Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an explanation of cold fusion: ***Also perhaps here. New Journal of Physics http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/ Volume 10 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10 April 2008 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4 R Citro *et al* 2008 *New J. Phys.* *10* 045011 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011 Luttinger hydrodynamics of confined one-dimensional Bose gases with dipolar interactions Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored Matterhttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045001 R Citro1, S De Palo2, E Orignac3, P Pedri4,5 and M-L Chiofalo6 Show affiliationshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011?v_showaffiliations=yes Tag this articlehttps://ticket.iop.org/login?return=http%3A%2F%2Fiopscience.iop.org%2FtagInputWindow%3FarticleId%3D1367-2630%2F10%2F4%2F045011%26returnUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fiopscience.iop.org%252F1367-2630%252F10%252F4%252F045011%26fromUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fiopscience.iop.org%252F1367-2630%252F10%252F4%252F045011 PDF (862 KB)http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/pdf/1367-2630_10_4_045011.pdf View article http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/fulltext Abstract http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011 Referenceshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/refs Cited By http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/cites Metricshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/metrics Part of Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored Matterhttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045001 Ultracold bosonic and fermionic quantum gases confined to quasi-one-dimensional (1D) geometry are promising candidates for probing fundamental concepts of Luttinger liquid (LL) physics. They can also be exploited for devising applications in quantum information processing and precision measurements. Here, we focus on 1D dipolar Bose gases, where evidence of super-strong coupling behavior has been demonstrated by analyzing the low-energy static and dynamical structures of the fluid at zero temperature by a combined reptation quantum Monte Carlo (RQMC) and bosonization approach. Fingerprints of LL behavior emerge in the whole crossover from the already strongly interacting Tonks-Girardeau at low density to a dipolar density wave regime at high density. We have also shown that a LL framework can be effectively set up and utilized to describe this strongly correlated crossover physics in the case of confined 1D geometries after using the results for the homogeneous system in LL hydrodynamic equations within a local density approximation. This leads to the prediction of observable quantities such as the frequencies of the collective modes of the trapped dipolar gas under the more realistic conditions that could be found in ongoing experiments. The present paper provides a description of the theoretical framework in which the above results have been worked out, making available all the detailed derivations of the hydrodynamic Luttinger equations for the inhomogeneous trapped gas and of the correlation functions for the homogeneous system.
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
Also perhaps here, this smart guy: *A. Bhattacherjee* , Pradeep Jha, Tarun Kumar and ManMohan, Luttinger liquid in superlattice structures: atomic gas, quantum dot and classical Ising chain, *Physica Scripta*, *83*, 015016 (2011). *Aranya B Bhattacherjee*, Tarun Kumar and ManMohan, Luttinger liquid in two-colour optical lattice, in Laser and Bose Einstein Condensation Physics, Narosa, New Delhi, 2010.�*� * On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an explanation of cold fusion: ***Also perhaps here. New Journal of Physics http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/ Volume 10 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10 April 2008 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4 R Citro *et al* 2008 *New J. Phys.* *10* 045011 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011 Luttinger hydrodynamics of confined one-dimensional Bose gases with dipolar interactions Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored Matterhttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045001 R Citro1, S De Palo2, E Orignac3, P Pedri4,5 and M-L Chiofalo6 Show affiliationshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011?v_showaffiliations=yes Tag this articlehttps://ticket.iop.org/login?return=http%3A%2F%2Fiopscience.iop.org%2FtagInputWindow%3FarticleId%3D1367-2630%2F10%2F4%2F045011%26returnUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fiopscience.iop.org%252F1367-2630%252F10%252F4%252F045011%26fromUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fiopscience.iop.org%252F1367-2630%252F10%252F4%252F045011 PDF (862 KB)http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/pdf/1367-2630_10_4_045011.pdf View article http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/fulltext Abstract http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011 Referenceshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/refs Cited By http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/cites Metricshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/metrics Part of Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored Matterhttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045001 Ultracold bosonic and fermionic quantum gases confined to quasi-one-dimensional (1D) geometry are promising candidates for probing fundamental concepts of Luttinger liquid (LL) physics. They can also be exploited for devising applications in quantum information processing and precision measurements. Here, we focus on 1D dipolar Bose gases, where evidence of super-strong coupling behavior has been demonstrated by analyzing the low-energy static and dynamical structures of the fluid at zero temperature by a combined reptation quantum Monte Carlo (RQMC) and bosonization approach. Fingerprints of LL behavior emerge in the whole crossover from the already strongly interacting Tonks–Girardeau at low density to a dipolar density wave regime at high density. We have also shown that a LL framework can be effectively set up and utilized to describe this strongly correlated crossover physics in the case of confined 1D geometries after using the results for the homogeneous system in LL hydrodynamic equations within a local density approximation. This leads to the prediction of observable quantities such as the frequencies of the collective modes of the trapped dipolar gas under the more realistic conditions that could be found in ongoing experiments. The present paper provides a description of the theoretical framework in which the above results have been worked out, making available all the detailed derivations of the hydrodynamic Luttinger equations for the inhomogeneous trapped gas and of the correlation functions for the homogeneous system.
