. They never though of container traffic, which was the biggest transportation breakthrough of the 20th century. IBM in 1985 was still the biggest and most profitable computer company. They dominated the industry. They thought they owned it. It turned out, however, that they were good at mainframe computers but not other kinds of computers. They almost went out of business in the late 1980s, after losing more money than any other corporation in history. The abilities of a corporation are much narrower than the managers realize. The oil companies have cash. They can, and will, buy the entire output of an LENR factory and control the supply. Then they can use LENR to make a substitute for gasoline, and they will be happy to do it that way. There will be no such thing as a LENR factory. LENR will be built into things like cars and space heaters, but the companies that manufacture these things. Like today's power supplies or internal combustion engines. There is no independent factory out there churning out Toyota Prius hybrid engines. All the cash in the world cannot make a petrochemical expert into someone who understand how to sell into the household appliance market, or how to design a better cold fusion auto engine. As I said, companies like GE will blow them out of the water. GE has plenty of money too. Exxon will never get a toehold into the cold fusion powered automobile market, which is one the biggest. Why would GM or Toyota give them any of it? It will be 100% their game. They will not need to send even one dollar to Exxon, so they won't send a dollar or a dime. Why should they? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
I meant to say: LENR will be built into things like cars and space heaters, BY the companies that manufacture these things. I mean with in-house expertise, and in-house production lines. LENR will be tightly integrated into the design of the machines. Not something you can add-on from an outside vendor. No major car manufacturer would buy engines from a vendor. A HVAC company such as Carrier has more in-house expertise in designing a heat pump than any outside vendor. If Exxon tries to set up a production line churning out cold fusion cells, I cannot imagine who would want them. They have to be in a particular form factor, with particular performance characteristics to fit an application, similar to the power supplies, blowers and the other components in a furnace. That is what Carrier knows how to engineer and manufacture. The actual cold fusion component will be a minor part of the furnace in any case. If, in the future, cold fusion cells are made by outside vendors, that will be because the cells have become a standardized commodity, like a transformer. Something you order from a catalog that is available from six different vendors meeting various industry standard specifications. A business like that cannot replace Exxon Mobil's $44 billion profit made last year. It will be a nickel and dime business, worth tens of millions at best. The only outsider vendor who makes money in cold fusion will be RD companies that hold patents. Patents do not last long. Exxon is not likely to come up with a patent in cold fusion any more than they are in medical research. They have no relevant expertise. Just having money will not buy them expertise, because lots of other corporations have money too, and they already have relevant manufacturing expertise. A company like Intel is better positioned to make money in cold fusion than Exxon will be. They know materials, and materials are the key to cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If LENR turns out to be long-term commercial reality, then the initial cost of the devices will be higher than most of us want to believe, since that price will be governed by typical supply and demand dynamics - with demand pushing prices to the limit. The savings will not be passed on to the end user. This is like looking at Intel's first microprocessor in 1970, and saying, these things will never make computers any cheaper than they are today. The saving will never be passed on to the end user. Oh yes they will. As long as there is free market competition, there will be cutthroat price reductions and the cost of energy per joule will plummet, just as the cost of computing fell by a factor of several billion (measured per instruction or per byte of storage). Nothing can stop that from happening. If there is one iron law of business it is that the customers will go for the cheaper alternative. Manufacturers such as DEC and Data General who tried to sell a $30,000 minicomputer in competition with a $2,000 desktop computer in 1980 were doomed. They vanished. IBM nearly vanished for the same reason. A radical price decline can only be staved off -- for a few years -- if one manufacturer gets a lock on the market, and dominates it way IBM dominated mainframe computers in the 1960s and 1970s. IBM was able to do that because manufacturing mainframe computers was difficult back then. Designing the IBM 360 series cost more than the Manhattan Project. Nothing about cold fusion technology will be remotely as difficult or complicated. Any large industrial company will be able to master the technology. They may have to pay a license to Rossi or Cherokee or some other IP holder. Such license fees are never set at onerous prices. National governments will not allow that. They would not allow Rossi to collect, let us say, $1,000 per cell phone battery replacement, or $50,000 for an automobile engine cold fusion power supply. The patent laws are administered by Uncle Sam with the specific goal of promoting progress and spreading the use of technology -- not just enriching the inventors. They do not allow inventors to choke back innovation or gouge. This has been settled in many cases over the last 200 years. Look at important technology such as the transistor and you see that the government insisted that Bell Labs license at a reasonable rate. The government will also never allow important military technology to be held back by gouging, and cold fusion is the most important military technology in history. Corporations today are only allowed to gouge in the medical business, where they charge $1,000 for 1 liter of salt water. That is a temporary situation. Sooner or later the government will step in and begin enforcing antitrust laws and other laws to prevent such abuses. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Harry wrote: Fair enough, but may be Ed's starting point is necessary for your reversible proton fusion. Think of it as electron mediated reversible proton fusion. Jones wrote: Astute observation. It is all a matter of probability. But note in the prior post, the premise was stated, and the literature fully agrees with this - that when the two protons are brought together with enough energy to surmount the fusion threshold the p-p reaction is 400 times more likely to happen than is p-e-p. We know this from solar observation. In a metal matrix the p-e-p reaction could be more favorable than p-p, but it is still low probability when the fusion threshold is absent. It is absent so neither will be seen very often. Please have a look at the p-e-p section on the Wiki site. Many scoff at Wiki, on technical issues - but that is usually because the concise points presented do not support their stance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction Next, we must ask, how much more probable is RPF than is p-p or p-e-p ? That number is astronomical (pun intended). It's estimated that for every real proton fusion reaction on the sun (or any star) 10^20 RPF reactions happen. This can be calculated by how fast the star burns through its fuel - and it would be in a few years instead of a billions of years without this very high rate of reversibility. I would think the 10^20 figure is based on very high temperatures and pressures, so it would not be applicable to a lattice. Thus, due to the sequential intensity of RPF, small packets of energy can be shed without recourse to any other theory. In effect, I agree that that RPF will also be electron mediated, but unlike Ed, I am saying that both reaction can happen in the same experiment, but that p-e-p will be far less likely to happen. Since the fusion threshold is not met in LENR then the ratio for RPF could be much more favorable than even 10^20. To be a little more precise, Ed's theory also implies that the active atoms first achieve ground state collapse, to avoid the need of most of that external input of 782 keV, somewhat like the Mills model. In fact the implication is that the energy is first shed and then recovered IIRC. I think this could be accurate, but the reaction is still rare compared to the reversible version. In fact, Ed's theory will be viewed by some pundits as an improved version of Mills, since the ultimate energy source, which is the improvement - is the nucleus and not the electron orbital. All of Mills skeptics agree that this is CQM's major flaw - suggesting a non-nuclear nexus for gain. In short, my belief is that the p-e-p reaction will happen in LENR, but it will be comparatively rare. Thus it is not needed to explain the gammaless thermal gain seen in the Rossi effect. It should be impossible if extra energy is required to make the neutron that is to comprise comprise the resulting deuteron. It is astronomically more probable, based on the evidence available from the solar model - to see many trillions of RPF reactions per second. The big advantage in having lots of reversible reactions is that large net gain can a happen via such minutiae as spin coupling of the proton to the nickel nucleus via QCD. IMHO - spin coupling is the next frontier of LENR. Think magnon. Harry
RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
From: Jed Rothwell I meant to say: LENR will be built into things like cars and space heaters, BY the companies that manufacture these things. It will take years for that to happen, just as it did in automobiles. There will likely be trades secrets in LENR which prohibit this at first. I mean with in-house expertise, and in-house production lines. LENR will be tightly integrated into the design of the machines. Eventually, after many years - but not at first. Not something you can add-on from an outside vendor. Nonsense. The main reason to integrate is simply to control supply. Often the company is better off, cost-wise, buying the engines from a specialist in engines. No major car manufacturer would buy engines from a vendor. Complete nonsense. This happens all the time. Toyota makes many engines for Chevy. 100% of several Volvo models are made by Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi specializes in making both engines and the whole car for other companies. Many Jaguar engines were built by Ford. Rolls-Royce did not make their own engines for 20 years. BMW supplied the engines and other components for Rolls and Bentley - prior to Volkswagen buying the company (years later, VW sold Rolls to BMW). Aston Martin buys all their engines, etc, etc. There is no independent factory out there churning out Toyota Prius hybrid engines. Whoa. As a matter of fact there is a Toyota engine plant not far from Atlanta that ships to GM. It is owned by Toyota, but is independent from their assembly plants - and it ships engines to other companies (not the Prius drivetrain however) including the engine in the Chevrolet compact cars and Pontiac at one time, Lotus and other smaller makes. If this plant were making LENR engines, which is not out of the question, given Toyotas RD - it would be able to ship them anywhere if there was demand and excess supply that Toyota could not absorb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Motor_Manufacturing_Alabama Where did you come up with this disinformation about manufacturers not buying engines from competitors ? Happens all the time. Jones
