Re: [Vo]:Electric power less reliable than you might think
IMO the key to all of this is in the anomalies, things not acting in the normal way. LENR works under the rules set forth by quantum mechanics, just like your cell phone. But you do not question how you phone can be so smart; Where does the steam come from to power your phone? Few people understand how their smart phones work, and the get along just fine ... until they get the bill. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Jed is a libertarian. His ideas regarding personal freedom and independence oftentimes conflict with economic priorities that minimize the bottom line in all cases. What might be true for Jed's affluent neighborhood may not apply in meeting the needs of the average Indian or Greek. A builder may reduce cost by supplying a neighborhood based power cooperative or a regional power authority where the grid is not well developed. With LENR, many excellent options can be supported without regard for fuel transport, of waste problems. For example, a village based electrical supply system can be supported in the middle of the African bush without much logistical support; no roads needed. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:33 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: That makes much more sense, but I got the impression Jed has the idea of one in the basement of the average home. The follow up though I have is that if he heat overall does not seem to be sourced entirely from fusion or other nuclear sources, it seems to me that this is another anomaly rich device along with many other FE devices and not genuinely separate field. The thing that other FE devices have in common are... Difficulties with reproducibility Multiple anomalies, LENR has the products of fusion in conditions that should not normally produce fusion and yet the energy output does not seem to be supported fully by fusion. I bet there are other anomalies, but my knowledge and interest in CF/LENR is rather low. IMO the key to all of this is in the anomalies, things not acting in the normal way. John On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: forget Palladium, LENR is not Palladium; When things settle down, maybe nickel, Maybe tungsten, or some other transition metal, maybe iron. There will be intense competition among reactor manufacturers to come up with a market advantage using common and cheap structural materials, that is why Palladium will never happen. A home co-generation system (electric power and heat) would be leased from a provider with the excess power owned by the equipment provider. the most maintenance intensive part of the equipment would be the generator. Most people will not have enough room in their house to support a LENR co-generation system. Many people will still use grid power. LENR will mostly be used to retrofit grid based power plants. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:46 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Jed, I am really curious how you envision a cold fusion on a consumer level to work? Obviously it would need an initial power source to start the reaction, the reaction would generate heat which would need to be converted to electricity with some realistic efficiency level. Then the chemistry of the cell and the electrodes need to be kept healthy, I question how trouble free this would be. Plus if Palladium is used a rare and going to become rarer metal would be used which would impact prices. Does any cold fusion cell yet tried seem to have the plate electrolytic endurance to keep working in anything like a home user would need? How often would someone want to get their cell serviced if it is to be cheaper than regular power? Maybe once a year tops and only if the service isn't too pricey. Additionally explosive events have occurred with blocks, obviously rare, but once there are millions of them even rare events are problematic. Some of these concerns do not apply to Rossi's version of LENR or whatever the actual source of the anomalous energy is (IMO aetheric engineering), but many still would. What kind of LENR device do you think could work for homes, cars, etc... John On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: At this moment there are 8,699 customers without power in Georgia. http://outagemap.georgiapower.com/external/default.html *Active Outages:* 186 *Affected Customers:* 8,699 Since the great 1 blizzard I have been checking periodically. I have seldom seen fewer than 100 customers without power. I do not think it has ever been zero. Small blackouts are often caused by trees and traffic accidents. Augusta continues to suffer more blackouts than other parts of the state. At present it has: *Number of Outages:* 53 *Customers Affected:* 3,373 Even with cold fusion I suppose on any given day in Georgia there will be hundreds of people without power, but as I said before they will be in a
Re: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
Has anyone looked into the details of the global GPS satellite system with regards to how that system does not follow the laws of general and special relativity? On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:24 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:28 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Yes, but you will have fun trying to visualize this with SR. SR assumes that each sees the other as length contracted, as clock A and A' pass an observer on each frame at A and A' would disagree as to how long the other is, and hence both would insist that the other ship is shorter ad view that B and B' are not aligned, but each would disagree as to which was off. Another observer in a neutral frame (both have the same relative velocity to this intermediate frame) would see that they line up just fine! Let's call it relational simultaneity to indicate that it is different from Einstein's relative simultaneity. Since relational simultaneity does not begin with a clock synchronization scheme in a stationary (and isolated) frame of reference we are not beholden to apply the transform rules of the special theory of relativity. This is how SR wins, by making a reality so absurd you get tempted to give up on the while thing as you try to make sense of it's contradictions and paradoxes. Let me Quote Wikipedia: Albert Einstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. In other words a one way speed of light measurement becomes a 2 way speed of light measurement due to the clock sync scheme, and as such it is invalid for measuring a deviation from C, by design it won't. If you measured the speed of sound in a wind tunnel under this scheme you would come to the same conclusion that the speed of sound is not relative to the air. So an honest one way speed of light measurement requires a method of clock synchronization that is nothing like classic clock synchronization methods. Harry On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: John, Einstein's conception of simultaneity follows a procedure. The first step in this procedure is to establish clock synchronization in one frame of reference in isolation from a moving system. However, it occurred to me that this first step is not necessary. Instead it is possible to imagine a method of clock synchronization that requires contact with a moving system. Imagine four clocks which are wound up but not ticking. Two clocks A and B are separated by a given distance in a stationary frame and the other two clocks A' and B' are separated by the same distance in a moving frame aligned along a closely parallel axis. When the pairs of clocks brush past they all start ticking. Harry On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:58 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: I agree that video is not terribly useful. Here is an argument against Einstein's scheme of synchronization. Please correct me if you think I am misrepresenting it. We have 3 points in a straight line labelled A, B and C with an equal distance between B and it's 2 neighbours. A pulse of light from B travels to A and C, A and C are not considered synchronized as far as B is concerned, if they both send a light pulse B will see the light from them at the same moment. Why it is invalid: The method works fine for some purposes, but not for the purpose of seeing if the speed of light is actually C, since the method of setting clocks in sync uses light and includes any delay. Let's say the light too 0.5 seconds to move left from B to A, and 1.5 seconds to move the same distance toward the right from B to C. Now the clock at C would be 1 second out of sync compared to A. Next each sends a light pulse back in this faulty sync scheme idea of the same moment, so light leaves A a second earlier, but now that light takes longer, 1.5 seconds to get to B, but the light from C moving to the left takes only .5 seconds. B sees the light from both at the same time and would conclude the synchronization scheme was sound, and the speed of light was constant. Indeed we could do this test with sound in a wind tunnel, you would end up with silly sync results and the idea that the speed of sound was constant. Other sync methods must be used if the speed of light is to be tested such as testing the speed of light in a Sagnac loop. Light in a Sagnac loop is known to take more or less time as the loop is rotated, the claim of SR is that while the time light takes to make a full loop will vary and even exceed C from the rotating frames perspective, if measured over a portion it will be found to be C under Einstein's methods of synchronization. Well, I do agree, but only because the method entirely unsuited for testing the constancy of the speed of light. If another method is used Relativists