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
I think this paper might address the coupling term in the Hamiltonian you're asking about. http://amsdottorato.unibo.it/3777/1/dalmonte_marcello_tesi.pdf 1.1.1 Mermin-Wagner-Hohenberg theorem One of the main general results in 1D physics is related to the so called spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) mechanism[12, 13, 14]. In statistical mechanics and quantum field theory, when a certain ground state exhibits less symmetry than the related Hamiltonian, one says that a certain sym- metry has been broken: that’s the essence of SSB. While various interesting phenomena, such as the emergence of superconductivity, can be explained in these terms, the most intuitive view on the subject is usually associ- ated with the emergence of spontaneous magnetization in solids: given a certain ordered configuration C which minimizes the energy functional, an exactly opposite configuration C ′with the same energy always exists. Nonetheless, the state of the system is not invariant under transformation C↔C′, and thus this exchange symmetry is broken[13]. The curious point is, in low dimensional systems, SSB suffers from a no-go theorem known as the Mermin-Wagner(MW) theorem (or Mermin-Wagner-Hohenberg(MWH) theorem). In their seminal paper [1 5], Mermin and Wagner showed that the Heisenberg model cannot display a finite magnetization m(h) at finite temperature in one and two dimension, and at zero temperature in one dimension, if the interac- tion coefficients are short-range... On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones said: In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back from low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the underlying RPF reaction, via QCD. The distribution of small amounts of spin energy crops up again. And in a magnetic field the spin states are separated by a greater energy gap, potentially giving a variety of resonant frequencies that work to effect transitions. Jones, what do the coupling term in the Hamiltonian look like? Any references you know of? Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:57 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day From: Kevin O'Malley It is compelling that the protonated molecular hydrogen or H3+, and it is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the Universe, so it is very common. It is also compelling that RPF is the most common fusion reaction in the universeI consider RPF to be the Occham's Razor theory: Simplest is best. You are an intelligent observer :-) The Wiki entry on trihydrogen has supporting details - but of course, does not consider the putative case where one of the three protons could be in the very tight or redundant ground state to begin with - having the other two protons electrostatically bound to it. This would be in a fractional trihydrogen anion. In effect, two nearly free protons could be mobile around a third, instead of a balanced triangular arrangement as often pictured; but the two have no identifiable electron of their own. The electron orbitals of the third are presumed to be very close geometrically such that this molecule would be very small. This would promote the RPF reaction in which two protons continually try to fuse but cannot. The LENR version of trihydrogen RPF is suggested to exist where excess energy is seen due to the Lamb Shift, operating at Terahertz frequencies (it is a very low-energy reaction, and requires rapid sequential activity to supply excess energy without gamma radiation). Two different spin configurations for H3+ are possible, ortho and para. Ortho-H3+ has all three proton spins parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of 3/2. Para-H3+ has two proton spins parallel while the other is anti-parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of ½ and it is slightly lower energy. In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back from low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the underlying RPF reaction, via QCD. More on that later. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
http://news.yahoo.com/paradox-solved-information-escape-black-hole-104543630.html The BOSENOVA seen in the DGT might be a nanoscopic version of the information restoration process proposed for the end of life process of black holes. Rovelli agrees: Information is never too concentrated, and it can escape with the explosion of the star. This release of information, he estimates, would generate radiation with a wavelength of about 10^-14 cm -- the wavelength of gamma rays. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: What do you think of my proposal of a 2-stage LENR theory? First stage, the 1DLEC. As previously discussed. https://www.mail-archive.com/*vortex*-l...@eskimo.com/msg91418.html 2nd stage, RPF The first stage generates some fusion events, and then RPF gets triggered. RPF is nature's way of trying to get back to equilibrium, even if it means shedding mass down to a partial hydrogen. This explains why the effect is so hard to initiate, also why it's so hard to scale up (the BEC won't form at higher temperatures), and why the whole thing is so baffling, even though the most common fusion event in the universe has been initiated. It explains why there's gamma rays during startup, when h1 monoatomic gas recombines to h2 gas in an endothermic (BEC creating) process, but not afterwards, when it's RPF, which produces no gammas. Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an explanation of cold fusion: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/2093276_Bose-Einstein_Condensation_in_the_Luttinger-Sy_Model Bose-Einstein Condensation in the Luttinger-Sy Model Olivier Lenoblehttp://www.researchgate.net/researcher/81855005_Olivier_Lenoble/, Valentin Zagrebnovhttp://www.researchgate.net/researcher/9902523_Valentin_Zagrebnov/ 05/2006; Source: arXiv http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0604068 *ABSTRACT* We present a rigorous study of the Bose-Einstein condensation in the Luttinger-Sy model. We prove the existence of the condensation in this one-dimensional model of the perfect boson gas placed in the Poisson random potential of singular point impurities. To tackle the off-diagonal long-range order we calculate explicitly the corresponding space-averaged one-body reduced density matrix. We show that mathematical mechanism of the Bose-Einstein condensation in this random model is similar to condensation in a one-dimensional nonrandom hierarchical model of scaled intervals. For the Luttinger-Sy model we prove the Kac-Luttinger conjecture, i.e., that this model manifests a type I BEC localized in a single largest interval of logarithmic size. On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Kevin O'Malley It is compelling that the protonated molecular hydrogen or H3+, and it is the most abundant or second most