Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
I need a better term than skeptopath. . How about Aggressively Skeptical 'Humans' Obfuscating Lenr Endeavors (ASHOLEs)? On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How to know you're dealing with a skeptopath: they won't read the simplest evidence put in front of them. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=32#32 To: *tacticalogic* *I'd be interested in a practical source of energy, and you keep hawking this like it is. Where's the beef?* Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is no scientific evidence for cold fusion. First the refrain was cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated. Then, when the researchers did improve the repeatability, the refrain became cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated fifty percent of the time. Then, when repeatability increased past 50%, the refrain became cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated 100% of the time. Now, as some researchers repeatabiltity numbers approach 100%, the refrain has become the amount of power is miniscule, even if it can be repeated. So, the answer to your question is the beef is still growing. And an HONEST respondent would admit that. But in the not too distant future, I look forward to when LENR does produce usable amounts of power. I wonder what you skeptopaths will say then. 32 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=32#32posted on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 05:28:54 AM PST* by Wonder Warthoghttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ewonderwarthog/ [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=32| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.32;reftype=comment| To 31 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#31 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=32 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=32] -- To: *Wonder Warthog* *Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is no scientific evidence for cold fusion.* Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm supposed to go find it. 33 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=33#33posted on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 05:34:11 AM PST* by tacticalogichttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etacticalogic/ [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=33| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.33;reftype=comment| To 32 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#32 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=33 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=33] -- To: *tacticalogic* *Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm supposed to go find it.* Not quite. I'll give you two starting places. The first is George Beaudette's book Excess Heat. You can access this either by buying a copy (Amazon)($), or via interlibrary loan (free or $ depending on the policies of your local library. The second is Edmund Storm's collection of summaries of LENR research, which can easily be found with Google search terms (Edmund Storms cold fusion pdf). Most of the pdf's can be found at LENR-CANR.org. All are available free. Now, why don't I give you direct links?? Because I have found that there is no better litmus test about the honesty or lack of same of the various skeptics that show up on these LENR threads. The skeptopaths will NOT follow up. NOTHING will induce them to actually examine the evidence. The honest skeptics do. 34 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=34#34posted on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 08:46:23 AM PST* by Wonder Warthoghttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ewonderwarthog/ [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=34| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.34;reftype=comment| To 33 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#33 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=34 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=34] -- To: *Wonder Warthog* I've looked at LENR-CANR.org. It's interesting research, but I can't find any research that's actually producing measurable amounts of power to justify the hyperbole surrouding the phenomenon. 35 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=35#35posted on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 10:24:46 AM PST* by tacticalogichttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etacticalogic/ [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=35| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.35;reftype=comment|
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Pulled Threads. Unfortunately, many of them were pulled from FR and my efforts to save them using Ubuntu software led to a debacle. --- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/3088346/posts The thread wasn't generating invective, it's not pulled from a website with copyright issues, it was an open-source science effort rather than a Rossi thing. - Original message by citizen regarding E-Cat article received 08/19/2013 4:31:56 PM PDT Kevmo, I didn't find where you had posted this E-cat article I ran across. Tests find Rossi's E-Cat has an energy density at least 10 times higher than any conventional energy source Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html#jCp http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3027677/posts?page=32 Looks like I saved this one in sent email. - Tests find E-Cat has energy density at least 10 times higher than any conventional energy source http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3023012/posts The mod even said that one reason the thread was pulled was because I called them Luddites, which he considered even more insulting than seagull. But when I looked through the thread in my cache, I had never used the term. The mod INVENTED the instance. - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2970866/posts?page=47 Conclusively Demonstrating the New Energy Effect of Cold Fusion Cold Fusion Now.Org ^ | November 25, 2012 | David J. French Posted on Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:38:47 PM by Kevmo Conclusively Demonstrating the New Energy Effect of Cold Fusion November 25, 2012 / David J. French/6 comment(s)/Science and Technology [Translate] -- The following is a further posting in a series of articles by David French, a patent attorney with 35 years experience, which will review patents of interest and other matters touching on the field of Cold Fusion. -- I saved this one in sent email Athanor 2.0: The Hydrotron ECat World ^ | July 28, 2012 | Frank Acland Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 11:11:01 AM by Kevmo Athanor 2.0: The Hydrotron High School kids who have replicated a cold fusion cell. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/athanor-2-0-the-hydrotron/ - A couple of the original pulled comments were me telling Moonboy, stop stalking me, @$$#0|e Skip to comments. Athanor 2.0: The Hydrotron ECat World ^ | July 28, 2012 | Frank Acland Posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 11:11:01 AM by Kevmo Athanor 2.0: The Hydrotron High School kids who have replicated a cold fusion cell. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/athanor-2-0-the-hydrotron/ [Update: Video Posted] --
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
A signal can propagate in arbitrary speed, if one solves a system of equations that doesn't take all fields in considerations. Even Maxwell equations allows that, in the coulomb gauge, and electric field to propagate faster than light. But even so, relativity is not violated, since the equations are still Lorentz invariant, because the magnetic part is not directly manifest in the solution. A similar situation happens in quantum mechanics, in free space, if you only look for oscillations, that is signals, rather than wave packets. A wave packet carries information, the measured value. In both cases you can claim to send information faster than light. This is a wrong claim, since you are not sending information, but just recording gibberish waiting for the information to appear. 2014-03-04 17:28 GMT-03:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: In an experiment, Yevgeny Podkletnov claimed to have sent a signal over a distance of 1 kilometer at a superluminal speed of 64C. This was done using superconductive projections of a rapidly rotating magnetic field. The signal was timed using synchronized atomic clocks. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM, D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.comwrote: No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. All of these specious arguments focus on the constancy of the speed of light. What is never understood is that C isn't the speed of anything in particular. It is a parameter that characterizes the geometry of spacetime, which is no longer Euclidean. The structure of this geometry emerges from a very simple (group theoretic) analysis. The parameter C emerges out of the analysis and is either finite, or not. Experience shows that it is finite. The derivation is here, I gave it some years ago and this person has added commentary, most of which is helpful. Only simple algebra is required. That light goes at C is incidental to the existence of a universal constant with the dimensions of speed. It does so because the corresponding field is massless. The most important point to be grasped is that one does not assume C=constant - this comes right out of the symmetry and homogeneity analysis. Euclidean geometry is also characterized by a constant - however it is imaginary, and corresponds to the circular points at infinity in projective geometry. http://membrane.com/sidd/wundrelat.txt -drl -- Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. - Marx -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox
The word contact is the problem because if you are in different frames the point of contact is actually a collision especially so if you are talking relativistic vs stationary and the angle of incidence includes an object shrinking away from the luminal frame while growing into the stationary frame ... theres gonna be sparks :_) From: H Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 2:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox Both frames are in sliding contact so it takes no time for the sprayer to leave behind a mark. I suspect there is a (hidden?) assumption in relativity theory that does not allow for instant communication at the sliding interface between two frames of reference. Harry On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: I would think there is a Lorentzian conversion of the paint going from a near C frame to a stationary frame.. the tracks will appear further away from the under carridge because the train is displaced /shrinking away from the axis of spatial displacement at an angle between time and the spatial vector. Never able to reach C from our perspective just get smaller and slower once past 45 degrees. Fran From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.commailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 3:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:54 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.commailto:hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Only by changing the thought experiment and incorporating that signal can an observer in the rest frame declare the events to be non-synchronous in his frame. This is an interesting thought experiment. I'm curious how the people at physics.stackexchange.comhttp://physics.stackexchange.com would reply to it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: When alpha particles pass through material, a series of nuclear reactions can occur that emit radiation. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation is emitted as the alpha slows down. Hagelstrin describes these processes in the papers I attached previously. I suggest you read them. If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion cores), the 4He daughter would have no or almost no energy. There would be the bath of photons from the fractionation, the nearly stationary 4He daughter, and no Bremsstrahlung from collisions by a fast particle. Yes, that is the assumption. The issue is whether that assumption is valid. Can a large number of sinks participate in what is a random process such that they can share mass-energy? Can this collection remain intact for the time required for the process to go to completion. You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. This concept is in conflict with the laws of thermodynamics. Ed Storms Eric