Re: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone looked into the details of the global GPS satellite system with regards to how that system does not follow the laws of general and special relativity? Yes, provided you don't mean personally: http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html What does one of the world's foremost experts on GPS have to say about relativity theory and the Global Positioning System? Ronald R. Hatch is the Director of Navigation Systems at NavCom Technology and a former president of the Institute of Navigation. As he describes in his article for this issue (p. 25, IE #59), GPS simply contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity. His Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge Theory (MLET) has been proposed32 as an alternative to Einstein's relativity. It agrees at first order with relativity but corrects for certain astronomical anomalies not explained by relativity theory. (Also see IE #39, p. 14.) Obtaining the raw data and seeing how it fails to comply to SR would be far beyond my mathematical abilities and probably my raw data acquiring abilities. Apparently the Navy also echos that it does not conform to SR. John On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:24 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:28 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Yes, but you will have fun trying to visualize this with SR. SR assumes that each sees the other as length contracted, as clock A and A' pass an observer on each frame at A and A' would disagree as to how long the other is, and hence both would insist that the other ship is shorter ad view that B and B' are not aligned, but each would disagree as to which was off. Another observer in a neutral frame (both have the same relative velocity to this intermediate frame) would see that they line up just fine! Let's call it relational simultaneity to indicate that it is different from Einstein's relative simultaneity. Since relational simultaneity does not begin with a clock synchronization scheme in a stationary (and isolated) frame of reference we are not beholden to apply the transform rules of the special theory of relativity. This is how SR wins, by making a reality so absurd you get tempted to give up on the while thing as you try to make sense of it's contradictions and paradoxes. Let me Quote Wikipedia: Albert Einstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. In other words a one way speed of light measurement becomes a 2 way speed of light measurement due to the clock sync scheme, and as such it is invalid for measuring a deviation from C, by design it won't. If you measured the speed of sound in a wind tunnel under this scheme you would come to the same conclusion that the speed of sound is not relative to the air. So an honest one way speed of light measurement requires a method of clock synchronization that is nothing like classic clock synchronization methods. Harry On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: John, Einstein's conception of simultaneity follows a procedure. The first step in this procedure is to establish clock synchronization in one frame of reference in isolation from a moving system. However, it occurred to me that this first step is not necessary. Instead it is possible to imagine a method of clock synchronization that requires contact with a moving system. Imagine four clocks which are wound up but not ticking. Two clocks A and B are separated by a given distance in a stationary frame and the other two clocks A' and B' are separated by the same distance in a moving frame aligned along a closely parallel axis. When the pairs of clocks brush past they all start ticking. Harry On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:58 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: I agree that video is not terribly useful. Here is an argument against Einstein's scheme of synchronization. Please correct me if you think I am misrepresenting it. We have 3 points in a straight line labelled A, B and C with an equal distance between B and it's 2 neighbours. A pulse of light from B travels to A and C, A and C are not considered synchronized as far as B is concerned, if they both send a light pulse B will see the light from them at the same moment. Why it is invalid: The method works fine for some purposes, but not for the purpose of seeing if the speed of light is actually C, since the method of setting clocks in sync uses light and includes any delay. Let's say the light too 0.5 seconds to move left from B to A, and 1.5 seconds to move the same distance toward the right from B to C. Now the clock at C would be 1 second out of sync compared to A. Next each sends a light pulse back in this faulty sync scheme idea of the same moment, so light
Re: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
Here is a snippet from the Navy: Quote: In principle, the critics of GPS in the relativity debate have not been completely wrong. The neglected 7 factor could hurt us. The OCS software should be reformulated. Nevertheless, in practice, neglect of relativity does not now contribute measurably to the GPS error budget, as the OCS software is currently configured.
Re: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
http://ivanik3.narod.ru/GPS/Hatch/relGPS.pdf And it is here that the Sagnac effect runs into trouble with the special theory. The special theory by postulate and definition of time synchronization requires that the speed of light always be isotropic with respect to the observer. And this is where the special theory is in error--the Sagnac effect illustrates that error. It maybe that the direction of magnetic filed lines in space time imposed the Sagnac effect On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:30 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone looked into the details of the global GPS satellite system with regards to how that system does not follow the laws of general and special relativity? Yes, provided you don't mean personally: http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html What does one of the world's foremost experts on GPS have to say about relativity theory and the Global Positioning System? Ronald R. Hatch is the Director of Navigation Systems at NavCom Technology and a former president of the Institute of Navigation. As he describes in his article for this issue (p. 25, IE #59), GPS simply contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity. His Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge Theory (MLET) has been proposed32 as an alternative to Einstein's relativity. It agrees at first order with relativity but corrects for certain astronomical anomalies not explained by relativity theory. (Also see IE #39, p. 14.) Obtaining the raw data and seeing how it fails to comply to SR would be far beyond my mathematical abilities and probably my raw data acquiring abilities. Apparently the Navy also echos that it does not conform to SR. John On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:24 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:28 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Yes, but you will have fun trying to visualize this with SR. SR assumes that each sees the other as length contracted, as clock A and A' pass an observer on each frame at A and A' would disagree as to how long the other is, and hence both would insist that the other ship is shorter ad view that B and B' are not aligned, but each would disagree as to which was off. Another observer in a neutral frame (both have the same relative velocity to this intermediate frame) would see that they line up just fine! Let's call it relational simultaneity to indicate that it is different from Einstein's relative simultaneity. Since relational simultaneity does not begin with a clock synchronization scheme in a stationary (and isolated) frame of reference we are not beholden to apply the transform rules of the special theory of relativity. This is how SR wins, by making a reality so absurd you get tempted to give up on the while thing as you try to make sense of it's contradictions and paradoxes. Let me Quote Wikipedia: Albert Einstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. In other words a one way speed of light measurement becomes a 2 way speed of light measurement due to the clock sync scheme, and as such it is invalid for measuring a deviation from C, by design it won't. If you measured the speed of sound in a wind tunnel under this scheme you would come to the same conclusion that the speed of sound is not relative to the air. So an honest one way speed of light measurement requires a method of clock synchronization that is nothing like classic clock synchronization methods. Harry On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: John, Einstein's conception of simultaneity follows a procedure. The first step in this procedure is to establish clock synchronization in one frame of reference in isolation from a moving system. However, it occurred to me that this first step is not necessary. Instead it is possible to imagine a method of clock synchronization that requires contact with a moving system. Imagine four clocks which are wound up but not ticking. Two clocks A and B are separated by a given distance in a stationary frame and the other two clocks A' and B' are separated by the same distance in a moving frame aligned along a closely parallel axis. When the pairs of clocks brush past they all start ticking. Harry On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:58 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: I agree that video is not terribly useful. Here is an argument against Einstein's scheme of synchronization. Please correct me if you think I am misrepresenting it. We have 3 points in a straight line labelled A, B and C with an equal distance between B and it's 2 neighbours. A pulse of light from B travels to A and C, A and C are not considered synchronized as far as B is concerned, if they both send a light
RE: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
I believe that was covered in Galilean Electrodynamics many many years ago. -mark From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:05 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity Has anyone looked into the details of the global GPS satellite system with regards to how that system does not follow the laws of general and special relativity?
[Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Frank Znidarsic suggested I enter this essay contest: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? http://fqxi.org/community/essay Unfortunately, the contest judges are the editors of the Scientific American. I decided I might as well let them know we are still here, so I submitted an essay pointing out their ignorance. Here it is: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Electric power less reliable than you might think
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, I am really curious how you envision a cold fusion on a consumer level to work? See chapter 15 of my book, and the standby generator in chapter 14. Obviously it would need an initial power source to start the reaction . . . I expect that first generation devices will all be plugged into ordinary mains electricity. After that, conventional on board batteries should suffice. . . . the reaction would generate heat which would need to be converted to electricity with some realistic efficiency level. 20 to 30% would be fine. The waste heat will be used for space heating or thermal air conditioning. Then the chemistry of the cell and the electrodes need to be kept healthy, I question how trouble free this would be. After the technology matures it should not be a problem. Plus if Palladium is used a rare and going to become rarer metal would be used which would impact prices. I hope that nickel can be used instead. Palladium could be a major stumbling block. How often would someone want to get their cell serviced if it is to be cheaper than regular power? Maybe once a year tops and only if the service isn't too pricey. I expect that home heating companies, Lowe's, Sears and others who now service heating, air conditioning and high end standby generators will service these. I have a service contract for my house. They come by two or three times a year. Additionally explosive events have occurred with blocks, obviously rare, but once there are millions of them even rare events are problematic. They better find out why this happens before they commercialize the technology! Note, however, that gas fired equipment also causes explosions. Yesterday in New York City two building were leveled in a gas explosion. These things happen fairly often: http://www.naturalgaswatch.org/?cat=8 What kind of LENR device do you think could work for homes, cars, etc... Ultimately, when the technology matures, thermoelectric batteries are the best choice for electric power. No moving parts. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Electric power less reliable than you might think
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Jed is a libertarian. Emphatically not! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Great essay Jed! I hope everyone takes time to read it. Trust me, it is short and to the point. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 9:32 am Subject: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest Frank Znidarsic suggested I enter this essay contest: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? http://fqxi.org/community/essay Unfortunately, the contest judges are the editors of the Scientific American. I decided I might as well let them know we are still here, so I submitted an essay pointing out their ignorance. Here it is: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Jed-- I echo Dave's comment. A follow up on different government actions around the World would be interesting as well--some supportive of Lenr RD, some not so--and reasons for their actions. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest Great essay Jed! I hope everyone takes time to read it. Trust me, it is short and to the point. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 9:32 am Subject: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest Frank Znidarsic suggested I enter this essay contest: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? http://fqxi.org/community/essay Unfortunately, the contest judges are the editors of the Scientific American. I decided I might as well let them know we are still here, so I submitted an essay pointing out their ignorance. Here it is: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Jed, I thought your essay was excellent and have forwarded it to a number of people. My memory tells me the anomalous power found by the Elforsk team was higher than the 578 Watts you quote. I will have to look it up. Adrian Ashfield
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
One of the tragic miscalculations made by spokespersons who attempt to explain 'COLD FUSION' is the subconscious connection that they make between current fusion/fission nuclear based technology and cold fusion. In fact there is no connection. This unfortunate connection between cold fusion and the nuclear industry was mistakenly made very early on and has become a tradition in the cold fusion community. When addressing an audience with no background in cold fusion, it might be best to decuple this technology conceptually from conventional nuclear energy. With this wisdom in mind, Defkalion has again changed the name of their reaction from Heat Energy from Nuclei Interactions To Heat Energy from Nanoplasmonics/Nanoexplosions Interactions The name of our technology should have no links to existing scientific meme to confuse the great unwashed masses being exposed to it for the first time. This inaccurate meme connection through the words we use is unnecessarily counterproductive from a propaganda and product positioning standpoint. Our collective interests might be better served if we conform to the naming conventions that DGT is using whatever it is currently is since Rossi lives in his own anti social world. Low energy Nanoplasmonic reaction LENR might be good to use also. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Frank Znidarsic suggested I enter this essay contest: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? http://fqxi.org/community/essay Unfortunately, the contest judges are the editors of the Scientific American. I decided I might as well let them know we are still here, so I submitted an essay pointing out their ignorance. Here it is: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
What is gained by lying and then using a description that has no relationship to reality? LENR is a nuclear process. It might or it might not have any relationship to plasmonic reactions. The people who make decisions about what to fund are not children and they are not part of the unwashed masses. Playing games with words will not work. It just makes us look dishonest and confused. Ed Storms On Mar 13, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Axil Axil wrote: One of the tragic miscalculations made by spokespersons who attempt to explain ‘COLD FUSION’ is the subconscious connection that they make between current fusion/fission nuclear based technology and cold fusion. In fact there is no connection. This unfortunate connection between cold fusion and the nuclear industry was mistakenly made very early on and has become a tradition in the cold fusion community. When addressing an audience with no background in cold fusion, it might be best to decuple this technology conceptually from conventional nuclear energy. With this wisdom in mind, Defkalion has again changed the name of their reaction from Heat Energy from Nuclei Interactions To Heat Energy from Nanoplasmonics/Nanoexplosions Interactions The name of our technology should have no links to existing scientific meme to confuse the great unwashed masses being exposed to it for the first time. This inaccurate meme connection through the words we use is unnecessarily counterproductive from a propaganda and product positioning standpoint. Our collective interests might be better served if we conform to the naming conventions that DGT is using whatever it is currently is since Rossi lives in his own anti social world. Low energy Nanoplasmonic reaction LENR might be good to use also. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Frank Znidarsic suggested I enter this essay contest: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? http://fqxi.org/community/essay Unfortunately, the contest judges are the editors of the Scientific American. I decided I might as well let them know we are still here, so I submitted an essay pointing out their ignorance. Here it is: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Cold fusion does not produce carbon dioxide or any other chemical product, so it would eliminate the source of global warming. Should read Cold fusion does not produce carbon dioxide or any other chemical product, so it would eliminate the source both water pollution and global warming. Furthermore, it uses no nuclear active substances and produces no unstable nuclear byproducts that we usually call nuclear waste. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Frank Znidarsic suggested I enter this essay contest: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? http://fqxi.org/community/essay Unfortunately, the contest judges are the editors of the Scientific American. I decided I might as well let them know we are still here, so I submitted an essay pointing out their ignorance. Here it is: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Jed, I agree with David at al. Great essay. Like most that it is presenting the possibilities while discussing the 'baggage' (1989) and the current obstacles less. I hope you win:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Frank Znidarsic suggested I enter this essay contest: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? http://fqxi.org/community/essay Unfortunately, the contest judges are the editors of the Scientific American. I decided I might as well let them know we are still here, so I submitted an essay pointing out their ignorance. Here it is: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: What is gained by lying and then using a description that has no relationship to reality? LENR is a nuclear process. It might or it might not have any relationship to plasmonic reactions. The people who make decisions about what to fund are not children . . . I agree. Plus, cold fusion might produce tritium or other radioactive products, so it may actually have some problems with safety and disposal. On the other hand, Axil has a point when he says the public is frighted by nuclear power, and the association will be a problem. Someone responded to my essay with this comment: All technology is destructive of natural resources. An overwhelming amount of radio-active material would come into existence long before one of your fission power stations could be brought on line. This person did not read the essay carefully and does not understand the difference between fission and fusion. Anyway, we will have to deal with people like him, who react in this fashion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Cold fusion does not produce carbon dioxide or any other chemical product, so it would eliminate the source of global warming. Should read Cold fusion does not produce carbon dioxide . . . The essay is limited to 9 pages plus 2 pages of references. I could not say much. In an essay of this nature, it is a good idea to boil things down and keep the number of pages low. People will not read it otherwise. It is good to be succinct. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: What is gained by lying and then using a description that has no relationship to reality? LENR is a nuclear process. LENR may be a vacuum energy based process which produce reaction products similar to neutron mediated nuclear processes. Similar reaction product production does not imply that these two processes are the same thing causatively. It might or it might not have any relationship to plasmonic reactions. This is true, but only plasmonic reaction based processes will be viable in marketplace. We should discount the other marginal reactions and concentrate on the most robust reaction mechanism. Any reaction that produces tritium is not consistent with JED's write-up and is commercially and practically a non-starter. The NiH nanoplasmonic reaction does not produce tritium. This propensity to produce tritium is another reason to discard the other useless reactions. The people who make decisions about what to fund are not children and they are not part of the unwashed masses. This is why the real cause of LENR must be recognized and not have incomplete theory confuse decision makers. Playing games with words will not work. It just makes us look dishonest and confused. Understanding the fundamental cause of LENR is honest and using words that properly describe LENR fundamental is wise.
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Ed and Axil-- Funding for RD comes from one source and funds for commercial sales comes from the masses. Cold Fusion was a term that Jones used before PF used it to describe their results. Apparently they thought it was a reasonably accurate term. I tend to agree with the original term. It might make more sense however, if funding is a driver of the semantics, to come up with something from mythology or at least get some religious overtone into the appropriate term--maybe miraculously friendly cold fusion--MFCF. That way a big group of religious believers may give their approval. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest What is gained by lying and then using a description that has no relationship to reality? LENR is a nuclear process. It might or it might not have any relationship to plasmonic reactions. The people who make decisions about what to fund are not children and they are not part of the unwashed masses. Playing games with words will not work. It just makes us look dishonest and confused. Ed Storms On Mar 13, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Axil Axil wrote: One of the tragic miscalculations made by spokespersons who attempt to explain ‘COLD FUSION’ is the subconscious connection that they make between current fusion/fission nuclear based technology and cold fusion. In fact there is no connection. This unfortunate connection between cold fusion and the nuclear industry was mistakenly made very early on and has become a tradition in the cold fusion community. When addressing an audience with no background in cold fusion, it might be best to decuple this technology conceptually from conventional nuclear energy. With this wisdom in mind, Defkalion has again changed the name of their reaction from Heat Energy from Nuclei Interactions To Heat Energy from Nanoplasmonics/Nanoexplosions Interactions The name of our technology should have no links to existing scientific meme to confuse the great unwashed masses being exposed to it for the first time. This inaccurate meme connection through the words we use is unnecessarily counterproductive from a propaganda and product positioning standpoint. Our collective interests might be better served if we conform to the naming conventions that DGT is using whatever it is currently is since Rossi lives in his own anti social world. Low energy Nanoplasmonic reaction LENR might be good to use also. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Frank Znidarsic suggested I enter this essay contest: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? http://fqxi.org/community/essay Unfortunately, the contest judges are the editors of the Scientific American. I decided I might as well let them know we are still here, so I submitted an essay pointing out their ignorance. Here it is: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 - Jed
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
I like Low Energy nanoplasmonic reaction.. no need to change the acronym and decouples nicely from fusion [and gives those of us with ZPE perspectives a toehold ] From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:31 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest One of the tragic miscalculations made by spokespersons who attempt to explain 'COLD FUSION' is the subconscious connection that they make between current fusion/fission nuclear based technology and cold fusion. In fact there is no connection. This unfortunate connection between cold fusion and the nuclear industry was mistakenly made very early on and has become a tradition in the cold fusion community. When addressing an audience with no background in cold fusion, it might be best to decuple this technology conceptually from conventional nuclear energy. With this wisdom in mind, Defkalion has again changed the name of their reaction from Heat Energy from Nuclei Interactions To Heat Energy from Nanoplasmonics/Nanoexplosions Interactions The name of our technology should have no links to existing scientific meme to confuse the great unwashed masses being exposed to it for the first time. This inaccurate meme connection through the words we use is unnecessarily counterproductive from a propaganda and product positioning standpoint. Our collective interests might be better served if we conform to the naming conventions that DGT is using whatever it is currently is since Rossi lives in his own anti social world. Low energy Nanoplasmonic reaction LENR might be good to use also. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.commailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Frank Znidarsic suggested I enter this essay contest: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? http://fqxi.org/community/essay Unfortunately, the contest judges are the editors of the Scientific American. I decided I might as well let them know we are still here, so I submitted an essay pointing out their ignorance. Here it is: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
I would advise changing the wording of this section From: Cold fusion would enhance energy intensive, automated, advanced recycling techniques. One such technique is to mix waste materials with molten steel in a sealed container. Most of the waste is converted into useful raw material. None of it escapes into the environment. This has been developed but it is uneconomical, partly because of the high cost of energy. It could be used to safely recycle toxic chemical waste from superfundsites. Eventually, it could eliminate most landfills. To: LENR can eliminate mixed waste materials through the process of both molecular and atomic rearmament. Value added raw materials like rare earths and precious metals can be transmuted from common waste streams. Note: The word count was cut in half. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Cold fusion does not produce carbon dioxide or any other chemical product, so it would eliminate the source of global warming. Should read Cold fusion does not produce carbon dioxide . . . The essay is limited to 9 pages plus 2 pages of references. I could not say much. In an essay of this nature, it is a good idea to boil things down and keep the number of pages low. People will not read it otherwise. It is good to be succinct. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Excellent essay, Jed. All of us vorts should log in and rate it, give it a leg up. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31422 On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Frank Znidarsic suggested I enter this essay contest: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? http://fqxi.org/community/essay Unfortunately, the contest judges are the editors of the Scientific American. I decided I might as well let them know we are still here, so I submitted an essay pointing out their ignorance. Here it is: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I would advise changing the wording of this section . . . Actually, I do not think I can change it. There is no procedure for that. This is not going to win any prizes so it is not important. The judges from Scientific American will glance at the title and dismiss it. I expect they will never even read the part where I take them to task. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Electric power less reliable than you might think
