RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Jones, I was going to add something to that effect.. I have a good feeling regarding SPP as the bootstrap energy source. It is one less miracle compared to my theory of runaway discounts of the disassociation threshold allowing fractional hydrogen to oscillate between bond states powered by random motion.. with SPP the geometry only needs to form the fractional hydrogen states.. I am very ok with SPP being the missing piece of the puzzle - I was working to hard to explain the initial source of energy and this solution is not only elegant but certainly fits the wider range of geometries Axil notes in the Rossi tubules.. should we be looking for similar geometries in Mills skeletal cats? Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper From: Frank roarty Again..the nanotube is only going to be active at the openings and defects.. It is a macro example of the difference between Casimir and dynamic Casimir effect and we clearly need a robust dynamic effect along with robust thermal linkage to prevent it from self destructing. Fran, This may be partly true (that there is a Casimir connection, and anytime there is a Casimir geometry this is likely), nevertheless, at least in Cooper's patent/experiment CNT alone is not enough - with or without a Casimir contribution. Not even close. CNT and electrical current will NOT come close to a nuclear effect either. Thus, CNT is not a substitute for a palladium lattice in any way shape or form. We are dealing with a completely different form of LENR with plasmons, and not the same type which is found in Pd-D. The must be an significant power input to trigger the LENR reaction - and if the only apparent input is low power, such as visible light photons - then clearly there must be an amplification mechanism for that input. The amplification must be in the range of 100,000:1 or more. SPP can do that and perhaps the Casimir force is contributory - since the geometry is in the correct range. This is why the patent application is appealing even if Cooper himself did not realize what he had stumbled upon with SPP. Which is to say that even the inventor may have missed the key point of the light source, and thus the experiment begs to be replicated with a focus on SPP and a coherent light source. Note that I am not saying that the Casimir force cannot be contributory, but only that CNT and Casimir alone are not enough, even if you add electrical input (there will be no LERN). BTW - CNT were added to an electrolysis cell 5 years ago in an experiment with light water - and there was no gain whatsoever. There was a video of that failed effort on YouTube and this was known for many years - so the bottom line is: what we must have to achieve LENR is an extreme amplification mechanism for the power input. Unfortunately, it appears that Ed may have attempted to replicate only part of the experiment, the CNT part only - and that is because the inventor did not recognize SPP, not did Ed - since he is convinced, despite NASA's support - that SPP do not represent an effective amplification mechanism. If I had to guess, since Ed cannot talk about his attempt, my conjecture is that he tried to use CNT in heavy water with electrical current and an electrolyte, but with no coherent light source. That approach is almost guaranteed to fail, and it was shown to have failed as far back as 2008. All the RD out there seems to support the idea that surface plasmons do indeed constitute an extraordinary amplification mechanism - so why not take advantage of the expertise of the scientific literature on this particular point, including the support of NASA and others (W-L jumped on the SPP band-wagon). In the end, I think the issue of failure to replicate Cooper's patent application may be one of intransigence, based on an incorrect mindset from the start- one that failed to understand the advantages of SPP. That is forgivable since the inventor himself did not recognize it either - but what is not forgivable is continuing intransigence now that this issue has been highlighted. From: Edmund Storms Nice thought Kevin. Chris and I collaborated to see if CNT were nuclear active. They were not, at least when using our methods. I suspect the conditions in the tube are not correct to form the Hydroton. Well, it is good to know that you and Chris collaborated, but not so good to learn that his technique may not work, as claimed. Can you describe what methods were used? Did you use a coherent or nearly coherent light source? Without a source of coherent light, SPP are unlikely to form. Jones
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Dave, I think this is where geometry comes in, these anomalies are confined to fewer dimensions creating an imbalance to this normal cancelation you correctly identified. It is bordering on 2d when suppression is at its most robust as an inverse cube of the spacing between boundaries. Fran From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 3:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Interesting. But how does the net field become large unless some mechanism coordinates the destruction of the balls? Many random direction vectors yields near zero sums. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Yes, there is a load of fun in this sort of speculation. One possibility is that micro sized magnetic balls as described by DGT that start small and grow to huge power until they explode could produce a varying magnetic field that would induce a current through changing magnetic flux.. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That brings back fond memories. He does say e.m.f. which makes me wonder how he performed that measurement. I would anticipate that he must use at least two probes to come to that conclusion and his active material hopefully does not short out the voltage. Another possibility is that he measured a large magnetic field which he assumes must be as a result of DC current flowing. Since DC current or AC for that matter requires a loop voltage in order to flow, it makes sense to believe that an e.m.f. is present. Actually, an e.m.f. should be present in that case and what Rossi states below about an expert observing it falls into line. I find myself wondering if there are other good ways to achieve very high strength magnetic fields without currents flowing. Permanent magnets offer a clue. I am guessing here and attempting to decode Rossi speak at the same time. That has its hazards! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Andrea Rossi December 30th, 2012 at 3:01 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771cpage=4#comment-514345 Dear Bernie Koppenhofer: You are touching a very important point: during these very days, and also during the more recent tests, we are working on this issue. I think we will be able to produce directly e.m.f. , but much work has to be done. Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high temperature, and we measured it with the very precise measurement instrumentation introduced by the third party expert, but we are not ready for an industrial production, while we are at a high level of industrialization for the production of heat and, at this point , also of high temperature steam, which is the gate to the Carnot Cycle. Thank you for your good comment. Warm Regards, A.R. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that heat is not the only product of the LENR reaction. It may not even the most important sink for LENR power generation. I believe that electron production is a major magnification of over unity power generation. Rossi indicated that there was an unknown source of current production in his reactor and he was looking into how this could happen. I know that the PAPP engine produced current out of whole cloth. The design of the engine depended on it. Here is my take on where these electrons are coming from. When the magnetic field strength gets strong enough, mesons are condensed out of the vacuum. The final decay products of mesons are electrons. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of their discovery. It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees. Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate electricity directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he realized the importance of the large magnetic fields residing within his device. So far he has kept this type of information private, carefully leaking out the news of some non specific discovery. Rossi knows when to release findings that might assist competitors. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:23 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Like you, any one of us can only do so much of what is required. To come up with an all inclusive
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Agreed..and this field seems to require a careful balance upon the head of a pin to keep the active region heat sunk enough to draw off energy while not allowing the reaction to drop off or run away. This is why I posit that eventually there will be birth to grave precautions taken to safeguard the geometry and why I think so many previous tests have failed like MAHG and Patterson beads that could have been both more robust and lasted longer [repeatability] had the materials been created and maintained with an inert blanket.. Mills does this to a limited level by keeping Rayney Nickel wet but even there he has the potential for water vapor to react with the most active regions. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 3:04 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper What is the course of an open ender positive feedback loop without limit. An eventual explosion. Nothing lasts forever in a positive feedback loop. There is always a limit to everything. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Interesting. But how does the net field become large unless some mechanism coordinates the destruction of the balls? Many random direction vectors yields near zero sums. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Yes, there is a load of fun in this sort of speculation. One possibility is that micro sized magnetic balls as described by DGT that start small and grow to huge power until they explode could produce a varying magnetic field that would induce a current through changing magnetic flux.. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That brings back fond memories. He does say e.m.f. which makes me wonder how he performed that measurement. I would anticipate that he must use at least two probes to come to that conclusion and his active material hopefully does not short out the voltage. Another possibility is that he measured a large magnetic field which he assumes must be as a result of DC current flowing. Since DC current or AC for that matter requires a loop voltage in order to flow, it makes sense to believe that an e.m.f. is present. Actually, an e.m.f. should be present in that case and what Rossi states below about an expert observing it falls into line. I find myself wondering if there are other good ways to achieve very high strength magnetic fields without currents flowing. Permanent magnets offer a clue. I am guessing here and attempting to decode Rossi speak at the same time. That has its hazards! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Andrea Rossi December 30th, 2012 at 3:01 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771cpage=4#comment-514345 Dear Bernie Koppenhofer: You are touching a very important point: during these very days, and also during the more recent tests, we are working on this issue. I think we will be able to produce directly e.m.f. , but much work has to be done. Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high temperature, and we measured it with the very precise measurement instrumentation introduced by the third party expert, but we are not ready for an industrial production, while we are at a high level of industrialization for the production of heat and, at this point , also of high temperature steam, which is the gate to the Carnot Cycle. Thank you for your good comment. Warm Regards, A.R. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that heat is not the only product of the LENR reaction. It may not even the most important sink for LENR power generation. I believe that electron production is a major magnification of over unity power generation. Rossi indicated that there was an unknown source of current production in his reactor and he was looking into how this could happen. I know that the PAPP engine produced current out of whole cloth. The design of the engine depended on it. Here is my take on where these electrons are coming from. When the magnetic field strength gets strong enough, mesons are condensed out of the vacuum. The final decay products of mesons are electrons. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.commailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of their discovery. It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees. Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate
Re: [Vo]:NASA Langley Presentation on LENR Aircraft Study
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: One interesting concept : since Ni/H LENR might not be throttle-able, inject a stream of gas (H2?) and Ni nanoparticles into the reactor chamber. Throttle by modulating the mass content and/or velocity. Cold fusion produces so much energy per gram of hydrogen I do not think it is possible to modulate it enough to control the reaction. There are no pumps or valves that can admit such tiny quantities at a constant rate. It is roughly 10 million times smaller than the delivery of gasoline by a fuel pump. The other problem is that this method will only work if fraction of hydrogen that reacts remains remains constant. I doubt that is true. I expect that if one moment 0.01% of the available hydrogen is consumed, the next moment it might be 10%. In other words, the presence of hydrogen alone does not control the consumption rate. Other control factors dominate. The reaction fluctuates a great deal when there has been no change in the amount of hydrogen in the cell, and probably not much change in the amount absorbed by the metal. Unless we can figure what these control factors are, and find ways to control the control factors, I do not think cold fusion can be controlled. The control factors are different for gas loading versus electrolysis. No doubt the net result is the same, in terms of the special conditions in the metal (the NAE). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NASA Langley Presentation on LENR Aircraft Study
The control factor of which you speak may well be the production of the sites where the nuclear reactions take place. The common assumption is that there is a fixed number of NAE, but this may not be true in all systems. The melt down of Rossi's reactor speaks against this assumption. Yes, some systems have a fix count of NAE but others must produce NAE as a dynamic process. This may be the reason why a NiH reactor melts down; the increase in number of NAE gets out of control. If a system with a fixed NAE count, the NAE will just self destruct before meltdown occurs. Rossi has said that his reactor will stop when the micro nickel power melts. This looks like that statement cannot be true because the reaction during melt down goes far beyond the temperature that will destroy nickel powder. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: One interesting concept : since Ni/H LENR might not be throttle-able, inject a stream of gas (H2?) and Ni nanoparticles into the reactor chamber. Throttle by modulating the mass content and/or velocity. Cold fusion produces so much energy per gram of hydrogen I do not think it is possible to modulate it enough to control the reaction. There are no pumps or valves that can admit such tiny quantities at a constant rate. It is roughly 10 million times smaller than the delivery of gasoline by a fuel pump. The other problem is that this method will only work if fraction of hydrogen that reacts remains remains constant. I doubt that is true. I expect that if one moment 0.01% of the available hydrogen is consumed, the next moment it might be 10%. In other words, the presence of hydrogen alone does not control the consumption rate. Other control factors dominate. The reaction fluctuates a great deal when there has been no change in the amount of hydrogen in the cell, and probably not much change in the amount absorbed by the metal. Unless we can figure what these control factors are, and find ways to control the control factors, I do not think cold fusion can be controlled. The control factors are different for gas loading versus electrolysis. No doubt the net result is the same, in terms of the special conditions in the metal (the NAE). - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
In connecting all the dots in a hypothetical nanotube reactor, ring current in hexagonal carbon structures, together with SPP may work together with CNT in water to provide LENR effects. These CNT would function as nano electron accelerators when magnetized. We are avoiding mention of the ultimate source of excess energy for now to focus on the electrons. Heavy water is probably not required. There is no proof of any of this - but in the event that anyone should see photons in the keV range as a characteristic of any CNT device, especially one operating in water - then this provides a plausible explanation of how that finding is related back to the basic hexagonal bond-length of CNT, about 0.142 nm and how bremsstrahlung at low energy (around 1 keV) could provide the feedback mechanism for the SPP. It all fits, proof or no. One further detail to add, especially in the context of the Cooper patent application: Cherenkov radiation vs. bremsstrahlung - in the above suggestion for the required feedback mechanism. SPP requires an intense light source and the initial electrons could, ironically, be too energetic. Cherenkov radiation is emitted when a charged particle such as an electron passes through a dielectric medium (water) at a speed greater than the phase velocity of light in that medium. It should be noted that Cherenkov radiation is differentiated from bremsstrahlung radiation because the intensity does not depend on the mass of the particle, whereas bremsstrahlung does. However, the threshold for electrons is around 250 keV which would seem to eliminate this kind of radiation in CNT cells (since it would show up independently). Is there a correlate? Probably. The characteristic blue glow of nuclear fuel storage is due to Cherenkov radiation, but there are other types of fluorescence in which electrons create a similar light source differently. Therefore, and since SPP depends on a light source and 1 keV electrons are possibly resonant, there could be something happening with water fluorescence similar to Cherenkov but NOT identical. It is probably related to FRET (Forster resonant energy transfer) instead of phase velocity. A blue glow comes from the Lyman line of hydrogen in any case. The bottom line is that if SPP are involved in CNT, and in the simple device described in the Cooper patent - then the experimenter should be able to see a characteristic visible fluorescence for a period of time after the input power is turned off and it could be more energetic photons than the input. For instance, if sodium vapor lighting is used as input, the afterglow could be in the blue spectrum and it were the Lyman line, this would actually be more convincing than helium and far easier to document. Apparently the helium measurement of the Cooper disclosure does not stand up to close scrutiny. It is not the only way to go. This kind of CNT reactor can be done with light water and an electrolyte in a partial replication which is only going for fluorescence, a hydrogen line and afterglow (and possibly crude water bath calorimetry). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Axil-- Fission reactors with water cooling generally have a negative temperature feedback and are much safer than metal coolant reactors with positive temperature feedback. However, metal cooled reactors have been designed and worked ok. With good design even a positive temperature feedback may work. In a QM system things happen so fast it would be harder to control than in a fission reactor. The key for control may be to limit the size of the QM system that reacts at any time, or increase the response time of the initiator--may the on-off pulse of the magnetic field in the case of the Pd and Ni systems. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper What is the course of an open ender positive feedback loop without limit. An eventual explosion. Nothing lasts forever in a positive feedback loop. There is always a limit to everything. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Interesting. But how does the net field become large unless some mechanism coordinates the destruction of the balls? Many random direction vectors yields near zero sums. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Yes, there is a load of fun in this sort of speculation. One possibility is that micro sized magnetic balls as described by DGT that start small and grow to huge power until they explode could produce a varying magnetic field that would induce a current through changing magnetic flux.. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That brings back fond memories. He does say e.m.f. which makes me wonder how he performed that measurement. I would anticipate that he must use at least two probes to come to that conclusion and his active material hopefully does not short out the voltage. Another possibility is that he measured a large magnetic field which he assumes must be as a result of DC current flowing. Since DC current or AC for that matter requires a loop voltage in order to flow, it makes sense to believe that an e.m.f. is present. Actually, an e.m.f. should be present in that case and what Rossi states below about an expert observing it falls into line. I find myself wondering if there are other good ways to achieve very high strength magnetic fields without currents flowing. Permanent magnets offer a clue. I am guessing here and attempting to decode Rossi speak at the same time. That has its hazards! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Andrea Rossi December 30th, 2012 at 3:01 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771cpage=4#comment-514345 Dear Bernie Koppenhofer: You are touching a very important point: during these very days, and also during the more recent tests, we are working on this issue. I think we will be able to produce directly e.m.f. , but much work has to be done. Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high temperature, and we measured it with the very precise measurement instrumentation introduced by the third party expert, but we are not ready for an industrial production, while we are at a high level of industrialization for the production of heat and, at this point , also of high temperature steam, which is the gate to the Carnot Cycle. Thank you for your good comment. Warm Regards, A.R. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that heat is not the only product of the LENR reaction. It may not even the most important sink for LENR power generation. I believe that electron production is a major magnification of over unity power generation. Rossi indicated that there was an unknown source of current production in his reactor and he was looking into how this could happen. I know that the PAPP engine produced current out of whole cloth. The design of the engine depended on it. Here is my take on where these electrons are coming from. When the magnetic field strength gets strong enough, mesons are condensed out of the vacuum. The final decay products of mesons are electrons. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of their discovery. It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees. Since Rossi made an