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
True believer because they refuse to accept experimental falsification of their theories. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I need a better term than skeptopath. . How about Aggressively Skeptical 'Humans' Obfuscating Lenr Endeavors (ASHOLEs)? On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: How to know you're dealing with a skeptopath: they won't read the simplest evidence put in front of them. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=32#32 To: *tacticalogic* *I'd be interested in a practical source of energy, and you keep hawking this like it is. Where's the beef?* Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is no scientific evidence for cold fusion. First the refrain was cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated. Then, when the researchers did improve the repeatability, the refrain became cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated fifty percent of the time. Then, when repeatability increased past 50%, the refrain became cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated 100% of the time. Now, as some researchers repeatabiltity numbers approach 100%, the refrain has become the amount of power is miniscule, even if it can be repeated. So, the answer to your question is the beef is still growing. And an HONEST respondent would admit that. But in the not too distant future, I look forward to when LENR does produce usable amounts of power. I wonder what you skeptopaths will say then. 32 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=32#32posted on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 05:28:54 AM PST* by Wonder Warthoghttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ewonderwarthog/ [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=32| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.32;reftype=comment| To 31 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#31 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=32 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=32] -- To: *Wonder Warthog* *Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is no scientific evidence for cold fusion.* Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm supposed to go find it. 33 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=33#33posted on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 05:34:11 AM PST* by tacticalogichttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etacticalogic/ [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=33| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.33;reftype=comment| To 32 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#32 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=33 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=33] -- To: *tacticalogic* *Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm supposed to go find it.* Not quite. I'll give you two starting places. The first is George Beaudette's book Excess Heat. You can access this either by buying a copy (Amazon)($), or via interlibrary loan (free or $ depending on the policies of your local library. The second is Edmund Storm's collection of summaries of LENR research, which can easily be found with Google search terms (Edmund Storms cold fusion pdf). Most of the pdf's can be found at LENR-CANR.org. All are available free. Now, why don't I give you direct links?? Because I have found that there is no better litmus test about the honesty or lack of same of the various skeptics that show up on these LENR threads. The skeptopaths will NOT follow up. NOTHING will induce them to actually examine the evidence. The honest skeptics do. 34 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=34#34posted on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 08:46:23 AM PST* by Wonder Warthoghttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ewonderwarthog/ [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=34| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.34;reftype=comment| To 33 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#33 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=34 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=34] -- To: *Wonder Warthog* I've looked at LENR-CANR.org. It's interesting research, but I can't find any research that's actually producing measurable amounts of power to justify the hyperbole surrouding the phenomenon. 35 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=35#35posted on *Wed 27 Nov 2013 10:24:46 AM PST* by
[Vo]:Solar nuclear reactions - was Christopher H. Cooper
From: Kevin O'Malley ... is reversible fusion really fusion when the fusion bond lasts for only a few femtoseconds? My impression is that this is enough for the Sun to generate photons, Helium, and other stuff. Now, maybe that's only because it is so huge compared to the earth, but it is also gaseous, where we're dealing with condensed matter. Kevin, the detail you may be missing in the solar energy cycle is an important step that only begins with RPF (the diproton reaction) and ends with helium thousands of years later. It is extremely slow. RPF itself is not known to produce significant energy in the Sun, but surprisingly it has not been studied extensively, since it works in a strong gravity field. In fact the diproton reaction could be slightly gainful on the sun and it would never have been noticed. In some forms of LENR there is a substitute gravity field provided by lattice confinement. The slight gain from spin realignment in two protons is called the Lamb shift. This is what is suspected to provide the gain in this form of LENR and it would derive from a reversible fusion reaction. On the sun, however, there can be an extremely rare beta decay of the 2He nucleus during its femtosecond of its lifetime - where there is a decay to deuterium instead of the reversal back to 2 protons. That is the start of the solar fusion cycle. When transposed to LENR, this same reaction seldom goes into beta decay but instead energy is derived from spin via the Lamb shift, which is fueled by QCD color charge during the brief instant of binding. Mass of the proton is converted to energy. The average proton can give up about 7 parts per million of its pion mass and retain its identity. Essentially this is the method whereby the Lamb Shift asymmetry can produce small packets of energy sequentially. Can we not agree that there is a fundamental difference between fusion which is permanent and fusion which is transitory? ***Perhaps that fundamental difference is between gaseous state and solid state... or even the proposed 5th state of matter: BECs. Basically, this is your main statement that I do not understand. The mass which is converted to energy in RPF is bosonic, but a BEC is only involved to the degree that the 2He nucleus, for its femtosecond of lifetime is one of nature's simplest bosons. It is a short term violator of Pauli exclusion because the boson configuration is favored. But the energy released in LENR would happen shortly after the nucleus returns to its identity as two protons, which then experience para - ortho Lamb shift in the lattice as they renormalize. The Lamb shift is usually not considered relevant to LENR since the energy value per instance is very low. I do not think that many theorists have reasoned that a ringing-Lamb-shift which is happening at THz frequency is a different beast; and that the net energy can be substantial - even larger than normal nuclear energy. Names that turn up in LENR history for past advocacy of a Lamb shift modality are Biberian and Myron Evans. My contribution, if there is one, is to tie the Lamb shift directly to the diproton reaction and to spin coupling. That has not been done before. RPF is an emergent hypothesis which essentially is built on the failings of every other theory to adequately explain the near lack of gamma radiation. When you see posts here on vortex that claim there is gamma radiation in LENR, when a few hundred counts are seen in an oddball experiment, that is ludicrous. I get more counts form bananas. In general LENR is gammaless, for all practical purposes. RPF is a theoretical attempt to find a way to accomplish gammaless nuclear conversion through known physics. Therefore RPF is not really heavy-duty fusion-fusion, only FINO fusion (fusion in name only). That is my answer and I'm sticking to it... ***Perhaps RPF is nature's way of desperately seeking equilibrium. Once fusion has taken place, it wrestles with the outcome until the atoms are in their most restful state, which could even be partial hydrogen... That is a very intuitive understanding. In fact, the two protons probably do shuttle between fractional hydrogen and diprotons continually, like a pump. Spin coupling is a major part of the excess energy picture wrt the Lamb Shift and it would be facilitated by the stronger magnetic field of f/H. For instance, when we have protons and a ferromagnet (nickel) together, the two elements can probably spin-couple to continually power an asymmetric Lamb shift using spin energy from nickel high spin isotopes. This would not be possible if Nickel(ll) was not a high spin state d electron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_states_%28d_electrons%29 The problem with irregularity in Ni-H experiment is surely related somehow to optimization of high spin states. This is probably why an external field is beneficial. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
This idea of fractioning the energy is similar to the scheme that Takahashi described in his TSC theory. Be-8* splits into two He* which decay to ground state with a little kinetic energy and a lot of low energy photons taken up by the lattice. Takahashi make the point that the coupling of the He* during decay to the lattice needs more work. This was in 2010. I do not know whether he has finished the coupling mechanism. I too was surprised at Haglestein's obvious neglect of the spin issues in the presentation of his theory at his 5th day session just recently. I have a similar idea for the Ni-H system--a proton-electron pair is positioned near a Ni on the surface or in a crack and the combined virtual particle (Ni Nucleus and proton-electron pair) reacts to form a new nucleus. The following may be what happens: The new Ni daughter decays as it will to copper or whatever. Ni-59 gives off it positron and the positron-electron initiation occurs with its .51 mev gammas. However with the proper temperature and black body background radiation for the Ni system the system favors reactions that distribute energy to the lattice or other Ni nuclei via spin coupling, and the Ni-59 may not form with the reaction ending up with Cu-59 directly, avoiding the positron associated radiation. The black body background radiation, having an entire spectrum of oscillating electro-magnetic fields in all directions, interact with Ni nuclei via their magnetic moments at the resonant frequencies making the release of many quanta possible from each excited Ni nucleus during the fractionation required by the main transition with its loss of mass. Here again the virtual Ni* first exists in a high spin energy state and decays via spin coupling to the other activated nuclei in the local system. A local temperature increase changes the reaction probability so that no more than one reaction occurs at a time and the system does not destroy itself. Other surfaces and cracks act the same way with a frequency controlled by the temperature. A time constant is associated with the change in the black body radiation spectrum and does not allow coupling of too many Nuclei at the same time given the constant removal of the resonant photons needed to activate the spin states of the Ni nuclei. Axil probably can add some obvious steps that I have omitted.(:-) Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: When alpha particles pass through material, a series of nuclear reactions can occur that emit radiation. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation is emitted as the alpha slows down. Hagelstrin describes these processes in the papers I attached previously. I suggest you read them. If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion cores), the 4He daughter would have no or almost no energy. There would be the bath of photons from the fractionation, the nearly stationary 4He daughter, and no Bremsstrahlung from collisions by a fast particle. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