abundant ion in the Universe, so it is very common. It is also compelling that RPF is the most common fusion reaction in the universeI consider RPF to be the Occham's Razor theory: Simplest is best. You are an intelligent observer :-) The Wiki entry on trihydrogen has supporting details - but of course, does not consider the putative case where one of the three protons could be in the very tight or redundant ground state to begin with - having the other two protons electrostatically bound to it. This would be in a fractional trihydrogen anion. In effect, two nearly free protons could be mobile around a third, instead of a balanced triangular arrangement as often pictured; but the two have no identifiable electron of their own. The electron orbitals of the third are presumed to be very close geometrically such that this molecule would be very small. This would promote the RPF reaction in which two protons continually try to fuse but cannot. The LENR version of trihydrogen RPF is suggested to exist where excess energy is seen due to the Lamb Shift, operating at Terahertz frequencies (it is a very low-energy reaction, and requires rapid sequential activity to supply excess energy without gamma radiation). Two different spin configurations for H3+ are possible, ortho and para. Ortho-H3+ has all three proton spins parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of 3/2. Para-H3+ has two proton spins parallel while the other is anti-parallel, yielding a total nuclear spin of 1/2 and it is slightly lower energy. In order to have excess energy to shed, there must exist sequential RPF between two of the three protons, which convert a tiny bit of nuclear mass to spin energy. Degenerate spin of trihydrogen ions must be pumped back from low-to-high for net excess. Such pumping is presumed to be inherent in the underlying RPF reaction, via QCD. More on that later. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
And also perhaps here: Note that they used lasers to REMOVE energy from the system (to COOL it). That's what KP Sinha did, and also, what Ed Storms was unaware of here on Vortex-L until I pointed it out. https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77012.html http://www.internetchemie.info/news/2010/jul10/pinning-transition.html Pinning Transition from a Luttinger-liquid to an insulated phase Mott-insulator -- *Pinning atoms into order: In an international first, physicists of the University of Innsbruck, Austria have experimentally observed a quantum phenomenon, where an arbitrarily weak perturbation causes atoms to build an organized structure from an initially unorganized one. The scientific team headed by Hanns-Christoph Nägerl has published a paper about quantum phase transitions in a one dimensional quantum lattice in the scientific journal Nature.* With a Bose-Einstein condensate of cesium atoms, scientists at the Institute for Experimental Physics of the University of Innsbruck have created one dimensional structures in an optical lattice of laser light. In these quantum lattices or wires the single atoms are aligned next to each other with laser light preventing them from breaking ranks On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Also perhaps here, this smart guy: *A. Bhattacherjee* , Pradeep Jha, Tarun Kumar and ManMohan, Luttinger liquid in superlattice structures: atomic gas, quantum dot and classical Ising chain, *Physica Scripta*, *83*, 015016 (2011). *Aranya B Bhattacherjee*, Tarun Kumar and ManMohan, Luttinger liquid in two-colour optical lattice, in Laser and Bose Einstein Condensation Physics, Narosa, New Delhi, 2010.�*� * On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an explanation of cold fusion: ***Also perhaps here. New Journal of Physics http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/ Volume 10 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10 April 2008 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4 R Citro *et al* 2008 *New J. Phys.* *10* 045011 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/045011 Luttinger hydrodynamics of confined one-dimensional Bose gases with dipolar interactions Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored Matterhttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045001 R Citro1, S De Palo2, E Orignac3, P Pedri4,5 and M-L Chiofalo6 Show affiliationshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011?v_showaffiliations=yes Tag this articlehttps://ticket.iop.org/login?return=http%3A%2F%2Fiopscience.iop.org%2FtagInputWindow%3FarticleId%3D1367-2630%2F10%2F4%2F045011%26returnUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fiopscience.iop.org%252F1367-2630%252F10%252F4%252F045011%26fromUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fiopscience.iop.org%252F1367-2630%252F10%252F4%252F045011 PDF (862 KB)http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/pdf/1367-2630_10_4_045011.pdf View article http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/fulltext Abstract http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011 Referenceshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/refs Cited By http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/cites Metricshttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045011/metrics Part of Focus on Quantum Correlations in Tailored Matterhttp://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/045001 Ultracold bosonic and fermionic quantum gases confined to quasi-one-dimensional (1D) geometry are promising candidates for probing fundamental concepts of Luttinger liquid (LL) physics. They can also be exploited for devising applications in quantum information processing and precision measurements. Here, we focus on 1D dipolar Bose gases, where evidence of super-strong coupling behavior has been demonstrated by analyzing the low-energy static and dynamical structures of the fluid at zero temperature by a combined reptation quantum Monte Carlo (RQMC) and bosonization approach. Fingerprints of LL behavior emerge in the whole crossover from the already strongly interacting Tonks–Girardeau at low density to a dipolar density wave regime at high density. We have also shown that a LL framework can be effectively set up and utilized to describe this strongly correlated crossover physics in the case of confined 1D geometries after using the results for the homogeneous system in LL hydrodynamic equations within a local density approximation. This leads to the prediction of observable quantities such as the frequencies of the collective modes of the trapped dipolar gas under the more realistic conditions that could be found in ongoing experiments. The present paper provides a description of the theoretical framework in
RE: [Vo]:[OT]More Alive than Dead?
Over 107 billion. Makes me wonder how many times I've been recycled. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
RE: [Vo]:[OT]More Alive than Dead?