Re: [Vo]:NASA Langley Presentation on LENR Aircraft Study
Axil-- You stated: If a system with a fixed NAE count, the NAE will just self destruct before meltdown occurs. This may not be the case if the initiation of the reaction to produce the energy is controlled by some small energy input and not self sustaining from NAE to NAE. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 6:53 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA Langley Presentation on LENR Aircraft Study The control factor of which you speak may well be the production of the sites where the nuclear reactions take place. The common assumption is that there is a fixed number of NAE, but this may not be true in all systems. The melt down of Rossi's reactor speaks against this assumption. Yes, some systems have a fix count of NAE but others must produce NAE as a dynamic process. This may be the reason why a NiH reactor melts down; the increase in number of NAE gets out of control. If a system with a fixed NAE count, the NAE will just self destruct before meltdown occurs. Rossi has said that his reactor will stop when the micro nickel power melts. This looks like that statement cannot be true because the reaction during melt down goes far beyond the temperature that will destroy nickel powder. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: One interesting concept : since Ni/H LENR might not be throttle-able, inject a stream of gas (H2?) and Ni nanoparticles into the reactor chamber. Throttle by modulating the mass content and/or velocity. Cold fusion produces so much energy per gram of hydrogen I do not think it is possible to modulate it enough to control the reaction. There are no pumps or valves that can admit such tiny quantities at a constant rate. It is roughly 10 million times smaller than the delivery of gasoline by a fuel pump. The other problem is that this method will only work if fraction of hydrogen that reacts remains remains constant. I doubt that is true. I expect that if one moment 0.01% of the available hydrogen is consumed, the next moment it might be 10%. In other words, the presence of hydrogen alone does not control the consumption rate. Other control factors dominate. The reaction fluctuates a great deal when there has been no change in the amount of hydrogen in the cell, and probably not much change in the amount absorbed by the metal. Unless we can figure what these control factors are, and find ways to control the control factors, I do not think cold fusion can be controlled. The control factors are different for gas loading versus electrolysis. No doubt the net result is the same, in terms of the special conditions in the metal (the NAE). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
Jones-- Is there any available knowledge of the structure of the Ni nano particles Rossi is rumored to use? I would think they would be small crystals of Ni with its typical cubic structure, however, there may be other geometries that form, particularly, if impurities are added to the mix of elements making up the nano particle. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:05 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current In connecting all the dots in a hypothetical nanotube reactor, ring current in hexagonal carbon structures, together with SPP may work together with CNT in water to provide LENR effects. These CNT would function as nano electron accelerators when magnetized. We are avoiding mention of the ultimate source of excess energy for now to focus on the electrons. Heavy water is probably not required. There is no proof of any of this - but in the event that anyone should see photons in the keV range as a characteristic of any CNT device, especially one operating in water - then this provides a plausible explanation of how that finding is related back to the basic hexagonal bond-length of CNT, about 0.142 nm and how bremsstrahlung at low energy (around 1 keV) could provide the feedback mechanism for the SPP. It all fits, proof or no. One further detail to add, especially in the context of the Cooper patent application: Cherenkov radiation vs. bremsstrahlung - in the above suggestion for the required feedback mechanism. SPP requires an intense light source and the initial electrons could, ironically, be too energetic. Cherenkov radiation is emitted when a charged particle such as an electron passes through a dielectric medium (water) at a speed greater than the phase velocity of light in that medium. It should be noted that Cherenkov radiation is differentiated from bremsstrahlung radiation because the intensity does not depend on the mass of the particle, whereas bremsstrahlung does. However, the threshold for electrons is around 250 keV which would seem to eliminate this kind of radiation in CNT cells (since it would show up independently). Is there a correlate? Probably. The characteristic blue glow of nuclear fuel storage is due to Cherenkov radiation, but there are other types of fluorescence in which electrons create a similar light source differently. Therefore, and since SPP depends on a light source and 1 keV electrons are possibly resonant, there could be something happening with water fluorescence similar to Cherenkov but NOT identical. It is probably related to FRET (Forster resonant energy transfer) instead of phase velocity. A blue glow comes from the Lyman line of hydrogen in any case. The bottom line is that if SPP are involved in CNT, and in the simple device described in the Cooper patent - then the experimenter should be able to see a characteristic visible fluorescence for a period of time after the input power is turned off and it could be more energetic photons than the input. For instance, if sodium vapor lighting is used as input, the afterglow could be in the blue spectrum and it were the Lyman line, this would actually be more convincing than helium and far easier to document. Apparently the helium measurement of the Cooper disclosure does not stand up to close scrutiny. It is not the only way to go. This kind of CNT reactor can be done with light water and an electrolyte in a partial replication which is only going for fluorescence, a hydrogen line and afterglow (and possibly crude water bath calorimetry). Jones
Re: [Vo]:NASA Langley Presentation on LENR Aircraft Study
This recent news from Rossi leads me to believe that he has made progress in obtaining a more robust reaction than previously. He does now claim to have a mouse activation system that excites his cat. It is difficult to translate this statement into one that we understand properly at this time. My best effort is that he refers to a portion of his new design that controls the release of hydrogen atoms or ions that then do their magic when entering the nickel matrix. But on the other hand he may have a method to produce a strong magnetic field that reaches a threshold level in another cat section. Has anyone seen a clue about exactly what his cat and mouse are? IIRC he did not begin to discuss the very high temperature operation and explosion issues until mentioning the cat and mouse structure. This discussion of cat and mouse reminds me of the old TV Tom and Jerry. :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 9:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA Langley Presentation on LENR Aircraft Study The control factor of which you speak may well be the production of the sites where the nuclear reactions take place. The common assumption is that there is a fixed number of NAE, but this may not be true in all systems. The melt down of Rossi's reactor speaks against this assumption. Yes, some systems have a fix count of NAE but others must produce NAE as a dynamic process. This may be the reason why a NiH reactor melts down; the increase in number of NAE gets out of control. If a system with a fixed NAE count, the NAE will just self destruct before meltdown occurs. Rossi has said that his reactor will stop when the micro nickel power melts. This looks like that statement cannot be true because the reaction during melt down goes far beyond the temperature that will destroy nickel powder. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: One interesting concept : since Ni/H LENR might not be throttle-able, inject a stream of gas (H2?) and Ni nanoparticles into the reactor chamber. Throttle by modulating the mass content and/or velocity. Cold fusion produces so much energy per gram of hydrogen I do not think it is possible to modulate it enough to control the reaction. There are no pumps or valves that can admit such tiny quantities at a constant rate. It is roughly 10 million times smaller than the delivery of gasoline by a fuel pump. The other problem is that this method will only work if fraction of hydrogen that reacts remains remains constant. I doubt that is true. I expect that if one moment 0.01% of the available hydrogen is consumed, the next moment it might be 10%. In other words, the presence of hydrogen alone does not control the consumption rate. Other control factors dominate. The reaction fluctuates a great deal when there has been no change in the amount of hydrogen in the cell, and probably not much change in the amount absorbed by the metal. Unless we can figure what these control factors are, and find ways to control the control factors, I do not think cold fusion can be controlled. The control factors are different for gas loading versus electrolysis. No doubt the net result is the same, in terms of the special conditions in the metal (the NAE). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NASA Langley Presentation on LENR Aircraft Study
Dave-- At one point I think he indicated potassium was involved--maybe to lend some heavy electrons from the S shell of potassium. Temperature control has also been identifier as controlling device. This might suggest that an infrared light spectrum may be important. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:23 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA Langley Presentation on LENR Aircraft Study This recent news from Rossi leads me to believe that he has made progress in obtaining a more robust reaction than previously. He does now claim to have a mouse activation system that excites his cat. It is difficult to translate this statement into one that we understand properly at this time. My best effort is that he refers to a portion of his new design that controls the release of hydrogen atoms or ions that then do their magic when entering the nickel matrix. But on the other hand he may have a method to produce a strong magnetic field that reaches a threshold level in another cat section. Has anyone seen a clue about exactly what his cat and mouse are? IIRC he did not begin to discuss the very high temperature operation and explosion issues until mentioning the cat and mouse structure. This discussion of cat and mouse reminds me of the old TV Tom and Jerry. :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 9:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA Langley Presentation on LENR Aircraft Study The control factor of which you speak may well be the production of the sites where the nuclear reactions take place. The common assumption is that there is a fixed number of NAE, but this may not be true in all systems. The melt down of Rossi's reactor speaks against this assumption. Yes, some systems have a fix count of NAE but others must produce NAE as a dynamic process. This may be the reason why a NiH reactor melts down; the increase in number of NAE gets out of control. If a system with a fixed NAE count, the NAE will just self destruct before meltdown occurs. Rossi has said that his reactor will stop when the micro nickel power melts. This looks like that statement cannot be true because the reaction during melt down goes far beyond the temperature that will destroy nickel powder. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: One interesting concept : since Ni/H LENR might not be throttle-able, inject a stream of gas (H2?) and Ni nanoparticles into the reactor chamber. Throttle by modulating the mass content and/or velocity. Cold fusion produces so much energy per gram of hydrogen I do not think it is possible to modulate it enough to control the reaction. There are no pumps or valves that can admit such tiny quantities at a constant rate. It is roughly 10 million times smaller than the delivery of gasoline by a fuel pump. The other problem is that this method will only work if fraction of hydrogen that reacts remains remains constant. I doubt that is true. I expect that if one moment 0.01% of the available hydrogen is consumed, the next moment it might be 10%. In other words, the presence of hydrogen alone does not control the consumption rate. Other control factors dominate. The reaction fluctuates a great deal when there has been no change in the amount of hydrogen in the cell, and probably not much change in the amount absorbed by the metal. Unless we can figure what these control factors are, and find ways to control the control factors, I do not think cold fusion can be controlled. The control factors are different for gas loading versus electrolysis. No doubt the net result is the same, in terms of the special conditions in the metal (the NAE). - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
From: Bob Cook Is there any available knowledge of the structure of the Ni nano particles Rossi is rumored to use? There are past posts in the archive which have speculated on his tubules or tubercles, but it may be counterproductive to try to deconstruct Rossi. He hints at buying his special nickel from a Hobbit in Italy, and magic many be involved. :-) It would probably be more productive to come at this from the standpoint of adding something to CNT instead of subtracting something from nickel. Nickel chloride is interesting in this regard, since it is soluble and since chlorine has special energetic properties of its own - when irradiated with light. In connecting all the dots in a hypothetical nanotube reactor, ring current in hexagonal carbon structures, together with SPP may work together with CNT in water to provide LENR effects. These CNT would function as nano electron accelerators when magnetized. We are avoiding mention of the ultimate source of excess energy for now to focus on the electrons. Heavy water is probably not required. There is no proof of any of this - but in the event that anyone should see photons in the keV range as a characteristic of any CNT device, especially one operating in water - then this provides a plausible explanation of how that finding is related back to the basic hexagonal bond-length of CNT, about 0.142 nm and how bremsstrahlung at low energy (around 1 keV) could provide the feedback mechanism for the SPP. It all fits, proof or no. One further detail to add, especially in the context of the Cooper patent application: Cherenkov radiation vs. bremsstrahlung - in the above suggestion for the required feedback mechanism. SPP requires an intense light source and the initial electrons could, ironically, be too energetic. Cherenkov radiation is emitted when a charged particle such as an electron passes through a dielectric medium (water) at a speed greater than the phase velocity of light in that medium. It should be noted that Cherenkov radiation is differentiated from bremsstrahlung radiation because the intensity does not depend on the mass of the particle, whereas bremsstrahlung does. However, the threshold for electrons is around 250 keV which would seem to eliminate this kind of radiation in CNT cells (since it would show up independently). Is there a correlate? Probably. The characteristic blue glow of nuclear fuel storage is due to Cherenkov radiation, but there are other types of fluorescence in which electrons create a similar light source differently. Therefore, and since SPP depends on a light source and 1 keV electrons are possibly resonant, there could be something happening with water fluorescence similar to Cherenkov but NOT identical. It is probably related to FRET (Forster resonant energy transfer) instead of phase velocity. A blue glow comes from the Lyman line of hydrogen in any case. The bottom line is that if SPP are involved in CNT, and in the simple device described in the Cooper patent - then the experimenter should be able to see a characteristic visible fluorescence for a period of time after the input power is turned off and it could be more energetic photons than the input. For instance, if sodium vapor lighting is used as input, the afterglow could be in the blue spectrum and it were the Lyman line, this would actually be more convincing than helium and far easier to document. Apparently the helium measurement of the Cooper disclosure does not stand up to close scrutiny. It is not the only way to go. This kind of CNT reactor can be done with light water and an electrolyte in a partial replication which is only going for fluorescence, a hydrogen line and afterglow (and possibly crude water bath calorimetry). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Fission reactors with water cooling generally have a negative temperature feedback and are much safer than metal coolant reactors with positive temperature feedback. However, metal cooled reactors have been designed and worked ok. With good design even a positive temperature feedback may work. In a uranium reactor, U238 provides the negative temperature control through Doppler broadening. http://www.safetyinengineering.com/FileUploads/Nuclear%20reactor%20stability%20and%20controllability_1314016641_2.pdf Light water absorbs more neutrons then heavy water and sodium hardly absorbs any neutrons (fast ones) at all. Designing a fission reactor requires a lot of experience and education. Positive coefficient of reactivity can never be positive. That is inviting a possibility of super criticality. A reactor that can go super critical cannot be licensed. In a QM system things happen so fast it would be harder to control than in a fission reactor. The key for control may be to limit the size of the QM system that reacts at any time, or increase the response time of the initiator--may the on-off pulse of the magnetic field in the case of the Pd and Ni systems. The DGT LENR reactor is only supercritical when the spark is arcing. But when the spark is off, that reactor returns to sub criticality. DGT tossed Rossi out of their deal because his reactor can go super critical. DGT designed their home grown reactor to be inherently safe through sub criticality just like all fission reactors. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:04 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper What is the course of an open ender positive feedback loop without limit. An eventual explosion. Nothing lasts forever in a positive feedback loop. There is always a limit to everything. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Interesting. But how does the net field become large unless some mechanism coordinates the destruction of the balls? Many random direction vectors yields near zero sums. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Yes, there is a load of fun in this sort of speculation. One possibility is that micro sized magnetic balls as described by DGT that start small and grow to huge power until they explode could produce a varying magnetic field that would induce a current through changing magnetic flux.. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: That brings back fond memories. He does say e.m.f. which makes me wonder how he performed that measurement. I would anticipate that he must use at least two probes to come to that conclusion and his active material hopefully does not short out the voltage. Another possibility is that he measured a large magnetic field which he assumes must be as a result of DC current flowing. Since DC current or AC for that matter requires a loop voltage in order to flow, it makes sense to believe that an e.m.f. is present. Actually, an e.m.f. should be present in that case and what Rossi states below about an expert observing it falls into line. I find myself wondering if there are other good ways to achieve very high strength magnetic fields without currents flowing. Permanent magnets offer a clue. I am guessing here and attempting to decode Rossi speak at the same time. That has its hazards! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Andrea Rossi December 30th, 2012 at 3:01 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771cpage=4#comment-514345 Dear Bernie Koppenhofer: You are touching a very important point: during these very days, and also during the more recent tests, we are working on this issue. I think we will be able to produce directly e.m.f. , but much work has to be done. Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high temperature, and we measured it with the very precise measurement instrumentation introduced by the third party expert, but we are not ready for an industrial production, while we are at a high level of industrialization for the production of heat and, at this point , also of high temperature steam, which is the gate to the Carnot Cycle. Thank you for your good comment. Warm Regards, A.R. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that heat is not the only product of the LENR reaction. It may not even the most important sink for LENR power generation. I