The TSC theory has such a kinetic energy for the alphas identified Bob. - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper I wrote: If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion cores), the 4He daughter would have no or almost no energy. This was stated incorrectly. To the extent that there is binding between the [dd]* state and one or more nearby ion cores, I assume the daughter 4He would be imparted kinetic energy in corresponding measure. So if this system is anywhere near what is really going on, we have a parameter that we can play with and adjust to match the actual kinetic energies that are seen (not very much). The more there is interaction with the electronic structure, and the less there is interaction with the ion cores, the less kinetic energy imparted to the daughter 4He. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Eric, if the photons were to be emitted in random directions by the excited He4, then little kinetic energy would be imparted upon the nucleus.I suspect this is what you are referring to. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 6, 2014 1:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper I wrote: If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion cores), the 4He daughter would have no or almost no energy. This was stated incorrectly. To the extent that there is binding between the [dd]* state and one or more nearby ion cores, I assume the daughter 4He would be imparted kinetic energy in corresponding measure. So if this system is anywhere near what is really going on, we have a parameter that we can play with and adjust to match the actual kinetic energies that are seen (not very much). The more there is interaction with the electronic structure, and the less there is interaction with the ion cores, the less kinetic energy imparted to the daughter 4He. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Mark-- Its hard to keep track of who says what in these threads. Sorry, Thanks for the correction. Bob - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:52 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Bob: It wasn't I, Jones referenced that paper in a posting dated: Tue 3/4/2014 8:11 AM. Credit where credit is due... -mark iverson -Original Message- From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 1:22 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Robin-- If carbon nano tubes are the quantum cavity you refer to their dimensions can be greater--maybe up to 14 to 16 manometers. A mixture of sizes may allow absorption at may varied frequencies depending upon the temperature. The following paper addresses CNT size effects: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1202/1202.1328.pdf It was identified by MarkI-zero point two days ago. Bob - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 12:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper In reply to Bob Cook's message of Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:58:10 -0800: Hi, [snip] These local vortex formations provide templates upon which the solitons will condense. These quantum cavities absorbed both gamma radiation from nuclear reactions and infrared radiation from the reactor structure and amalgamate these waves into a XUV soliton waveform resonant with the diameter of the quantum cavity: about 1 to 2 nanometers. ...this is on the order of hundreds of eV, perhaps coincidentally the same energy range one might also expect from either Hydrino formation or IRH. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
Kevin-- I agree that it is not clear its all surface reactions, particularly in the Pd-D system. Bob - Original Message - From: Kevin O'Malley To: vortex-l Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:58 PM Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS Figure 1, Page 5 I don't buy it that LENR is exclusively a surface reaction. The enclosed SEM image implies the microexplosion happened well under the surface, more like a volcano than a surface explosion. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: 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,
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Ed You said: You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. Yes I do assume that. Crystals like in Pd metal I would consider to be one QM system as long as long as the ionic chemical bonds hold the atoms together. The nuclear magnetic moments of a crystal clearly couple with the electrons in the system. Nano particles, although not as large as a crystals, are also probably a QM system with many atoms. All molecules are QM systems and when close together may have various coupling mechanisms although not of any practical intensity. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: When alpha particles pass through material, a series of nuclear reactions can occur that emit radiation. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation is emitted as the alpha slows down. Hagelstrin describes these processes in the papers I attached previously. I suggest you read them. If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion cores), the 4He daughter would have no or almost no energy. There would be the bath of photons from the fractionation, the nearly stationary 4He daughter, and no Bremsstrahlung from collisions by a fast particle. Yes, that is the assumption. The issue is whether that assumption is valid. Can a large number of sinks participate in what is a random process such that they can share mass-energy? Can this collection remain intact for the time required for the process to go to completion. You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. This concept is in conflict with the laws of thermodynamics. Ed Storms Eric
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
LENR deniers. -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 6, 2014 9:27 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered True believer because they refuse to accept experimental falsification of their theories. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I need a better term than skeptopath. . How about Aggressively Skeptical ‘Humans’ Obfuscating Lenr Endeavors (ASHOLEs)? On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: How to know you're dealing with a skeptopath: they won't read the simplest evidence put in front of them. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=32#32 To: tacticalogic I'd be interested in a practical source of energy, and you keep hawking this like it is. Where's the beef? Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is no scientific evidence for cold fusion. First the refrain was cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated. Then, when the researchers did improve the repeatability, the refrain became cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated fifty percent of the time. Then, when repeatability increased past 50%, the refrain became cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated 100% of the time. Now, as some researchers repeatabiltity numbers approach 100%, the refrain has become the amount of power is miniscule, even if it can be repeated. So, the answer to your question is the beef is still growing. And an HONEST respondent would admit that. But in the not too distant future, I look forward to when LENR does produce usable amounts of power. I wonder what you skeptopaths will say then. 32posted on Wed 27 Nov 2013 05:28:54 AM PSTby Wonder Warthog [Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies | Report Abuse] To: Wonder Warthog Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is no scientific evidence for cold fusion. Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm supposed to go find it. 33posted on Wed 27 Nov 2013 05:34:11 AM PSTby tacticalogic [Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies | Report Abuse] To: tacticalogic Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm supposed to go find it. Not quite. I'll give you two starting places. The first is George Beaudette's book Excess Heat. You can access this either by buying a copy (Amazon)($), or via interlibrary loan (free or $ depending on the policies of your local library. The second is Edmund Storm's collection of summaries of LENR research, which can easily be found with Google search terms (Edmund Storms cold fusion pdf). Most of the pdf's can be found at LENR-CANR.org. All are available free. Now, why don't I give you direct links?? Because I have found that there is no better litmus test about the honesty or lack of same of the various skeptics that show up on these LENR threads. The skeptopaths will NOT follow up. NOTHING will induce them to actually examine the evidence. The honest skeptics do. 34posted on Wed 27 Nov 2013 08:46:23 AM PSTby Wonder Warthog [Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies | Report Abuse] To: Wonder Warthog I’ve looked at LENR-CANR.org. It’s interesting research, but I can’t find any research that’s actually producing measurable amounts of power to justify the hyperbole surrouding the phenomenon. 35posted on Wed 27 Nov 2013 10:24:46 AM PSTby tacticalogic [Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies | Report Abuse] To: tacticalogic I’ve looked at LENR-CANR.org. It’s interesting research, but I can’t find any research that’s actually producing measurable amounts of power to justify the hyperbole surrouding the phenomenon. LOL. Yeah, right. You're read all the thousands of papers at LENR-CANR.org. SSRREEE you have. If you proceed from either of the start points I gave you, you will find the data quite easily, as the references to specific papers are well documented in both of them. But you won't, will you. 36posted on Wed 27 Nov 2013 01:36:37 PM PSTby Wonder Warthog [Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies | Report Abuse] To: Wonder Warthog No, I won’t go through those thousands of pages looking for the documentation of a practical demonstration of the technology. That’s based on an assumption that if any such documented demonstration had taken place it wouldn’t be buried somewhere down in those thousands of pages, where it could only be found by sifting through those thousands of pages. 37posted on Wed 27 Nov 2013 01:47:35 PM PSTby tacticalogic [Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies | Report Abuse] To: Kevmo Nuclear energy is based on the use of fissile materials, and is not a solution, because the stock of these materials is
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
If you can send gibberish faster than light than you can send information faster than light. for example: gibberish-pause--gibberish could be binary code for '5' or morse code for 'K' Harry On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: A signal can propagate in arbitrary speed, if one solves a system of equations that doesn't take all fields in considerations. Even Maxwell equations allows that, in the coulomb gauge, and electric field to propagate faster than light. But even so, relativity is not violated, since the equations are still Lorentz invariant, because the magnetic part is not directly manifest in the solution. A similar situation happens in quantum mechanics, in free space, if you only look for oscillations, that is signals, rather than wave packets. A wave packet carries information, the measured value. In both cases you can claim to send information faster than light. This is a wrong claim, since you are not sending information, but just recording gibberish waiting for the information to appear.
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Unfortunately, she said she is more focused on General Relativity (gravity as geometry or the warping of space/time) than Special Relativity and therefore have little use for aether theories. On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Kevin stated: I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. Well invite the young lady into the dime-box saloon!! The place could use some female energy... J -mark *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:28 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity John: Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Special Relativity has made the assumption that the speed of light is constant, this is despite many findings otherwise.
Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
Not sure if these recent papers on potential of graphene arrangements would be helpful, but FWItW here are a few: Huang B-L et al 2012. Persistent currents on a graphene ring with armchair edges. J. Phys. Cond. Matter 24: Dubey S. et al 2013, Tunable superlattice in graphene to control the number of Dirac points. Nano Lett 13:3990-5. Bludov YV et al 2013. A primer on surface plasmon polaritons in graphene. Intl J. Modern Phys. B, 27 (10) Li, T. et al 2012 Femtosecond population inversion and stimulated emisssion of dense Dirac fermions. Phys. Rev Lett 108:167401 Hasmimoto, T. Graphene edge spins: Spintronics and magnetism in graphene nanomeshes. Nanosystems: Physics, Chem. Math: 5:25-8. I only read a couple, (and problably wouldn't have understood much of them anyway), and not sure what it may mean, but got that the zigzag edge forms are ferromagnetic and very avid hydrogen 'magnets'? Cheers all, ken On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Rossi may not have been smart enough, but what about Focardi? - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, March 04, 2014 9:03 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current All nanoparticles of a certain size have a negative index of refraction as regards to the long wavelengths of infrared light. Short wavelengths are absorbed. It's a matter of geometry. A mix of particles of various sizes is needed in a Ni/H reactor to form an amalgam. This may be why BIG particles are needed to absorb the infrared light and that infrared energy once absorbed in the big particles is passed via dipole motion to the smaller particles witch usually reflect that long wavelength light. It is my evolving opinion that predestination of some sort was involved in the Ni/H reactor design because Rossi cannot be this smart. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: SPP happen at the interface between a dielectric a material with a *negative* index of refraction.(a metal the reflect light). should read SPP happen at the interface between a dielectric and a material with a *negative* index of refraction.(a metal the reflect light). On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: SPP happen at the interface between a dielectric a material with a *negative* index of refraction.(a metal the reflect light). Do CNTs qualify. They must if the Chinese say so. *Negative Refractive Index Metasurfaces for Enhanced Biosensing * *Research as follows:* Inorganic ultrathin nanocomposites include metals and metal composites, various oxides, semiconductor materials, different inorganic compounds but also pure elements. Various metals were reported as freestanding nanomembrane materials, including chromium, titanium, tungsten, nickel, aluminum, silver, gold, platinum; most of these being structural metals having both electromagnetic and mechanical functions at the same time. Elemental semiconductor nanomembranes were also reported, and among them, an especially important mention belongs to silicon freestanding structures, which are connected with the most widespread and mature technology. Silicon with a thickness ranging between 10 nm and 100 nm was mentioned for instance in the context of nanomembrane-based stretchable electronics [95]. Buckled silicon nanoribbons and full nanomembranes were also reported [96]. *Materials **2011*, *4 **7 * *An important material for nanomembranes in CBB sensor applications is carbon, which may be used in membranes in the form of carbon nanotubes [97] or as freestanding, ultrathin diamond or diamandoid film [97]. *The excellent mechanical properties of such carbon-based materials make them convenient for their use as reinforcements for the nanometer-thin freestanding structures, but also as the dielectric part of the metasurfaces. Other classes of inorganic freestanding nanomembranes include oxide, nitride and carbide structures, many of them used either as wide-bandgap semiconductors or insulators. Silicon dioxide nanomembranes [98] are among the important ones, again because of the widely available and mature silicon technology. Other materials include silicon nitride, titanium dioxide, gallium arsenide, *etc*. A special class of interest for this review belongs to plasmonic materials. These include Drude metals. Freestanding gold films with a thickness below 100 nm have been known for a long time [99]. In our experiments we fabricated chromium-containing nanomembranes down to 8 nm thickness and with areas of tens of millimeters square [94,100]. Another possibility to obtain freestanding nanomembranes with plasmonic properties is to utilize non-metallic Drude materials like transparent conductive oxides (e.g., tin oxide, indium oxide, *etc.*) [101,102]. Symmetric plasmonic nanomembranes may be
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is limited to no more than about 10 eV, yet you propose to require this bonding to share and dissipate energy at the MeV level within a cluster of atoms. Only in the nucleus itself is this level of bonding and interaction available. Atoms are not attached to each other with the necessary force to share and transmit this level of energy. In addition, for nuclear interaction to take place, the Coulomb barrier must be overcome. This barrier is real and its magnitude is well known and far in excess of any source of energy available in a chemical system. LENR requires a new and so far unknown process to do this. I see no effort to effectively identify this process. Simply applying IF statements is not a solution. Simply applying QM using equations containing arbitrary assumptions does not change how chemical systems are known to behave. The people discussing these issues on Vortex seem to be in a different reality than the one I have occupied for over 60 years of scientific study of LENR, chemistry, and physics. Any imagined or assumed process described in the modern literature seems to be as important as what has been observed and accepted in science for the last 100 years. Any new observation in physics seems to be fair game as an explanation of LENR whether it has any real world support of not. In fact, many of the papers used as justification for the proposals are simply based on more theory and assumptions. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed You said: You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. Yes I do assume that. Crystals like in Pd metal I would consider to be one QM system as long as long as the ionic chemical bonds hold the atoms together. The nuclear magnetic moments of a crystal clearly couple with the electrons in the system. Nano particles, although not as large as a crystals, are also probably a QM system with many atoms. All molecules are QM systems and when close together may have various coupling mechanisms although not of any practical intensity. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: When alpha particles pass through material, a series of nuclear reactions can occur that emit radiation. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation is emitted as the alpha slows down. Hagelstrin describes these processes in the papers I attached previously. I suggest you read them. If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion cores), the 4He daughter would have no or almost no energy. There would be the bath of photons from the fractionation, the nearly stationary 4He daughter, and no Bremsstrahlung from collisions by a fast particle. Yes, that is the assumption. The issue is whether that assumption is valid. Can a large number of sinks participate in what is a random process such that they can share mass-energy? Can this collection remain intact for the time required for the process to go to completion. You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. This concept is in conflict with the laws of thermodynamics. Ed Storms Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Ed- The differential energy states of a nucleus associated with different spin states are not all that big. They come in units of Plank's constant. (Check out the discussion of spin in Wikipedia, https://www.google.com/webhp#q=nuclear+spin+quantum+number The following abstract of an article addresses the coupling between a nucleus and the electrons in a molecule--the Coulomb barrier does not come into play since the interaction is via the magnetic fields. You keep arguing about the Coulomb barrier--think magnetic coupling and spin coupling as the operative phenomena. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/30/1/10.1063/1.1729860 The valence-bond theory for the contact electron-spin coupling of nuclear magnetic moments is used to calculate the proton-proton, proton-fluorine, and fluorine-fluorine coupling constants in ethanic and ethylenic molecules. A considerable simplification is introduced into the theory by approximations which reduce the problem to one involving only a small number of electrons and canonical structures. The agreement between calculated and experimental values is such as to demonstrate that the mechanism considered is the one of primary importance for the nuclear coupling in the compounds studied. Of particular interest is the theoretical confirmation of the observation that in ethylenic compounds the trans coupling between nuclei (HH, HF, FF) is considerably larger than cis coupling. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is limited to no more than about 10 eV, yet you propose to require this bonding to share and dissipate energy at the MeV level within a cluster of atoms. Only in the nucleus itself is this level of bonding and interaction available. Atoms are not attached to each other with the necessary force to share and transmit this level of energy. In addition, for nuclear interaction to take place, the Coulomb barrier must be overcome. This barrier is real and its magnitude is well known and far in excess of any source of energy available in a chemical system. LENR requires a new and so far unknown process to do this. I see no effort to effectively identify this process. Simply applying IF statements is not a solution. Simply applying QM using equations containing arbitrary assumptions does not change how chemical systems are known to behave. The people discussing these issues on Vortex seem to be in a different reality than the one I have occupied for over 60 years of scientific study of LENR, chemistry, and physics. Any imagined or assumed process described in the modern literature seems to be as important as what has been observed and accepted in science for the last 100 years. Any new observation in physics seems to be fair game as an explanation of LENR whether it has any real world support of not. In fact, many of the papers used as justification for the proposals are simply based on more theory and assumptions. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed You said: You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. Yes I do assume that. Crystals like in Pd metal I would consider to be one QM system as long as long as the ionic chemical bonds hold the atoms together. The nuclear magnetic moments of a crystal clearly couple with the electrons in the system. Nano particles, although not as large as a crystals, are also probably a QM system with many atoms. All molecules are QM systems and when close together may have various coupling mechanisms although not of any practical intensity. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: When alpha particles pass through material, a series of nuclear reactions can occur that emit radiation. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation is emitted as the alpha slows down. Hagelstrin describes these processes in the papers I attached previously. I suggest you read them. If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion cores), the 4He daughter would have no or almost no energy. There would be the bath of photons from the fractionation, the nearly stationary 4He daughter, and no Bremsstrahlung from collisions by a fast particle. Yes, that is
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Ed--The ionic bonds of a host lattice are not the issue when it comes to the transfer of energy in small bits. Its whether or not the small bits can find a host in another nucleus of the QM system or in the spin state of an electron in that lattice. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is limited to no more than about 10 eV, yet you propose to require this bonding to share and dissipate energy at the MeV level within a cluster of atoms. Only in the nucleus itself is this level of bonding and interaction available. Atoms are not attached to each other with the necessary force to share and transmit this level of energy. In addition, for nuclear interaction to take place, the Coulomb barrier must be overcome. This barrier is real and its magnitude is well known and far in excess of any source of energy available in a chemical system. LENR requires a new and so far unknown process to do this. I see no effort to effectively identify this process. Simply applying IF statements is not a solution. Simply applying QM using equations containing arbitrary assumptions does not change how chemical systems are known to behave. The people discussing these issues on Vortex seem to be in a different reality than the one I have occupied for over 60 years of scientific study of LENR, chemistry, and physics. Any imagined or assumed process described in the modern literature seems to be as important as what has been observed and accepted in science for the last 100 years. Any new observation in physics seems to be fair game as an explanation of LENR whether it has any real world support of not. In fact, many of the papers used as justification for the proposals are simply based on more theory and assumptions. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed You said: You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. Yes I do assume that. Crystals like in Pd metal I would consider to be one QM system as long as long as the ionic chemical bonds hold the atoms together. The nuclear magnetic moments of a crystal clearly couple with the electrons in the system. Nano particles, although not as large as a crystals, are also probably a QM system with many atoms. All molecules are QM systems and when close together may have various coupling mechanisms although not of any practical intensity. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: When alpha particles pass through material, a series of nuclear reactions can occur that emit radiation. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation is emitted as the alpha slows down. Hagelstrin describes these processes in the papers I attached previously. I suggest you read them. If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion cores), the 4He daughter would have no or almost no energy. There would be the bath of photons from the fractionation, the nearly stationary 4He daughter, and no Bremsstrahlung from collisions by a fast particle. Yes, that is the assumption. The issue is whether that assumption is valid. Can a large number of sinks participate in what is a random process such that they can share mass-energy? Can this collection remain intact for the time required for the process to go to completion. You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. This concept is in conflict with the laws of thermodynamics. Ed Storms Eric
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Einstein considered General Relativity to be unthinkable without an aether. On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, she said she is more focused on General Relativity (gravity as geometry or the warping of space/time) than Special Relativity and therefore have little use for aether theories. On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Kevin stated: I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. Well invite the young lady into the dime-box saloon!! The place could use some female energy... J -mark *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:28 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity John: Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Special Relativity has made the assumption that the speed of light is constant, this is despite many findings otherwise.
