Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
Well said Kevin. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > So now we have Ahern and Celani settling in with MFMP. No wonder they've > been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. > > They deserve it FAR more than Obama did. > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > >> I'm sure many of you know of Brian Ahern from his EPRI report, his MIT >> colloquium appearance earlier this year, and now his collaboration with >> MFMP. Even if you're not aware of him, I think this conversation has enough >> for 3-4 threads worth of topics. We even flirt with the ever-so-dangerous & >> taboo possibility of "perpetual motion". Titled: "Nanomagnetism, >> Cooperative Modes, & Non-Linear LENR". Hope you guys/gals enjoy: >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_kID_E-3tY >> >> An outline can be found here: >> http://jmag0904.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/dr-brian-ahern-nanomagnetism-cooperative-modes-non-linear-lenr/ >> > >
Re: [Vo]:Wave Powered Design for less than $200/kw
It is not in the same market as coal. Coal is baseload. But in terms of other intermittent renewables, yes it is competitive if your figures are correct. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: > Hello folks, I would like your feedback on something. > > I am working on a wave powered power plant design that I think I can > deploy for less than $200/kw. At this cost, is it competitive with other > power sources. I read from wiki and other sources than Geothermal and > Hydro power sources can be deployed for less than $300/kw but I am not sure > how accurate this is and what exactly is included in that figure. And for > that matter, is my figure competitive with coal? > > My design consists of deploying wave powered small pumps. Each pump cost > less than $15.. I plan to deploy around 10,800 such pumps to generate > between 1.4MW to 5MW of electricity depending on the intensity of the > waves. Here in the Philippine East coast, we get swell heights of 0.8m to > 4m with period of 7-10 seconds. > > With a design life of 10 years, I figured that I would be able to generate > electricity at $0.0019/kwh. You read that right, not 19 cents, but 1/5 of > 1 cent per kwh. At this level of cost, I believe this is lower than even > Rossi's Hotcat or BLP's suncell, am I correct? With operating cost added, > I think I can generate electricty for around $0.005/kwh. > > At these price and cost levels, I can be very competitive with all > currently known electricity sources, including hydro and geothermal and > including other wave powered designs. > > My main concern is how competitive I can be when LENR hits the market. As > of today, I only see 2 viable technologies that could possibly hit the > market in the short term, Rossi's hotcat and Suncell. I read that the > projected cost for Rossi's is 1 cent/kwh and for BLP is about $0.03/kwh. > Does anybody have more accurate forcast figures for these two > technologies. If this is accurate, I will be very very competitive. > > Give me your thoughts on how competitive I can be in the new LENR > environment. > > > Jojo > >
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
The Visible spectrum could have passed unaffected through the water of the calorimeter and produced free electrons in the metal structure, Those electrons could have been lost to grounded area of the structure. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: > That explanation is completely faulty. Did the visible spectrum escape > the calorimeter? If not, it was all converted to heat and should have been > measured. > > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> How about this... >> >> The calorimeter only measures the heat (infrared portion of the emission >> spectrum). The visible and EUV portion of the emissions spectrum carry the >> majority of the reaction energy. >> >> There is the plasma blast energy that is lost which could be substantial. >> The majority of the energy produced by this sort of reaction is the energy >> carried by the electrons liberated by the plasma and also contributed by >> the electric arc, It is a mistake of the first order to waste the energy >> content of these electrons. >> >>
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
That explanation is completely faulty. Did the visible spectrum escape the calorimeter? If not, it was all converted to heat and should have been measured. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > How about this... > > The calorimeter only measures the heat (infrared portion of the emission > spectrum). The visible and EUV portion of the emissions spectrum carry the > majority of the reaction energy. > > There is the plasma blast energy that is lost which could be substantial. > The majority of the energy produced by this sort of reaction is the energy > carried by the electrons liberated by the plasma and also contributed by > the electric arc, It is a mistake of the first order to waste the energy > content of these electrons. > >
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
How about this... The calorimeter only measures the heat (infrared portion of the emission spectrum). The visible and EUV portion of the emissions spectrum carry the majority of the reaction energy. There is the plasma blast energy that is lost which could be substantial. The majority of the energy produced by this sort of reaction is the energy carried by the electrons liberated by the plasma and also contributed by the electric arc, It is a mistake of the first order to waste the energy content of these electrons. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > If Mills' water detonations for the SunCell are so energetic that he has a > rumored COP of 100, then why did the previous demonstration in a > calorimeter (which would have captured all of the radiant energy) only show > a COP of ~2? I even think this was in error (the calorimetry) for failure > to adequately account for the ejecta in the control vs. actual experiment. > Why is Mills suddenly able to claim a high COP? > > Bob Higgins > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < > orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > >> I certainly do not dispute the long list of prior BLP predictions that >> failed to come to fruition. >> >> >> >> I think where I'm coming from is that, at least from my perception, it >> looks to me as if Mills senses something much more substantial with the >> SunCell technology working in tandem with the CIHT process. It appears to >> me as if Mills is betting the farm on the success of the latest technology. >> Make or break time. I grant you this is a subjective opinion. No more. No >> less. >> >> >> >> In the meantime, I really would like to acquire a better confidence level >> that the recycling process is not that difficult to do. That's one of the >> reasons I have been repeatedly harping on this subject, looking for >> different opinions and clarification from others. All we have to go on is >> Mills claim that it is. At present I'm willing to give Mills the benefit of >> the doubt... but only to a point. As the famous slogan went: "Trust, but >> verify" You are not so sure giving Mills the benefit of the doubt is >> warranted. I respect your doubt. >> >> >> >> So, here we are... until further developments. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Steven Vincent Johnson >> >> svjart.orionworks.com >> >> zazzle.com/orionworks >> > >