Terry, et all. Last night I discovered I can no longer post messages Vortex if I start a new thread. Apparently, I can only respond to a post like yours. What's weird is that if I change the subject thread and then attempt to mail it the post immediately comes back as undeliverable. If I try to create a brand new post using: vortex-l@eskimo.com address it immediately comes back undeliverable as well. Any suggestions? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day
Kevin, If experiments in any field can demonstrate a high temperature version of a Luttinger Condensate, then your insight is valid and can push forward LENR technology. That is the main issue with anything Bosonic - can it be applied at high temperature. All of the advances in LENR have been incremental and delayed. That Journal issue you mention, from April 2008 - is almost 6 years old and is crammed with relevant info for LENR, but little has been disseminated into actual experiments after all the years. http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4 From: Kevin O'Malley Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an explanation of cold fusion: ***Also perhaps here. New Journal of Physics http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/ Volume 10 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10 April 2008 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4 R Citro et al 2008 New J. Phys. 10 045011
[Vo]:Test - Pinging Vortex
Pinging vortex. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
RE: [Vo]:Test - Pinging Vortex
Vortex let this go through. But then it clamped down again. I still can't post a new subject thread. This is weird. Steve From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 10:32 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Test - Pinging Vortex Pinging vortex. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
[Vo]: Cheap hydrogen claim
Solar Hydrogen Trends claim: Input 500 watts produces 2,797 cu.ft. H2 per hour, equivalent to 221.5 KWhr at a cost of $1.80 http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
Jones, these theoretical speculations have not been applied to cold fusion simply because they have no relationship to showing how to make the effect work on demand or to showing how the chemical environment plays a role. These are examples of mental games physics encourages that may or may not have any relationship to reality. Only years of effort supported by significant funding would be required to determine if these ideas have any value to physics or to LENR. Right now, we need to determine how to make LENR work on demand. This means we need to understand the NAE. The details that these speculations address will be explored later by future graduate students. The discussions on Vortex would also be more useful if they focused on the NAE and how it can be created in real materials. Ed Storms On Mar 15, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Kevin, If experiments in any field can demonstrate a high temperature version of a Luttinger Condensate, then your insight is valid and can push forward LENR technology. That is the main issue with anything Bosonic – can it be applied at high temperature. All of the advances in LENR have been incremental and delayed. That Journal issue you mention, from April 2008 - is almost 6 years old and is crammed with relevant info for LENR, but little has been disseminated into actual experiments after all the years. http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4 From: Kevin O'Malley Unfortunately for me, the 1 Dimensional Luttinger Bose-Einstein Condensate seems to have already been proposed, but as far as I can tell, not as an explanation of cold fusion: ***Also perhaps here. New Journal of Physics Volume 10 April 2008 R Citro et al 2008 New J. Phys. 10 045011
[Vo]:Does Vortex actively check for bad websites that might contain malware?
I'm wondering. I repeatedly tried to posting something on Vortex last night and this morning. They have all been immediately returned as Undeliverable. The post contained a You Tube link. It also contained two additional web sites pertaining to what was in the You Tube video. I didn't think there was anything obviously malicious about the two websites. Does Vortex actively check locations for potential bad spam and malware? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day
From: Kevin O'Malley And also perhaps here: Note that they used lasers to REMOVE energy from the system (to COOL it). That's what KP Sinha did, and also, what Ed Storms was unaware of here on Vortex-L until I pointed it out. The interesting thing about laser cooling is that the photons from the laser are typically very hot. A blue laser can have photons with equivalent temperature of 15,000 degrees. As far back as the “Einstein refrigerator” we have known that one can use heat to produce cooling - but with laser irradiation it is different. A laser photon can cause an atom to emit photons of a higher average energy than the one it absorbed from the laser - and thereafter cooling will follow, but only so long as the cooled atom does not heat up via absorbing low energy radiation from its containment structure – the same one which absorbed the very hot re-emission from the cooled atom. Thus laser cooling only works well at extremely low pressure, and therefore laser cooling to form a BEC may not be relevant to LENR at all - since we are going for high power density, and a vacuum is not conducive to that. However, when everything is tuned to a phonon frequency which is the operating temperature of the hot pressurized reactor – say 350 degrees C, then a laser which is radiating photons in the IR of about that energy (the 15 THz band which NASA loves), we can bring the a entire system into a kind of 3-way or triple coherence called “superradiance”. This is photon, phonon and magnon (spin wave) coherence. Triple coherence promotes tunneling. A magnetic field promotes magnons. A coherent system, even a hot coherent system – which has triple-coherent energy dynamics will promote LENR – that is the bottom line.
[Vo]:Off Topic - You Tube Video - We are from the future
May you enjoy the following momentary distraction... I was recently queued in to the following You Tube video. Maybe you'll experience a few moments of enjoyment as I did innocently watching it. It's called We are from the Future. Lots of pretty special effects. Granted, it gets a little repetitious at times, but not enough to turn me off of it. http://tinyurl.com/pbrzl6g Some of the posted comments were amusing. Apparently some became deeply disturbed by the generally positive subliminal messages and imagery the creators of this video were trying to convey. Some felt a strong need to warn others of what they felt was too much pseudo science and new age mumbo-jumbo masquerading as an interpretation of reality that they adamantly do not believe in, such as from a poster whose graphic handle depicts Jesus flipping the bird at you. Oh what the hey! Chill out dude! I just liked watching it. It wuz pretty! Enjoy! -- Regards Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Off Topic - You Tube Video - We are from the future
FYI, This was the post I was trying to get out since last night. As best as I can tell I think Vortex may have not liked the original You Tube URL. I never really noticed this before but apparent YT links are secured (https). When I converted the original link over at tinyurl Vortex stopped having a snit over it. This is very odd. This seems like new Vortex behavior I've never run into before. I've posted countless You tube links to Vortex before with no problems. steve ** From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 11:00 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Off Topic - You Tube Video - We are from the future May you enjoy the following momentary distraction... I was recently queued in to the following You Tube video. Maybe you'll experience a few moments of enjoyment as I did innocently watching it. It's called We are from the Future. Lots of pretty special effects. Granted, it gets a little repetitious at times, but not enough to turn me off of it. http://tinyurl.com/pbrzl6g Some of the posted comments were amusing. Apparently some became deeply disturbed by the generally positive subliminal messages and imagery the creators of this video were trying to convey. Some felt a strong need to warn others of what they felt was too much pseudo science and new age mumbo-jumbo masquerading as an interpretation of reality that they adamantly do not believe in, such as from a poster whose graphic handle depicts Jesus flipping the bird at you. Oh what the hey! Chill out dude! I just liked watching it. It wuz pretty! Enjoy! -- Regards Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]: Cheap hydrogen claim