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Bob, let me see if I can simplify the issue. For fusion to occur, two D must get close enough for the two nuclei to combine. This process is prevented by the Coulomb barrier, which requires energy to overcome. A static magnetic field does not supply energy. Once the two nuclei combine, the mass-energy must be dissipated. This can be done by fragmentation of the resulting nucleus, i.e. hot fusion, or by release of energy as many photons. Observation places a limit on the energy the photons can have. You bring spin into the discussion. The spin state has a limit to how much energy it can hold. In addition, if spin is accepted as an actual rotation about an axis, creating this spin requires the law of conservation of momentum be considered and a process needs to be identified that can apply a force to the particle such that it spins rather than moves in a line. I see no way for this to happen in your description. If spin is viewed only as another variable in equations to allow them to fit data, then I do not know how to evaluate your claim. We know that all energy that is emitted with the alpha particle eventually appears as heat and the helium ends up with its normal spin state. Therefore, energy imagined to exist as spin acts exactly like translational energy in the real world. Therefore, I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed--The ionic bonds of a host lattice are not the issue when it comes to the transfer of energy in small bits. Its whether or not the small bits can find a host in another nucleus of the QM system or in the spin state of an electron in that lattice. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is limited to no more than about 10 eV, yet you propose to require this bonding to share and dissipate energy at the MeV level within a cluster of atoms. Only in the nucleus itself is this level of bonding and interaction available. Atoms are not attached to each other with the necessary force to share and transmit this level of energy. In addition, for nuclear interaction to take place, the Coulomb barrier must be overcome. This barrier is real and its magnitude is well known and far in excess of any source of energy available in a chemical system. LENR requires a new and so far unknown process to do this. I see no effort to effectively identify this process. Simply applying IF statements is not a solution. Simply applying QM using equations containing arbitrary assumptions does not change how chemical systems are known to behave. The people discussing these issues on Vortex seem to be in a different reality than the one I have occupied for over 60 years of scientific study of LENR, chemistry, and physics. Any imagined or assumed process described in the modern literature seems to be as important as what has been observed and accepted in science for the last 100 years. Any new observation in physics seems to be fair game as an explanation of LENR whether it has any real world support of not. In fact, many of the papers used as justification for the proposals are simply based on more theory and assumptions. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed You said: You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. Yes I do assume that. Crystals like in Pd metal I would consider to be one QM system as long as long as the ionic chemical bonds hold the atoms together. The nuclear magnetic moments of a crystal clearly couple with the electrons in the system. Nano particles, although not as large as a crystals, are also probably a QM system with many atoms. All molecules are QM systems and when close together may have various coupling mechanisms although not of any practical intensity. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: When alpha particles pass through material, a series of nuclear reactions can occur that emit radiation. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation is emitted as the alpha slows down. Hagelstrin describes these processes in the papers I attached previously. I suggest you read them. If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion cores), the 4He daughter
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion. Both Rossi and DGT state that nickel isotopes of zero spin will react and nickel isotopes with non zero spins do not. This is both experimental data and an engineering requirement. The theory that purports to describe LENR must account for this spin based characterization. I will not accept a theory that does not explain spin as a factor in the LENR reaction. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Bob, let me see if I can simplify the issue. For fusion to occur, two D must get close enough for the two nuclei to combine. This process is prevented by the Coulomb barrier, which requires energy to overcome. A static magnetic field does not supply energy. Once the two nuclei combine, the mass-energy must be dissipated. This can be done by fragmentation of the resulting nucleus, i.e. hot fusion, or by release of energy as many photons. Observation places a limit on the energy the photons can have. You bring spin into the discussion. The spin state has a limit to how much energy it can hold. In addition, if spin is accepted as an actual rotation about an axis, creating this spin requires the law of conservation of momentum be considered and a process needs to be identified that can apply a force to the particle such that it spins rather than moves in a line. I see no way for this to happen in your description. If spin is viewed only as another variable in equations to allow them to fit data, then I do not know how to evaluate your claim. We know that all energy that is emitted with the alpha particle eventually appears as heat and the helium ends up with its normal spin state. Therefore, energy imagined to exist as spin acts exactly like translational energy in the real world. Therefore, I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed--The ionic bonds of a host lattice are not the issue when it comes to the transfer of energy in small bits. Its whether or not the small bits can find a host in another nucleus of the QM system or in the spin state of an electron in that lattice. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:49 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is limited to no more than about 10 eV, yet you propose to require this bonding to share and dissipate energy at the MeV level within a cluster of atoms. Only in the nucleus itself is this level of bonding and interaction available. Atoms are not attached to each other with the necessary force to share and transmit this level of energy. In addition, for nuclear interaction to take place, the Coulomb barrier must be overcome. This barrier is real and its magnitude is well known and far in excess of any source of energy available in a chemical system. LENR requires a new and so far unknown process to do this. I see no effort to effectively identify this process. Simply applying IF statements is not a solution. Simply applying QM using equations containing arbitrary assumptions does not change how chemical systems are known to behave. The people discussing these issues on Vortex seem to be in a different reality than the one I have occupied for over 60 years of scientific study of LENR, chemistry, and physics. Any imagined or assumed process described in the modern literature seems to be as important as what has been observed and accepted in science for the last 100 years. Any new observation in physics seems to be fair game as an explanation of LENR whether it has any real world support of not. In fact, many of the papers used as justification for the proposals are simply based on more theory and assumptions. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed You said: You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. Yes I do assume that. Crystals like in Pd metal I would consider to be one QM system as long as long as the ionic chemical bonds hold the atoms together. The nuclear magnetic moments of a crystal clearly couple with the electrons in the system. Nano particles, although not as large as a crystals, are also probably a QM system with many atoms. All molecules are QM systems and when close together may have various coupling mechanisms although not of any practical intensity. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:00 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper On Mar 5,
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
John So true! Einstein considered General Relativity to be unthinkable without an aether. But he did it anyway now didn't he? It would be nice to get her to come debate, but it would appear she's unwilling to risk a large reality change. A lot of work would be invalidated, careers undone, etc... if the aether were proven to be true, so don't hold your breath there friend. Gibson From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2014 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity Einstein considered General Relativity to be unthinkable without an aether. On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, she said she is more focused on General Relativity (gravity as geometry or the warping of space/time) than Special Relativity and therefore have little use for aether theories. On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Kevin stated: “I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am.” Well invite the young lady into the dime-box saloon!! The place could use some female energy… J -mark From:Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:28 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity John: Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better educated than I am. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Special Relativity has made the assumption that the speed of light is constant, this is despite many findings otherwise.