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: The strong force is like fly paper - it is so short range (fraction of a > nucleon diameter), you have to essentially "touch" before sticking. So you > end up with 3 possibilities of this close approach: ... > I used to think of scattering this way too -- sort of like billiard balls colliding. More recently my understanding of scattering has changed, although it may still be less adequate than the model you propose. When you have a particle such as a neutron incident upon a nucleus, there is a chance that tunneling will occur. The waveform of the neutron might squeeze through the potential barrier of the nucleus and tunnel inside it; in the case of a neutron, the potential barrier is very low. If the neutron tunnels through the potential barrier, you'll now have a new nucleus in an excited state, with an additional neutron. Although nucleons are often thought of as being rigid, a composite nucleus is more like a drop of water -- vibrating with all kinds of modes and splashing around. With the addition of the neutron, the nucleus wants desperately to shed energy and transition to a lower energy level. It is wobbling quite a bit and is unstable. If it is on the neutron drip line, a neutron waveform will "drip" back out of the potential barrier provided by the strong interaction, and it will be as though the neutron were never captured, except the nucleus will still be in an excited state. If the neutron stays, the excited nucleus will transition to one or more lower-energy states through other means, often through gamma emission or internal conversion. With two deuterons, there's a similar phenomenon going on. The deuterons tunnel and form a very unstable compound nucleus, like a blob of water in the space shuttle. Even though the lifetime of the unstable compound nucleus is very brief, my understanding is that the nucleons will move around the nucleus within their shells many, many, many times before the final fate of the compound nucleus is decided. I don't take this to mean that there isn't some kind of classical physics going on within the nucleus. But it suggests to me that once tunneling to the compound nucleus has occured, we're no longer talking about the neutron of one deuteron facing the proton of another, and by this means deciding the outcome of the transition. This is just an impression. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
So now we have Ahern and Celani settling in with MFMP. No wonder they've been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. They deserve it FAR more than Obama did. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > I'm sure many of you know of Brian Ahern from his EPRI report, his MIT > colloquium appearance earlier this year, and now his collaboration with > MFMP. Even if you're not aware of him, I think this conversation has enough > for 3-4 threads worth of topics. We even flirt with the ever-so-dangerous & > taboo possibility of "perpetual motion". Titled: "Nanomagnetism, > Cooperative Modes, & Non-Linear LENR". Hope you guys/gals enjoy: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_kID_E-3tY > > An outline can be found here: > http://jmag0904.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/dr-brian-ahern-nanomagnetism-cooperative-modes-non-linear-lenr/ >
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
If Mills' water detonations for the SunCell are so energetic that he has a rumored COP of 100, then why did the previous demonstration in a calorimeter (which would have captured all of the radiant energy) only show a COP of ~2? I even think this was in error (the calorimetry) for failure to adequately account for the ejecta in the control vs. actual experiment. Why is Mills suddenly able to claim a high COP? Bob Higgins On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > I certainly do not dispute the long list of prior BLP predictions that > failed to come to fruition. > > > > I think where I'm coming from is that, at least from my perception, it > looks to me as if Mills senses something much more substantial with the > SunCell technology working in tandem with the CIHT process. It appears to > me as if Mills is betting the farm on the success of the latest technology. > Make or break time. I grant you this is a subjective opinion. No more. No > less. > > > > In the meantime, I really would like to acquire a better confidence level > that the recycling process is not that difficult to do. That's one of the > reasons I have been repeatedly harping on this subject, looking for > different opinions and clarification from others. All we have to go on is > Mills claim that it is. At present I'm willing to give Mills the benefit of > the doubt... but only to a point. As the famous slogan went: "Trust, but > verify" You are not so sure giving Mills the benefit of the doubt is > warranted. I respect your doubt. > > > > So, here we are... until further developments. > > > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > svjart.orionworks.com > > zazzle.com/orionworks >
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Here is what appears to be the Russian counterpart to BLP. To which most of us would say “враки” assuming we could say it… ☺ http://www.grantstroy.net/en/vodorod-nulevoj-valentnosti.html This is the first time I have run across the term “zero-valence hydrogen”. Best I can tell, it would be the rough equivalent of what Mills calls “hydrino hydride” which is proton and two electrons. Two electrons provides zero usable valence, like helium, supposedly. But in Mills case there is net charge, and presumably the Russian species is not charged either – possibly the electrons are fractional. More likely it is “враки” (aka bullciht) They are missing a good opportunity to promote Stoli… as it must have been part of the inspiration. Invented by none other than our favorite LENR comrade G.G. Arakelyan Doctor of Sciences Honored Rationalizer [really!] and Inventor of the Russian Federation [I thought that was Lenin] <>
[Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
I'm sure many of you know of Brian Ahern from his EPRI report, his MIT colloquium appearance earlier this year, and now his collaboration with MFMP. Even if you're not aware of him, I think this conversation has enough for 3-4 threads worth of topics. We even flirt with the ever-so-dangerous & taboo possibility of "perpetual motion". Titled: "Nanomagnetism, Cooperative Modes, & Non-Linear LENR". Hope you guys/gals enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_kID_E-3tY An outline can be found here: http://jmag0904.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/dr-brian-ahern-nanomagnetism-cooperative-modes-non-linear-lenr/
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
I certainly do not dispute the long list of prior BLP predictions that failed to come to fruition. I think where I'm coming from is that, at least from my perception, it looks to me as if Mills senses something much more substantial with the SunCell technology working in tandem with the CIHT process. It appears to me as if Mills is betting the farm on the success of the latest technology. Make or break time. I grant you this is a subjective opinion. No more. No less. In the meantime, I really would like to acquire a better confidence level that the recycling process is not that difficult to do. That's one of the reasons I have been repeatedly harping on this subject, looking for different opinions and clarification from others. All we have to go on is Mills claim that it is. At present I'm willing to give Mills the benefit of the doubt... but only to a point. As the famous slogan went: "Trust, but verify" You are not so sure giving Mills the benefit of the doubt is warranted. I respect your doubt. So, here we are... until further developments. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:The case for dark matter
What can create a soliton that can fit inside a galaxy, a volume of space that is filled with excited hydrogen and helium radiating in the XUV band, a volume that produce energetic x-rays at 3.5 MeV. A low temperature BEC of atoms does not fit this profile. The particle must be a boson that by its very nature is highly interactive and connective quantum mechanically. It also must be very light or even without mass to sustain entangled and coherent gas at high energy levels. But can produce a huge force that can counteract the force of gravity generated by the combined mass of the galaxy and strong enough to drive the soliton in a highly constrained necklace orbit that is coordinated with other galaxies.