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Positive coefficient of reactivity can never be positive...should read... The coefficient of reactivity can never be positive. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Fission reactors with water cooling generally have a negative temperature feedback and are much safer than metal coolant reactors with positive temperature feedback. However, metal cooled reactors have been designed and worked ok. With good design even a positive temperature feedback may work. In a uranium reactor, U238 provides the negative temperature control through Doppler broadening. http://www.safetyinengineering.com/FileUploads/Nuclear%20reactor%20stability%20and%20controllability_1314016641_2.pdf Light water absorbs more neutrons then heavy water and sodium hardly absorbs any neutrons (fast ones) at all. Designing a fission reactor requires a lot of experience and education. Positive coefficient of reactivity can never be positive. That is inviting a possibility of super criticality. A reactor that can go super critical cannot be licensed. In a QM system things happen so fast it would be harder to control than in a fission reactor. The key for control may be to limit the size of the QM system that reacts at any time, or increase the response time of the initiator--may the on-off pulse of the magnetic field in the case of the Pd and Ni systems. The DGT LENR reactor is only supercritical when the spark is arcing. But when the spark is off, that reactor returns to sub criticality. DGT tossed Rossi out of their deal because his reactor can go super critical. DGT designed their home grown reactor to be inherently safe through sub criticality just like all fission reactors. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:04 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper What is the course of an open ender positive feedback loop without limit. An eventual explosion. Nothing lasts forever in a positive feedback loop. There is always a limit to everything. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Interesting. But how does the net field become large unless some mechanism coordinates the destruction of the balls? Many random direction vectors yields near zero sums. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Yes, there is a load of fun in this sort of speculation. One possibility is that micro sized magnetic balls as described by DGT that start small and grow to huge power until they explode could produce a varying magnetic field that would induce a current through changing magnetic flux.. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: That brings back fond memories. He does say e.m.f. which makes me wonder how he performed that measurement. I would anticipate that he must use at least two probes to come to that conclusion and his active material hopefully does not short out the voltage. Another possibility is that he measured a large magnetic field which he assumes must be as a result of DC current flowing. Since DC current or AC for that matter requires a loop voltage in order to flow, it makes sense to believe that an e.m.f. is present. Actually, an e.m.f. should be present in that case and what Rossi states below about an expert observing it falls into line. I find myself wondering if there are other good ways to achieve very high strength magnetic fields without currents flowing. Permanent magnets offer a clue. I am guessing here and attempting to decode Rossi speak at the same time. That has its hazards! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Andrea Rossi December 30th, 2012 at 3:01 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771cpage=4#comment-514345 Dear Bernie Koppenhofer: You are touching a very important point: during these very days, and also during the more recent tests, we are working on this issue. I think we will be able to produce directly e.m.f. , but much work has to be done. Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high temperature, and we measured it with the very precise measurement instrumentation introduced by the third party expert, but we are not ready for an industrial production, while we are at a high level of industrialization for the production of heat and, at this point , also of high temperature steam, which is the gate to the Carnot Cycle. Thank you for your good comment. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
Designing those nano-hairs on the micro-particles are at the heart of the success of the NiH reactor. Rossi said he spent 6 months of day and night experimental effort to optimize his nano-hairs. Give DGT credit for coming up with a workable nano-hair design. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Bob Cook Is there any available knowledge of the structure of the Ni nano particles Rossi is rumored to use? There are past posts in the archive which have speculated on his tubules or tubercles, but it may be counterproductive to try to deconstruct Rossi. He hints at buying his special nickel from a Hobbit in Italy, and magic many be involved. J It would probably be more productive to come at this from the standpoint of adding something to CNT instead of subtracting something from nickel. Nickel chloride is interesting in this regard, since it is soluble and since chlorine has special energetic properties of its own - when irradiated with light. In connecting all the dots in a hypothetical nanotube reactor, ring current in hexagonal carbon structures, together with SPP may work together with CNT in water to provide LENR effects. These CNT would function as nano electron accelerators when magnetized. We are avoiding mention of the ultimate source of excess energy for now to focus on the electrons. Heavy water is probably not required. There is no proof of any of this - but in the event that anyone should see photons in the keV range as a characteristic of any CNT device, especially one operating in water - then this provides a plausible explanation of how that finding is related back to the basic hexagonal bond-length of CNT, about 0.142 nm and how bremsstrahlung at low energy (around 1 keV) could provide the feedback mechanism for the SPP. It all fits, proof or no. One further detail to add, especially in the context of the Cooper patent application: Cherenkov radiation vs. bremsstrahlung - in the above suggestion for the required feedback mechanism. SPP requires an intense light source and the initial electrons could, ironically, be too energetic. Cherenkov radiation is emitted when a charged particle such as an electron passes through a dielectric medium (water) at a speed greater than the phase velocity of light in that medium. It should be noted that Cherenkov radiation is differentiated from bremsstrahlung radiation because the intensity does not depend on the mass of the particle, whereas bremsstrahlung does. However, the threshold for electrons is around 250 keV which would seem to eliminate this kind of radiation in CNT cells (since it would show up independently). Is there a correlate? Probably. The characteristic blue glow of nuclear fuel storage is due to Cherenkov radiation, but there are other types of fluorescence in which electrons create a similar light source differently. Therefore, and since SPP depends on a light source and 1 keV electrons are possibly resonant, there could be something happening with water fluorescence similar to Cherenkov but NOT identical. It is probably related to FRET (Forster resonant energy transfer) instead of phase velocity. A blue glow comes from the Lyman line of hydrogen in any case. The bottom line is that if SPP are involved in CNT, and in the simple device described in the Cooper patent - then the experimenter should be able to see a characteristic visible fluorescence for a period of time after the input power is turned off and it could be more energetic photons than the input. For instance, if sodium vapor lighting is used as input, the afterglow could be in the blue spectrum and it were the Lyman line, this would actually be more convincing than helium and far easier to document. Apparently the helium measurement of the Cooper disclosure does not stand up to close scrutiny. It is not the only way to go. This kind of CNT reactor can be done with light water and an electrolyte in a partial replication which is only going for fluorescence, a hydrogen line and afterglow (and possibly crude water bath calorimetry). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Axil-- I may be wrong but it was always my understanding that the fissile isotope is U-235 and that the energy of the neutrons is important. The reactivity decreases as the temperature increases because the fission cross section is lower and reactivity is reduced with the hotter neutron. It may actually be a Doppler broadening of the of the neutron wave function that changes the effective fission cross section of U-235. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:52 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Fission reactors with water cooling generally have a negative temperature feedback and are much safer than metal coolant reactors with positive temperature feedback. However, metal cooled reactors have been designed and worked ok. With good design even a positive temperature feedback may work. In a uranium reactor, U238 provides the negative temperature control through Doppler broadening. http://www.safetyinengineering.com/FileUploads/Nuclear%20reactor%20stability%20and%20controllability_1314016641_2.pdf Light water absorbs more neutrons then heavy water and sodium hardly absorbs any neutrons (fast ones) at all. Designing a fission reactor requires a lot of experience and education. Positive coefficient of reactivity can never be positive. That is inviting a possibility of super criticality. A reactor that can go super critical cannot be licensed. In a QM system things happen so fast it would be harder to control than in a fission reactor. The key for control may be to limit the size of the QM system that reacts at any time, or increase the response time of the initiator--may the on-off pulse of the magnetic field in the case of the Pd and Ni systems. The DGT LENR reactor is only supercritical when the spark is arcing. But when the spark is off, that reactor returns to sub criticality. DGT tossed Rossi out of their deal because his reactor can go super critical. DGT designed their home grown reactor to be inherently safe through sub criticality just like all fission reactors. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper What is the course of an open ender positive feedback loop without limit. An eventual explosion. Nothing lasts forever in a positive feedback loop. There is always a limit to everything. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Interesting. But how does the net field become large unless some mechanism coordinates the destruction of the balls? Many random direction vectors yields near zero sums. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Yes, there is a load of fun in this sort of speculation. One possibility is that micro sized magnetic balls as described by DGT that start small and grow to huge power until they explode could produce a varying magnetic field that would induce a current through changing magnetic flux.. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That brings back fond memories. He does say e.m.f. which makes me wonder how he performed that measurement. I would anticipate that he must use at least two probes to come to that conclusion and his active material hopefully does not short out the voltage. Another possibility is that he measured a large magnetic field which he assumes must be as a result of DC current flowing. Since DC current or AC for that matter requires a loop voltage in order to flow, it makes sense to believe that an e.m.f. is present. Actually, an e.m.f. should be present in that case and what Rossi states below about an expert observing it falls into line. I find myself wondering if there are other good ways to achieve very high strength magnetic fields without currents flowing. Permanent magnets offer a clue. I am guessing here and attempting to decode Rossi speak at the same time. That has its hazards! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Andrea Rossi December 30th, 2012 at 3:01 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771cpage=4#comment-514345 Dear Bernie Koppenhofer: You are touching a very important point: during these very days, and also
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Axil-- Reactivity is the instantaneous ratio of neutron production to neutron loses (reactions with any isotope in the reactor plus loss from the reactor boundary). A critical reactor is balanced and does not change power. In a water reactor, if you change the water temperature of the coolant, the average neutron energy and the thermal neutron Uup-235 fission cross section increases, increasing fissions, heat and coolant water temperature. As the coolant heats up the reactivity goes down and the power is reduced. The negative temperature coefficient of reactivity is the parameter that accounts for this effect. Reactor design requires good dynamics and control design to reflect time constants etc in the changes of reactivity associated with anything that can change the reactivity. The key in a reactor is to maintain the conditions so that the reactor cannot remain critical considering fast neutrons alone. That is call super criticality and leads to the rapid release of energy and destruction of the reactor as in a nuclear criticality accident. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Positive coefficient of reactivity can never be positive...should read... The coefficient of reactivity can never be positive. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Fission reactors with water cooling generally have a negative temperature feedback and are much safer than metal coolant reactors with positive temperature feedback. However, metal cooled reactors have been designed and worked ok. With good design even a positive temperature feedback may work. In a uranium reactor, U238 provides the negative temperature control through Doppler broadening. http://www.safetyinengineering.com/FileUploads/Nuclear%20reactor%20stability%20and%20controllability_1314016641_2.pdf Light water absorbs more neutrons then heavy water and sodium hardly absorbs any neutrons (fast ones) at all. Designing a fission reactor requires a lot of experience and education. Positive coefficient of reactivity can never be positive. That is inviting a possibility of super criticality. A reactor that can go super critical cannot be licensed. In a QM system things happen so fast it would be harder to control than in a fission reactor. The key for control may be to limit the size of the QM system that reacts at any time, or increase the response time of the initiator--may the on-off pulse of the magnetic field in the case of the Pd and Ni systems. The DGT LENR reactor is only supercritical when the spark is arcing. But when the spark is off, that reactor returns to sub criticality. DGT tossed Rossi out of their deal because his reactor can go super critical. DGT designed their home grown reactor to be inherently safe through sub criticality just like all fission reactors. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper What is the course of an open ender positive feedback loop without limit. An eventual explosion. Nothing lasts forever in a positive feedback loop. There is always a limit to everything. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Interesting. But how does the net field become large unless some mechanism coordinates the destruction of the balls? Many random direction vectors yields near zero sums. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Yes, there is a load of fun in this sort of speculation. One possibility is that micro sized magnetic balls as described by DGT that start small and grow to huge power until they explode could produce a varying magnetic field that would induce a current through changing magnetic flux.. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That brings back fond memories. He does say e.m.f. which makes me wonder how he performed that measurement. I would anticipate that he must use at least two probes to come to that conclusion and his active material hopefully does not short out the voltage. Another possibility is that he measured a large magnetic field which he assumes must be as a result of DC current flowing. Since DC current or AC for that matter requires a loop voltage in order to flow, it makes sense to believe that an e.m.f. is present. Actually, an e.m.f. should be
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
The delayed neutrons are the neutrons that come from the radioactive decay of activated fission products. They slow down fission so that heat can get to the U238. Without delayed neutrons, the fission reaction would go super-critical in nanoseconds which would not allow the U238 to heat up. The fission cross section of U233, Pu239, and U235 all goes up as neutrons slow down. That is why Pu239, is used in fast neutron reactors; because it produces more neutrons per fission than uranium. Fast neutrons produce less fissions that slow one do. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- I may be wrong but it was always my understanding that the fissile isotope is U-235 and that the energy of the neutrons is important. The reactivity decreases as the temperature increases because the fission cross section is lower and reactivity is reduced with the hotter neutron. It may actually be a Doppler broadening of the of the neutron wave function that changes the effective fission cross section of U-235. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 7:52 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Fission reactors with water cooling generally have a negative temperature feedback and are much safer than metal coolant reactors with positive temperature feedback. However, metal cooled reactors have been designed and worked ok. With good design even a positive temperature feedback may work. In a uranium reactor, U238 provides the negative temperature control through Doppler broadening. http://www.safetyinengineering.com/FileUploads/Nuclear%20reactor%20stability%20and%20controllability_1314016641_2.pdf Light water absorbs more neutrons then heavy water and sodium hardly absorbs any neutrons (fast ones) at all. Designing a fission reactor requires a lot of experience and education. Positive coefficient of reactivity can never be positive. That is inviting a possibility of super criticality. A reactor that can go super critical cannot be licensed. In a QM system things happen so fast it would be harder to control than in a fission reactor. The key for control may be to limit the size of the QM system that reacts at any time, or increase the response time of the initiator--may the on-off pulse of the magnetic field in the case of the Pd and Ni systems. The DGT LENR reactor is only supercritical when the spark is arcing. But when the spark is off, that reactor returns to sub criticality. DGT tossed Rossi out of their deal because his reactor can go super critical. DGT designed their home grown reactor to be inherently safe through sub criticality just like all fission reactors. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:04 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper What is the course of an open ender positive feedback loop without limit. An eventual explosion. Nothing lasts forever in a positive feedback loop. There is always a limit to everything. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Interesting. But how does the net field become large unless some mechanism coordinates the destruction of the balls? Many random direction vectors yields near zero sums. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Yes, there is a load of fun in this sort of speculation. One possibility is that micro sized magnetic balls as described by DGT that start small and grow to huge power until they explode could produce a varying magnetic field that would induce a current through changing magnetic flux.. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: That brings back fond memories. He does say e.m.f. which makes me wonder how he performed that measurement. I would anticipate that he must use at least two probes to come to that conclusion and his active material hopefully does not short out the voltage. Another possibility is that he measured a large magnetic field which he assumes must be as a result of DC current flowing. Since DC current or AC for that matter requires a loop voltage in order to flow, it makes sense to believe that an e.m.f. is present. Actually, an e.m.f. should be present in that case and what Rossi states below about an expert observing it falls into line. I find myself wondering if there are other good ways to achieve very high strength magnetic fields without currents flowing. Permanent magnets offer a clue. I am guessing here and attempting to decode Rossi speak at the same time. That has its hazards! :-)
Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
It sounds like Jones thinks that a combination of CNT's (the hairs) and Ni distributed on their surface some how is what Rossi has used. Jones. Is this what you meant by: It would probably be more productive to come at this from the standpoint of adding something to CNT instead of subtracting something from nickel? Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:04 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current Designing those nano-hairs on the micro-particles are at the heart of the success of the NiH reactor. Rossi said he spent 6 months of day and night experimental effort to optimize his nano-hairs. Give DGT credit for coming up with a workable nano-hair design. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Bob Cook Is there any available knowledge of the structure of the Ni nano particles Rossi is rumored to use? There are past posts in the archive which have speculated on his tubules or tubercles, but it may be counterproductive to try to deconstruct Rossi. He hints at buying his special nickel from a Hobbit in Italy, and magic many be involved. J It would probably be more productive to come at this from the standpoint of adding something to CNT instead of subtracting something from nickel. Nickel chloride is interesting in this regard, since it is soluble and since chlorine has special energetic properties of its own - when irradiated with light. In connecting all the dots in a hypothetical nanotube reactor, ring current in hexagonal carbon structures, together with SPP may work together with CNT in water to provide LENR effects. These CNT would function as nano electron accelerators when magnetized. We are avoiding mention of the ultimate source of excess energy for now to focus on the electrons. Heavy water is probably not required. There is no proof of any of this - but in the event that anyone should see photons in the keV range as a characteristic of any CNT device, especially one operating in water - then this provides a plausible explanation of how that finding is related back to the basic hexagonal bond-length of CNT, about 0.142 nm and how bremsstrahlung at low energy (around 1 keV) could provide the feedback mechanism for the SPP. It all fits, proof or no. One further detail to add, especially in the context of the Cooper patent application: Cherenkov radiation vs. bremsstrahlung - in the above suggestion for the required feedback mechanism. SPP requires an intense light source and the initial electrons could, ironically, be too energetic. Cherenkov radiation is emitted when a charged particle such as an electron passes through a dielectric medium (water) at a speed greater than the phase velocity of light in that medium. It should be noted that Cherenkov radiation is differentiated from bremsstrahlung radiation because the intensity does not depend on the mass of the particle, whereas bremsstrahlung does. However, the threshold for electrons is around 250 keV which would seem to eliminate this kind of radiation in CNT cells (since it would show up independently). Is there a correlate? Probably. The characteristic blue glow of nuclear fuel storage is due to Cherenkov radiation, but there are other types of fluorescence in which electrons create a similar light source differently. Therefore, and since SPP depends on a light source and 1 keV electrons are possibly resonant, there could be something happening with water fluorescence similar to Cherenkov but NOT identical. It is probably related to FRET (Forster resonant energy transfer) instead of phase velocity. A blue glow comes from the Lyman line of hydrogen in any case. The bottom line is that if SPP are involved in CNT, and in the simple device described in the Cooper patent - then the experimenter should be able to see a characteristic visible fluorescence for a period of time after the input power is turned off and it could be more energetic photons than the input. For instance, if sodium vapor lighting is used as input, the afterglow could be in the blue spectrum and it were the Lyman line, this would actually be more convincing than helium and far easier to document. Apparently the helium measurement of the Cooper disclosure does not stand up to close scrutiny. It is not the only way to go. This kind of CNT reactor can be done with light water and an electrolyte in a partial replication which is only going for fluorescence, a hydrogen line and afterglow (and possibly crude water bath calorimetry). Jones
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
Or maybe he was referring to Mills..Rayney Ni is NiAl with Al partially leached out? From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 11:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current It sounds like Jones thinks that a combination of CNT's (the hairs) and Ni distributed on their surface some how is what Rossi has used. Jones. Is this what you meant by: It would probably be more productive to come at this from the standpoint of adding something to CNT instead of subtracting something from nickel? Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axilmailto:janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-lmailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:04 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current Designing those nano-hairs on the micro-particles are at the heart of the success of the NiH reactor. Rossi said he spent 6 months of day and night experimental effort to optimize his nano-hairs. Give DGT credit for coming up with a workable nano-hair design. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netmailto:jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Bob Cook Is there any available knowledge of the structure of the Ni nano particles Rossi is rumored to use? There are past posts in the archive which have speculated on his tubules or tubercles, but it may be counterproductive to try to deconstruct Rossi. He hints at buying his special nickel from a Hobbit in Italy, and magic many be involved. :) It would probably be more productive to come at this from the standpoint of adding something to CNT instead of subtracting something from nickel. Nickel chloride is interesting in this regard, since it is soluble and since chlorine has special energetic properties of its own - when irradiated with light. In connecting all the dots in a hypothetical nanotube reactor, ring current in hexagonal carbon structures, together with SPP may work together with CNT in water to provide LENR effects. These CNT would function as nano electron accelerators when magnetized. We are avoiding mention of the ultimate source of excess energy for now to focus on the electrons. Heavy water is probably not required. There is no proof of any of this - but in the event that anyone should see photons in the keV range as a characteristic of any CNT device, especially one operating in water - then this provides a plausible explanation of how that finding is related back to the basic hexagonal bond-length of CNT, about 0.142 nm and how bremsstrahlung at low energy (around 1 keV) could provide the feedback mechanism for the SPP. It all fits, proof or no. One further detail to add, especially in the context of the Cooper patent application: Cherenkov radiation vs. bremsstrahlung - in the above suggestion for the required feedback mechanism. SPP requires an intense light source and the initial electrons could, ironically, be too energetic. Cherenkov radiation is emitted when a charged particle such as an electron passes through a dielectric medium (water) at a speed greater than the phase velocity of light in that medium. It should be noted that Cherenkov radiation is differentiated from bremsstrahlung radiation because the intensity does not depend on the mass of the particle, whereas bremsstrahlung does. However, the threshold for electrons is around 250 keV which would seem to eliminate this kind of radiation in CNT cells (since it would show up independently). Is there a correlate? Probably. The characteristic blue glow of nuclear fuel storage is due to Cherenkov radiation, but there are other types of fluorescence in which electrons create a similar light source differently. Therefore, and since SPP depends on a light source and 1 keV electrons are possibly resonant, there could be something happening with water fluorescence similar to Cherenkov but NOT identical. It is probably related to FRET (Forster resonant energy transfer) instead of phase velocity. A blue glow comes from the Lyman line of hydrogen in any case. The bottom line is that if SPP are involved in CNT, and in the simple device described in the Cooper patent - then the experimenter should be able to see a characteristic visible fluorescence for a period of time after the input power is turned off and it could be more energetic photons than the input. For instance, if sodium vapor lighting is used as input, the afterglow could be in the blue spectrum and it were the Lyman line, this would actually be more convincing than helium and far easier to document. Apparently the helium measurement of the Cooper disclosure does not stand up to close scrutiny. It is not the only way to go. This kind of CNT reactor can be done with light water and an electrolyte in a partial replication which is only going for fluorescence, a hydrogen line and afterglow (and possibly crude water bath calorimetry). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Axil-- I agree with what you say except I do not understand you comment about heating up U-238. U-238 in a reactor transmutes to Pu-239, however, the Pu-239 has a thermal fission cross section just as you say and as it grows in abundance in a reactor becomes a significant part of the overall energy production. Since the physics (absorption and production of neutrons) in a Pu reactor is different than a U reactor, the design for reactivity control is different. Also as you note the delayed neutrons are important in the reactor Dynamics and Control design as regards response times. They must be considered in the calculation of neutron produced by the reactor and the total inventory at any given time. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper The delayed neutrons are the neutrons that come from the radioactive decay of activated fission products. They slow down fission so that heat can get to the U238. Without delayed neutrons, the fission reaction would go super-critical in nanoseconds which would not allow the U238 to heat up. The fission cross section of U233, Pu239, and U235 all goes up as neutrons slow down. That is why Pu239, is used in fast neutron reactors; because it produces more neutrons per fission than uranium. Fast neutrons produce less fissions that slow one do. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- I may be wrong but it was always my understanding that the fissile isotope is U-235 and that the energy of the neutrons is important. The reactivity decreases as the temperature increases because the fission cross section is lower and reactivity is reduced with the hotter neutron. It may actually be a Doppler broadening of the of the neutron wave function that changes the effective fission cross section of U-235. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:52 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Fission reactors with water cooling generally have a negative temperature feedback and are much safer than metal coolant reactors with positive temperature feedback. However, metal cooled reactors have been designed and worked ok. With good design even a positive temperature feedback may work. In a uranium reactor, U238 provides the negative temperature control through Doppler broadening. http://www.safetyinengineering.com/FileUploads/Nuclear%20reactor%20stability%20and%20controllability_1314016641_2.pdf Light water absorbs more neutrons then heavy water and sodium hardly absorbs any neutrons (fast ones) at all. Designing a fission reactor requires a lot of experience and education. Positive coefficient of reactivity can never be positive. That is inviting a possibility of super criticality. A reactor that can go super critical cannot be licensed. In a QM system things happen so fast it would be harder to control than in a fission reactor. The key for control may be to limit the size of the QM system that reacts at any time, or increase the response time of the initiator--may the on-off pulse of the magnetic field in the case of the Pd and Ni systems. The DGT LENR reactor is only supercritical when the spark is arcing. But when the spark is off, that reactor returns to sub criticality. DGT tossed Rossi out of their deal because his reactor can go super critical. DGT designed their home grown reactor to be inherently safe through sub criticality just like all fission reactors. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper What is the course of an open ender positive feedback loop without limit. An eventual explosion. Nothing lasts forever in a positive feedback loop. There is always a limit to everything. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Interesting. But how does the net field become large unless some mechanism coordinates the destruction of the balls? Many random direction vectors yields near zero sums. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Yes, there is a load of fun in this sort of speculation. One possibility is that micro sized magnetic balls as described by DGT that start small and grow to huge power until they explode could produce a
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
You are describing the molten salt reactor where the U235 and the coolant are mixed together. In this type of reaction, the connection between heat and reactivity is tight... almost microscopic. On the other hand, It takes a lot of time for the heat of fuel rods to get distributed in the water coolant of a light water reactor from the zirconium fuel rods. But it has been years since I have concerned myself with fission. LENR is a lot more fun. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Reactivity is the instantaneous ratio of neutron production to neutron loses (reactions with any isotope in the reactor plus loss from the reactor boundary). A critical reactor is balanced and does not change power. In a water reactor, if you change the water temperature of the coolant, the average neutron energy and the thermal neutron Uup-235 fission cross section increases, increasing fissions, heat and coolant water temperature. As the coolant heats up the reactivity goes down and the power is reduced. The negative temperature coefficient of reactivity is the parameter that accounts for this effect. Reactor design requires good dynamics and control design to reflect time constants etc in the changes of reactivity associated with anything that can change the reactivity. The key in a reactor is to maintain the conditions so that the reactor cannot remain critical considering fast neutrons alone. That is call super criticality and leads to the rapid release of energy and destruction of the reactor as in a nuclear criticality accident. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 7:54 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Positive coefficient of reactivity can never be positive...should read... The coefficient of reactivity can never be positive. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.comwrote: Axil-- Fission reactors with water cooling generally have a negative temperature feedback and are much safer than metal coolant reactors with positive temperature feedback. However, metal cooled reactors have been designed and worked ok. With good design even a positive temperature feedback may work. In a uranium reactor, U238 provides the negative temperature control through Doppler broadening. http://www.safetyinengineering.com/FileUploads/Nuclear%20reactor%20stability%20and%20controllability_1314016641_2.pdf Light water absorbs more neutrons then heavy water and sodium hardly absorbs any neutrons (fast ones) at all. Designing a fission reactor requires a lot of experience and education. Positive coefficient of reactivity can never be positive. That is inviting a possibility of super criticality. A reactor that can go super critical cannot be licensed. In a QM system things happen so fast it would be harder to control than in a fission reactor. The key for control may be to limit the size of the QM system that reacts at any time, or increase the response time of the initiator--may the on-off pulse of the magnetic field in the case of the Pd and Ni systems. The DGT LENR reactor is only supercritical when the spark is arcing. But when the spark is off, that reactor returns to sub criticality. DGT tossed Rossi out of their deal because his reactor can go super critical. DGT designed their home grown reactor to be inherently safe through sub criticality just like all fission reactors. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:04 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper What is the course of an open ender positive feedback loop without limit. An eventual explosion. Nothing lasts forever in a positive feedback loop. There is always a limit to everything. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Interesting. But how does the net field become large unless some mechanism coordinates the destruction of the balls? Many random direction vectors yields near zero sums. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Yes, there is a load of fun in this sort of speculation. One possibility is that micro sized magnetic balls as described by DGT that start small and grow to huge power until they explode could produce a varying magnetic field that would induce a current through changing magnetic flux.. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: That brings back fond memories. He does say e.m.f. which makes me wonder how he performed that measurement. I would anticipate that he must use at least two
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