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
OK, Axil. We have an impasse. I will not accept any claim made by DGT unless the study is described in detail and can be evaluated. People seem to accept their statements without question. Where is the basic skepticism typical of all good science? In addition, I do not believe the Ni has any direct role in the nuclear process. The heat is only generated by fusion of H as I have described. So we have no more to discuss. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote: I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion. Both Rossi and DGT state that nickel isotopes of zero spin will react and nickel isotopes with non zero spins do not. This is both experimental data and an engineering requirement. The theory that purports to describe LENR must account for this spin based characterization. I will not accept a theory that does not explain spin as a factor in the LENR reaction. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Bob, let me see if I can simplify the issue. For fusion to occur, two D must get close enough for the two nuclei to combine. This process is prevented by the Coulomb barrier, which requires energy to overcome. A static magnetic field does not supply energy. Once the two nuclei combine, the mass-energy must be dissipated. This can be done by fragmentation of the resulting nucleus, i.e. hot fusion, or by release of energy as many photons. Observation places a limit on the energy the photons can have. You bring spin into the discussion. The spin state has a limit to how much energy it can hold. In addition, if spin is accepted as an actual rotation about an axis, creating this spin requires the law of conservation of momentum be considered and a process needs to be identified that can apply a force to the particle such that it spins rather than moves in a line. I see no way for this to happen in your description. If spin is viewed only as another variable in equations to allow them to fit data, then I do not know how to evaluate your claim. We know that all energy that is emitted with the alpha particle eventually appears as heat and the helium ends up with its normal spin state. Therefore, energy imagined to exist as spin acts exactly like translational energy in the real world. Therefore, I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed--The ionic bonds of a host lattice are not the issue when it comes to the transfer of energy in small bits. Its whether or not the small bits can find a host in another nucleus of the QM system or in the spin state of an electron in that lattice. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is limited to no more than about 10 eV, yet you propose to require this bonding to share and dissipate energy at the MeV level within a cluster of atoms. Only in the nucleus itself is this level of bonding and interaction available. Atoms are not attached to each other with the necessary force to share and transmit this level of energy. In addition, for nuclear interaction to take place, the Coulomb barrier must be overcome. This barrier is real and its magnitude is well known and far in excess of any source of energy available in a chemical system. LENR requires a new and so far unknown process to do this. I see no effort to effectively identify this process. Simply applying IF statements is not a solution. Simply applying QM using equations containing arbitrary assumptions does not change how chemical systems are known to behave. The people discussing these issues on Vortex seem to be in a different reality than the one I have occupied for over 60 years of scientific study of LENR, chemistry, and physics. Any imagined or assumed process described in the modern literature seems to be as important as what has been observed and accepted in science for the last 100 years. Any new observation in physics seems to be fair game as an explanation of LENR whether it has any real world support of not. In fact, many of the papers used as justification for the proposals are simply based on more theory and assumptions. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed You said: You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. Yes I do assume that. Crystals like in Pd metal I would consider to be one QM system as long as long as the ionic chemical bonds hold the atoms together. The nuclear magnetic moments of a crystal clearly couple with
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
- Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion. Both Rossi and DGT state that nickel isotopes of zero spin will react and nickel isotopes with non zero spins do not. This is both experimental data and an engineering requirement. The theory that purports to describe LENR must account for this spin based characterization. I will not accept a theory that does not explain spin as a factor in the LENR reaction. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Bob, let me see if I can simplify the issue. For fusion to occur, two D must get close enough for the two nuclei to combine. This process is prevented by the Coulomb barrier, which requires energy to overcome. A static magnetic field does not supply energy. Once the two nuclei combine, the mass-energy must be dissipated. This can be done by fragmentation of the resulting nucleus, i.e. hot fusion, or by release of energy as many photons. Observation places a limit on the energy the photons can have. You bring spin into the discussion. The spin state has a limit to how much energy it can hold. In addition, if spin is accepted as an actual rotation about an axis, creating this spin requires the law of conservation of momentum be considered and a process needs to be identified that can apply a force to the particle such that it spins rather than moves in a line. I see no way for this to happen in your description. If spin is viewed only as another variable in equations to allow them to fit data, then I do not know how to evaluate your claim. We know that all energy that is emitted with the alpha particle eventually appears as heat and the helium ends up with its normal spin state. Therefore, energy imagined to exist as spin acts exactly like translational energy in the real world. Therefore, I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed--The ionic bonds of a host lattice are not the issue when it comes to the transfer of energy in small bits. Its whether or not the small bits can find a host in another nucleus of the QM system or in the spin state of an electron in that lattice. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is limited to no more than about 10 eV, yet you propose to require this bonding to share and dissipate energy at the MeV level within a cluster of atoms. Only in the nucleus itself is this level of bonding and interaction available. Atoms are not attached to each other with the necessary force to share and transmit this level of energy. In addition, for nuclear interaction to take place, the Coulomb barrier must be overcome. This barrier is real and its magnitude is well known and far in excess of any source of energy available in a chemical system. LENR requires a new and so far unknown process to do this. I see no effort to effectively identify this process. Simply applying IF statements is not a solution. Simply applying QM using equations containing arbitrary assumptions does not change how chemical systems are known to behave. The people discussing these issues on Vortex seem to be in a different reality than the one I have occupied for over 60 years of scientific study of LENR, chemistry, and physics. Any imagined or assumed process described in the modern literature seems to be as important as what has been observed and accepted in science for the last 100 years. Any new observation in physics seems to be fair game as an explanation of LENR whether it has any real world support of not. In fact, many of the papers used as justification for the proposals are simply based on more theory and assumptions. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed You said: You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. Yes I do assume that. Crystals like in Pd metal I would consider to be one QM system as long as long as the ionic chemical bonds hold the atoms together. The nuclear magnetic moments of a crystal clearly couple with the electrons in the system. Nano particles, although not as large as a crystals, are also probably a QM system with many atoms. All molecules are QM systems and when close together may have various coupling mechanisms although not of
[Vo]:Battery system for wind farm
See: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/02/beech-ridge-energy-plans-battery-system-at-west-virginia-wind-farm Summary stats for the battery: 32 MW 18 modules made of standard shipping containers (like Rossi's MW gadget), each with 1.8 MW output. Lithium-ion batteries Cost $20 million. Whew! Each 1.8-MW module includes: one standard shipping container housing four battery strings; four 450 kW inverters to convert power between direct current and alternating current; a chiller to cool the battery containers; and a transformer for the inverter. It sounds like a kudge, but I guess it is the best we can do with today's technology. Pumped water storage seems more elegant with higher capacity. I suppose it is not as efficient. - Jed
[Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
See: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/03/us-solar-celebrates-records-in-2013-big-trends-coming-in-2014 Various stats. Article lead: Solar photovoltaic (PV) installations in the U.S. topped 4.78 GW in 2013, an increase of 41 percent over 2012, according to the annual market review and outlook published today by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and GTM Research. . . . 4.78 GW is the nameplate capacity. Still, that's a lot. I suppose it is at least as much as a 1 GW nuke. They could do this in Japan for 4 years to replace the Fukushima reactor capacity. They have plenty of rooftops there. In southern Japan this gives you power when you most need it, during peak demand hours. Better than wind in that respect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Ed -- I find that I agree with Axil this time. The Pauli Exclusion Principle is a key theory of physics and chemistry. Without it matter would be unstable. Electrons would collapse to the attraction of the protons and there would be no electronic structure of a molecule--no molecules period. Spin is a characteristic of primary particles and the quarks that make up compound particles. Particles with zero spin seem to have a certain characteristic--they have no potential energy associated with angular momentum. Photons have positive spin and angular momentum pointing in the direction of their motion. Reactions of photons with other particles must conserve angular momentum. I think this is a key restriction on various chemical reactions that are light sensitive. I do not agree that it is warranted to disregard a key parameter of particles in the consideration of LENR unless of course there are experiments that indicate the parameter is not real. It is like saying electrons do not have a charge or mass or that electrons are not real even though much evidence supports their reality. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion. Both Rossi and DGT state that nickel isotopes of zero spin will react and nickel isotopes with non zero spins do not. This is both experimental data and an engineering requirement. The theory that purports to describe LENR must account for this spin based characterization. I will not accept a theory that does not explain spin as a factor in the LENR reaction. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Bob, let me see if I can simplify the issue. For fusion to occur, two D must get close enough for the two nuclei to combine. This process is prevented by the Coulomb barrier, which requires energy to overcome. A static magnetic field does not supply energy. Once the two nuclei combine, the mass-energy must be dissipated. This can be done by fragmentation of the resulting nucleus, i.e. hot fusion, or by release of energy as many photons. Observation places a limit on the energy the photons can have. You bring spin into the discussion. The spin state has a limit to how much energy it can hold. In addition, if spin is accepted as an actual rotation about an axis, creating this spin requires the law of conservation of momentum be considered and a process needs to be identified that can apply a force to the particle such that it spins rather than moves in a line. I see no way for this to happen in your description. If spin is viewed only as another variable in equations to allow them to fit data, then I do not know how to evaluate your claim. We know that all energy that is emitted with the alpha particle eventually appears as heat and the helium ends up with its normal spin state. Therefore, energy imagined to exist as spin acts exactly like translational energy in the real world. Therefore, I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed--The ionic bonds of a host lattice are not the issue when it comes to the transfer of energy in small bits. Its whether or not the small bits can find a host in another nucleus of the QM system or in the spin state of an electron in that lattice. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is limited to no more than about 10 eV, yet you propose to require this bonding to share and dissipate energy at the MeV level within a cluster of atoms. Only in the nucleus itself is this level of bonding and interaction available. Atoms are not attached to each other with the necessary force to share and transmit this level of energy. In addition, for nuclear interaction to take place, the Coulomb barrier must be overcome. This barrier is real and its magnitude is well known and far in excess of any source of energy available in a chemical system. LENR requires a new and so far unknown process to do this. I see no effort to effectively identify this process. Simply applying IF statements is not a solution. Simply applying QM using equations containing arbitrary assumptions does not change how chemical systems are known to behave. The people discussing these issues on Vortex seem to be in a different reality than the one I have occupied for over 60 years of scientific study of LENR,
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
Ed, Axil etak-- The following link is a good tutorial on nuclear/electronic spin coupling and work to understand the mechanism. http://gabriel.physics.ucsb.edu/~balents/projects/Central-spin.html Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion. Both Rossi and DGT state that nickel isotopes of zero spin will react and nickel isotopes with non zero spins do not. This is both experimental data and an engineering requirement. The theory that purports to describe LENR must account for this spin based characterization. I will not accept a theory that does not explain spin as a factor in the LENR reaction. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Bob, let me see if I can simplify the issue. For fusion to occur, two D must get close enough for the two nuclei to combine. This process is prevented by the Coulomb barrier, which requires energy to overcome. A static magnetic field does not supply energy. Once the two nuclei combine, the mass-energy must be dissipated. This can be done by fragmentation of the resulting nucleus, i.e. hot fusion, or by release of energy as many photons. Observation places a limit on the energy the photons can have. You bring spin into the discussion. The spin state has a limit to how much energy it can hold. In addition, if spin is accepted as an actual rotation about an axis, creating this spin requires the law of conservation of momentum be considered and a process needs to be identified that can apply a force to the particle such that it spins rather than moves in a line. I see no way for this to happen in your description. If spin is viewed only as another variable in equations to allow them to fit data, then I do not know how to evaluate your claim. We know that all energy that is emitted with the alpha particle eventually appears as heat and the helium ends up with its normal spin state. Therefore, energy imagined to exist as spin acts exactly like translational energy in the real world. Therefore, I do not see how the concept of spin has any relevance to the discussion. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed--The ionic bonds of a host lattice are not the issue when it comes to the transfer of energy in small bits. Its whether or not the small bits can find a host in another nucleus of the QM system or in the spin state of an electron in that lattice. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is limited to no more than about 10 eV, yet you propose to require this bonding to share and dissipate energy at the MeV level within a cluster of atoms. Only in the nucleus itself is this level of bonding and interaction available. Atoms are not attached to each other with the necessary force to share and transmit this level of energy. In addition, for nuclear interaction to take place, the Coulomb barrier must be overcome. This barrier is real and its magnitude is well known and far in excess of any source of energy available in a chemical system. LENR requires a new and so far unknown process to do this. I see no effort to effectively identify this process. Simply applying IF statements is not a solution. Simply applying QM using equations containing arbitrary assumptions does not change how chemical systems are known to behave. The people discussing these issues on Vortex seem to be in a different reality than the one I have occupied for over 60 years of scientific study of LENR, chemistry, and physics. Any imagined or assumed process described in the modern literature seems to be as important as what has been observed and accepted in science for the last 100 years. Any new observation in physics seems to be fair game as an explanation of LENR whether it has any real world support of not. In fact, many of the papers used as justification for the proposals are simply based on more theory and assumptions. Ed Storms On Mar 6, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed You said: You must assume that a nuclear energy state can form between a large number of atoms in a chemical system. Yes I do assume that. Crystals like in Pd metal I would consider to be one QM system as long as long as the ionic chemical bonds hold the atoms together. The nuclear magnetic moments of a crystal clearly couple with the electrons in the system.
Re: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
4.78 GW is the nameplate capacity. Wind averages 20 to 30% nameplate. I wonder how well solar fares?
Re: [Vo]:Battery system for wind farm
Lithium-ion batteries Cost $20 million. Whew! Musk's Gigafactory http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2014/02/26/elon-musks-risky-5-billion-plan-to-control-teslas-fate/ will double the world's output of lithium batteries. While mostly for the Tesla automobile, Musk hopes to at least half the cost of storage. Surely some of this will wind up grid leveling. Tesla Motors closed at $253. The IPO was less than $20 in 2010.
Re: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
40% of flux Depends how fast your robowasher is. It pays to invest in one of the new sprint models On Thursday, March 6, 2014, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: 4.78 GW is the nameplate capacity. Wind averages 20 to 30% nameplate. I wonder how well solar fares?
Re: [Vo]:Cyclone Power turbines
Ruby posted this in her thread about LENR investing: Cyclone Power Technologies (CYPW:OTC) is a small company which researches and produces engines operating from thermal energy. CYPW is a penny stock listed on OTC:Pink stock exchange, the wild west of the stock world. The stock price is currently at an all time low due to delays in the R+D process. Regardless, they are looking toward LENR technologies, even adding Dr. Kim from Purdue to their consulting board. Dr. Kim is heavily affiliated with Defkalion and even with his academic background he is very entrepreneurial, there is no doubt he will do all he can to combine Dekflaion LENR technology and CYPW's engines. Due to the low volume and price, as well as the highly speculative nature of penny stocks, CYPW is expected to explode during widespread LENR media attention. This is an ideal short term investment. Their steam engine was named Invention of the Year by Popular Mechanics in 2008 and is a remarkably simple machine touting 30% thermal conversion efficiency. Their web site reports that they have engaged the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State to help get their engine into production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Mark_V_Engine Combine this with a Hyperion heat source and you never have to stop driving . . . except for bathroom breaks. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Someone at the Defkalion brought this up. It looks promising. See: http://www.cyclonepower.com http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=548 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
Just go to pull-a-part and get all their windshield washers. On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:23 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: 40% of flux Depends how fast your robowasher is. It pays to invest in one of the new sprint models On Thursday, March 6, 2014, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: 4.78 GW is the nameplate capacity. Wind averages 20 to 30% nameplate. I wonder how well solar fares?
Re: [Vo]:Is there an echo in here?
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Bitcoin's pseudonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto willed that currency into existence in 2009, Not a pseudonym: http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/bitcoin-satoshi-nakamoto.html
Re: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
I installed a 2.5 kw system in Feb 2003. The inverter currently shows 38,883 kwh since start-up. That averages to 9.7 kwh/day. With an on-line time of 10 hours per day, that's 39% of nameplate rating. Averaged over 24 hours, it's 16%. AlanG On 3/6/2014 3:11 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: 4.78 GW is the nameplate capacity. Wind averages 20 to 30% nameplate. I wonder how well solar fares?