If true, that is one heck of a claim - they would be claiming an over-unity COP of 443 (44300%). I checked the math. 2797 SCF of H2 - IS - equivalent to 221.5 kWH. What I think is probably wrong is the 500W input - it must be a typo. They must mean 500kW input. This would put their COP to be 44.3% which is still good and is not an over-unity claim. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:44 AM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Solar Hydrogen Trends claim: Input 500 watts produces 2,797 cu.ft. H2 per hour, equivalent to 221.5 KWhr at a cost of $1.80 http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
The critical path seems to me to be: 1) Economically elicit statistically significant results. 2) Formalize that economical method in an experimental protocol. 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses). 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these hypotheses as practical. 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these experiments. 6) Improve the economy with which statistically significant results may be attained. 7) Repeat from step 2. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: ...Right now, we need to determine how to make LENR work on demand. This means we need to understand the NAE. Ed Storms
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
A good path James, but with a few potholes. On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote: The critical path seems to me to be: 1) Economically elicit statistically significant results. Rossi has done this but he has not reveal how. 2) Formalize that economical method in an experimental protocol. Many ideas have been suggested but only Rossi has demonstrated a device. 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses). I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with behavior in LENR or with established natural law. I suggest we need to start over. 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these hypotheses as practical. Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories. What next? 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these experiments. What good are the results from a flawed theory? We need more competent theoreticians to take an interest and a way to evaluate proposed concepts. Right now we have a collection of established theories that exists as islands with no relationship to each other nor to what is generally known about LENR. Ed Storms 6) Improve the economy with which statistically significant results may be attained. 7) Repeat from step 2. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: ...Right now, we need to determine how to make LENR work on demand. This means we need to understand the NAE. Ed Storms
Re: [Vo]:Off Topic - You Tube Video - We are from the future
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:00 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: May you enjoy the following momentary distraction... I'm happy you found your problem. You may ignore my private email. Eskimo.com has all new hardware and some new software and you likely collided with a firewall of sorts. But you missed the tree. BTW, did you follow to the website? ( wearethefuture.com ) It ultimately leads to upriser.com . Looks like a site you would enjoy. The discovery about superposition used by plants to increase efficiency is a fairly recent one. I think we spoke of it here. http://goo.gl/Wx5ubB Watching that reminded me of a link between superposition and string theory that I stumbled across in my formative years while under the influence of schedule x pharms. I was trying to resolve in my own mind how it was possible for freedom of choice and predestination to co-exist in reality. It came to me that there must be an infinite number of realities and when the cusp of choice arrived we did the so popular quantum jump to that reality. But another me, which I was not with at the time, stayed in his reality. This is a form of superposition. And it ties in with what Susskind describes in The Cosmic Landscape. There must be 10^500 universes out there and we are simply riding the wave. Hey, thanks for sharing. Made my day.
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
On Mar 15, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Kevin O'Malley And also perhaps here: Note that they used lasers to REMOVE energy from the system (to COOL it). That's what KP Sinha did, and also, what Ed Storms was unaware of here on Vortex-L until I pointed it out. Jones, please tell me where Sinha proposed to use a laser to remove energy from a system. I have only one paper in my collection by this author that describes using a laser to improve coupling between the Lochon and the lattice to increase the fusion rate. Laser stimulation of low-energy nuclear reactions in deuterated palladium, Current Sci., 91 (7) 907-912 (2006) Ed Storms T
Re: [Vo]: Cheap hydrogen claim
Bob, No typo. Apparently the figures have been replicated by an independent company See http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_performance%20_test.pdf Adrian Ashfield
RE: [Vo]:Quote of the day
From: Edmund Storms Jones, these theoretical speculations have not been applied to cold fusion simply because they have no relationship to showing how to make the effect work on demand or to showing how the chemical environment plays a role. Ed, that is simply not true. I hope that you are not lost in the age of cold-fusion dinosaurs. You might as well be posting this in 1991. Do you not consider SPP to be a chemical environment ? It is not nuclear. Rossi, to the extent that the HotCat is believable, applies QM and the new SPP dynamics to a high powered experiment - and whether he was simply lucky or not - is immaterial. He appears to be successful, and observers who want to push that technology forward, including NASA try to explain in better ways. These same interested parties, especially NASA which take notice of SPP and triple coherence etc. also ignore Pd-D - and the old school of cold-fusion as being essentially lost-in-time. It is valid but it is dead-end for practicality if Ni-H is real. Since you do not use these QM techniques, lasers and magnetics - and instead marginalize them - why? ... but then again, do you have anything in experiment to show for gain which is remotely comparable to Rossi ? If not, it is counterproductive to espouse the old school ideas of Pd-D. They are not relevant to Ni-H. At this point in time, we must give Rossi the benefit of the doubt and try to understand what makes his work completely different from your old school experiments with palladium. Otherwise the LENR ship is sinking fast. That is pretty much a summary of the status of the field - the old LERN which is static and doomed to failure - and the new LENR which has some glimmer of hope - but only so long as the proponents of old LENR do not interfere. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]: Cheap hydrogen claim
There is a performance report: http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_performance%20_test.pdf I would suggest that the current figure is likely to be right, in that 100kA at 4V would require some interesting electrical enigineering, so was the voltage actually nearer 5kV rather than 5V. Again however 5kV at 100A requires some interesting electrical engineering. A picture of the setup would clarify Nigel On 15/03/2014 16:22, Bob Higgins wrote: If true, that is one heck of a claim - they would be claiming an over-unity COP of 443 (44300%). I checked the math. 2797 SCF of H2 - IS - equivalent to 221.5 kWH. What I think is probably wrong is the 500W input - it must be a typo. They must mean 500kW input. This would put their COP to be 44.3% which is still good and is not an over-unity claim. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:44 AM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Solar Hydrogen Trends claim: Input 500 watts produces 2,797 cu.ft. H2 per hour, equivalent to 221.5 KWhr at a cost of $1.80 http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