The reactivity gain in Pu239 is more than offset with and increase in the neutron poisons xenon-135 (microscopic cross-section σ = 2,000,000 b (barns)) and samarium-149 (σ = 74,500 b). This buildup in neutron poisons is why there is so much Pu239 in nuclear waste; One of the big issues with fission reactors. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- I agree with what you say except I do not understand you comment about heating up U-238. U-238 in a reactor transmutes to Pu-239, however, the Pu-239 has a thermal fission cross section just as you say and as it grows in abundance in a reactor becomes a significant part of the overall energy production. Since the physics (absorption and production of neutrons) in a Pu reactor is different than a U reactor, the design for reactivity control is different. Also as you note the delayed neutrons are important in the reactor Dynamics and Control design as regards response times. They must be considered in the calculation of neutron produced by the reactor and the total inventory at any given time. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 8:46 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper The delayed neutrons are the neutrons that come from the radioactive decay of activated fission products. They slow down fission so that heat can get to the U238. Without delayed neutrons, the fission reaction would go super-critical in nanoseconds which would not allow the U238 to heat up. The fission cross section of U233, Pu239, and U235 all goes up as neutrons slow down. That is why Pu239, is used in fast neutron reactors; because it produces more neutrons per fission than uranium. Fast neutrons produce less fissions that slow one do. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- I may be wrong but it was always my understanding that the fissile isotope is U-235 and that the energy of the neutrons is important. The reactivity decreases as the temperature increases because the fission cross section is lower and reactivity is reduced with the hotter neutron. It may actually be a Doppler broadening of the of the neutron wave function that changes the effective fission cross section of U-235. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 7:52 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.comwrote: Axil-- Fission reactors with water cooling generally have a negative temperature feedback and are much safer than metal coolant reactors with positive temperature feedback. However, metal cooled reactors have been designed and worked ok. With good design even a positive temperature feedback may work. In a uranium reactor, U238 provides the negative temperature control through Doppler broadening. http://www.safetyinengineering.com/FileUploads/Nuclear%20reactor%20stability%20and%20controllability_1314016641_2.pdf Light water absorbs more neutrons then heavy water and sodium hardly absorbs any neutrons (fast ones) at all. Designing a fission reactor requires a lot of experience and education. Positive coefficient of reactivity can never be positive. That is inviting a possibility of super criticality. A reactor that can go super critical cannot be licensed. In a QM system things happen so fast it would be harder to control than in a fission reactor. The key for control may be to limit the size of the QM system that reacts at any time, or increase the response time of the initiator--may the on-off pulse of the magnetic field in the case of the Pd and Ni systems. The DGT LENR reactor is only supercritical when the spark is arcing. But when the spark is off, that reactor returns to sub criticality. DGT tossed Rossi out of their deal because his reactor can go super critical. DGT designed their home grown reactor to be inherently safe through sub criticality just like all fission reactors. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:04 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper What is the course of an open ender positive feedback loop without limit. An eventual explosion. Nothing lasts forever in a positive feedback loop. There is always a limit to everything. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Interesting. But how does the net field become large unless some mechanism coordinates the destruction of the balls? Many random direction vectors yields near zero sums. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:55 pm
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Axil-- LENR is a lot more fun. I agree. I was thinking that some of the old DC design programs may be useful in designing LENR reactors with feedback mechanisms. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 9:10 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper You are describing the molten salt reactor where the U235 and the coolant are mixed together. In this type of reaction, the connection between heat and reactivity is tight... almost microscopic. On the other hand, It takes a lot of time for the heat of fuel rods to get distributed in the water coolant of a light water reactor from the zirconium fuel rods. But it has been years since I have concerned myself with fission. LENR is a lot more fun. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Reactivity is the instantaneous ratio of neutron production to neutron loses (reactions with any isotope in the reactor plus loss from the reactor boundary). A critical reactor is balanced and does not change power. In a water reactor, if you change the water temperature of the coolant, the average neutron energy and the thermal neutron Uup-235 fission cross section increases, increasing fissions, heat and coolant water temperature. As the coolant heats up the reactivity goes down and the power is reduced. The negative temperature coefficient of reactivity is the parameter that accounts for this effect. Reactor design requires good dynamics and control design to reflect time constants etc in the changes of reactivity associated with anything that can change the reactivity. The key in a reactor is to maintain the conditions so that the reactor cannot remain critical considering fast neutrons alone. That is call super criticality and leads to the rapid release of energy and destruction of the reactor as in a nuclear criticality accident. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Positive coefficient of reactivity can never be positive...should read... The coefficient of reactivity can never be positive. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Fission reactors with water cooling generally have a negative temperature feedback and are much safer than metal coolant reactors with positive temperature feedback. However, metal cooled reactors have been designed and worked ok. With good design even a positive temperature feedback may work. In a uranium reactor, U238 provides the negative temperature control through Doppler broadening. http://www.safetyinengineering.com/FileUploads/Nuclear%20reactor%20stability%20and%20controllability_1314016641_2.pdf Light water absorbs more neutrons then heavy water and sodium hardly absorbs any neutrons (fast ones) at all. Designing a fission reactor requires a lot of experience and education. Positive coefficient of reactivity can never be positive. That is inviting a possibility of super criticality. A reactor that can go super critical cannot be licensed. In a QM system things happen so fast it would be harder to control than in a fission reactor. The key for control may be to limit the size of the QM system that reacts at any time, or increase the response time of the initiator--may the on-off pulse of the magnetic field in the case of the Pd and Ni systems. The DGT LENR reactor is only supercritical when the spark is arcing. But when the spark is off, that reactor returns to sub criticality. DGT tossed Rossi out of their deal because his reactor can go super critical. DGT designed their home grown reactor to be inherently safe through sub criticality just like all fission reactors. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper What is the course of an open ender positive feedback loop without limit. An eventual explosion. Nothing lasts forever in a positive feedback loop. There is always a limit to everything. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Interesting. But how does the net field become large unless some mechanism coordinates the destruction of the balls? Many random direction vectors yields near zero sums. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:55 pm
RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
Bob, all If Rossi can be believed, he did not use CNT (at least not originally) but instead - his tubules are made of nickel via a proprietary process which adds porosity and surface features. Nickel is ductile and CNT are stiff and 500% stronger than nickel. But CNT is not a spillover catalyst, like nickel. In short the original recipe can probably be improved, and may have been improved already. Given all of the info out there from various sources, it would seem that a superior Ni-H reactor media would be composed of carbon nanotubes on which nickel has been deposited. or preferably a nickel alloy. The Romanowski alloys are far superior to nickel, palladium or anything else as spillover catalysts. The citation is in the archives. From: Bob Cook It sounds like Jones thinks that a combination of CNT's (the hairs) and Ni distributed on their surface some how is what Rossi has used. Jones. Is this what you meant by: It would probably be more productive to come at this from the standpoint of adding something to CNT instead of subtracting something from nickel?
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
One of the key economic parameters of fission reactor design is power density. A small high powered fission reactor that can produce the same power output as a low powered big reactor will cost less to build and operate. This is the reason why the pebble bed reactor never caught on with utilities. The same will be true with LENR reactors. A very small high powered LENR reactor will be less expensive to build and maintain per unit of produced power than a low powered big one in the industrial setting. I think there will be a move by forward thinking LENR companies to develop a foot long Super LENR megawatt rated reactor operating at 3000C that produces industrial process heat. Such a reactor will have a competitive advantage over a big low temperature one the size of a shipping container like Rossi is producing. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- LENR is a lot more fun. I agree. I was thinking that some of the old DC design programs may be useful in designing LENR reactors with feedback mechanisms. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 9:10 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper You are describing the molten salt reactor where the U235 and the coolant are mixed together. In this type of reaction, the connection between heat and reactivity is tight... almost microscopic. On the other hand, It takes a lot of time for the heat of fuel rods to get distributed in the water coolant of a light water reactor from the zirconium fuel rods. But it has been years since I have concerned myself with fission. LENR is a lot more fun. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Reactivity is the instantaneous ratio of neutron production to neutron loses (reactions with any isotope in the reactor plus loss from the reactor boundary). A critical reactor is balanced and does not change power. In a water reactor, if you change the water temperature of the coolant, the average neutron energy and the thermal neutron Uup-235 fission cross section increases, increasing fissions, heat and coolant water temperature. As the coolant heats up the reactivity goes down and the power is reduced. The negative temperature coefficient of reactivity is the parameter that accounts for this effect. Reactor design requires good dynamics and control design to reflect time constants etc in the changes of reactivity associated with anything that can change the reactivity. The key in a reactor is to maintain the conditions so that the reactor cannot remain critical considering fast neutrons alone. That is call super criticality and leads to the rapid release of energy and destruction of the reactor as in a nuclear criticality accident. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 7:54 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Positive coefficient of reactivity can never be positive...should read... The coefficient of reactivity can never be positive. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.comwrote: Axil-- Fission reactors with water cooling generally have a negative temperature feedback and are much safer than metal coolant reactors with positive temperature feedback. However, metal cooled reactors have been designed and worked ok. With good design even a positive temperature feedback may work. In a uranium reactor, U238 provides the negative temperature control through Doppler broadening. http://www.safetyinengineering.com/FileUploads/Nuclear%20reactor%20stability%20and%20controllability_1314016641_2.pdf Light water absorbs more neutrons then heavy water and sodium hardly absorbs any neutrons (fast ones) at all. Designing a fission reactor requires a lot of experience and education. Positive coefficient of reactivity can never be positive. That is inviting a possibility of super criticality. A reactor that can go super critical cannot be licensed. In a QM system things happen so fast it would be harder to control than in a fission reactor. The key for control may be to limit the size of the QM system that reacts at any time, or increase the response time of the initiator--may the on-off pulse of the magnetic field in the case of the Pd and Ni systems. The DGT LENR reactor is only supercritical when the spark is arcing. But when the spark is off, that reactor returns to sub criticality. DGT tossed Rossi out of their deal because his reactor can go super critical. DGT designed their home grown reactor to be inherently safe through sub criticality just like all fission reactors. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil
Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find
I grabbed an illustration off the Chandra telescope site. http://chandra.harvard.edu/ I figured my tax dollars helped pay for it. Amazon makes you use the words annotated or illustrated in your book name if you are using information within the public domain. I have lots of snippets, links and references. It is sort of a cobbled together theory of everything from an engineer with ADD. I am putting a book out this week on Doppler Radars and their negative effect on biology based upon my research, but I can't decide between Dopplerpocalypse, DopplerGeddon, Dopplerganger or Dopzilla. What do you think? Stewart On Saturday, March 1, 2014, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: That's a nice cover. How did you make it? Frank -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 9:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Matters-Lot-Annotated-Experiment-ebook/dp/B00HZ05VIE/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1390339797sr=1-1 It is basically the first 6 months of my blog (darkmattersalot.com) adapted to an Ebook. It is a chemical engineer's hunt for dark/vacuum energy in our atmosphere using basic thermodynamics, string/M theory and the National Weather Service... I am modeling the Sun and Earth as two branes of vacuum(6-D torroids) with strings and particles of vacuum stringing and streaming between them in the solar wind I started tracking low pressure systems off the equatorial jet and polar jets in 2012 and modeling them as if they were strings of vacuum, triggering hurricanes(entangled strings), waterspouts, sinkholes/seismic(ionizing/decay where strings are entering the Earth) and ionizing our atmosphere as they decay in our jet streams triggering electromagnetic effects. These mesovortexes and supercells that break off the jet streams are basically topological defects of the cosmic strings of vacuum that break off and decay and trigger our storms, which is really the inflation phase of our quantum gravity field from the solar wind. I have two more books coming out, one will be the next 6 months of the blog. The other book is focused on Doppler Microwave radars, which I think, based upon 6 months of study, including statistics, are triggering an increase in vacuum upsets around the radars, including an increase in sinkholes, shallow seismic events, mesovortex events, hypoxia/algae blooms in waters (through ionization and oxidation). If you take what Axil, Jones, Fran and others have been talking about at the atomic level and scale the vacuum energy up to the cosmic level, it sort of follows along. I am working with two professional researchers now and feeding them my data around the towers to see if they get the same results with some other biological data. In 1956 Doppler radars were taken from the military and used for weather forecasting. Although they do a lot of good, I think they are also damaging biology. I have had a lot of fun developing a theory and piecing it all together in whatever direction it takes me. As I have looked closely at doppler radars, I have been recently looking at all of the cruise ship illnesses with norovirus. I am looking at those large cruise ships and they have people partying on elevated decks directly beside and between multiple 20,000-30,000 watt pulsed Doppler microwave radars inside the large radomes. I think those radars may be triggering the illness outbreaks. If you are going on a cruise, I would advise not hanging out too close to them. My partner was a military pilot on an aircraft carrier and they NEVER walked close to operating radars. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/26/does-this-seem-remotely-safe-to-anybody/ I have all sorts of scientific data I found from the 1990's on concerns with Doppler radars causing cancer and related disease. Norovirus is basically strands of RNA, I think the microwave radars, along with the increased vacuum, may be creating it FROM HUMANS. You and Terry are electrical engineers, do you guys think that is a good idea to put your head beside a 30,000 watt pulsed microwave radar while drinking a Pina Colada?? Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:08 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: What book did you write? I sold 3 books in February, but I found out one sale was my wife, does that count? I think more people are interested in watching Justin Beiber pee in a trash can.
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
I wonder what effect CNTs would have mixed into the precursor alloys of skeletal cats. Would the alloy and the leaching agents be drawn into the tube? Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 12:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current Bob, all If Rossi can be believed, he did not use CNT (at least not originally) but instead - his tubules are made of nickel via a proprietary process which adds porosity and surface features. Nickel is ductile and CNT are stiff and 500% stronger than nickel. But CNT is not a spillover catalyst, like nickel. In short the original recipe can probably be improved, and may have been improved already. Given all of the info out there from various sources, it would seem that a superior Ni-H reactor media would be composed of carbon nanotubes on which nickel has been deposited... or preferably a nickel alloy. The Romanowski alloys are far superior to nickel, palladium or anything else as spillover catalysts. The citation is in the archives. From: Bob Cook It sounds like Jones thinks that a combination of CNT's (the hairs) and Ni distributed on their surface some how is what Rossi has used. Jones. Is this what you meant by: It would probably be more productive to come at this from the standpoint of adding something to CNT instead of subtracting something from nickel?
Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
Carbon is the very good material to build a very high temperature reactor out of. It doesn't melt and stays together up to 3642 °C. Without a doubt, a carbon reactor and/or a tungsten one (3422 °C) is the way to go. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Bob, all If Rossi can be believed, he did not use CNT (at least not originally) but instead - his tubules are made of nickel via a proprietary process which adds porosity and surface features. Nickel is ductile and CNT are stiff and 500% stronger than nickel. But CNT is not a spillover catalyst, like nickel. In short the original recipe can probably be improved, and may have been improved already. Given all of the info out there from various sources, it would seem that a superior Ni-H reactor media would be composed of carbon nanotubes on which nickel has been deposited... or preferably a nickel alloy. The Romanowski alloys are far superior to nickel, palladium or anything else as spillover catalysts. The citation is in the archives. *From:* Bob Cook It sounds like Jones thinks that a combination of CNT's (the hairs) and Ni distributed on their surface some how is what Rossi has used. Jones. Is this what you meant by: It would probably be more productive to come at this from the standpoint of adding something to CNT instead of subtracting something from nickel?
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
The tubes should be solid because LENR is exclusively a surface reaction. To strengthen the tubes and provide a longer service life, the tubes may be filled with tough stuff like tungsten, for example, On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: I wonder what effect CNTs would have mixed into the precursor alloys of skeletal cats. Would the alloy and the leaching agents be drawn into the tube? Fran *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] *Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 12:57 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current Bob, all If Rossi can be believed, he did not use CNT (at least not originally) but instead - his tubules are made of nickel via a proprietary process which adds porosity and surface features. Nickel is ductile and CNT are stiff and 500% stronger than nickel. But CNT is not a spillover catalyst, like nickel. In short the original recipe can probably be improved, and may have been improved already. Given all of the info out there from various sources, it would seem that a superior Ni-H reactor media would be composed of carbon nanotubes on which nickel has been deposited... or preferably a nickel alloy. The Romanowski alloys are far superior to nickel, palladium or anything else as spillover catalysts. The citation is in the archives. *From:* Bob Cook It sounds like Jones thinks that a combination of CNT's (the hairs) and Ni distributed on their surface some how is what Rossi has used. Jones. Is this what you meant by: It would probably be more productive to come at this from the standpoint of adding something to CNT instead of subtracting something from nickel?
Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find
Maybe you can become the new Isaac Asimov, He was a chemist who wrote a million books about everything with lots of references. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:07 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I grabbed an illustration off the Chandra telescope site. http://chandra.harvard.edu/ I figured my tax dollars helped pay for it. Amazon makes you use the words annotated or illustrated in your book name if you are using information within the public domain. I have lots of snippets, links and references. It is sort of a cobbled together theory of everything from an engineer with ADD. I am putting a book out this week on Doppler Radars and their negative effect on biology based upon my research, but I can't decide between Dopplerpocalypse, DopplerGeddon, Dopplerganger or Dopzilla. What do you think? Stewart On Saturday, March 1, 2014, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: That's a nice cover. How did you make it? Frank -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 9:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Matters-Lot-Annotated-Experiment-ebook/dp/B00HZ05VIE/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1390339797sr=1-1 It is basically the first 6 months of my blog (darkmattersalot.com) adapted to an Ebook. It is a chemical engineer's hunt for dark/vacuum energy in our atmosphere using basic thermodynamics, string/M theory and the National Weather Service... I am modeling the Sun and Earth as two branes of vacuum(6-D torroids) with strings and particles of vacuum stringing and streaming between them in the solar wind I started tracking low pressure systems off the equatorial jet and polar jets in 2012 and modeling them as if they were strings of vacuum, triggering hurricanes(entangled strings), waterspouts, sinkholes/seismic(ionizing/decay where strings are entering the Earth) and ionizing our atmosphere as they decay in our jet streams triggering electromagnetic effects. These mesovortexes and supercells that break off the jet streams are basically topological defects of the cosmic strings of vacuum that break off and decay and trigger our storms, which is really the inflation phase of our quantum gravity field from the solar wind. I have two more books coming out, one will be the next 6 months of the blog. The other book is focused on Doppler Microwave radars, which I think, based upon 6 months of study, including statistics, are triggering an increase in vacuum upsets around the radars, including an increase in sinkholes, shallow seismic events, mesovortex events, hypoxia/algae blooms in waters (through ionization and oxidation). If you take what Axil, Jones, Fran and others have been talking about at the atomic level and scale the vacuum energy up to the cosmic level, it sort of follows along. I am working with two professional researchers now and feeding them my data around the towers to see if they get the same results with some other biological data. In 1956 Doppler radars were taken from the military and used for weather forecasting. Although they do a lot of good, I think they are also damaging biology. I have had a lot of fun developing a theory and piecing it all together in whatever direction it takes me. As I have looked closely at doppler radars, I have been recently looking at all of the cruise ship illnesses with norovirus. I am looking at those large cruise ships and they have people partying on elevated decks directly beside and between multiple 20,000-30,000 watt pulsed Doppler microwave radars inside the large radomes. I think those radars may be triggering the illness outbreaks. If you are going on a cruise, I would advise not hanging out too close to them. My partner was a military pilot on an aircraft carrier and they NEVER walked close to operating radars. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/26/does-this-seem-remotely-safe-to-anybody/ I have all sorts of scientific data I found from the 1990's on concerns with Doppler radars causing cancer and related disease. Norovirus is basically strands of RNA, I think the microwave radars, along with the increased vacuum, may be creating it FROM HUMANS. You and Terry are electrical engineers, do you guys think that is a good idea to put your head beside a 30,000 watt pulsed microwave radar while drinking a Pina Colada?? Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:08 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: What book did you write? I sold 3 books in February, but I found out one sale was my wife, does that count? I think more people are interested in watching Justin Beiber pee in a trash can.
Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find
I'm not sure if I want to write a million books or sell a million books... Anyway I am having fun piecing all the parts together, right or wrong and scaling it up to cosmic scales and developing/refining a theory. Sort of a bottom up approach. I find that posting a short one or two page post to a blog every couple of days is much easier than thinking about writing a formal book. I have a young editor following behind me and assembling the research/postings into a few annotated books. I think you could be the next Tom Clancy of cold fusion...you have a great skill of piecing together research papers, forming a theory and throwing in a little mystery and government intrigue. All good stuff. Stewart On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe you can become the new Isaac Asimov, He was a chemist who wrote a million books about everything with lots of references. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:07 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I grabbed an illustration off the Chandra telescope site. http://chandra.harvard.edu/ I figured my tax dollars helped pay for it. Amazon makes you use the words annotated or illustrated in your book name if you are using information within the public domain. I have lots of snippets, links and references. It is sort of a cobbled together theory of everything from an engineer with ADD. I am putting a book out this week on Doppler Radars and their negative effect on biology based upon my research, but I can't decide between Dopplerpocalypse, DopplerGeddon, Dopplerganger or Dopzilla. What do you think? Stewart On Saturday, March 1, 2014, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: That's a nice cover. How did you make it? Frank -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 9:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Matters-Lot-Annotated-Experiment-ebook/dp/B00HZ05VIE/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1390339797sr=1-1 It is basically the first 6 months of my blog (darkmattersalot.com) adapted to an Ebook. It is a chemical engineer's hunt for dark/vacuum energy in our atmosphere using basic thermodynamics, string/M theory and the National Weather Service... I am modeling the Sun and Earth as two branes of vacuum(6-D torroids) with strings and particles of vacuum stringing and streaming between them in the solar wind I started tracking low pressure systems off the equatorial jet and polar jets in 2012 and modeling them as if they were strings of vacuum, triggering hurricanes(entangled strings), waterspouts, sinkholes/seismic(ionizing/decay where strings are entering the Earth) and ionizing our atmosphere as they decay in our jet streams triggering electromagnetic effects. These mesovortexes and supercells that break off the jet streams are basically topological defects of the cosmic strings of vacuum that break off and decay and trigger our storms, which is really the inflation phase of our quantum gravity field from the solar wind. I have two more books coming out, one will be the next 6 months of the blog. The other book is focused on Doppler Microwave radars, which I think, based upon 6 months of study, including statistics, are triggering an increase in vacuum upsets around the radars, including an increase in sinkholes, shallow seismic events, mesovortex events, hypoxia/algae blooms in waters (through ionization and oxidation). If you take what Axil, Jones, Fran and others have been talking about at the atomic level and scale the vacuum energy up to the cosmic level, it sort of follows along. I am working with two professional researchers now and feeding them my data around the towers to see if they get the same results with some other biological data. In 1956 Doppler radars were taken from the military and used for weather forecasting. Although they do a lot of good, I think they are also damaging biology. I have had a lot of fun developing a theory and piecing it all together in whatever direction it takes me. As I have looked closely at doppler radars, I have been recently looking at all of the cruise ship illnesses with norovirus. I am looking at those large cruise ships and they have people partying on elevated decks directly beside and between multiple 20,000-30,000 watt pulsed Doppler microwave radars inside the large radomes. I think those radars may be triggering the illness outbreaks. If you are going on a cruise, I would advise not hanging out too close to them. My partner was a military pilot on an aircraft carrier and they NEVER walked close to operating radars. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/26/does-this-seem-remotely-safe-to-anybody/ I have all sorts of scientific data I found from the 1990's on concerns with Doppler radars causing cancer and related disease. Norovirus is basically strands of RNA, I think the microwave radars,
RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
From: Axil the tubes should be solid because LENR is exclusively a surface reaction. To strengthen the tubes and provide a longer service life, the tubes may be filled with tough stuff like tungsten, for example, It's probably a lot more complicated than that. Even Ed seems to be admitting now that there are several possible varieties of LENR :-) In the Rossi effect - LENR may not occur in tubes, and it doesn't need to. Or else, in Kevin's version it could happen inside tubes due to 1D condensation. The jury is still out on that point. However, even if CNT do not promote LENR by themselves (internally), they could still serve the secondary purpose of powering the light source, and SPP formation - by accelerating electrons which then produce radiation in the visible spectrum. Here is an interesting item that turned up. http://www.ece.umd.edu/~antonsen/Data/IRMMW-THz%202013/Extended%20Abstracts/ 2013-09-03-Tu/TU12-6.pdf It is not precisely on point for the Rossi effect, nor for the Cooper patent application, but there is a strong analogy for a complex mechanism which involves all of these factors below, operating together. 1)CNT which are hollow 2)SPP 3)Magnetic field alignment 4)Light source 5)Ni-H LENR (of some variety) to power all of the above and provide excess heat The idea is that the external light source starts the reaction, as in the Cooper patent, which is then self sustaining for a period, based on self-generated light (or alternatively IR photons from LENR heat). I wish we had actual data from Cooper (and Rossi) but it is understandable why this may not be forthcoming anytime soon.
Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
On Mar 3, 2014, at 12:23 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Axil the tubes should be solid because LENR is exclusively a surface reaction. To strengthen the tubes and provide a longer service life, the tubes may be filled with tough stuff like tungsten, for example, It’s probably a lot more complicated than that. Even Ed seems to be admitting now that there are several possible varieties of LENR J Jones, I believe several different reactions occur but they all are caused by the same NAE and the same mechanism. The Rossi effect creates energy by p-e-p fusion. The F-P effect produces energy by d-e-d fusion. Tritium is made by d-e-p fusion. Transmutation is caused by various metal atoms being present in the site where fusion occurs and they become part of the process. Transmutation clearly is not possible without energy that can be supplied by fusion of hydrogen. All the nuclear processes are related and are part of the same basic process. Nature does not keep reinventing the wheel for every different reaction. At least that is my assumption and I sticking to it. Ed Storms.
Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
The plexciton is just an alternating current of electrons that vibrate at the frequency of the infrared radiation carried by the nickel hydride permeating the lattice of the micro-particles. The electrons on the surface of the metal particles move freely and are driven to vibrate by the phonons of the metal lattice of the particle. These electrons are periodically displaced from the ions of the lattice. This displacement causes electrons and ions to be accumulated on the surfaces at opposite ends of the nano/micro particles. Because these particles attract each other there is a restoring force. This restoring force results in the formation of an electron oscillator whose quantum is called a surface plasmon and whose frequency is determined by the restoring force. This frequency reflects the effective mass of the electron. The frequency of the surface plasmon not only depends on the metals composition of the particle but also on its size and shape, on the dielectric material that surrounds the particle, and finally on the shape of the particle be it either elongated or spherical because of the varied distance between the two opposite ends. Laser light is a poor energy source for the plexciton because laser light is a plane wave. This type of pure EMF needs a surface imperfection to be converted to dipole vibrations. The best source of lattice vibration is plain old heat from a heater. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Mar 3, 2014, at 12:23 PM, Jones Beene wrote: *From:* Axil the tubes should be solid because LENR is exclusively a surface reaction. To strengthen the tubes and provide a longer service life, the tubes may be filled with tough stuff like tungsten, for example, It's probably a lot more complicated than that. Even Ed seems to be admitting now that there are several possible varieties of LENR J Jones, I believe several different reactions occur but they all are caused by the same NAE and the same mechanism. The Rossi effect creates energy by p-e-p fusion. The F-P effect produces energy by d-e-d fusion. Tritium is made by d-e-p fusion. Transmutation is caused by various metal atoms being present in the site where fusion occurs and they become part of the process. Transmutation clearly is not possible without energy that can be supplied by fusion of hydrogen. All the nuclear processes are related and are part of the same basic process. Nature does not keep reinventing the wheel for every different reaction. At least that is my assumption and I sticking to it. Ed Storms.
Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
Sorry. Please add this to the top of the last post: I assert that the LENR effect is a surface effect ( aka two dimensional) because high frequency electrons current flow exclusively on the surface of a conducted driven by the skin effect. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The plexciton is just an alternating current of electrons that vibrate at the frequency of the infrared radiation carried by the nickel hydride permeating the lattice of the micro-particles. The electrons on the surface of the metal particles move freely and are driven to vibrate by the phonons of the metal lattice of the particle. These electrons are periodically displaced from the ions of the lattice. This displacement causes electrons and ions to be accumulated on the surfaces at opposite ends of the nano/micro particles. Because these particles attract each other there is a restoring force. This restoring force results in the formation of an electron oscillator whose quantum is called a surface plasmon and whose frequency is determined by the restoring force. This frequency reflects the effective mass of the electron. The frequency of the surface plasmon not only depends on the metals composition of the particle but also on its size and shape, on the dielectric material that surrounds the particle, and finally on the shape of the particle be it either elongated or spherical because of the varied distance between the two opposite ends. Laser light is a poor energy source for the plexciton because laser light is a plane wave. This type of pure EMF needs a surface imperfection to be converted to dipole vibrations. The best source of lattice vibration is plain old heat from a heater. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Mar 3, 2014, at 12:23 PM, Jones Beene wrote: *From:* Axil the tubes should be solid because LENR is exclusively a surface reaction. To strengthen the tubes and provide a longer service life, the tubes may be filled with tough stuff like tungsten, for example, It's probably a lot more complicated than that. Even Ed seems to be admitting now that there are several possible varieties of LENR J Jones, I believe several different reactions occur but they all are caused by the same NAE and the same mechanism. The Rossi effect creates energy by p-e-p fusion. The F-P effect produces energy by d-e-d fusion. Tritium is made by d-e-p fusion. Transmutation is caused by various metal atoms being present in the site where fusion occurs and they become part of the process. Transmutation clearly is not possible without energy that can be supplied by fusion of hydrogen. All the nuclear processes are related and are part of the same basic process. Nature does not keep reinventing the wheel for every different reaction. At least that is my assumption and I sticking to it. Ed Storms.
[Vo]:Sagnac as disproof of Special Relativity
The Sagnac effect is where light is sent both ways around a loop (fibre optic cable loop/coil or an arrangement of mirrors) and the time it takes light to complete the loop is increased in one direction and decreased in the other from the rotation, in other words one trip would be seen to exceed C and the other to be less than C. But this is explained as accepted under Special Relativity by the sudden inclusion of a preferred frame with proper time etc And the insistence that if we measured the speed of light in a portion of the Loop, we would still detect light moving at C in that portion. This is a real effect that is used as an optical gyroscope in guidance systems, so there is no debate IF the trip time varies, it really is accepted and considered Ok with Special Relativity. Now what if we rotated the loop at near the speed of light? Now if we looked at the time it takes for light to go one direction it would act like the trip was about half the length due to addition of C and almost C. In the other direction it would be lengthened hugely since it would be C minus almost C. Now in one direction the same photon could do many laps in the time the other completes a tine portion. Can the speed of light be measured in a portion to be C in both directions when one photon moves though many times (and the rest) while the other photon is struggling to do it once? NO! And if this obvious truth is accepted, then we must ask, could not any curved path be a portion of a large circle, hence act as if it were a portion of a very large rotating frame even if the circle would be trillions of times larger than the galaxy? This then means that in practice all motion would not be perfectly linear due to influences of gravity and all would have relativistic light speed differences! The speed of light being C is actually not indicated by most experiments to measure the speed of light as C under all conditions, rather confirmation bias and stilted interpretations of results are used to keep the theory alive. John
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
- Original Message - From: Roarty, Francis X To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 10:13 AM Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current I wonder what effect CNTs would have mixed into the precursor alloys of skeletal cats. Would the alloy and the leaching agents be drawn into the tube? Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 12:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current Bob, all If Rossi can be believed, he did not use CNT (at least not originally) but instead - his tubules are made of nickel via a proprietary process which adds porosity and surface features. Nickel is ductile and CNT are stiff and 500% stronger than nickel. But CNT is not a spillover catalyst, like nickel. In short the original recipe can probably be improved, and may have been improved already. Given all of the info out there from various sources, it would seem that a superior Ni-H reactor media would be composed of carbon nanotubes on which nickel has been deposited. or preferably a nickel alloy. The Romanowski alloys are far superior to nickel, palladium or anything else as spillover catalysts. The citation is in the archives. From: Bob Cook It sounds like Jones thinks that a combination of CNT's (the hairs) and Ni distributed on their surface some how is what Rossi has used. Jones. Is this what you meant by: It would probably be more productive to come at this from the standpoint of adding something to CNT instead of subtracting something from nickel?