As I said, I suppose first-generation cold fusion electric generators will resemble today's standby generators or solar installations. I do not know much about either of them. Perhaps AlanG can tell us about the costs and problems with solar installations, with inverters and so on. This is only speculation but -- I suppose that first-generation devices will have moving parts. Perhaps they will be steam turbines. You need electricity all the time. Even in the middle of the night there are electric clocks, and parasitic demand from power supplies. You probably would not want a mechanical generator to run continuously. I suppose that a continuous duty cycle would cause the machine to wear out quickly. I can think of two ways to avoid this: 1. With a battery pack such as some solar installations use. That sounds expensive. 2. By using mains electricity below a certain threshold. For example you might set the machine to stay in standby mode until your household demand exceeds 1 kW. Your generator turns on and produces enough for your house, plus extra power which it feeds power back to the power company to reduce the power company bill. If total demand exceeds the capacity of your generator, you use more mains electricity. I do not know what a first generation machine might cost. I'm guessing something like $15,000 to $20,000. I base this on the cost of standby generators, and full-time generators used in remote locations. I am assuming the cold fusion device will operate with nickel which will make it cheap once mass production begins and competition begins. I do not know what the cost of inverters and the gadgets needed to feed power back to the electric company cost. Portable generators have only about a 2,000 hour lifespan. 20 kW standby generators cost only about $4,500. I doubt they would last long with continuous duty. I have not found any information on a full-time remote generator. There probably is not much of a market for that. I am assuming this would be a cogenerator, so it would reduce your equipment expenses somewhat. You do not have to pay for a space heating furnace which costs $1,000. This would save a great deal on your natural gas bill. In the distant future, I presume that thermoelectric devices will be perfected. Since they have no moving parts and will be no harm in leaving them online all the time with a constant duty cycle. By the time this happens the power companies will be out of business. Also, by this time, most large appliances will be self-powered, many of them directly with cold fusion heat, such as thermal refrigerators and air conditioners. Arthur Clarke suggested that with cold fusion stand-alone generators, and no connection to the power company, it would be safer to use DC rather than AC in the house. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Yes, winning a prize will not happen, but the writeup is public and can be inspected by all and sundry. You can never tell what strange processes that the writeup will activate in the mind of an influential party. Such a writeup should be improved over time and used a raw material or boilerplate for other public discourse opportunities. The document should be made as fine as possible so that its future use be it either in full or in part be it by you or someone else should be made as effective as possible to advance the prospects for LENR now and into the future. The comments and criticism that we impose on each other here at vortex most often lead us to a better place and prepare us for the future coming public discourse. Here in these most friendly confines, its the ideas that are ravaged not the originators of those ideas. We all hold the upmost respect and admiration for this period of protected spring training to prepare us for the regular season that is so very close at hand. We all swing and miss or get blasted over the center field wall. But it is all done within the warm and friendly confines of the same team. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I would advise changing the wording of this section . . . Actually, I do not think I can change it. There is no procedure for that. This is not going to win any prizes so it is not important. The judges from Scientific American will glance at the title and dismiss it. I expect they will never even read the part where I take them to task. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Jed wrote: | I submitted an essay. Here it is: | | http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 FYI (minor concern): If anyone tries to PRINT Jed’s PDF in this referenced link and has an old PS Printer, Page 7 might give you an “invalidfont” problem. This is mainly due to an issue with older PS Interpreters (Level 3, but circa 2002ish). Instead of placing a link here to a modified version of the PDF, I would be happy to E-Mail Jed the PDF for distribution so that he may keep track of how widespread this issue might be. I get around the problem by isolating Page 7, creating PS Level 2 Code, then distilling the PS for the page back to a PDF. I then recreate a modified PDF by replacing Page 7. This results in a slightly larger PDF (141 KB). There are many other ways to work around the issue, but I find that this is the best way to do it. ... There are very few practical ways to avoid the issue at the creation level, short of avoiding special fonts and changing the “look” of the document, but I would be happy to elaborate further on the problem if anyone is interested. - Mark Jurich
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
PS? Postscript? Such things still exist?
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: PS? Postscript? Such things still exist? Gad. Maybe they did some sort of conversion to PS and then back to Acrobat. The file size is the same as the one I submitted . . . Anyway, I just now tried printing p. 7 on line and in a copy I downloaded. I had no trouble. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: FQXi essay contest
Terry wrote: | PS? Postscript? Such things still exist? lol ... Yes, in more ways than you might think ... PDFs are essentially embedded PostScript (PS) Code, placed into this new format. Somewhere the code must be translated to something that a printer might understand ... Early on, the PS Interpreter was placed inside the printer (as FirmWare) and given a brain (processor) to translate the code. This is still a very good way to handle printing in a large, shared environment; the PS/PDF is rather small in size to a rasterized image of a printable page (especially when only text is involved), so the transfer via the network is smaller. And the processor in the printer handles all the CPU Intensive stuff and not your computer... Nowadays, many of us have our own local printer and plenty of CPU Power, so the rasterization done locally in software isn't an issue anymore. But the top- of-the-line printers cost money and people end up sharing the resource. There are now even PDF Printers on the market that handle the PDF Document, locally. - Mark Jurich
Re: [Vo]:Electric power less reliable than you might think
Regarding my Photo Voltaic system, the total material cost was nearly $20k, and I did the install myself. I received a subsidy of almost $10k from the California Renewables program. This subsidy is still available but at a reduced level of around 25%. My remaining cost was a deductible business expense since I'm self employed as a systems engineer. So my actual out-of-pocket cost was around $6k. My panels are polycrystalline silicon and have an expected lifespan of 20 years. They degrade over time and the expected output at eol will be around 60%. So I expect a cumulative yield of around 70 mwh. The base cost of power produced would therefore be around $.29/kwh. With the various subsidies it's less than $.09/kwh. Even without the subsidy, the cost is better than my local peak summer rate of $.33 to $.56 (depending on usage tier). In fact, from May to September my electric bill is typically negative, and my average cost for power is around $35/month ($400 billed annually). Inverters are required to have a 5 year warranty and initial reliability (2003) was questionable. After one free replacement in 2004 my Xantrex ST2500 has been solid. The system is wired with 8 gauge TW copper, about 50 feet per panel (7 amp peak current). Recent inverter designs are all high-voltage series wired to reduce wire costs and bulk. So if my inverter needs replacing I will have to rewire my panels from parallel 48v to series string 300vdc. Best done at night I suppose One final comment on CF for domestic electricity. It seems to me that the most promising solution currently known is direct thermionic conversion. There's some interesting work being done, with conversion efficiency slowly creeping up. One in particular that got my attention is PowerChips: http://www.avtometals.com/press/AvtoMetals_pr20131118_globenewswire-print.pdf Alan Goldwater On 3/13/2014 12:40 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: As I said, I suppose first-generation cold fusion electric generators will resemble today's standby generators or solar installations. I do not know much about either of them. Perhaps AlanG can tell us about the costs and problems with solar installations, with inverters and so on.
Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks
In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 12 Mar 2014 17:16:06 -0400: Hi Harry, [snip] When grains made of long chain molecules rub against one another molecules can be broken (this should happen with some plastics too). When a molecule breaks, it can either form two neutral molecules, or a pair of ions. The latter constitute opposing charges on two separate grains (each gets part of the original molecule). Breaking into two charged ions may be more likely in molecules containing atoms such as Oxygen which tend to hold onto excess electrons, thus retaining a negative charge. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Here is another story about the same research. Apparently they detected the same effect with glass particles. http://www.livescience.com/43686-earthquake-lights-possible-cause.html If ions are formed in the way you describe wouldn't these microscopic charge differences tend to cancel out at the macroscopic level? Harry Yes, I would think so. That's the flaw in my theory. When two different substances rub together, one will probably have a greater electron affinity than the other, which would explain bulk polarization of charge, however the same can't be said for a single substance. I guess that's why they are so puzzled. Now I am too. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Electric power less reliable than you might think
AlanG a...@magicsound.us wrote: Inverters are required to have a 5 year warranty and initial reliability (2003) was questionable. After one free replacement in 2004 my Xantrex ST2500 has been solid. . . . How much does the inverter cost? Let me put it this way: How much does everything but the PV cell array cost? Pretend you substitute a cold fusion generator for the PV cell array. What else do you need, and what does it cost? One final comment on CF for domestic electricity. It seems to me that the most promising solution currently known is direct thermionic conversion. That is similar to thermoelectric conversion. Thermionic devices work at higher temperatures. I have heard they are used with gas flames and even wood fires in Russia. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks
I wonder if the fact that a different charge appears on the first separating grains which then biases the process to enhance that effect. I always seek out positive feedback mechanisms and this might be another. Something of this nature could make sense since the particles with the initial charge impacts other particles nearest to them greater than those at a distance. It would be interesting to determine what characteristics are common to the powders most active. Do they polarize easily? Is the dielectric constant the most important parameter? Of course conductive particles could not behave this way since the charges would leak off. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 4:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 12 Mar 2014 17:16:06 -0400: Hi Harry, [snip] When grains made of long chain molecules rub against one another molecules can be broken (this should happen with some plastics too). When a molecule breaks, it can either form two neutral molecules, or a pair of ions. The latter constitute opposing charges on two separate grains (each gets part of the original molecule). Breaking into two charged ions may be more likely in molecules containing atoms such as Oxygen which tend to hold onto excess electrons, thus retaining a negative charge. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Here is another story about the same research. Apparently they detected the same effect with glass particles. http://www.livescience.com/43686-earthquake-lights-possible-cause.html If ions are formed in the way you describe wouldn't these microscopic charge differences tend to cancel out at the macroscopic level? Harry Yes, I would think so. That's the flaw in my theory. When two different substances rub together, one will probably have a greater electron affinity than the other, which would explain bulk polarization of charge, however the same can't be said for a single substance. I guess that's why they are so puzzled. Now I am too. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
Jed: I liked your essay so much that I submitted my own. Basically a rehash of the LENR X Prize Proposal. I don't write as well as you, so you will likely have a much higher chance of winning. best regards Kevin O On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Frank Znidarsic suggested I enter this essay contest: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? http://fqxi.org/community/essay Unfortunately, the contest judges are the editors of the Scientific American. I decided I might as well let them know we are still here, so I submitted an essay pointing out their ignorance. Here it is: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks
Hi Mark I beleive that there are two or three closely connected effects that can be seen within Jerrys EZ work. The core effect is that water close to a charged surface has a slightly different structure, one of the characteristics od this water is that it excludes stuff, small particles, dye, and even protons, which is why the water slightly further away is acidic. You are right that this region can be 'pumped' by IR and will grow as a result, but it will exist even in a system in total thermal equilibrium. We also know that water at a surface has a similar property, and I beleive that this is why you get charge separation associated with rain drops, and I think that this is why a recent paper appears to have shown that it is water adsorbed on a surface that is key to the generation of static electricity when you rub things together http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/1/2/10.1063/1.3592522 My hunch that it is the water adsorbed onto the surface of the flour granuals that is key to understanding how the charge separation occurs in the flour experiment. Nigel On 11/03/2014 01:50, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Hi Nigel, Perhaps they've made progress in the past 20 years! I did my MS in the late 80s. I am familiar with Pollack's work, but didn't they determine that the energy for this Exclusion Zone (EZ) next to an interface was due to in-coming photons (i.e., light)??? Not sure if it was IR or UV. I vaguely remember something said about this because it would have very significant ramifications for biology (living systems). That EZ represents a 'battery' which is constantly in a state of charge so long as there is light... when they cut off the light in their test system, the EZ began to break down. Am I remembering this right? Thanks for chiming in! -Mark *From:*Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk] *Sent:* Monday, March 10, 2014 4:41 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks I think there is a link. I think that one of the simplest interpretations of Jerry Pollacks work is that in certain circumstances water holds lightly to its protons, and will loose them leaving a region of negatively charged (but not alkalie) water. This can happen with water adsorbed on a surface, and you get static electricity. It can happen with suspended water droplets, and can result in negatively charged water droplets leaving charged protons behind, resulting in large potential differences in clouds. No reason to expect excess heat in any of this, just different ways of using work energy to create charge separation. Nigel On 10/03/2014 03:02, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Did my master's thesis under Dr. James Telford, atmospheric physicist, and expert in cloud microphysics. One of Telford's areas of interest was cloud electrification, which, at the time, was still not clearly explained. My thesis redesigned a novel airborne electric field measuring device which he and Dr. Peter Wagner had developed. One hypothesis about cloud electrification had to do with the collision of droplets inside the cloud causing a transfer of electrical charge, but that was only one of several hypotheses. When I read the article on the electrification of the powder, I immediately thought that the mechanism could be related... -Mark Iverson *From:*Blaze Spinnaker [mailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2014 7:53 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks Axil, I don't get it. Why not optimize this for power generation? Find a way to generate cracks in a nano material with a small amount of electricity. Presumably there is an optimal material, shape, context in terms of gases present that causes this, and a better method than just 'shifting a Tupperware container' This sounds like a revolutionary news article where the main stream press and a good university (Rutgers) is coming to terms with the reality something is happening there. My only question, is that is voltage being reported. What was the excess thermal heat? Going to email them. On Saturday, March 8, 2014, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com mailto:janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26462348 LENR has been talking about this for some time now.