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Note how I phrased this, oh so carefully: As long as there is free market competition, there will be cutthroat price reductions and the cost of energy per joule will plummet, just as the cost of computing fell by a factor of several billion (measured per instruction or per byte of storage). The cost per FLOP or per byte of storage has declined by many orders of magnitude. BUT, we spend a lot more on computers than we did in 1970. Corporations spend more, and individuals spend way more, increasing from zero dollars then to several thousand dollars today. When you count the cost of computers built into your car, your food processor, TV and cell phone, computers are probably one of your biggest expenses. Something similar may happen with energy. We may consume a lot more of it, in many new ways. The price may fall by a factor of ten for the raw joules of heat, but manufacturers will think of clever ways to package energy and we will buy it in small expensive chunks. This is like converting cheap potatoes into expensive potato chips. Overall consumption may not rise much in the first world, because many people consume all the energy they want. I am sure consumption will rise in the the third world. If we undertake projects such as massive desalination, or a project to bury most of the major highways, the overall, society-wide use of energy will increase tremendously. The cost, meanwhile, will gradually fall to zero. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
From: Jed Rothwell Note how I phrased this, oh so carefully: As long as there is free market competition, there will be cutthroat price reductions and the cost of energy per joule will plummet, just as the cost of computing fell by a factor of several billion (measured per instruction or per byte of storage). The cost per FLOP or per byte of storage has declined by many orders of magnitude. BUT, we spend a lot more on computers than we did in 1970. We spend much more now so this is not comparable and disproves your former assertion . and you still do not have a grasp of the time issue, wrt energy and IP and trade secrets etc. LENR will not happen quickly and it will cost slightly more for many years, due to the novelty if nothing else. There will be no real savings to the energy consumer this decade, even with robust LENR happening this year - since the initial cost will be high and the supply will be low. Wind and solar are maturing at this time as well - and they do not need major maintenance every 6 months. Even if the heat source seems magical, the economics are not magic - it is supply and demand. Coal can still be bought for $60 ton and LENR will never compete on a thermal BTW basis with that - even if you give away the device, since the nickel replacement will cost much more than Rossi wants to admit (even if it does not have an enriched isotope, as his patent implies). Jones
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It will take years for that to happen, just as it did in automobiles. There will likely be trades secrets in LENR which prohibit this at first. Okay, years. It took a while for the Intel microprocessor to gut the minicomputer and mainframe markets. It did not happen overnight in 1970. Cold fusion is likely to move faster for the same reason transistors did in 1952. Uncle Sam does not look kindly on trade secrets that prevent the spread of vitally important technology. Back then, Uncle more or less ordered Bell Labs to put transistors into the hands of experts at Los Alamos and the major military contractors. Because of the cold war. Similar military considerations will apply today. No major car manufacturer would buy engines from a vendor. Complete nonsense. This happens all the time. Toyota makes many engines for Chevy. 100% of several Volvo models are made by Mitsubishi. Yeah, okay, but the engineers work closely together and they do not set up a factory to make one-size-fits-all motors, like today's consumer batteries. I meant there are no off the shelf sales. Also, there is competition. No vendor is going to lock down that market. Anyway, Exxon is no position to develop something like a cold fusion engine or heater. There must be a thousand major companies with better expertise. It will not be very expensive. We know that because Rossi working by himself has managed to fabricate prototypes. A single individual could never prototype something like a new CPU chip, a Prius hybrid motor, or an oil tanker. The R in cold fusion RD is cheap. The D will cost way more, of course. Still, I doubt it will be so expensive it will lock out mid-sized industrial corporations. Unless it does lock out all but one or two big companies -- like IBM in 1970 -- there will be competition and the price will fall. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: Of course I understand what the Xprize can accomplish, I was there at the beginning pitching it in St Louis. But if any of the entities talking about products introduces one that works, what prize do you suggest be funded? ***The ones that would be funded are the ones who apply for the prize. Spaceship One was the winner because they demo'd to the requirements of X-Prize. Burt Rutan also builds sells airplanes, so his business was lifted up as a result. My proposal for X-Prize is more of a grassroots movement to replicate the gamma rays excess heat seen by the MFMP, and for the experiments to be done at a Techshop. Such an arrangement probably isn't suitable to a company trying to sell a product and keeping a tight grip on their IP. In a way, Rossi already turned down a version of the X-Prize when he wouldn't test his device in front of Dick Smith for the $1M offered. If I were in Rossi's shoes (and KNEW I had a working cold fusion box), I'm not sure such a demo would be worth the effort and I also would doubt that Dick Smith would even pay it.