Re: [Vo]:Cyclone Power turbines
Much of this info was posted in a previous thread regarding potential investment opportunities when investing in LENR. My concern is that I could find no details at the cyclone site corroborating that Dr. Kim is working with them in any capacity unless it just had not been updated yet but seeing how it is a penny stock I would not put it past someone to spread false info in an attempt to make a quick buck I have not reached our to cyclone directly to see if they have any comment on this relationship. But maybe someone can confirm that he is. If so I'm probably buying. :) Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device Original message From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Date:03/06/2014 6:40 PM (GMT-05:00) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cyclone Power turbines Ruby posted this in her thread about LENR investing: Cyclone Power Technologies (CYPW:OTC) is a small company which researches and produces engines operating from thermal energy. CYPW is a penny stock listed on OTC:Pink stock exchange, the wild west of the stock world. The stock price is currently at an all time low due to delays in the R+D process. Regardless, they are looking toward LENR technologies, even adding Dr. Kim from Purdue to their consulting board. Dr. Kim is heavily affiliated with Defkalion and even with his academic background he is very entrepreneurial, there is no doubt he will do all he can to combine Dekflaion LENR technology and CYPW's engines. Due to the low volume and price, as well as the highly speculative nature of penny stocks, CYPW is expected to explode during widespread LENR media attention. This is an ideal short term investment. Their steam engine was named Invention of the Year by Popular Mechanics in 2008 and is a remarkably simple machine touting 30% thermal conversion efficiency. Their web site reports that they have engaged the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State to help get their engine into production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Mark_V_Engine Combine this with a Hyperion heat source and you never have to stop driving . . . except for bathroom breaks. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Someone at the Defkalion brought this up. It looks promising. See: http://www.cyclonepower.com http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=548 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Solar PV installations in 2013 were 4.78 GW
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Thu, 6 Mar 2014 18:11:15 -0500: Hi, [snip] 4.78 GW is the nameplate capacity. Wind averages 20 to 30% nameplate. I wonder how well solar fares? The surface of the planet has an area of 4Pir^2, while the area exposed to the sun has an area of Pir^2, hence you wouldn't get more than 25% on average if you had panels all over the planet's surface. (You already lose 50% due to night/day). If you live near the equator, you get better results than if you live near the poles. You also get better results if you track the sun. Furthermore, atmospheric absorption is higher at dawn and at dusk than it is at midday, and cloudy days really throw a spanner in the works. All in all, I suspect you wouldn't be doing too badly if you got 30%. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Battery system for wind farm
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:22:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] See: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/02/beech-ridge-energy-plans-battery-system-at-west-virginia-wind-farm This has to be one of the stupidest possible uses for Lithium batteries, given the scarcity of Lithium. Non-mobile storage facilities don't need high energy density storage. Mobile applications do. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Battery system for wind farm
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Fri, 07 Mar 2014 12:48:49 +1100: Hi, BTW Sodium-Sulfur might have been a better choice for a fixed location, given that both Sodium and Sulphur are common and cheap. Also the weight penalty imposed by the thermal insulation required isn't a problem for a fixed location. (Besides, that weight penalty would be negligible if aerogel is used as the insulator). In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:22:17 -0500: Hi, [snip] See: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/02/beech-ridge-energy-plans-battery-system-at-west-virginia-wind-farm This has to be one of the stupidest possible uses for Lithium batteries, given the scarcity of Lithium. Non-mobile storage facilities don't need high energy density storage. Mobile applications do. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Battery system for wind farm
Lithium really is brain-dead for Wind farm application ... maybe that pathology goes with the territory. Advanced flywheel storage probably makes the most sense. Below is one company that has done well with them. Smart Energy's flywheel is 4th-generation featuring longer life than batteries, lower-maintenance, higher charge-discharge cycles, higher efficiency and zero emissions. http://beaconpower.com/files/bp_intro.pdf -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com BTW Sodium-Sulfur might have been a better choice for a fixed location, given that both Sodium and Sulphur are common and cheap. Also the weight penalty imposed by the thermal insulation required isn't a problem for a fixed location. (Besides, that weight penalty would be negligible if aerogel is used as the insulator). In reply to Jed Rothwell's message http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/02/beech-ridge-ene rgy-plans-battery-system-at-west-virginia-wind-farm This has to be one of the stupidest possible uses for Lithium batteries, given the scarcity of Lithium. Non-mobile storage facilities don't need high energy density storage. Mobile applications do. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Solar nuclear reactions - was Christopher H. Cooper
Jones: i really appreciate your response. Alas, I do not understand most of it. surprisingly it has not been studied extensively, ***That does not surprise me. On the sun, however, there can be an extremely rare beta decay of the 2He nucleus during its femtosecond of its lifetime - where there is a decay to deuterium instead of the reversal back to 2 protons. That is the start of the solar fusion cycle. When transposed to LENR, ***What I take this to mean is that we know certain things about one science fact, so we project it onto another similar system. So, we know some of the solar fusion cycle, and we project that learning onto LENR. That's probably because all these hot fusion boys haven't bothered to look at how things might actually behave differently in condensed matter as opposed to high gravity plasma. instead energy is derived from spin via the Lamb shift, which is fueled by QCD color charge during the brief instant of binding. Mass of the proton is converted to energy. The average proton can give up about 7 parts per million of its pion mass and retain its identity. Essentially this is the method whereby the Lamb Shift asymmetry can produce small packets of energy sequentially. ***Not that this helps much, but I do not understand this entire paragraph. Starting with QCD, color change, pion mass/retain identity, lamb shift asymmetry, sequential packets of energy. BEC is only involved to the degree that the 2He nucleus, for its femtosecond of lifetime ***Perhaps in Condensed Matter, this time frame is extended? is one of nature's simplest bosons. It is a short term violator of Pauli exclusion because the boson configuration is favored. ***There are many theories of LENR. Most of them suggest that within a condensed matter lattice, some of the previous observations of gaseous fusion are no longer valid. It seems to come up, time and again, that the Pauli exclusion principle is one of those observations which doesn't hold up within condensed matter physics. What do you think? On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Kevin O'Malley ... is reversible fusion really fusion when the fusion bond lasts for only a few femtoseconds? My impression is that this is enough for the Sun to generate photons, Helium, and other stuff. Now, maybe that's only because it is so huge compared to the earth, but it is also gaseous, where we're dealing with condensed matter. Kevin, the detail you may be missing in the solar energy cycle is an important step that only begins with RPF (the diproton reaction) and ends with helium thousands of years later. It is extremely slow. RPF itself is not known to produce significant energy in the Sun, but surprisingly it has not been studied extensively, since it works in a strong gravity field. In fact the diproton reaction could be slightly gainful on the sun and it would never have been noticed. In some forms of LENR there is a substitute gravity field provided by lattice confinement. The slight gain from spin realignment in two protons is called the Lamb shift. This is what is suspected to provide the gain in this form of LENR and it would derive from a reversible fusion reaction. On the sun, however, there can be an extremely rare beta decay of the 2He nucleus during its femtosecond of its lifetime - where there is a decay to deuterium instead of the reversal back to 2 protons. That is the start of the solar fusion cycle. When transposed to LENR, this same reaction seldom goes into beta decay but instead energy is derived from spin via the Lamb shift, which is fueled by QCD color charge during the brief instant of binding. Mass of the proton is converted to energy. The average proton can give up about 7 parts per million of its pion mass and retain its identity. Essentially this is the method whereby the Lamb Shift asymmetry can produce small packets of energy sequentially. Can we not agree that there is a fundamental difference between fusion which is permanent and fusion which is transitory? ***Perhaps that fundamental difference is between gaseous state and solid state... or even the proposed 5th state of matter: BECs. Basically, this is your main statement that I do not understand. The mass which is converted to energy in RPF is bosonic, but a BEC is only involved to the degree that the 2He nucleus, for its femtosecond of lifetime is one of nature's simplest bosons. It is a short term violator of Pauli exclusion because the boson configuration is favored. But the energy released in LENR would happen shortly after the nucleus returns to its identity as two protons, which then experience para - ortho Lamb shift in the lattice as they renormalize. The Lamb shift is usually not considered relevant to LENR since the energy value per instance is very low. I do not think that many theorists have reasoned that a ringing-Lamb-shift which is
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:24 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, if the photons were to be emitted in random directions by the excited He4, then little kinetic energy would be imparted upon the nucleus.I suspect this is what you are referring to. Perhaps; I'm not sure. I had in mind something like this: an excited [dd]* or [pNi]* state is like a capacitor that will discharge. In a vacuum it will discharge either by emitting a gamma, which takes a while, or by breaking apart, which happens more quickly. But at the surface of or within a few layers of a metal like nickel, there is an environment rich in electrostatic charge, provided by the electrons and the lattice sites (sometimes called ion cores, since they're positively charged). If the [pNi]* excited state discharges like a capacitor within this environment with all of the electrostatic charge, I'm assuming there will be electromagnetic coupling between the excited state and the electrostatic sources, in the sense that they will form a system and interact. There will be a strong repulsive force given off by the [pNi]* state as it decays to whatever it decays to (for example, 63Cu), and this repulsive force will push away the nearby electrons and ion cores. The more it pushes away the electrons, the more you'll get a bath of photons. The more it pushes away the ion cores, the more kinetic energy will be imparted to the daughter of the decay. This is because electrons are nearly massless, and so receive the majority of the impulse, while the ion cores have a mass nearly equal to the daughter, and so push back on the resulting daughter much more than the electrons. I am not yet sure how the electromagnetic interaction relates to spin coupling, although I think Bob sees something in this. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is limited to no more than about 10 eV ... Is this the energy required for a dislocation? Wouldn't it be higher? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Battery system for wind farm
Maybe question is not engineering, but subsidies, advertising, ideology, fashion... I see that with companies getting on internet with no vision of what to do there. I should not moan too much, because soon (maybe already) the big guys will go to LENr without much vision of what to do, else be present. 2014-03-07 3:43 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: Lithium really is brain-dead for Wind farm application ... maybe that pathology goes with the territory. Advanced flywheel storage probably makes the most sense. Below is one company that has done well with them. Smart Energy's flywheel is 4th-generation featuring longer life than batteries, lower-maintenance, higher charge-discharge cycles, higher efficiency and zero emissions. http://beaconpower.com/files/bp_intro.pdf -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com BTW Sodium-Sulfur might have been a better choice for a fixed location, given that both Sodium and Sulphur are common and cheap. Also the weight penalty imposed by the thermal insulation required isn't a problem for a fixed location. (Besides, that weight penalty would be negligible if aerogel is used as the insulator). In reply to Jed Rothwell's message http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/02/beech-ridge-ene rgy-plans-battery-system-at-west-virginia-wind-farm This has to be one of the stupidest possible uses for Lithium batteries, given the scarcity of Lithium. Non-mobile storage facilities don't need high energy density storage. Mobile applications do. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