Jones, I know that you believe Pd-D and Ni-H involve two entirely different and unrelated phenomenon. Consequently, a discussion is impossible because we are discussing two entirely different concepts. You are so sure your concept is correct, you feel free to be arrogant about your belief. On the other hand, the concept you reject has growing support. Nevertheless, regardless of which concept is correct, progress requires insight about how to make the effect work on demand. Can you do this using your concept? Do you know how Rossi has succeeded in making heat using Ni-H2? Can you tell me how to do this so that I can replicate his success? Ed Storms On Mar 15, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Jones, these theoretical speculations have not been applied to cold fusion simply because they have no relationship to showing how to make the effect work on demand or to showing how the chemical environment plays a role. Ed, that is simply not true. I hope that you are not lost in the age of cold-fusion dinosaurs. You might as well be posting this in 1991. Do you not consider SPP to be a chemical environment ? It is not nuclear. Rossi, to the extent that the HotCat is believable, applies QM and the new SPP dynamics to a high powered experiment - and whether he was simply lucky or not - is immaterial. He appears to be successful, and observers who want to push that technology forward, including NASA try to explain in better ways. These same interested parties, especially NASA which take notice of SPP and triple coherence etc. also ignore Pd-D - and the old school of cold-fusion as being essentially lost-in-time. It is valid but it is dead-end for practicality if Ni-H is real. Since you do not use these QM techniques, lasers and magnetics - and instead marginalize them - why? ... but then again, do you have anything in experiment to show for gain which is remotely comparable to Rossi ? If not, it is counterproductive to espouse the old school ideas of Pd-D. They are not relevant to Ni-H. At this point in time, we must give Rossi the benefit of the doubt and try to understand what makes his work completely different from your old school experiments with palladium. Otherwise the LENR ship is sinking fast. That is pretty much a summary of the status of the field - the old LERN which is static and doomed to failure - and the new LENR which has some glimmer of hope - but only so long as the proponents of old LENR do not interfere. Jones winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
Ed and Jones-- I'm glad I believe in the old adage No Friction No Motion and that it applies to debate of LENR. Carry On. Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day Jones, I know that you believe Pd-D and Ni-H involve two entirely different and unrelated phenomenon. Consequently, a discussion is impossible because we are discussing two entirely different concepts. You are so sure your concept is correct, you feel free to be arrogant about your belief. On the other hand, the concept you reject has growing support. Nevertheless, regardless of which concept is correct, progress requires insight about how to make the effect work on demand. Can you do this using your concept? Do you know how Rossi has succeeded in making heat using Ni-H2? Can you tell me how to do this so that I can replicate his success? Ed Storms On Mar 15, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Jones, these theoretical speculations have not been applied to cold fusion simply because they have no relationship to showing how to make the effect work on demand or to showing how the chemical environment plays a role. Ed, that is simply not true. I hope that you are not lost in the age of cold-fusion dinosaurs. You might as well be posting this in 1991. Do you not consider SPP to be a chemical environment ? It is not nuclear. Rossi, to the extent that the HotCat is believable, applies QM and the new SPP dynamics to a high powered experiment - and whether he was simply lucky or not - is immaterial. He appears to be successful, and observers who want to push that technology forward, including NASA try to explain in better ways. These same interested parties, especially NASA which take notice of SPP and triple coherence etc. also ignore Pd-D - and the old school of cold-fusion as being essentially lost-in-time. It is valid but it is dead-end for practicality if Ni-H is real. Since you do not use these QM techniques, lasers and magnetics - and instead marginalize them - why? ... but then again, do you have anything in experiment to show for gain which is remotely comparable to Rossi ? If not, it is counterproductive to espouse the old school ideas of Pd-D. They are not relevant to Ni-H. At this point in time, we must give Rossi the benefit of the doubt and try to understand what makes his work completely different from your old school experiments with palladium. Otherwise the LENR ship is sinking fast. That is pretty much a summary of the status of the field - the old LERN which is static and doomed to failure - and the new LENR which has some glimmer of hope - but only so long as the proponents of old LENR do not interfere. Jones winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]: Cheap hydrogen claim
Guys, Impressive, but suspicious.. Given the name of the company - could it be 500 watts electric and 100,000 watts of solar ? Or is this some type of LENR ? From: Nigel Dyer There is a performance report: http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_performance%20_test.pdf I would suggest that the current figure is likely to be right, in that 100kA at 4V would require some interesting electrical enigineering, so was the voltage actually nearer 5kV rather than 5V. Again however 5kV at 100A requires some interesting electrical engineering. A picture of the setup would clarify Bob Higgins wrote: If true, that is one heck of a claim - they would be claiming an over-unity COP of 443 (44300%). I checked the math. 2797 SCF of H2 - IS - equivalent to 221.5 kWH. What I think is probably wrong is the 500W input - it must be a typo. They must mean 500kW input. This would put their COP to be 44.3% which is still good and is not an over-unity claim. Adrian Ashfield wrote: Solar Hydrogen Trends claim: Input 500 watts produces 2,797 cu.ft. H2 per hour, equivalent to 221.5 KWhr at a cost of $1.80 http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/
RE: [Vo]:Off Topic - You Tube Video - We are from the future
Hi Terry, my old friend. Yes, I did follow through to both web sites, the current one and the other still under construction. It might be interesting to see what they eventually post at the new cite. I assume they will post lots of far-off stuff, some of it controversial. Maybe Jesus-flipping-the-bird will feel compelled to add some more succulent critiques. ;-) Regarding your thoughts on PD versus FOC: Freedom of Choice versus PreDestination has been hotly debated for centuries. I find it interesting that not only did science try to explain the universe as nothing more than a big lumbering predictable machine, certain religious philosophies have gotten into the act as well. There exists a particular not well known contemporary religious-like philosophy that I personally find appealing. The philosophy states that when you are confronted with a major life-altering choice you really DO split into two different parallel virtual realities. Both virtual realities will then go on to experience what the consequences of the major choice you had made from then on. What's different about this particular brand of philosophy is that they claim not only do splits occur, merges happen equally as often. I suspect certain kinds of psychic merges are experienced as a distinct moment of disorientation as your psyche tries to sort out a collection of confusing past memories. A dominant timeline needs to be reconstructed out of the merging of two or more separate realities. Perhaps a more benign merge is experienced as that weird feeling of deja vue. In other words this particular philosophy perceives our individual experiences of Virtual Reality as a form of an intricate braded rope where multiple splits and merges are constantly intertwining with each other. When we finally die, (when our psyches begin the recycling process) all of the probable realities eventually merge back into one major core psyche for one great big uber-massive life-review. So, you really do get to find out if marrying Maggie versus Bernadette turned out to have been the better choice... or not. ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:Off Topic - You Tube Video - We are from the future