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Alright. I also called Abd to check it out. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
When energy is pumped into the vacuum, then that energy begins to change the very nature of the vacuum. At low levels of pumped energy, the number of virtual photons produce per unit time will proportionally increase. This will increase the rate of radioactive decay of isotopes. When a bit more energy is pumped into the vacuum, pions are produced as a result of the decay produced of meson condensation from the vacuum. At the highest energy pumping levels, the matter in the volume of the reaction breaks down into a quark/gluon plasma that will completely reconfigure the matter input into the reaction along the lines that are defined by the nature of the quarks as they recombine. There might be a number of separate energy strength based reactions catalyzed in the vacuum that occur in a line along the length of the energy beam as the strength of the bean decreases with distance. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: > To Eric's discussion of downconversion ... > > When you speak of the plasma fusion output channels, I like to think of it > in a Bohr-sian way. Presuming plasma, you have isolated deuterium nuclei, > with each nucleus spinning around random vectors. When a pair approaches > with a trajectory alignment that the collision will result in fusion, the > relative rotation between the nuclei is still random. The strong force is > like fly paper - it is so short range (fraction of a nucleon diameter), you > have to essentially "touch" before sticking. So you end up with 3 > possibilities of this close approach: 1) proton is closest and hits and > sticks first, 2) neutron is closest and hits and sticks first, and 3) the > proton and neutron hit just right so that they both hit at the same time > and stick in an interlocking fashion. When 1) happens, a neutron is > released and you get 3He. When 2 happens, a proton is released and you get > tritium, and when 3) happens you get 4He and a gamma. This would predict > that 1) and 2) would be fairly common and 3) would be very rare. However, > because of the Coulomb field, as the deuterium nuclei approach each other, > it would push the protons apart, making the neutrons more likely to face > each other, but this only happens at the last minute. Because of this, 2) > may be slightly more favored. I don't like to think of this plasma fusion > as a black box wherein two nuclei collide and through some magic this set > of statistical outcomes emerges. Once you start thinking about why these > channels emerge, you can begin to think about why LENR leads to its own > output channels. > > Downshifting reminds me of subharmonic conversion since I come from an EE > background. You cannot get subharmonic conversion without coupling to a > very strong nonlinearity. Even then, the output resonance must be > harmonically matched to the input frequency for any kind of efficiency. > When everything is tuned up perfectly, and with a very strong > nonlinearity, you get fairly efficient conversion, but that may mean 20-40%. > > One of the things about Hagelstein's proposition that bothers me is that > the excited nucleus does not want to stay excited for very long - it decays > in an incredibly short time. Suppose you are de-exciting a dd* that wants > to release 24 MeV of energy with a set of phonons at 10THz. The frequency > difference is 24MeV=5.8e21Hz compared to 10THz=1E13Hz or a ratio of 5.8E8. > If you are taking the energy away with a 5.8E8x lower frequency phonon, it > seems like it would take 5.8E8x as long to extract the energy. Can an > excited nucleus be coerced into waiting to burp that long? It seems like > it would require extreme coupling between the excited nucleus and the > lattice for that to happen - much more coupling than the exchange coupling > of the electronic lattice can provide. > > Axil has been talking about interacting waves ... > > My EE training also tells me that waves are 2 ships that cross in the > night and neither knows that the other is there and neither affects the > other UNLESS there is the presence of a nonlinear medium that they both > traverse simultaneously. I am not saying that the vacuum is perfectly > linear, but by most of our experience in the macro world, the vacuum is > nearly perfectly linear; otherwise radio would not work as we know it. As > we get to nuclear scales, this may be different. Also note that solitons > are solutions to a nonlinear equation - it seems that the nonlinearity must > be present for solitons to propagate. If it is the case that the "wave" > nature of elementary particles is more soliton-like, it may be indicating > that the vacuum is not linear at the scales of elementary particles. Once > the nonlinearity is invoked at that scale, there may be wave-to-wave > coupling. > > Bob Higgins > >
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
From: Orionworks It seems to me that when you employ phrases like ".deceit, if there is any" and especially ".active avoidance" these strike me, personally, as implying Mills is deliberately performing a bait and switch campaign to entice DOD into forking over vast amounts of additional R&D funding. Actually you used the word "deceit" first. The short answer to your long question is "no one knows for sure because there is not enough information." The history of BLP and Mills pronouncements is that yes, he has been deceitful on dozens of occasions over the years, and as recently as last year. He may be a certified genius, but he has a history of giving false hope to his patient investors. Some of that is over-exuberance, some is calculated to raise the maximum amount of funds. OTOH - I have never doubted that there can be gain from fractionating hydrogen - only that Mills has not been honest about his prospects for commercialization. If Rossi, despite his well-known problems with over-exuberance, is a 5 on the trustworthiness scale (of 1-10) . then Mills is a 4. Here is the short list of Mills' false promises: 1997: Art Rosenblum Interview - commercialization in 18 months. BLP's cells have produced 1000% excess power; some have been in operation for more than 1 year. The prototype "produces thermal energy immediately, continuously and consistently." 1999: "Will commercialize a hydrino power generator within a year." 1000 W prototype within 4 months. Village Voice, interview 2001: "implementation this year" 2005: "Only months away from commercialization." 2008: CRANBURY, NJ 2008 PRNewswire BlackLight Power Inc. today announced the successful independent replication and validation of its 50,000 watt reactors based on its proprietary new clean energy technology. Licenses to several New Mexico Utilities for Gigawatts. 2009: "Commercialization within 1 year to 18 months." 2012: 100 W CIHT by the end of 2012 2013: 1500 W CIHT by end of year. 2014: 100,000 Watt SunCell in 16 to 18 weeks. No mention of CIHT, Surely you can see the pattern there. where is CIHT now? Where are the Gigawatts? Where is hydrino battery? Where is Capstone hydrino turbine? Where is the gyrotron? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Yes, same guy. Be nice to me and I'll be nice to you and we'll get along just fine. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner? Jojo? There was a guy with this name that was banned and lived in the Philippines. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Wave Powered Design for less than $200/kw
Hello folks, I would like your feedback on something. I am working on a wave powered power plant design that I think I can deploy for less than $200/kw. At this cost, is it competitive with other power sources. I read from wiki and other sources than Geothermal and Hydro power sources can be deployed for less than $300/kw but I am not sure how accurate this is and what exactly is included in that figure. And for that matter, is my figure competitive with coal? My design consists of deploying wave powered small pumps. Each pump cost less than $15.. I plan to deploy around 10,800 such pumps to generate between 1.4MW to 5MW of electricity depending on the intensity of the waves. Here in the Philippine East coast, we get swell heights of 0.8m to 4m with period of 7-10 seconds. With a design life of 10 years, I figured that I would be able to generate electricity at $0.0019/kwh. You read that right, not 19 cents, but 1/5 of 1 cent per kwh. At this level of cost, I believe this is lower than even Rossi's Hotcat or BLP's suncell, am I correct? With operating cost added, I think I can generate electricty for around $0.005/kwh. At these price and cost levels, I can be very competitive with all currently known electricity sources, including hydro and geothermal and including other wave powered designs. My main concern is how competitive I can be when LENR hits the market. As of today, I only see 2 viable technologies that could possibly hit the market in the short term, Rossi's hotcat and Suncell. I read that the projected cost for Rossi's is 1 cent/kwh and for BLP is about $0.03/kwh. Does anybody have more accurate forcast figures for these two technologies. If this is accurate, I will be very very competitive. Give me your thoughts on how competitive I can be in the new LENR environment. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