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
One of the implications of Mills's Hydrino theory is that gravity acts
differently on a molecule in motion. I'm not sure I understand it.
Perhaps this is just another area where the hydrino theory describes the
mechanics better than QM.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:09 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
James Bowery and other vortex members,
Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell.
He argues for a velocity dependent version of coulomb's law*
In his model the coloumb force between two like charges increases when the
charges are moving together and decreases when they are moving apart.
The reverse is true for opposite charges.
The revised law:
F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3
He goes into more detail here:
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm
This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold and wonderful
ideas in his free on-line book.
http://www.alternativephysics.org/
-
* I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it was nothing
more than an intuition and I only considered like charges:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45063.html
Harry
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
*I would think the 10^20 figure is based on very high temperatures and pressures, so it would not be applicable to a lattice. * Unless we consider the unlimited squeeze placed on accumulating photons and electrons by the uncertainty principle. On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:17 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Harry wrote: Fair enough, but may be Ed's starting point is necessary for your reversible proton fusion. Think of it as electron mediated reversible proton fusion. Jones wrote: Astute observation. It is all a matter of probability. But note in the prior post, the premise was stated, and the literature fully agrees with this - that when the two protons are brought together with enough energy to surmount the fusion threshold the p-p reaction is 400 times more likely to happen than is p-e-p. We know this from solar observation. In a metal matrix the p-e-p reaction could be more favorable than p-p, but it is still low probability when the fusion threshold is absent. It is absent so neither will be seen very often. Please have a look at the p-e-p section on the Wiki site. Many scoff at Wiki, on technical issues - but that is usually because the concise points presented do not support their stance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction Next, we must ask, how much more probable is RPF than is p-p or p-e-p ? That number is astronomical (pun intended). It's estimated that for every real proton fusion reaction on the sun (or any star) 10^20 RPF reactions happen. This can be calculated by how fast the star burns through its fuel - and it would be in a few years instead of a billions of years without this very high rate of reversibility. I would think the 10^20 figure is based on very high temperatures and pressures, so it would not be applicable to a lattice. Thus, due to the sequential intensity of RPF, small packets of energy can be shed without recourse to any other theory. In effect, I agree that that RPF will also be electron mediated, but unlike Ed, I am saying that both reaction can happen in the same experiment, but that p-e-p will be far less likely to happen. Since the fusion threshold is not met in LENR then the ratio for RPF could be much more favorable than even 10^20. To be a little more precise, Ed's theory also implies that the active atoms first achieve ground state collapse, to avoid the need of most of that external input of 782 keV, somewhat like the Mills model. In fact the implication is that the energy is first shed and then recovered IIRC. I think this could be accurate, but the reaction is still rare compared to the reversible version. In fact, Ed's theory will be viewed by some pundits as an improved version of Mills, since the ultimate energy source, which is the improvement - is the nucleus and not the electron orbital. All of Mills skeptics agree that this is CQM's major flaw - suggesting a non-nuclear nexus for gain. In short, my belief is that the p-e-p reaction will happen in LENR, but it will be comparatively rare. Thus it is not needed to explain the gammaless thermal gain seen in the Rossi effect. It should be impossible if extra energy is required to make the neutron that is to comprise comprise the resulting deuteron. It is astronomically more probable, based on the evidence available from the solar model - to see many trillions of RPF reactions per second. The big advantage in having lots of reversible reactions is that large net gain can a happen via such minutiae as spin coupling of the proton to the nickel nucleus via QCD. IMHO - spin coupling is the next frontier of LENR. Think magnon. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with electric
fields.
Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained this
way.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
James Bowery and other vortex members,
Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell.
He argues for a velocity dependent version of coulomb's law*
In his model the coloumb force between two like charges increases when the
charges are moving together and decreases when they are moving apart.
The reverse is true for opposite charges.
The revised law:
F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3
He goes into more detail here:
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm
This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold and wonderful
ideas in his free on-line book.
http://www.alternativephysics.org/
-
* I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it was nothing
more than an intuition and I only considered like charges:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45063.html
Harry
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Be specific, you must be referring to the Koch brothers. When the environmentalists push LENR as a solution for climate change, the Kock family will spend big to kill the LENR menace before it spreads. On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: The fallacy would be to state that: we know this is a lie because it serves the speaker's best interests. That would only be true if people invariably, automatically lied whenever it was in their best interest to do so. We know they do not. In this discussion, I have made a prediction that fossil fuel companies will lie about cold fusion, because it is in their interests to lie. That is not a logical deduction. It is a prediction based on my knowledge of history and human nature. I may well be wrong. I will be delighted if it turns out I am wrong. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Overall consumption may not rise much in the first world, because many people consume all the energy they want. I am sure consumption will rise in the the third world. Assuming CF is commercialized in our lifetimes, people will no doubt end up doing some pretty declasse things, like designing refrigerators without doors. People will create velvet paintings affixed with permanent lights that move around and flash. We'll all forget about the rule where you're supposed to turn the light off when you leave the room, for two reasons. First, the light will know to turn itself off, and second, there won't be a particular need to turn it off. I'll get my beloved regular old lightbulbs back and will say goodbye to compact fluorescents forever. Eric
[Vo]:The nucleus is screened in a superstrong magnetic field
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.7940.pdf The dependence of the atomic energy levels on a superstrong magnetic field with account of a finite nucleus radius and mass At magnetic fields = 1016 Gauss the Coulomb potential of the nucleus becomes screened due to large irradiative corrections (B0 = 1013 G = 4:4_109 T). This leads in particular to the freezing of the ground state energy of the hydrogen atom at the value E0 = 1.7 keV [1, 2]. This statement is correct up to the values of the magnetic field at which the Landau radius becomes close to the radius of the nucleus. For hydrogen this happens at B = 1019 G, where the value of the proton charge radius R = 0:877 fm (see [3]) was used for numerical estimate. The approximation of a pointlike proton is not valid for B 1019 G, .
[Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
Here is a November 2012 paper about an experiment which tentatively shows that electric fields seem to propagates rigidly, i.e. with infinite speed. Although it hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal yet, given the fact that the observation challenges Special Relatively, one would have expected this paper to zip around the blogosphere and make its way into mainstream media. Perhaps the recent mistaken claim of faster-than-light neutrinos at a noteworthy facility - namely CERN - has dampened interest in such challenging observations. Harry -- http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2913 Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields A.Calcaterra, R. de Sangro, G. Finocchiaro, P.Patteri, M. Piccolo, G. Pizzella (Submitted on 13 Nov 2012) Abstract The problem of gravity propagation has been subject of discussion for quite a long time: Newton, Laplace and, in relatively more modern times, Eddington pointed out that, if gravity propagated with finite velocity, planets motion around the sun would become unstable due to a torque originating from time lag of the gravitational interactions. Such an odd behavior can be found also in electromagnetism, when one computes the propagation of the electric fields generated by a set of uniformly moving charges. As a matter of fact the Li\'enard-Weichert retarded potential leads to a formula indistinguishable from the one obtained assuming that the electric field propagates with infinite velocity. Feynman explanation for this apparent paradox was based on the fact that uniform motions last indefinitely. To verify such an explanation, we performed an experiment to measure the time/space evolution of the electric field generated by an uniformerly moving electron beam. The results we obtain on such a finite lifetime kinematical state seem compatible with an electric field rigidly carried by the beam itself. Conclusions Assuming that the electric field of the electron beams we used would act on our sensor only after the beam itself has exited the beam pipe, the L.W. model would predict sensors responses orders of magnitudes smaller than what we measure. The Feynman interpretation of the Lienard-Weichert formula for uniformly moving charges does not show consistency with our experimental data. Even if the steady state charge motion in our experiment lasted few tens of nanoseconds, our measurements indicate that everything behaves as if this state lasted for much longer. To summarize our fi nding in few words, one might say that the data do not agree with the common interpretation of the Lienard-Weichert potential for uniformly moving charges, while seem to support the idea of a Coulomb field carried *rigidly* by the electron beam. We would welcome any interpretation, diff erent from the Feynman conjecture or the instataneous propagation, that will help understanding the time/space evolution of the electric field we measure.
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
BTW, I learned about this experiment while reading about Coulomb's law on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_law#Tentative_evidence_of_infinite_speed_of_propagation Harry On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:44 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Here is a November 2012 paper about an experiment which tentatively shows that electric fields seem to propagates rigidly, i.e. with infinite speed. Although it hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal yet, given the fact that the observation challenges Special Relatively, one would have expected this paper to zip around the blogosphere and make its way into mainstream media. Perhaps the recent mistaken claim of faster-than-light neutrinos at a noteworthy facility - namely CERN - has dampened interest in such challenging observations. Harry -- http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2913 Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields A.Calcaterra, R. de Sangro, G. Finocchiaro, P.Patteri, M. Piccolo, G. Pizzella (Submitted on 13 Nov 2012) Abstract The problem of gravity propagation has been subject of discussion for quite a long time: Newton, Laplace and, in relatively more modern times, Eddington pointed out that, if gravity propagated with finite velocity, planets motion around the sun would become unstable due to a torque originating from time lag of the gravitational interactions. Such an odd behavior can be found also in electromagnetism, when one computes the propagation of the electric fields generated by a set of uniformly moving charges. As a matter of fact the Li\'enard-Weichert retarded potential leads to a formula indistinguishable from the one obtained assuming that the electric field propagates with infinite velocity. Feynman explanation for this apparent paradox was based on the fact that uniform motions last indefinitely. To verify such an explanation, we performed an experiment to measure the time/space evolution of the electric field generated by an uniformerly moving electron beam. The results we obtain on such a finite lifetime kinematical state seem compatible with an electric field rigidly carried by the beam itself. Conclusions Assuming that the electric field of the electron beams we used would act on our sensor only after the beam itself has exited the beam pipe, the L.W. model would predict sensors responses orders of magnitudes smaller than what we measure. The Feynman interpretation of the Li enard-Weichert formula for uniformly moving charges does not show consistency with our experimental data. Even if the steady state charge motion in our experiment lasted few tens of nanoseconds, our measurements indicate that everything behaves as if this state lasted for much longer. To summarize our fi nding in few words, one might say that the data do not agree with the common interpretation of the Li enard-Weichert potential for uniformly moving charges, while seem to support the idea of a Coulomb field carried *rigidly* by the electron beam. We would welcome any interpretation, diff erent from the Feynman conjecture or the instataneous propagation, that will help understanding the time/space evolution of the electric field we measure.