Whoa! I never considered the merge. But, my decision actually causing the split is a bit anthropocentric and does not comply with string theory. Yes, I did consider that in the haze of the cactus button; but, I found a conflict with predestination. But, merge? Thanks!
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote: 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses). I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with behavior in LENR or with established natural law. I suggest we need to start over. Assuming that by present accepted theories you refer to the hysterical attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease: If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then its no good. If your theory does have an explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results. Enumerate said modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of competing theories. If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut up. 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these hypotheses as practical. Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories. What next? 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these experiments. What good are the results from a flawed theory? I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail answers to these last two questions.
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
On Mar 15, 2014, at 2:37 PM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote: 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses). I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with behavior in LENR or with established natural law. I suggest we need to start over. Assuming that by present accepted theories you refer to the hysterical attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease: If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then its no good. If your theory does have an explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results. Enumerate said modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of competing theories. If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut up. I could not say it better! Ed Storms 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these hypotheses as practical. Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories. What next? 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these experiments. What good are the results from a flawed theory? I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail answers to these last two questions.
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
The Rossi reactor is currently configured into two functional parts, the mouse whose function it is to produce nanoparticles, and the Cat whose function it is to catalyze these nanoparticles in a LENR reaction. We can duplicate these functions by providing a nanoparticle source (mouse) and a nanoparticle reactor (Cat). It is always better to buy and tie then to build from scratch. Any device that can produce fine nano sized droplets from a liquid capable of supporting solid nano material will do. This atomization function will support the Mouse function. I would recommend adding potassium carbonate to the Mouse colloid to support the secret sauce function of Rossi's reactor. These possible mouse devices include a nebulizer, electric paint sprayer, air brush, diesel fuel injector. I like the diesel fuel injector because it may produce a cavitation effect during atomization. The Cat function might well be supported using a catalytic converter from a late modeled car either new or slightly used. Engineers are doing some great stuff in the design of modern auto catalytic converters as follows: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=1cad=rjauact=8ved=0CCgQFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews204827696.htmlei=Ea0kU-e-EOWu0AG7qICoBgusg=AFQjCNEXBT3yWSArLp8LfqHup2wCHoDFwAsig2=txtrtVqF-Ff1ij4rs7QThw Warm the auto catalytic converter to 400C, and inject a stream of nanoparticles formed by the Mouse into it. You may want to use heavy water to support the Mouse colloid as a way to produce tritium as a LENR tracer which marks the onset of LENR activity. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:37 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote: 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses). I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with behavior in LENR or with established natural law. I suggest we need to start over. Assuming that by present accepted theories you refer to the hysterical attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease: If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then its no good. If your theory does have an explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results. Enumerate said modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of competing theories. If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut up. 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these hypotheses as practical. Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories. What next? 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these experiments. What good are the results from a flawed theory? I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail answers to these last two questions.
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6OZykbnLQw This demo shows how nanoparticles of water clusters can be reacted into heat in an auto catalectic converter. The HHO is the source of the nanoparticles mouse On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The Rossi reactor is currently configured into two functional parts, the mouse whose function it is to produce nanoparticles, and the Cat whose function it is to catalyze these nanoparticles in a LENR reaction. We can duplicate these functions by providing a nanoparticle source (mouse) and a nanoparticle reactor (Cat). It is always better to buy and tie then to build from scratch. Any device that can produce fine nano sized droplets from a liquid capable of supporting solid nano material will do. This atomization function will support the Mouse function. I would recommend adding potassium carbonate to the Mouse colloid to support the secret sauce function of Rossi's reactor. These possible mouse devices include a nebulizer, electric paint sprayer, air brush, diesel fuel injector. I like the diesel fuel injector because it may produce a cavitation effect during atomization. The Cat function might well be supported using a catalytic converter from a late modeled car either new or slightly used. Engineers are doing some great stuff in the design of modern auto catalytic converters as follows: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=1cad=rjauact=8ved=0CCgQFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews204827696.htmlei=Ea0kU-e-EOWu0AG7qICoBgusg=AFQjCNEXBT3yWSArLp8LfqHup2wCHoDFwAsig2=txtrtVqF-Ff1ij4rs7QThw Warm the auto catalytic converter to 400C, and inject a stream of nanoparticles formed by the Mouse into it. You may want to use heavy water to support the Mouse colloid as a way to produce tritium as a LENR tracer which marks the onset of LENR activity. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:37 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote: 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses). I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with behavior in LENR or with established natural law. I suggest we need to start over. Assuming that by present accepted theories you refer to the hysterical attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease: If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then its no good. If your theory does have an explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results. Enumerate said modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of competing theories. If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut up. 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these hypotheses as practical. Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories. What next? 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these experiments. What good are the results from a flawed theory? I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail answers to these last two questions.