The point I wanted to make regarding Mizuno was that energy transfer is a full duplex process. In other words, energy can flow in either direction: from the soliton to the reaction or from the reaction to the soliton. There is no gamma's involved in either direction when the soliton is a member of a global BEC. When the volume of the reaction is covered by the magnetic field projected by the soliton, energy transfer occurs without gamma. More than one reaction can occur if the magnetic field that covers the volume in which all the many reactions occur is very strong. In the Mizuno experiment, protium is formed in a fission reaction that needs energy to happen. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > Axil-- > > I am not sure about Mizuno. I do not remember reading anything about > gammas being observed as least as input to the experiment. I assumed he > also realized only small energy changes. Its the lack of gammas that > indicate other small energy quanta transfers are occurring. > > Bob > > Sent from Windows Mail > > *From:* Axil Axil > *Sent:* Thursday, July 24, 2014 10:28 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > > What happens in the endothermic energy case where energy is delivered to > enable the reaction. As in Mizuno, when deuterium becomes podium. Is the > energy delivered as a gamma ray or is it sent over in discrete low energy > quanta? > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Eric Walker > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Bob Cook >> wrote: >> >> >>> Why focus on the Coulomb field? Focus on the intense magnetic fields >>> that can polarize nuclei parallel and antiparallel and cause them to spin >>> in harmony. Transfer of mass via spin energy is possible, although it is >>> not common in a plasma or free particle system most are familiar with. >>> Solid state lattices allow more options for interactions including spin >>> coupling. >> >> >> The Coulomb field is more intuitively accessible to me at this point, and >> an ion core presents a huge surface of charge to impart energy to (in >> addition to any nearby electrons). I get the impression that spin coupling >> is like trying to go fast on a ten-speed bike, but using only the lowest >> gear. No matter how fast you pedal the pedals, energy is still going to be >> translated into motion of the bike only very slowly. This might just be a >> misimpression on my part. As I learn more about nuclear spin, perhaps its >> potential as a conduit will become apparent. >> >> >> Gammas are not necessary for mass conversion to thermal kinetic energy. >> >> >> I think we agree on this point. What's needed is to transfer the energy >> of the decay of a compound nucleus to the environment in a benign way >> (assuming we have fusion, as I do). Since we don't see gammas, I assume >> that energy is imparted through some other mechanism. >> >> Eric >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Peak demand is less than 3kw, this is what I've been trying to tell you. Average is 416W, peak is when I turn on the Microwave for 20 min and the AC also running. So 3KW is sufficient for my home. We try to conserve electricity here cause we have the most expensive electricity rates in the world. Everything is done manually. Manual washing, sun drying, cooking with charcoal stove and manual water pump. It's quite a change from what I'm used to there. My friend from Atlanta couldn't stand it here. Also, I don't eat toasted bread. In fact, I don't eat bread. I'm a rice eater exclusively :-) And I don't drink coffee. So, as you can see, my load is just the AC and occasional microwave, a reefer, some fans and some lights; and of course my computer. Peak is less than 3KW. This will be my last response to you on this subject matter cause I don't think Jones appreciates us hijacking his thread. I'll be glad to carry on a conversation with you on something more relevant to Vortex topics. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner? Jojo Iznart wrote: 1. My home electricity consumption is less than 3KW. That is why I said "my home". I use less than 300kwh of electricity a month. But what is the peak demand? As I said, if you turn on the coffee maker, a toaster and one light, you exceed 3 kW. I expect that even in the Philippines peak home demand exceeds 3 kW. So you would need some sort of battery with a 3 kW generator. 2. "Anywhere in the world" does not include the Philippines. Household electricity consumption is lower here. No doubt, but you cannot toast bread with less than 1.5 kW. Even if the Suncell achieves an overunity of just 10%, it would be revolutionary in my opinion. Yes. For that matter 0.01% overunity would be revolutionary. But hard to measure. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Mr. Rothwell finally makes an unexpected appearance on this subject thread. I was hoping he would! Jed, if it is at all within the capacity of your busy schedule would you be willing to view the June 25 video demos posted out at the BLP web site: Part 1: http://youtu.be/zGTUd68hu5M Part 2: http://youtu.be/rRnfuO6uQyU BLP has also promised to post a newer video, from a July 21 demo soon as well. I was hoping you might find it worth your time to spend around 3 to 4 hours viewing them. Granted blocking out 3 to 4 hours this is a lot to ask. Nevertheless, I think you know a thing or two about what goes into the running of a good demonstration. i.e.: Make sure the contraptions work before you demo it in front of the target audience… and practice, practice, practice beforehand! I’m interested in your POV on whether you think these BLP demos were informative, or whether you felt this was nothing more than pomp and circumstance. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Jones, Jojo already beat me to questioning some of your prior conclusions. Nevertheless, let me approach the matter from my own perspective. It seems to me that when you employ phrases like ".deceit, if there is any" and especially ".active avoidance" these strike me, personally, as implying Mills is deliberately performing a bait and switch campaign to entice DOD into forking over vast amounts of additional R&D funding. There exists an animation BLP video that clearly shows the powder substrate exploding, or being catalyzed. It then drops down as "spent" powder particulates into the bottom of the reactor chamber. The used powder is then collected and rehydrated with more water. This video reveals no visual hint of there being any kind of an elaborate recycling process needed in order to rejuvenate the spent powder. The animation clearly implies to any viewer that once water has been re-introduced into the recently catalyzed powder, the rehydrated slurry is pretty much ready once again to be catalyzed. There is no hint of any kind of special energy intensive technology needed. Apparently, this can occur endlessly. That certainly is our hope. http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/072114Demons tration.pdf See the still diagram on page 34. There is a flashy animated video on page 39 showing the recycling process. Yes, yes. of course, clearly this is nothing more than a BLP promo video. It's a simplified animation. Nevertheless, the implication, in my view, is obvious. The animation both visually and symbolically implies that the recycling process is fast, cheap, and easy to do. It implies very little intensive handling is necessary. Mills also had the following to say in regards to a question I recently posted concerning issues brought up in Vortex-l (many by you) having to do initially with potential oxidation issues, but also having to do with how energy intensive might the recycling process be: Posted July 24, 2014, by Dr. Mills: [SocietyforClassicalPhysics] We intend to run H2 in the cell gas that reacts with CuO and AgO to form H2O and metal very exothermically. O2 with [will?] be very rapidly combusted with H2 in the plasma conditions in the cell. The source of H2 is H2O. [I read that is implying BLP will regularly burn off accumulations of O2 within the reaction chamber by supplying H2] We also have use fuels with Cu as the metal, and Ag + MgCl2 + H2O energy data in our paper. Burning cannot make any soft X-ray light. All of the calorimetry data is recorded under an argon atmosphere. The duration is only 0.5 ms, and the power density is >100 B watts per liter. There are many reasons why burning is completely ruled out. This is about the third time that I have addressed this question. I hope that you understand that there can be no oxygen combustion when there is no oxygen, and the characteristics of the reaction in terms of energy balance, power, power density, and soft X-ray production, fully ionized plasma formation, and 3500 to 6000 K blackbody radiation with no line emission are outside the bounds of what is possible with combustion. For details Mills cites the following paper: http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/SunCellPaper.pdf Alas, the paper contains far more math than I am capable of digesting. Hopefully, there are others on this list far more capable of critiquing the contents than I. How about you? .or someone else? What are the prevailing thoughts on the paper's contents? On another matter, in one of the June 25 videos I recall that Mills specifically elaborates that BLP has repeatedly tested the recycling of the powder fuel. It should be pretty clear to anyone who views the video that, at least according to what Mills has verbalized, the recycling process is a pretty simple process. Here are some examples of what Mills has to say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGTUd68hu5M&feature=youtu.be 19:20 Mills begins to talk about the metal powder 28:30 Mills starts talking about the volume of powder used 29:10 Mills states the fuel can be rehydrated and re-circulated 29:30 Mills states the regeneration system is "Very simple" 30:15: Again Mills talks about the regeneration system. If your conclusion is correct, Mills would have to be both consciously and deliberately lying, IMHO. Are you willing to go on the record as saying Dr. Mills is deliberately lying about how difficult and energy intensive the SunCell recycling process actually is? PS: Philippians? Welcome back, Jojo. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
This is the kinder gentler Jojo. Smart guy, we should let him stay. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > Jojo? There was a guy with this name that was banned and lived in the > Philippines. > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Jojo? There was a guy with this name that was banned and lived in the Philippines. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Jojo Iznart wrote: > 1. My home electricity consumption is less than 3KW. That is why I said > "my home". I use less than 300kwh of electricity a month. > But what is the peak demand? As I said, if you turn on the coffee maker, a toaster and one light, you exceed 3 kW. I expect that even in the Philippines peak home demand exceeds 3 kW. So you would need some sort of battery with a 3 kW generator. > 2. "Anywhere in the world" does not include the Philippines. Household > electricity consumption is lower here. > No doubt, but you cannot toast bread with less than 1.5 kW. Even if the Suncell achieves an overunity of just 10%, it would be > revolutionary in my opinion. > Yes. For that matter 0.01% overunity would be revolutionary. But hard to measure. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > The way to convert electrons to energy is via positrons (anti-electrons). > However, that radiation signature shows up quite well with meters, and it is > probably why in 2011, Bianchini who was hired to look for a radiation > signature, used a meter designed specifically for positron/electron detection. > > Sorry but the result was negative. Ah, but suppose there is another way to convert by dispersing the spin of one electron among other particles? The electron charge is, after all, pure energy derived from the spin momentum.
Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
I BELIEVE YOU. I think this place is crawling with it, especially over our heads, uncurling in the atmosphere, bending and lensing and attenuating light and Doppler microwave radiation and RF. Space is all puckered up. We are creatures of the quantum vacuum. Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > The is about a half-dozen indicators that LENR is dark matter, and there is > a good chance that this dark matter is producing the dark energy that is > expanding the universe. > > I am dishartend that my posts on this dark issue are not convincing, but > recupitualtion is my game > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >> >> I don't mind the Mills hypothesis. I wouldn't be shocked if it was >> correct. You can even tell Storms has a begrudging respect for it. I like >> the Meulenberg-Sinha take on it as well. There was an article form last year >> I believe in JCMNS that explores the DDL in depth. Meulenberg seemed to >> think it was important. You might find it worthwhile considering your >> interest in the subject. I just think there are some serious problems with >> the model as well -- such as the instability issue. >> >> CF-LENR I think would be an even more amazing story if it ended up >> granting insight into dark matter and such. I just wouldn't proclaim that >> too loudly at this point -- it's not exactly a credibility-generating >> maneuver at this awkward time in CF-LENR's present development & image. >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene wrote: >>> >>> If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron >>> orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a >>> lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide >>> the >>> thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there >>> is >>> such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator, >>> such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of >>> nickel. >>> >>> Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods. >>> They >>> do not show that the DDL is impossible... >>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf >>> but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory >>> >>> To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, >>> please >>> consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in >>> early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent >>> filing. >>> In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important >>> reactant >>> - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely >>> that >>> Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active >>> isotope. >>> >>> Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if >>> he >>> is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against >>> infringement. QUOTE from application: "Accordingly, it is indispensable >>> to >>> use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope >>> having a >>> mass number of 62". That pretty much says it all when we consider the >>> properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the >>> patent >>> for why this isotope works). He could be "right for the wrong reason". >>> >>> BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, >>> who >>> is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again >>> - >>> the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the >>> PCT >>> so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and >>> perhaps >>> for little else. >>> >>> Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm? >>> >>> Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest >>> binding >>> energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no >>> more >>> stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually >>> prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as >>> Rossi >>> suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be >>> coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad >>> that >>> he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly noted that other >>> nickel and iron isotopes have very high binding energy as well, but a lot >>> of >>> weight goes to Rossi's testing of isotopes against each other. >>> >>> That is what is meant by Rossi being "right for the wrong reason" >>> >>> This stability of Ni-62, combined with ferromagnetism is especially >>> relevant >>> for the combination of a strong magnet with a material which cannot be >>> saturated; and the DDL, with an effective field strength at the 10 Fermi >>> level in the range of giga-T (billions of Tesla) is that strong magnet. >>> Deraz - claims there is no saturation level for NiO, and even if doubts >>> are >>> warranted on that partic
Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
The is about a half-dozen indicators that LENR is dark matter, and there is a good chance that this dark matter is producing the dark energy that is expanding the universe. I am dishartend that my posts on this dark issue are not convincing, but recupitualtion is my game On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > I don't mind the Mills hypothesis. I wouldn't be shocked if it was > correct. You can even tell Storms has a begrudging respect for it. I like > the Meulenberg-Sinha take on it as well. There was an article form last > year I believe in JCMNS that explores the DDL in depth. Meulenberg seemed > to think it was important. You might find it worthwhile considering your > interest in the subject. I just think there are some serious problems > with the model as well -- such as the instability issue. > > CF-LENR I think would be an even more amazing story if it ended up > granting insight into dark matter and such. I just wouldn't proclaim that > too loudly at this point -- it's not exactly a credibility-generating > maneuver at this awkward time in CF-LENR's present development & image. > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron >> orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a >> lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide >> the >> thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there >> is >> such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator, >> such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of >> nickel. >> >> Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods. >> They >> do not show that the DDL is impossible... >> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf >> but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory >> >> To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, please >> consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in >> early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent filing. >> In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important >> reactant >> - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely that >> Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active >> isotope. >> >> Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if >> he >> is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against >> infringement. QUOTE from application: "Accordingly, it is indispensable to >> use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope >> having a >> mass number of 62". That pretty much says it all when we consider the >> properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the >> patent >> for why this isotope works). He could be "right for the wrong reason". >> >> BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, who >> is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again - >> the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the >> PCT >> so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and perhaps >> for little else. >> >> Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm? >> >> Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest >> binding >> energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no >> more >> stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually >> prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as >> Rossi >> suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be >> coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad >> that >> he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly noted that other >> nickel and iron isotopes have very high binding energy as well, but a lot >> of >> weight goes to Rossi's testing of isotopes against each other. >> >> That is what is meant by Rossi being "right for the wrong reason" >> >> This stability of Ni-62, combined with ferromagnetism is especially >> relevant >> for the combination of a strong magnet with a material which cannot be >> saturated; and the DDL, with an effective field strength at the 10 Fermi >> level in the range of giga-T (billions of Tesla) is that strong magnet. >> Deraz - claims there is no saturation level for NiO, and even if doubts >> are >> warranted on that particular point, it could be important in the context >> of >> spin coupling to find an extreme level of saturation capability, with >> which >> to mate with giga-T fields. The result is spin coupling. >> www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7054608.pdf >> >> In short, as of now, with dozens of alternative theories floating around >> for >> the gain in Ni-H, the best emerging scenario - from my perspective seems >> to >> be one which is >> 1) No fusion occurs in Ni-H. It
RE: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton > Well, I'm working on my own pet theory but can't find the information to > support it. I think the Rossi effect works by conversion of electrons > directly into energy. Crazy, huh? Not really crazy - Rossi/Focardi's old comments relates to positrons as one of the possibilities - along with Ni->Cu. The way to convert electrons to energy is via positrons (anti-electrons). However, that radiation signature shows up quite well with meters, and it is probably why in 2011, Bianchini who was hired to look for a radiation signature, used a meter designed specifically for positron/electron detection. Sorry but the result was negative.