Re: [Vo]:tentative evidence that a coulomb field propagates rigidly
Could the longitudinal displacement be instantaneous, while the transverse is limited to C? There reminds me of a conundrum that occurs with magnetic fields especially if one does not consider vector analysis. If a current is passed through a large hoop coil suddenly (current quickly reaching a steady state), when does the magnetic field reach maximum at the center? Since all lines are closed loops that pass through the center of the coil, and since this also applies to even the most slight and distant magnetic influence then there are 3 possibilities. Either the magnetic field is instantaneously established everywhere, this would make sense if the electric field were instantaneous. Or the magnetic field in the center (despite constant current) never quite reached an absolute maximum since the field continues to expand, however minimally. Or the magnetic field in the center is manifested fully before the external field is, which means we have open lines of magnetic flux in the center of a magnet. I am not sure if this seem so interesting if the convenient lines of force is dropped for a more accurate vector analysis model. John On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:44 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Here is a November 2012 paper about an experiment which tentatively shows that electric fields seem to propagates rigidly, i.e. with infinite speed. Although it hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal yet, given the fact that the observation challenges Special Relatively, one would have expected this paper to zip around the blogosphere and make its way into mainstream media. Perhaps the recent mistaken claim of faster-than-light neutrinos at a noteworthy facility - namely CERN - has dampened interest in such challenging observations. Harry -- http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2913 Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields A.Calcaterra, R. de Sangro, G. Finocchiaro, P.Patteri, M. Piccolo, G. Pizzella (Submitted on 13 Nov 2012) Abstract The problem of gravity propagation has been subject of discussion for quite a long time: Newton, Laplace and, in relatively more modern times, Eddington pointed out that, if gravity propagated with finite velocity, planets motion around the sun would become unstable due to a torque originating from time lag of the gravitational interactions. Such an odd behavior can be found also in electromagnetism, when one computes the propagation of the electric fields generated by a set of uniformly moving charges. As a matter of fact the Li\'enard-Weichert retarded potential leads to a formula indistinguishable from the one obtained assuming that the electric field propagates with infinite velocity. Feynman explanation for this apparent paradox was based on the fact that uniform motions last indefinitely. To verify such an explanation, we performed an experiment to measure the time/space evolution of the electric field generated by an uniformerly moving electron beam. The results we obtain on such a finite lifetime kinematical state seem compatible with an electric field rigidly carried by the beam itself. Conclusions Assuming that the electric field of the electron beams we used would act on our sensor only after the beam itself has exited the beam pipe, the L.W. model would predict sensors responses orders of magnitudes smaller than what we measure. The Feynman interpretation of the Li enard-Weichert formula for uniformly moving charges does not show consistency with our experimental data. Even if the steady state charge motion in our experiment lasted few tens of nanoseconds, our measurements indicate that everything behaves as if this state lasted for much longer. To summarize our fi nding in few words, one might say that the data do not agree with the common interpretation of the Li enard-Weichert potential for uniformly moving charges, while seem to support the idea of a Coulomb field carried *rigidly* by the electron beam. We would welcome any interpretation, diff erent from the Feynman conjecture or the instataneous propagation, that will help understanding the time/space evolution of the electric field we measure.
Re: [Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
He is certainly not the first person to formulate a velocity dependent
version of Coulomb's law, but I think his formulation is the first to make
use of a distinction between the velocity of approach and the velocity of
recession. (If I have understood him correctly, it would mean if one was
only interested in the force on an electron orbiting a proton in a
perfectly circular orbit, the force would be described by the standard
Coulomb's law since there would be no velocity of approach or recession.)
He tries to explain gravity using his theory but he concedes that there
still may be a significant portion of gravity which is not explained by his
theory. http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Gravity.htm
Harry
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
It would make sense, a Doppler like effect is very reasonable with
electric fields.
Now if this is so, it is very possible that gravity could be explained
this way.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:09 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
James Bowery and other vortex members,
Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell.
He argues for a velocity dependent version of coulomb's law*
In his model the coloumb force between two like charges increases when
the charges are moving together and decreases when they are moving apart.
The reverse is true for opposite charges.
The revised law:
F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3
He goes into more detail here:
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm
This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold and wonderful
ideas in his free on-line book.
http://www.alternativephysics.org/
-
* I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it was
nothing more than an intuition and I only considered like charges:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45063.html
Harry