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGWrJ9J5ffM This video shows HHO interaction with and without nanoparticle contact with the catalytic convertor substrate. When the water crystals are allied to the catalytic substrate, full heat capacity is produced. When the water crystals are filtered out of the HHO gas stream by a fibrous pad, reduced heat capacity results. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6OZykbnLQw This demo shows how nanoparticles of water clusters can be reacted into heat in an auto catalectic converter. The HHO is the source of the nanoparticles mouse On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The Rossi reactor is currently configured into two functional parts, the mouse whose function it is to produce nanoparticles, and the Cat whose function it is to catalyze these nanoparticles in a LENR reaction. We can duplicate these functions by providing a nanoparticle source (mouse) and a nanoparticle reactor (Cat). It is always better to buy and tie then to build from scratch. Any device that can produce fine nano sized droplets from a liquid capable of supporting solid nano material will do. This atomization function will support the Mouse function. I would recommend adding potassium carbonate to the Mouse colloid to support the secret sauce function of Rossi's reactor. These possible mouse devices include a nebulizer, electric paint sprayer, air brush, diesel fuel injector. I like the diesel fuel injector because it may produce a cavitation effect during atomization. The Cat function might well be supported using a catalytic converter from a late modeled car either new or slightly used. Engineers are doing some great stuff in the design of modern auto catalytic converters as follows: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=1cad=rjauact=8ved=0CCgQFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews204827696.htmlei=Ea0kU-e-EOWu0AG7qICoBgusg=AFQjCNEXBT3yWSArLp8LfqHup2wCHoDFwAsig2=txtrtVqF-Ff1ij4rs7QThw Warm the auto catalytic converter to 400C, and inject a stream of nanoparticles formed by the Mouse into it. You may want to use heavy water to support the Mouse colloid as a way to produce tritium as a LENR tracer which marks the onset of LENR activity. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:37 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote: 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses). I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with behavior in LENR or with established natural law. I suggest we need to start over. Assuming that by present accepted theories you refer to the hysterical attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease: If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then its no good. If your theory does have an explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results. Enumerate said modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of competing theories. If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut up. 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these hypotheses as practical. Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories. What next? 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these experiments. What good are the results from a flawed theory? I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail answers to these last two questions.
Re: [Vo]:Quote of the day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jczBXmr7yo This continuous video shows startup of a HHO Hot Cat from room temperature to 831F I wonder what electrode that the water clusters of come off of, the hydrogen electrode, the oxygen electrode or both. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGWrJ9J5ffM This video shows HHO interaction with and without nanoparticle contact with the catalytic convertor substrate. When the water crystals are allied to the catalytic substrate, full heat capacity is produced. When the water crystals are filtered out of the HHO gas stream by a fibrous pad, reduced heat capacity results. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6OZykbnLQw This demo shows how nanoparticles of water clusters can be reacted into heat in an auto catalectic converter. The HHO is the source of the nanoparticles mouse On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The Rossi reactor is currently configured into two functional parts, the mouse whose function it is to produce nanoparticles, and the Cat whose function it is to catalyze these nanoparticles in a LENR reaction. We can duplicate these functions by providing a nanoparticle source (mouse) and a nanoparticle reactor (Cat). It is always better to buy and tie then to build from scratch. Any device that can produce fine nano sized droplets from a liquid capable of supporting solid nano material will do. This atomization function will support the Mouse function. I would recommend adding potassium carbonate to the Mouse colloid to support the secret sauce function of Rossi's reactor. These possible mouse devices include a nebulizer, electric paint sprayer, air brush, diesel fuel injector. I like the diesel fuel injector because it may produce a cavitation effect during atomization. The Cat function might well be supported using a catalytic converter from a late modeled car either new or slightly used. Engineers are doing some great stuff in the design of modern auto catalytic converters as follows: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=1cad=rjauact=8ved=0CCgQFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews204827696.htmlei=Ea0kU-e-EOWu0AG7qICoBgusg=AFQjCNEXBT3yWSArLp8LfqHup2wCHoDFwAsig2=txtrtVqF-Ff1ij4rs7QThw Warm the auto catalytic converter to 400C, and inject a stream of nanoparticles formed by the Mouse into it. You may want to use heavy water to support the Mouse colloid as a way to produce tritium as a LENR tracer which marks the onset of LENR activity. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:37 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote: 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses). I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with behavior in LENR or with established natural law. I suggest we need to start over. Assuming that by present accepted theories you refer to the hysterical attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease: If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then its no good. If your theory does have an explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results. Enumerate said modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of competing theories. If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut up. 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these hypotheses as practical. Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories. What next? 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these experiments. What good are the results from a flawed theory? I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail answers to these last two questions.
Re: [Vo]:Off Topic - You Tube Video - We are from the future
Dear Steven, Thanks for sharing this video, I enjoyed it. Kind regards, Rob