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
Fran and others: You may be able to get some molecules inside the CNT in a cryogenic state using liquid He or N as a carrier/dispersant. The NO molecule may be too big to fit inside the tubes. The cryogenic conditions avoid reactions until the He or NO is allowed to warm up and leave the system. On the other hand a high temperature Ni vapor may be able to enter the tubes. Does anyone know if CNT comes in a bigger variety than the 5 C's in a ring arrangement? Bob - Original Message - From: Roarty, Francis X To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 10:13 AM Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current I wonder what effect CNTs would have mixed into the precursor alloys of skeletal cats. Would the alloy and the leaching agents be drawn into the tube? Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 12:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current Bob, all If Rossi can be believed, he did not use CNT (at least not originally) but instead - his tubules are made of nickel via a proprietary process which adds porosity and surface features. Nickel is ductile and CNT are stiff and 500% stronger than nickel. But CNT is not a spillover catalyst, like nickel. In short the original recipe can probably be improved, and may have been improved already. Given all of the info out there from various sources, it would seem that a superior Ni-H reactor media would be composed of carbon nanotubes on which nickel has been deposited. or preferably a nickel alloy. The Romanowski alloys are far superior to nickel, palladium or anything else as spillover catalysts. The citation is in the archives. From: Bob Cook It sounds like Jones thinks that a combination of CNT's (the hairs) and Ni distributed on their surface some how is what Rossi has used. Jones. Is this what you meant by: It would probably be more productive to come at this from the standpoint of adding something to CNT instead of subtracting something from nickel?
Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find
Stewart-- I think Jones has that first slot already taken. (:) Bob - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find I'm not sure if I want to write a million books or sell a million books... Anyway I am having fun piecing all the parts together, right or wrong and scaling it up to cosmic scales and developing/refining a theory. Sort of a bottom up approach. I find that posting a short one or two page post to a blog every couple of days is much easier than thinking about writing a formal book. I have a young editor following behind me and assembling the research/postings into a few annotated books. I think you could be the next Tom Clancy of cold fusion...you have a great skill of piecing together research papers, forming a theory and throwing in a little mystery and government intrigue. All good stuff. Stewart On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe you can become the new Isaac Asimov, He was a chemist who wrote a million books about everything with lots of references. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:07 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I grabbed an illustration off the Chandra telescope site. http://chandra.harvard.edu/ I figured my tax dollars helped pay for it. Amazon makes you use the words annotated or illustrated in your book name if you are using information within the public domain. I have lots of snippets, links and references. It is sort of a cobbled together theory of everything from an engineer with ADD. I am putting a book out this week on Doppler Radars and their negative effect on biology based upon my research, but I can't decide between Dopplerpocalypse, DopplerGeddon, Dopplerganger or Dopzilla. What do you think? Stewart On Saturday, March 1, 2014, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: That's a nice cover. How did you make it? Frank -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 9:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Matters-Lot-Annotated-Experiment-ebook/dp/B00HZ05VIE/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1390339797sr=1-1 It is basically the first 6 months of my blog (darkmattersalot.com) adapted to an Ebook. It is a chemical engineer's hunt for dark/vacuum energy in our atmosphere using basic thermodynamics, string/M theory and the National Weather Service... I am modeling the Sun and Earth as two branes of vacuum(6-D torroids) with strings and particles of vacuum stringing and streaming between them in the solar wind I started tracking low pressure systems off the equatorial jet and polar jets in 2012 and modeling them as if they were strings of vacuum, triggering hurricanes(entangled strings), waterspouts, sinkholes/seismic(ionizing/decay where strings are entering the Earth) and ionizing our atmosphere as they decay in our jet streams triggering electromagnetic effects. These mesovortexes and supercells that break off the jet streams are basically topological defects of the cosmic strings of vacuum that break off and decay and trigger our storms, which is really the inflation phase of our quantum gravity field from the solar wind. I have two more books coming out, one will be the next 6 months of the blog. The other book is focused on Doppler Microwave radars, which I think, based upon 6 months of study, including statistics, are triggering an increase in vacuum upsets around the radars, including an increase in sinkholes, shallow seismic events, mesovortex events, hypoxia/algae blooms in waters (through ionization and oxidation). If you take what Axil, Jones, Fran and others have been talking about at the atomic level and scale the vacuum energy up to the cosmic level, it sort of follows along. I am working with two professional researchers now and feeding them my data around the towers to see if they get the same results with some other biological data. In 1956 Doppler radars were taken from the military and used for weather forecasting. Although they do a lot of good, I think they are also damaging biology. I have had a lot of fun developing a theory and piecing it all together in whatever direction it takes me. As I have looked closely at doppler radars, I have been recently looking at all of the cruise ship illnesses with norovirus. I am looking at those large cruise ships and they have people partying on elevated decks directly beside and between multiple 20,000-30,000 watt pulsed Doppler microwave radars inside the large radomes. I think those radars may be triggering the illness outbreaks. If you are going on a cruise, I would advise not hanging out too close to
Re: [Vo]:Sagnac as disproof of Special Relativity
And the insistence that if we measured the speed of light in a portion of the Loop, we would still detect light moving at C in that portion. Should read: And the insistence that if we measured the speed of light in a portion of the Loop, we would still detect light moving at C in each direction in that portion. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:34 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: The Sagnac effect is where light is sent both ways around a loop (fibre optic cable loop/coil or an arrangement of mirrors) and the time it takes light to complete the loop is increased in one direction and decreased in the other from the rotation, in other words one trip would be seen to exceed C and the other to be less than C. But this is explained as accepted under Special Relativity by the sudden inclusion of a preferred frame with proper time etc And the insistence that if we measured the speed of light in a portion of the Loop, we would still detect light moving at C in that portion. This is a real effect that is used as an optical gyroscope in guidance systems, so there is no debate IF the trip time varies, it really is accepted and considered Ok with Special Relativity. Now what if we rotated the loop at near the speed of light? Now if we looked at the time it takes for light to go one direction it would act like the trip was about half the length due to addition of C and almost C. In the other direction it would be lengthened hugely since it would be C minus almost C. Now in one direction the same photon could do many laps in the time the other completes a tine portion. Can the speed of light be measured in a portion to be C in both directions when one photon moves though many times (and the rest) while the other photon is struggling to do it once? NO! And if this obvious truth is accepted, then we must ask, could not any curved path be a portion of a large circle, hence act as if it were a portion of a very large rotating frame even if the circle would be trillions of times larger than the galaxy? This then means that in practice all motion would not be perfectly linear due to influences of gravity and all would have relativistic light speed differences! The speed of light being C is actually not indicated by most experiments to measure the speed of light as C under all conditions, rather confirmation bias and stilted interpretations of results are used to keep the theory alive. John
Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find
Yes, I thought of Jones as well grounded and has a very good understanding of the potential quantum theory behind the animal, keeps Axil grounded and knows most of the history. Axil adds some contemporary flare and pinache and flips through cutting edge research papers like hotcakes. I am trying to connect the quantum dots with the astrophysical dudes to see if our flintsones model of the universe is dead I think it is just about there. Has anybody heard from Peter? he is awfully quiet... Stewart On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Stewart-- I think Jones has that first slot already taken. (:) Bob - Original Message - *From:* ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 10:47 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find I'm not sure if I want to write a million books or sell a million books... Anyway I am having fun piecing all the parts together, right or wrong and scaling it up to cosmic scales and developing/refining a theory. Sort of a bottom up approach. I find that posting a short one or two page post to a blog every couple of days is much easier than thinking about writing a formal book. I have a young editor following behind me and assembling the research/postings into a few annotated books. I think you could be the next Tom Clancy of cold fusion...you have a great skill of piecing together research papers, forming a theory and throwing in a little mystery and government intrigue. All good stuff. Stewart On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe you can become the new Isaac Asimov, He was a chemist who wrote a million books about everything with lots of references. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:07 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I grabbed an illustration off the Chandra telescope site. http://chandra.harvard.edu/ I figured my tax dollars helped pay for it. Amazon makes you use the words annotated or illustrated in your book name if you are using information within the public domain. I have lots of snippets, links and references. It is sort of a cobbled together theory of everything from an engineer with ADD. I am putting a book out this week on Doppler Radars and their negative effect on biology based upon my research, but I can't decide between Dopplerpocalypse, DopplerGeddon, Dopplerganger or Dopzilla. What do you think? Stewart On Saturday, March 1, 2014, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: That's a nice cover. How did you make it? Frank -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 9:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Matters-Lot-Annotated-Experiment-ebook/dp/B00HZ05VIE/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1390339797sr=1-1 It is basically the first 6 months of my blog (darkmattersalot.com) adapted to an Ebook. It is a chemical engineer's hunt for dark/vacuum energy in our atmosphere using basic thermodynamics, string/M theory and the National Weather Service... I am modeling the Sun and Earth as two branes of vacuum(6-D torroids) with strings and particles of vacuum stringing and streaming between them in the solar wind I started tracking low pressure systems off the equatorial jet and polar jets in 2012 and modeling them as if they were strings of vacuum, triggering hurricanes(entangled strings), waterspouts, sinkholes/seismic(ionizing/decay where strings are entering the Earth) and ionizing our atmosphere as they decay in our jet streams triggering electromagnetic effects. These mesovortexes and supercells that break off the jet streams are basically topological defects of the cosmic strings of vacuum that break off and decay and trigger our storms, which is really the inflation phase of our quantum gravity field from the solar wind. I have two more books coming out, one will be the next 6 months of the blog. The other book is focused on Doppler Microwave radars, which I think, based upon 6 months of study, including statistics, are triggering an increase in vacuum upsets around the radars, including an increase in sinkholes, shallow seismic events, mesovortex events, hypoxia/algae blooms in waters (through ionization and oxidation). If you take what Axil, Jones, Fran and others have been talking about at the atomic level and scale the vacuum energy up to the cosmic level, it sort of follows along. I am working with two professional researchers now and feeding them my data around the towers to see if they get the same results with some other biological data. In 1956 Doppler radars were taken from the military and used for weather forecasting. Although they do a lot of good, I think they are also damaging biology. I have had a lot of fun developing a theory and piecing it all together in whatever direction it takes me. As I have looked
Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find
Yes I think Peter said something about the first week in February Bob - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find Yes, I thought of Jones as well grounded and has a very good understanding of the potential quantum theory behind the animal, keeps Axil grounded and knows most of the history. Axil adds some contemporary flare and pinache and flips through cutting edge research papers like hotcakes. I am trying to connect the quantum dots with the astrophysical dudes to see if our flintsones model of the universe is dead I think it is just about there. Has anybody heard from Peter? he is awfully quiet... Stewart On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Stewart-- I think Jones has that first slot already taken. (:) Bob - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find I'm not sure if I want to write a million books or sell a million books... Anyway I am having fun piecing all the parts together, right or wrong and scaling it up to cosmic scales and developing/refining a theory. Sort of a bottom up approach. I find that posting a short one or two page post to a blog every couple of days is much easier than thinking about writing a formal book. I have a young editor following behind me and assembling the research/postings into a few annotated books. I think you could be the next Tom Clancy of cold fusion...you have a great skill of piecing together research papers, forming a theory and throwing in a little mystery and government intrigue. All good stuff. Stewart On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe you can become the new Isaac Asimov, He was a chemist who wrote a million books about everything with lots of references. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:07 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I grabbed an illustration off the Chandra telescope site. http://chandra.harvard.edu/ I figured my tax dollars helped pay for it. Amazon makes you use the words annotated or illustrated in your book name if you are using information within the public domain. I have lots of snippets, links and references. It is sort of a cobbled together theory of everything from an engineer with ADD. I am putting a book out this week on Doppler Radars and their negative effect on biology based upon my research, but I can't decide between Dopplerpocalypse, DopplerGeddon, Dopplerganger or Dopzilla. What do you think? Stewart On Saturday, March 1, 2014, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: That's a nice cover. How did you make it? Frank -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 9:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Matters-Lot-Annotated-Experiment-ebook/dp/B00HZ05VIE/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1390339797sr=1-1 It is basically the first 6 months of my blog (darkmattersalot.com) adapted to an Ebook. It is a chemical engineer's hunt for dark/vacuum energy in our atmosphere using basic thermodynamics, string/M theory and the National Weather Service... I am modeling the Sun and Earth as two branes of vacuum(6-D torroids) with strings and particles of vacuum stringing and streaming between them in the solar wind I started tracking low pressure systems off the equatorial jet and polar jets in 2012 and modeling them as if they were strings of vacuum, triggering hurricanes(entangled strings), waterspouts, sinkholes/seismic(ionizing/decay where strings are entering the Earth) and ionizing our atmosphere as they decay in our jet streams triggering electromagnetic effects. These mesovortexes and supercells that break off the jet streams are basically topological defects of the cosmic strings of vacuum that break off and decay and trigger our storms, which is really the inflation phase of our quantum gravity field from the solar wind. I have two more books coming out, one will be the next 6 months of the blog. The other book is focused on Doppler Microwave radars, which I think, based upon 6 months of study, including statistics, are triggering an increase in vacuum upsets around the radars, including an increase in sinkholes, shallow seismic events, mesovortex events, hypoxia/algae blooms in waters (through ionization and oxidation). If you take what Axil, Jones, Fran and others have been talking about at the atomic level and scale the vacuum energy up to
Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find
What about different dielectric values different for the plastic? (or more in-depth analysis dielectric hysteresis) Maybe different electro-positivety/negativity? Sounds like a long shot in a practical sense. Could the spectra that gets through show a different pattern? What about a UV fluorescence? What about thermal insulative properties, if some change faster after a temperature drop an IR camera will pick it yp. John On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Yes I think Peter said something about the first week in February Bob - Original Message - *From:* ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 2:13 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find Yes, I thought of Jones as well grounded and has a very good understanding of the potential quantum theory behind the animal, keeps Axil grounded and knows most of the history. Axil adds some contemporary flare and pinache and flips through cutting edge research papers like hotcakes. I am trying to connect the quantum dots with the astrophysical dudes to see if our flintsones model of the universe is dead I think it is just about there. Has anybody heard from Peter? he is awfully quiet... Stewart On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Stewart-- I think Jones has that first slot already taken. (:) Bob - Original Message - *From:* ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 10:47 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find I'm not sure if I want to write a million books or sell a million books... Anyway I am having fun piecing all the parts together, right or wrong and scaling it up to cosmic scales and developing/refining a theory. Sort of a bottom up approach. I find that posting a short one or two page post to a blog every couple of days is much easier than thinking about writing a formal book. I have a young editor following behind me and assembling the research/postings into a few annotated books. I think you could be the next Tom Clancy of cold fusion...you have a great skill of piecing together research papers, forming a theory and throwing in a little mystery and government intrigue. All good stuff. Stewart On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe you can become the new Isaac Asimov, He was a chemist who wrote a million books about everything with lots of references. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:07 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: I grabbed an illustration off the Chandra telescope site. http://chandra.harvard.edu/ I figured my tax dollars helped pay for it. Amazon makes you use the words annotated or illustrated in your book name if you are using information within the public domain. I have lots of snippets, links and references. It is sort of a cobbled together theory of everything from an engineer with ADD. I am putting a book out this week on Doppler Radars and their negative effect on biology based upon my research, but I can't decide between Dopplerpocalypse, DopplerGeddon, Dopplerganger or Dopzilla. What do you think? Stewart On Saturday, March 1, 2014, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: That's a nice cover. How did you make it? Frank -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 9:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Matters-Lot-Annotated-Experiment-ebook/dp/B00HZ05VIE/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1390339797sr=1-1 It is basically the first 6 months of my blog (darkmattersalot.com) adapted to an Ebook. It is a chemical engineer's hunt for dark/vacuum energy in our atmosphere using basic thermodynamics, string/M theory and the National Weather Service... I am modeling the Sun and Earth as two branes of vacuum(6-D torroids) with strings and particles of vacuum stringing and streaming between them in the solar wind I started tracking low pressure systems off the equatorial jet and polar jets in 2012 and modeling them as if they were strings of vacuum, triggering hurricanes(entangled strings), waterspouts, sinkholes/seismic(ionizing/decay where strings are entering the Earth) and ionizing our atmosphere as they decay in our jet streams triggering electromagnetic effects. These mesovortexes and supercells that break off the jet streams are basically topological defects of the cosmic strings of vacuum that break off and decay and trigger our storms, which is really the inflation phase of our quantum gravity field from the solar wind. I have two more books coming out, one will be the next 6 months of the blog. The other book is focused on Doppler Microwave radars, which I think, based upon 6 months of study, including statistics, are triggering an increase in vacuum upsets around the radars,
Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find
I thought of that. Some bottles are wet inside. Water has a very high dielectric constant. Such a device would be a moisture detector. What about different dielectric values different for the plastic? (or more in-depth analysis dielectric hysteresis) Maybe different electro-positivety/negativity? Sound -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 5:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find What about different dielectric values different for the plastic? (or more in-depth analysis dielectric hysteresis) Maybe different electro-positivety/negativity? Sounds like a long shot in a practical sense. Could the spectra that gets through show a different pattern? Yes #5 shows colors. What about a UV fluorescence? I tried that nothing. Near UV goes through all of the plastics. What about thermal insulative properties, if some change faster after a temperature drop an IR camera will pick it yp. I am there. #1 is opaque to terahertz radiation. #2 is transparent. Look at the front of a motion detector light. The plastic is #2. I am not doing anything right now. I'm not feeling good at all. Pains all over and ringing ears. John On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Yes I think Peter said something about the first week in February Bob - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find Yes, I thought of Jones as well grounded and has a very good understanding of the potential quantum theory behind the animal, keeps Axil grounded and knows most of the history. Axil adds some contemporary flare and pinache and flips through cutting edge research papers like hotcakes. I am trying to connect the quantum dots with the astrophysical dudes to see if our flintsones model of the universe is dead I think it is just about there. Has anybody heard from Peter? he is awfully quiet... Stewart On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Stewart-- I think Jones has that first slot already taken. (:) Bob - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Plastic detector find I'm not sure if I want to write a million books or sell a million books... Anyway I am having fun piecing all the parts together, right or wrong and scaling it up to cosmic scales and developing/refining a theory. Sort of a bottom up approach. I find that posting a short one or two page post to a blog every couple of days is much easier than thinking about writing a formal book. I have a young editor following behind me and assembling the research/postings into a few annotated books. I think you could be the next Tom Clancy of cold fusion...you have a great skill of piecing together research papers, forming a theory and throwing in a little mystery and government intrigue. All good stuff. Stewart On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe you can become the new Isaac Asimov, He was a chemist who wrote a million books about everything with lots of references. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:07 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I grabbed an illustration off the Chandra telescope site. http://chandra.harvard.edu/ I figured my tax dollars helped pay for it. Amazon makes you use the words annotated or illustrated in your book name if you are using information within the public domain. I have lots of snippets, links and references. It is sort of a cobbled together theory of everything from an engineer with ADD. I am putting a book out this week on Doppler Radars and their negative effect on biology based upon my research, but I can't decide between Dopplerpocalypse, DopplerGeddon, Dopplerganger or Dopzilla. What do you think? Stewart On Saturday, March 1, 2014, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: That's a nice cover. How did you make it? Frank -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 9:13
Re: [Vo]:NASA Langley Presentation on LENR Aircraft Study
In reply to David Roberson's message of Mon, 3 Mar 2014 10:23:38 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] This recent news from Rossi leads me to believe that he has made progress in obtaining a more robust reaction than previously. He does now claim to have a mouse activation system that excites his cat. It is difficult to translate this statement into one that we understand properly at this time. My best effort is that he refers to a portion of his new design that controls the release of hydrogen atoms or ions that then do their magic when entering the nickel matrix. But on the other hand he may have a method to produce a strong magnetic field that reaches a threshold level in another cat section. Has anyone seen a clue about exactly what his cat and mouse are? A long time ago, I advised Rossi to use one reactor to create the heat for a second reactor (thus giving him a maximum COP of 6 x 6). Perhaps he followed up on that advice, resulting in the cat mouse configuration. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Investing in LENR/Cold Fusion
In reply to Kevin O'Malley's message of Sun, 2 Mar 2014 22:18:56 -0800: Hi, [snip] Nickel/Palladium Nickel and Palladium come to mind when thinking of long term cold fusion investments. Unfortunately, nickel is the most abundant material in the earths crust, a change in the demand of nickel would not affect the price drastically. This is completely wrong. Crustal elemental abundances are (according to the figures I have): Oxygen 466000 ppm Silicon 267700 ppm Aluminium84100 ppm Iron 70700 ppm Calcium 52900 ppm . . . Nickel 105 ppm I suspect that this article is confusing the planetary abundance with the crustal abundance. The former includes the Ni/Fe core of the planet, however this is not accessible. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Investing in LENR/Cold Fusion
Additionally I believe the main use of palladium is in the manufacturing of catalytic converters which would become obsolete in a LENR powered world. Not sure if the person writing this article took that into account prior to recommending investing in palladium or not. Regards, Joe mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Kevin O'Malley's message of Sun, 2 Mar 2014 22:18:56 -0800: Hi, [snip] Nickel/Palladium Nickel and Palladium come to mind when thinking of long term cold fusion investments. Unfortunately, nickel is the most abundant material in the earths crust, a change in the demand of nickel would not affect the price drastically. This is completely wrong. Crustal elemental abundances are (according to the figures I have): Oxygen 466000 ppm Silicon267700 ppm Aluminium 84100 ppm Iron70700 ppm Calcium 52900 ppm . . . Nickel105 ppm I suspect that this article is confusing the planetary abundance with the crustal abundance. The former includes the Ni/Fe core of the planet, however this is not accessible. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Investing in LENR/Cold Fusion
Don't you remember this item? Castleman and his team -- which includes *Samuel Peppernick*, a former Penn State graduate student who now is a postdoctoral researcher at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and *Dasitha Gunaratne*, a Penn State graduate student -- used a technique, called photoelectron imaging spectroscopy, to examine similarities between titanium monoxide and nickel, zirconium monoxide and palladium, and tungsten carbide and platinum. Photoelectron spectroscopy measures the energy it takes to remove electrons from various electronic states of atoms or molecules, while simultaneously capturing snapshots of these electron-detachment events with a digital camera, said Castleman. The method allows us to determine the binding energies of the electrons and also to observe directly the nature of the orbitals in which the electrons resided before they were detached. We found that the amount of energy required to remove electrons from a titanium-monoxide molecule is the same as the amount of energy required to remove electrons from a nickel atom. The same is true for the systems zirconium monoxide and palladium and tungsten carbide and platinum. The key is that all of the pairs are composed of isoelectronic species, which are atoms with the same electron configuration. Castleman noted that, in this case, the term isoelectronic refers to the number of electrons present in the outer shell of an atom or molecule. This means that titanium monoxide can replace nickel in LENR, zirconium monoxide and palladium etc. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Joe Hughes jhughe...@comcast.net wrote: Additionally I believe the main use of palladium is in the manufacturing of catalytic converters which would become obsolete in a LENR powered world. Not sure if the person writing this article took that into account prior to recommending investing in palladium or not. Regards, Joe mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Kevin O'Malley's message of Sun, 2 Mar 2014 22:18:56 -0800: Hi, [snip] Nickel/Palladium Nickel and Palladium come to mind when thinking of long term cold fusion investments. Unfortunately, nickel is the most abundant material in the earths crust, a change in the demand of nickel would not affect the price drastically. This is completely wrong. Crustal elemental abundances are (according to the figures I have): Oxygen 466000 ppm Silicon267700 ppm Aluminium 84100 ppm Iron70700 ppm Calcium 52900 ppm . . . Nickel105 ppm I suspect that this article is confusing the planetary abundance with the crustal abundance. The former includes the Ni/Fe core of the planet, however this is not accessible. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:32 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Actually, I find it difficult to understand how the material [nickel] would be able to breathe well enough to allow entry of the fresh hydrogen and exit of the ash needed to supply the intense power. With that thought in mind, does this suggest that the run away process mainly results from the burning of the fuel that is already in place within the matrix? I do not believe that hydrogen is soluble in nickel in the way that it is, for example, in palladium. I'm placing my bets on NiH LENR being fundamentally a surface or near-surface reaction. I also wonder whether palladium's ability to absorb hydrogen is required for PdD LENR; I have seen a lot of evidence that reactions occur at or near the surface in PdD systems as well. (Once one assumes a surface or near-surface reaction of some kind, the line of reasoning concerning coherence of phonons becomes more difficult to envision.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Eric -- Wikipedia has a discussion of Nickel hydride with several references to recent papers. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:32 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Actually, I find it difficult to understand how the material [nickel] would be able to breathe well enough to allow entry of the fresh hydrogen and exit of the ash needed to supply the intense power. With that thought in mind, does this suggest that the run away process mainly results from the burning of the fuel that is already in place within the matrix? I do not believe that hydrogen is soluble in nickel in the way that it is, for example, in palladium. I'm placing my bets on NiH LENR being fundamentally a surface or near-surface reaction. I also wonder whether palladium's ability to absorb hydrogen is required for PdD LENR; I have seen a lot of evidence that reactions occur at or near the surface in PdD systems as well. (Once one assumes a surface or near-surface reaction of some kind, the line of reasoning concerning coherence of phonons becomes more difficult to envision.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Wikipedia has a discussion of Nickel hydride with several references to recent papers. I'm thinking more in relative terms -- I believe it takes quite a lot of energy to dissolve hydrogen into nickel in comparison to the relative ease with which hydrogen dissolves into palladium (which is sometimes called a hydrogen sponge). Eric
[Vo]:Of Metronomes and Molecules...
Just an FYI. I like to share with the Collective articles which I find helpful in building up a physical model of the atomic world. This is one such article. Some may remember one of my fav comments, It's all about resonances.. AKA, coherence. This article should help the reader think about the complexity of interactions at the atomic scale and how the various 'oscillators' are affected by things like electric and magnetic fields, or quanta of heat, or the collective oscillations of conduction electrons, etc. Just the orientation of the E or B field could mean the difference between a successful experiment and a dud. How to 'Detune' a Molecule http://www.chromatographytechniques.com/news/2014/02/experiments- http://www.chromatographytechniques.com/news/2014/02/experiments-'detune'-m olecule 'detune'-molecule An excerpt from the article is below. Don't have time to explain all that comes to mind about this topic, suffice it to say that some 'experts' can't seem to realize that the laws of physics/chemistry have been developed primarily from 'BULK' behaviors, which do NOT involve coherency between the different 'oscillators' which make up the bulk. This is not surprising, since coherency is virtually nonexistent in solids once one gets above a few K in temperature. Localized regions where any form of coherency is established will very likely break well established laws of physics/chemistry. NAEs certainly could provide just such localized regions. As was established in one thread of mine, the NAE may very well provide an environment which is at 0K, so any atoms which find themselves in a NAE would very likely form a BEC. One of the keys to understanding LENR will be in understanding coherency. and the new/revised laws which apply in those situations. -Mark --- Natelson compared the characteristic vibrational frequencies exhibited by the bonds to the way a guitar string vibrates at a specific frequency based on how tightly it's wound. Loosen the string and the vibration diminishes and the tone drops. The nanoantenna is able to detect the tone of detuned vibrations between atoms through surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS), a technique that improves the readings from molecules when they're attached to a metal surface. Isolating a buckyball in the gap between the gold electrodes lets the researchers track vibrations through the optical response seen via SERS. When a buckyball attaches to a gold surface, its internal bonds undergo a subtle shift as electrons at the junction rearrange themselves to find their lowest energetic states. The Rice experiment found the vibrations in all the bonds dropped ever so slightly in frequency to compensate. Think of these molecules as balls and springs, Natelson says. The atoms are the balls and the bonds that hold them together are the springs. If I have a collection of balls and springs and I smack it, it would show certain vibrational modes. When we push current through the molecule, we see these vibrations turn on and start to shake. But we found, surprisingly, that the vibrations in buckyballs get softer, and by a significant amount. It's as if the springs get floppier at high voltages in this particular system. The effect is reversible; turn off the juice and the buckyball goes back to normal, he says. The researchers used a combination of experimentation and sophisticated theoretical calculations to disprove an early suspicion that the well-known vibrational Stark effect was responsible for the shift. The Stark effect is seen when molecules' spectral responses shift under the influence of an electric field. The Molecular Foundry, a Department of Energy User Facility at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, collaborated on the calculations component. ---
RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
Jones wrote: Here is an interesting item that turned up. http://www.ece.umd.edu/~antonsen/Data/IRMMW-THz%202013/Extended%20Abstracts/ 2013-09-03-Tu/TU12-6.pdf It is not precisely on point for the Rossi effect, nor for the Cooper patent application, but there is a strong analogy for a complex mechanism which involves all of these factors below, operating together. 1)CNT which are hollow 2)SPP 3)Magnetic field alignment 4)Light source 5)Ni-H LENR (of some variety) to power all of the above and provide excess heat Thanks for posting that reference. And I might draw your attention to my posting a few mins ago. Of Metronomes and Molecules... Once again, we find ourselves bumping into each other down in this rabbit hole. ;-) -mark From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 11:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current From: Axil the tubes should be solid because LENR is exclusively a surface reaction. To strengthen the tubes and provide a longer service life, the tubes may be filled with tough stuff like tungsten, for example, It's probably a lot more complicated than that. Even Ed seems to be admitting now that there are several possible varieties of LENR J In the Rossi effect - LENR may not occur in tubes, and it doesn't need to. Or else, in Kevin's version it could happen inside tubes due to 1D condensation. The jury is still out on that point. However, even if CNT do not promote LENR by themselves (internally), they could still serve the secondary purpose of powering the light source, and SPP formation - by accelerating electrons which then produce radiation in the visible spectrum. Here is an interesting item that turned up. http://www.ece.umd.edu/~antonsen/Data/IRMMW-THz%202013/Extended%20Abstracts/ 2013-09-03-Tu/TU12-6.pdf It is not precisely on point for the Rossi effect, nor for the Cooper patent application, but there is a strong analogy for a complex mechanism which involves all of these factors below, operating together. 6)CNT which are hollow 7)SPP 8)Magnetic field alignment 9)Light source 10) Ni-H LENR (of some variety) to power all of the above and provide excess heat The idea is that the external light source starts the reaction, as in the Cooper patent, which is then self sustaining for a period, based on self-generated light (or alternatively IR photons from LENR heat). I wish we had actual data from Cooper (and Rossi) but it is understandable why this may not be forthcoming anytime soon.