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
4 points. 1. My home electricity consumption is less than 3KW. That is why I said "my home". I use less than 300kwh of electricity a month. or about 416W. Hence 3kw is more than enough for me. So, I was saying this in the context of my own needs. 2. "Anywhere in the world" does not include the Philippines. Household electricity consumption is lower here. 3. Yet, having said this, it still does not negate the fact that ganging up 4, 5, or 10 of these suncells is viable considering its small size. So, my original conclusion is still valid. Even if the Suncell achieves an overunity of just 10%, it would be revolutionary in my opinion. Yet, there are indications that we may be getting COP 100. It looks like Randy may have a winner here, if he can get it to market. For the good of humanity, I pray that he succeeds. 4. Considering the nature of the sparks and its timings, it is almost certain that it would require some sort of big battery system. Hence, peak power needs may be smooth out right out of the box. Even if 10x suncells with its battery pack take up your entire garage, it is still viable and possible and workable. I would give up use of my garage to get free electricity without the unreliability of the grid, especially Philippine grid. We get 4-5 brownouts here every week. Each one last 30-60 minutes. Quite frustrating for one coming from the States where I never experienced a brownout there in years. Speaking as an American, sometimes Americans don't realize how good they've got it there. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 4:44 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner? I wrote: Peak demand at most houses is well above 3 kW just about anywhere in the world, for example at night when you turn on a clothes dryer. Some examples of heavy duty appliances: Toaster oven or coffee maker, 1.5 kW Clothes dryer 4.4 to 5.6 kW Vacuum cleaner 1.1 kW Central air conditioner 3.5 kW Modern refrigerator 0.2 - 0.7 kW, when the compressor is running. 160 W average over a day. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > 8) It is not clear if the Ni-62 gives up some of its own mass, or is > a > gateway to the Dirac "sea" ... Either way, this is LENR but it is also > "non-fusion LENR" Well, I'm working on my own pet theory but can't find the information to support it. I think the Rossi effect works by conversion of electrons directly into energy. Crazy, huh? Does a free electron have spin? Does a free electron have mass? Does a free electron exist?
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
I wrote: > Peak demand at most houses is well above 3 kW just about anywhere in the > world, for example at night when you turn on a clothes dryer. > Some examples of heavy duty appliances: Toaster oven or coffee maker, 1.5 kW Clothes dryer 4.4 to 5.6 kW Vacuum cleaner 1.1 kW Central air conditioner 3.5 kW Modern refrigerator 0.2 - 0.7 kW, when the compressor is running. 160 W average over a day. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
LENR reactions with nickel is a very rare minority reaction. The primary reaction is in the extraction of nuclear energy from hydrogen crystals (Rydberg matter). A NiH reactor can operates for months and years without much deterioration of the nickel nano-structures through transmutation. The NiH reactor produces only light elements. The DGT ash assay shows little nickel consumed and little copper produced. The nuclear energy produced in the NiH LENR reaction is absorbed in the hydrogen envelope because the 3 grams of nickel powder does not have sufficient thermodynamic presents to transfer heat to the structure of the reactor without deterioration through sintering. Many other transition metals are capable of supporting the LENR reaction. Nickel is best because it is a perfect infrared reflector. Ni58, Ni60, Ni62 and Ni64 are all capable of supporting LENR because they are NMR inactive. Ni61 is NMR active and will waste energy by producing radio frequency radiation. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron > orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a > lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide the > thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there > is > such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator, > such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of > nickel. > > Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods. > They > do not show that the DDL is impossible... > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf > but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory > > To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, please > consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in > early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent filing. > In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important > reactant > - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely that > Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active > isotope. > > Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if he > is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against > infringement. QUOTE from application: "Accordingly, it is indispensable to > use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope having > a > mass number of 62". That pretty much says it all when we consider the > properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the > patent > for why this isotope works). He could be "right for the wrong reason". > > BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, who > is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again - > the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the > PCT > so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and perhaps > for little else. > > Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm? > > Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest binding > energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no more > stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually > prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as Rossi > suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be > coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad > that > he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly noted that other > nickel and iron isotopes have very high binding energy as well, but a lot > of > weight goes to Rossi's testing of isotopes against each other. > > That is what is meant by Rossi being "right for the wrong reason" > > This stability of Ni-62, combined with ferromagnetism is especially > relevant > for the combination of a strong magnet with a material which cannot be > saturated; and the DDL, with an effective field strength at the 10 Fermi > level in the range of giga-T (billions of Tesla) is that strong magnet. > Deraz - claims there is no saturation level for NiO, and even if doubts are > warranted on that particular point, it could be important in the context of > spin coupling to find an extreme level of saturation capability, with which > to mate with giga-T fields. The result is spin coupling. > www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7054608.pdf > > In short, as of now, with dozens of alternative theories floating around > for > the gain in Ni-H, the best emerging scenario - from my perspective seems to > be one which is > 1) No fusion occurs in Ni-H. It is a different beast that Pd-D. > 2) But the gain is Nuclear, in the sense of mass conversion into > energy > 3) It is Nanomagnetic in the sense that spin energy is involved at > small geometry > 4) Probably involves a tra
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Jojo Iznart wrote: > I for one can use 2 or 3 of these units to produce 2-3kw of electricity > which would be sufficient for my home. Only if you use a large battery. Average demand is around 3 kW in the US. Peak demand at most houses is well above 3 kW just about anywhere in the world, for example at night when you turn on a clothes dryer. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
I see... So, you acknowledge that the Mills process does produce considerable amount of energy that can not be accounted by chemical processes.. This specific objection you have is whether this process would be economical based on your conjecture that titanium can not be recycled. So, you are now convinced that Mills may have something? Are you now prepared to retract your previous statements that Mills is simply doing a dog and pony show to investors instead of demonstrating a viable process? But, aren't there other catalysts other than titanium. Would these other catalyst present the same problem of cost and one time use that you conjecture? If these other catalysts produce energy, though it may not be as high as Titanium, wouldn't Mill's Suncell still be a viable technology, even with just a COP of 2? or even as low as COP 1.1 since its output is electricity with can be directly fed up to drive the sparks. And at its small form factor, it would be a viable generator even if it just produces 1kw of net electricity - wouldn't you agree? I for one can use 2 or 3 of these units to produce 2-3kw of electricity which would be sufficient for my home. Jojo - Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" To: Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 1:34 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner? -Original Message- From: Jojo Iznart Have you or anyone else done the math on whether the burning (oxidation) of Titanium could account for the energy release, which by one account here in vortex says has about a COP of 100. Can such miniscule amounts of nano powder actually account for the energy assuming it is being oxidized ... No oxidation is only a small part and not the complete story. Instead, the energy of oxidation provides the initial ionization which is necessary for hydrogen to fractionalize into redundant ground states. The catalyst must ionize first, and the combination of a low voltage electric arc and oxygenation will provide what Mills calls an "energy hole" which catalyzes shrinkage. Mills does not provide enough data for any kind of mathematical analysis.