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks
But conductive particles do manipulate hall effect and suppression so this could be an effect on the ambient trapped gases between the dynamic spacing of the grains.. would be very interest if the voltage forms in a vacuum. From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 5:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks I wonder if the fact that a different charge appears on the first separating grains which then biases the process to enhance that effect. I always seek out positive feedback mechanisms and this might be another. Something of this nature could make sense since the particles with the initial charge impacts other particles nearest to them greater than those at a distance. It would be interesting to determine what characteristics are common to the powders most active. Do they polarize easily? Is the dielectric constant the most important parameter? Of course conductive particles could not behave this way since the charges would leak off. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.commailto:mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 4:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 12 Mar 2014 17:16:06 -0400: Hi Harry, [snip] When grains made of long chain molecules rub against one another molecules can be broken (this should happen with some plastics too). When a molecule breaks, it can either form two neutral molecules, or a pair of ions. The latter constitute opposing charges on two separate grains (each gets part of the original molecule). Breaking into two charged ions may be more likely in molecules containing atoms such as Oxygen which tend to hold onto excess electrons, thus retaining a negative charge. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Here is another story about the same research. Apparently they detected the same effect with glass particles. http://www.livescience.com/43686-earthquake-lights-possible-cause.html If ions are formed in the way you describe wouldn't these microscopic charge differences tend to cancel out at the macroscopic level? Harry Yes, I would think so. That's the flaw in my theory. When two different substances rub together, one will probably have a greater electron affinity than the other, which would explain bulk polarization of charge, however the same can't be said for a single substance. I guess that's why they are so puzzled. Now I am too. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:thermoelectric conversion
For thermoelectric conversion, I would estimate that Nantenna technology would be a good first step in converting x-rays to DC power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantenna In the DGT reactor, there is a nickel foam support the is in the zone for maximum x-ray production. This foam can support 1 to 2 nanometer nantenna structures imbedded in the foam fibers that can receive this x-ray radiation and convert it to DC current. The nickel fibers can also support the DC current transport network to the outside of the reactor. The individual nantenna could be fashioned as a wide band fractal EMF antenna nanostructure with a maximum performance range for receiving x-rays in the wavelength size range that corresponds to the NAE. Because of the high energy content of x-rays and their corresponding blackbody temperature association, high Carnot efficiency in the 90% range might be possible.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks
Now you have me wondering how an external magnetic field would influence the process, especially when using conductive particles. IIRC somewhere I read about moon dust floating above the surface under certain conditions. Could that be related to a similar process? Here I am not referring to magnetic effects. Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 6:01 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks But conductive particles do manipulate hall effect and suppression so this could be an effect on the ambient trapped gases between the dynamic spacing of the grains.. would be very interest if the voltage forms in a vacuum. From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 5:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks I wonder if the fact that a different charge appears on the first separating grains which then biases the process to enhance that effect. I always seek out positive feedback mechanisms and this might be another. Something of this nature could make sense since the particles with the initial charge impacts other particles nearest to them greater than those at a distance. It would be interesting to determine what characteristics are common to the powders most active. Do they polarize easily? Is the dielectric constant the most important parameter? Of course conductive particles could not behave this way since the charges would leak off. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 4:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 12 Mar 2014 17:16:06 -0400: Hi Harry, [snip] When grains made of long chain molecules rub against one another molecules can be broken (this should happen with some plastics too). When a molecule breaks, it can either form two neutral molecules, or a pair of ions. The latter constitute opposing charges on two separate grains (each gets part of the original molecule). Breaking into two charged ions may be more likely in molecules containing atoms such as Oxygen which tend to hold onto excess electrons, thus retaining a negative charge. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Here is another story about the same research. Apparently they detected the same effect with glass particles. http://www.livescience.com/43686-earthquake-lights-possible-cause.html If ions are formed in the way you describe wouldn't these microscopic charge differences tend to cancel out at the macroscopic level? Harry Yes, I would think so. That's the flaw in my theory. When two different substances rub together, one will probably have a greater electron affinity than the other, which would explain bulk polarization of charge, however the same can't be said for a single substance. I guess that's why they are so puzzled. Now I am too. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks
I wonder if the interaction between the flour and the container produces an voltage gradient at the surface which then provides the bias (symmetry breaking) that catalysies the creation of the formation of a macroscopic voltage gradient. I have mentioned Jerry Pollacks work in another reply on this thread. The action of a surface as an initial catylyst would mirror the way that significant potential gradiants (100s of mV not many volts however) can build up in water as a result of surface charge at the boundary. Nigel. On 13/03/2014 21:18, David Roberson wrote: I wonder if the fact that a different charge appears on the first separating grains which then biases the process to enhance that effect. I always seek out positive feedback mechanisms and this might be another. Something of this nature could make sense since the particles with the initial charge impacts other particles nearest to them greater than those at a distance. It would be interesting to determine what characteristics are common to the powders most active. Do they polarize easily? Is the dielectric constant the most important parameter? Of course conductive particles could not behave this way since the charges would leak off. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 4:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:unknown mechanism generates voltage in the powder cracks In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 12 Mar 2014 17:16:06 -0400: Hi Harry, [snip] When grains made of long chain molecules rub against one another molecules can be broken (this should happen with some plastics too). When a molecule breaks, it can either form two neutral molecules, or a pair of ions. The latter constitute opposing charges on two separate grains (each gets part of the original molecule). Breaking into two charged ions may be more likely in molecules containing atoms such as Oxygen which tend to hold onto excess electrons, thus retaining a negative charge. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Here is another story about the same research. Apparently they detected the same effect with glass particles. http://www.livescience.com/43686-earthquake-lights-possible-cause.html If ions are formed in the way you describe wouldn't these microscopic charge differences tend to cancel out at the macroscopic level? Harry Yes, I would think so. That's the flaw in my theory. When two different substances rub together, one will probably have a greater electron affinity than the other, which would explain bulk polarization of charge, however the same can't be said for a single substance. I guess that's why they are so puzzled. Now I am too. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
The other essays are far out: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31422 This reminds me of the time I wandered into at DragonCon convention wearing a suit and tie. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
It strikes me that as so many LENR researchers tried to scale up their results, they have failed. That would seem to suggest that higher temperatures kill the LENR effect, which favors BEC formation theories. \\\ On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Jones: Using your later input, how about the 1DLEC, pronounced OneDellECK. 1 Dimensional Luttinger Electron Condensate On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Kevin O'Malley What I call the Vibrating 1Dimensional Luttinger Liquid Bose-Einstein Condensate , the V1DLLBEC. We gotta think up a better name, especially if it will include solids.
Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
Most LENR researchers use static NAE in their systems. Examples of static NAE are those cracks produced hydrogen loading. When NAE hot spots are produced through a dynamic mechanism as they are required to keep the reaction going. NAE destruction does not kill the reaction over time. In a dynamic NAE system, NAE creation exactly matches NAE destruction. In more advanced systems capable of producing NAEs as an ongoing process, computer automation control can signal when NAEs are reduced in numbers below reaction specification and a activation of a plasma based dust production process rebuilds the NAE population. Think of NAE's as lumps of coal fed into a coal fire by a temperature controlled stoker. Lowering temperatures cause a thermostatic process to fed more coal lumps into the coal fire. Such a dynamic NAE system can run for years without degradation in performance. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: It strikes me that as so many LENR researchers tried to scale up their results, they have failed. That would seem to suggest that higher temperatures kill the LENR effect, which favors BEC formation theories. \\\ On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Jones: Using your later input, how about the 1DLEC, pronounced OneDellECK. 1 Dimensional Luttinger Electron Condensate On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Kevin O'Malley What I call the Vibrating 1Dimensional Luttinger Liquid Bose-Einstein Condensate , the V1DLLBEC. We gotta think up a better name, especially if it will include solids.
Re: [Vo]:FQXi essay contest
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com This reminds me of the time I wandered into at DragonCon convention wearing a suit and tie. You could have been Clark Kent.
Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
Axil-- It seems clear that the NAE in a good, long term energy producer must be a dynamic system with feed back to automatically control reaction rates. Much like in a fission reactor where the population of neutrons increases or decreases inversely with temperature thereby controlling fissions and heat without large internal temperature variations. For the formation of BEC of Cooper pairs temperature AND magnetic field are probably pertinent parameters. The same is probably true for proton pairs. In addition the frequency and polarization of oscillating magnetic fields may be important. The geometry of the NAE is also likely to effect the production of paring, however, controlling the geometry may not be in the cards. You take what you get or engineer a stable fixed design. Rossi probably has done this engineering of the geometry of the NAE in his system. As we have conjectured in the past, 1 or 2 dimensional structures are probably better to encourage pairing and NAE. I doubt the computer automation would be fast enough to control the stable production of NAE. I think it must be an inherent feed back mechanism for adequate control with steady temperatures. As we have discussed in the past, local changes of the magnetic field may be the controlling parameter. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 6:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current Most LENR researchers use static NAE in their systems. Examples of static NAE are those cracks produced hydrogen loading. When NAE hot spots are produced through a dynamic mechanism as they are required to keep the reaction going. NAE destruction does not kill the reaction over time. In a dynamic NAE system, NAE creation exactly matches NAE destruction. In more advanced systems capable of producing NAEs as an ongoing process, computer automation control can signal when NAEs are reduced in numbers below reaction specification and a activation of a plasma based dust production process rebuilds the NAE population. Think of NAE's as lumps of coal fed into a coal fire by a temperature controlled stoker. Lowering temperatures cause a thermostatic process to fed more coal lumps into the coal fire. Such a dynamic NAE system can run for years without degradation in performance. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: It strikes me that as so many LENR researchers tried to scale up their results, they have failed. That would seem to suggest that higher temperatures kill the LENR effect, which favors BEC formation theories. \\\ On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Jones: Using your later input, how about the 1DLEC, pronounced OneDellECK. 1 Dimensional Luttinger Electron Condensate On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Kevin O'Malley What I call the Vibrating 1Dimensional Luttinger Liquid Bose-Einstein Condensate , the V1DLLBEC. We gotta think up a better name, especially if it will include solids.
Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current
There is a temperature sensitive chemical reaction component to all this. A chemical hydride reacts to temperature to increase or decrease the release and absorption of gaseous hydrogen from the solid form which modifies hydrogen pressure. To regulate temperature stability, the hydrogen pressure should go up when the temperature goes up. Too much hydrogen pressure must slow the reaction. Hydrogen pressure is another temperature controlling parameter. But when the reactor cools completely, all hydrogen should return to the solid state. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- It seems clear that the NAE in a good, long term energy producer must be a dynamic system with feed back to automatically control reaction rates. Much like in a fission reactor where the population of neutrons increases or decreases inversely with temperature thereby controlling fissions and heat without large internal temperature variations. For the formation of BEC of Cooper pairs temperature AND magnetic field are probably pertinent parameters. The same is probably true for proton pairs. In addition the frequency and polarization of oscillating magnetic fields may be important. The geometry of the NAE is also likely to effect the production of paring, however, controlling the geometry may not be in the cards. You take what you get or engineer a stable fixed design. Rossi probably has done this engineering of the geometry of the NAE in his system. As we have conjectured in the past, 1 or 2 dimensional structures are probably better to encourage pairing and NAE. I doubt the computer automation would be fast enough to control the stable production of NAE. I think it must be an inherent feed back mechanism for adequate control with steady temperatures. As we have discussed in the past, local changes of the magnetic field may be the controlling parameter. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 13, 2014 6:54 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current Most LENR researchers use static NAE in their systems. Examples of static NAE are those cracks produced hydrogen loading. When NAE hot spots are produced through a dynamic mechanism as they are required to keep the reaction going. NAE destruction does not kill the reaction over time. In a dynamic NAE system, NAE creation exactly matches NAE destruction. In more advanced systems capable of producing NAEs as an ongoing process, computer automation control can signal when NAEs are reduced in numbers below reaction specification and a activation of a plasma based dust production process rebuilds the NAE population. Think of NAE's as lumps of coal fed into a coal fire by a temperature controlled stoker. Lowering temperatures cause a thermostatic process to fed more coal lumps into the coal fire. Such a dynamic NAE system can run for years without degradation in performance. On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: It strikes me that as so many LENR researchers tried to scale up their results, they have failed. That would seem to suggest that higher temperatures kill the LENR effect, which favors BEC formation theories. \\\ On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Jones: Using your later input, how about the 1DLEC, pronounced OneDellECK. 1 Dimensional Luttinger Electron Condensate On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Kevin O'Malley What I call the Vibrating 1Dimensional Luttinger Liquid Bose-Einstein Condensate , the V1DLLBEC. We gotta think up a better name, especially if it will include solids.
[Vo]:Of Cold Fusion and Catalytic Converters...
FYI fellow Vorts: Grain of salt required? http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Justin_Church's_H-Cat This is an open source design that involves venting hydroxy or HHO gas UN-ignited -- through a catalytic converter (the kind used in automobiles) -- in ambient conditions -- and generating significant heat in the process. For example, Justin recently sustained around 900 ºF (482 ºC) for nearly 8 hours using around 200 Watts to run his HHO device generating about 1 L per minute. He says it isn't hard to exceed the 1200 ºF limit of his meter, measuring the inside temperature. Youtube channel is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/jdcproducts/videos?flow=grid http://www.youtube.com/user/jdcproducts/videos?flow=gridview=0 view=0 -Mark