RE: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
John, I’m quite familiar with what Meulenberg has written over the years on the DDL but it is not his invention. He deserves lots of credit for promoting it, however. Nor is the DDL really attributable to Mills. In fact, RM can be faulted for not acknowledging the previous work. Mills does add the Rydberg steps, which is a nice touch. In fact, Meulenberg is well aware of the Rice/Kim objections, and he cannot counter them, or at least there is no indication in published documents that he can. Rice/Kim make a strong case, despite one shaky assumption. One way to salvage the DDL, since it seems so intuitive to the problem of LENR, is to consider it as transitory. IMO – that tactic – a transitory oscillation, with inherent asymmetry, can work; but - a time-stable DDL is probably out of the picture. From: Foks0904 I don't mind the Mills hypothesis. I wouldn't be shocked if it was correct. You can even tell Storms has a begrudging respect for it. I like the Meulenberg-Sinha take on it as well. There was an article form last year I believe in JCMNS that explores the DDL in depth. Meulenberg seemed to think it was important. You might find it worthwhile considering your interest in the subject. I just think there are some serious problems with the model as well -- such as the instability issue. CF-LENR I think would be an even more amazing story if it ended up granting insight into dark matter and such. I just wouldn't proclaim that too loudly at this point -- it's not exactly a credibility-generating maneuver at this awkward time in CF-LENR's present development & image. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene wrote: If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide the thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there is such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator, such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of nickel. Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods. They do not show that the DDL is impossible... http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, please consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent filing. In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important reactant - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely that Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active isotope. Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if he is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against infringement. QUOTE from application: "Accordingly, it is indispensable to use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope having a mass number of 62". That pretty much says it all when we consider the properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the patent for why this isotope works). He could be "right for the wrong reason". BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, who is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again - the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the PCT so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and perhaps for little else. Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm? Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest binding energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no more stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as Rossi suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad that he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly note
Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
Jones-- I would bet that Pd lattice can also provide high magnetic fields and spin coupling as you have indicated for Ni-62. It may not be as effective however. Eric--take note of Jones assessment of spin coupling and the importance of magnetic fields. What causes the latency you outline earlier as being low may be off base. I think that resonant conditions established via thermal control may be the key. To start a spin coupling reaction the proper temperature must be established. Once established it is self maintained and self limiting because higher temperatures destroy the resonant conditions needed for coupling. Note that the hot cat probably merely added items to the lattice to change the resonant conditions. The peak of the black body spectrum is the key to controlling the reaction. The sharper the peak the easier the control. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 9:19 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide the thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there is such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator, such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of nickel. Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods. They do not show that the DDL is impossible... http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, please consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent filing. In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important reactant - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely that Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active isotope. Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if he is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against infringement. QUOTE from application: "Accordingly, it is indispensable to use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope having a mass number of 62". That pretty much says it all when we consider the properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the patent for why this isotope works). He could be "right for the wrong reason". BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, who is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again - the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the PCT so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and perhaps for little else. Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm? Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest binding energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no more stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as Rossi suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad that he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly noted that other nickel and iron isotopes have very high binding energy as well, but a lot of weight goes to Rossi's testing of isotopes against each other. That is what is meant by Rossi being "right for the wrong reason" This stability of Ni-62, combined with ferromagnetism is especially relevant for the combination of a strong magnet with a material which cannot be saturated; and the DDL, with an effective field strength at the 10 Fermi level in the range of giga-T (billions of Tesla) is that strong magnet. Deraz - claims there is no saturation level for NiO, and even if doubts are warranted on that particular point, it could be important in the context of spin coupling to find an extreme level of saturation capability, with which to mate with giga-T fields. The result is spin coupling. www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7054608.pdf In short, as of now, with dozens of alternative theories floating around for the gain in Ni-H, the best emerging scenario - from my perspective seems to be one which is 1) No fusion occurs in Ni-H. It is a different beast that Pd-D. 2) But the gain is Nuclear, in the sense of mass conversion into energy 3) It is Nanomagnetic in the sense that spin energy is involved at small geometry 4) Probably involves a transitory version of the DDL, which oscillates at IR frequency, due to SPP interaction at the top and spin coupling at the bottom, such that the collapse and reinflation are slightly a
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
-Original Message- From: Jojo Iznart > Have you or anyone else done the math on whether the burning (oxidation) of Titanium could account for the energy release, which by one account here in vortex says has about a COP of 100. Can such miniscule amounts of nano powder actually account for the energy assuming it is being oxidized ... No oxidation is only a small part and not the complete story. Instead, the energy of oxidation provides the initial ionization which is necessary for hydrogen to fractionalize into redundant ground states. The catalyst must ionize first, and the combination of a low voltage electric arc and oxygenation will provide what Mills calls an "energy hole" which catalyzes shrinkage. Mills does not provide enough data for any kind of mathematical analysis.
Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
I don't mind the Mills hypothesis. I wouldn't be shocked if it was correct. You can even tell Storms has a begrudging respect for it. I like the Meulenberg-Sinha take on it as well. There was an article form last year I believe in JCMNS that explores the DDL in depth. Meulenberg seemed to think it was important. You might find it worthwhile considering your interest in the subject. I just think there are some serious problems with the model as well -- such as the instability issue. CF-LENR I think would be an even more amazing story if it ended up granting insight into dark matter and such. I just wouldn't proclaim that too loudly at this point -- it's not exactly a credibility-generating maneuver at this awkward time in CF-LENR's present development & image. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron > orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a > lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide the > thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there > is > such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator, > such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of > nickel. > > Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods. > They > do not show that the DDL is impossible... > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf > but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory > > To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, please > consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in > early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent filing. > In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important > reactant > - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely that > Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active > isotope. > > Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if he > is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against > infringement. QUOTE from application: "Accordingly, it is indispensable to > use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope having > a > mass number of 62". That pretty much says it all when we consider the > properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the > patent > for why this isotope works). He could be "right for the wrong reason". > > BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, who > is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again - > the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the > PCT > so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and perhaps > for little else. > > Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm? > > Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest binding > energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no more > stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually > prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as Rossi > suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be > coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad > that > he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly noted that other > nickel and iron isotopes have very high binding energy as well, but a lot > of > weight goes to Rossi's testing of isotopes against each other. > > That is what is meant by Rossi being "right for the wrong reason" > > This stability of Ni-62, combined with ferromagnetism is especially > relevant > for the combination of a strong magnet with a material which cannot be > saturated; and the DDL, with an effective field strength at the 10 Fermi > level in the range of giga-T (billions of Tesla) is that strong magnet. > Deraz - claims there is no saturation level for NiO, and even if doubts are > warranted on that particular point, it could be important in the context of > spin coupling to find an extreme level of saturation capability, with which > to mate with giga-T fields. The result is spin coupling. > www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7054608.pdf > > In short, as of now, with dozens of alternative theories floating around > for > the gain in Ni-H, the best emerging scenario - from my perspective seems to > be one which is > 1) No fusion occurs in Ni-H. It is a different beast that Pd-D. > 2) But the gain is Nuclear, in the sense of mass conversion into > energy > 3) It is Nanomagnetic in the sense that spin energy is involved at > small geometry > 4) Probably involves a transitory version of the DDL, which oscillates > at IR frequency, due to SPP interaction at the top and spin coupling at the > bottom, such that the collapse and reinflation are slightly asymmetric in > energy > 5) T
[Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
If there is a real DDL species in LENR (hydrogen isomer with electron orbital at less than 10 Fermi), even if it is a transitory species with a lifetime of only nanoseconds, then there is a way for nickel to provide the thermal gain, by spin coupling with no fusion required. In fact, if there is such a DDL species, chances are that it could be a transitory oscillator, such that the rate of oscillation is resonant with the phonon rate of nickel. Rice and Kim show here that the DDL is not stable for extended periods. They do not show that the DDL is impossible... http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf but they also demonstrate that they do not understand Mills' CQM theory To overcome the objections to the DDL, and to nickel spin coupling, please consider all of these points as a package, and not individually. Back in early 2011, we talked about the final revision of the Rossi patent filing. In his application Rossi's bets everything on Ni62 as THE important reactant - US 2011/0005506. His reasoning could be incorrect, but it is likely that Rossi tested pure isotopes and found that Ni-62 was indeed the active isotope. Otherwise Rossi would not have bet the farm on one isotope, since ... if he is wrong on that single detail he has lost all protection against infringement. QUOTE from application: "Accordingly, it is indispensable to use, for the above mentioned exothermal reactions, a nickel isotope having a mass number of 62". That pretty much says it all when we consider the properties of this isotope (and if we ignore Rossi's reasoning in the patent for why this isotope works). He could be "right for the wrong reason". BTW - the patent was granted in Europe to his wife Maddalena Pascucci, who is an attorney, and presumably had good advice on patent law - but again - the US application is not granted. However, the USA is a signator to the PCT so Pascucci could get protection here for the nickel-62 part - and perhaps for little else. Why Ni-62 ... and why bet the farm? Nickel-62 is at the very pinnacle of stability - having the highest binding energy per nucleon in the entire Periodic Table (8.8 MeV). There is no more stable isotope known to science. This binding stability would actually prohibit it from participating in proton nuclear fusion reactions, as Rossi suggested, but would allow spin energy (part of the binding energy) to be coupled and depleted - simply because there is plenty to spare. Too bad that he did not realize this distinction. BTW - it is duly noted that other nickel and iron isotopes have very high binding energy as well, but a lot of weight goes to Rossi's testing of isotopes against each other. That is what is meant by Rossi being "right for the wrong reason" This stability of Ni-62, combined with ferromagnetism is especially relevant for the combination of a strong magnet with a material which cannot be saturated; and the DDL, with an effective field strength at the 10 Fermi level in the range of giga-T (billions of Tesla) is that strong magnet. Deraz - claims there is no saturation level for NiO, and even if doubts are warranted on that particular point, it could be important in the context of spin coupling to find an extreme level of saturation capability, with which to mate with giga-T fields. The result is spin coupling. www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7054608.pdf In short, as of now, with dozens of alternative theories floating around for the gain in Ni-H, the best emerging scenario - from my perspective seems to be one which is 1) No fusion occurs in Ni-H. It is a different beast that Pd-D. 2) But the gain is Nuclear, in the sense of mass conversion into energy 3) It is Nanomagnetic in the sense that spin energy is involved at small geometry 4) Probably involves a transitory version of the DDL, which oscillates at IR frequency, due to SPP interaction at the top and spin coupling at the bottom, such that the collapse and reinflation are slightly asymmetric in energy 5) Thus there is net heat. 6) The gain comes mostly from Ni-62 by spin coupling to its high level of composite spin, 7) Oxygen if present in the nickel in small amounts could allow increased saturation capability 8) It is not clear if the Ni-62 gives up some of its own mass, or is a gateway to the Dirac "sea" ... Either way, this is LENR but it is also "non-fusion LENR" Any and all of these suggestion are subject to change as soon as better data arrives. All we can do now is look at the big picture as being shadows on Plato's cave. <>
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
Axil-- I am not sure about Mizuno. I do not remember reading anything about gammas being observed as least as input to the experiment. I assumed he also realized only small energy changes. Its the lack of gammas that indicate other small energy quanta transfers are occurring. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Axil Axil Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 10:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com What happens in the endothermic energy case where energy is delivered to enable the reaction. As in Mizuno, when deuterium becomes podium. Is the energy delivered as a gamma ray or is it sent over in discrete low energy quanta? On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Eric Walker wrote: On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Why focus on the Coulomb field? Focus on the intense magnetic fields that can polarize nuclei parallel and antiparallel and cause them to spin in harmony. Transfer of mass via spin energy is possible, although it is not common in a plasma or free particle system most are familiar with. Solid state lattices allow more options for interactions including spin coupling. The Coulomb field is more intuitively accessible to me at this point, and an ion core presents a huge surface of charge to impart energy to (in addition to any nearby electrons). I get the impression that spin coupling is like trying to go fast on a ten-speed bike, but using only the lowest gear. No matter how fast you pedal the pedals, energy is still going to be translated into motion of the bike only very slowly. This might just be a misimpression on my part. As I learn more about nuclear spin, perhaps its potential as a conduit will become apparent. Gammas are not necessary for mass conversion to thermal kinetic energy. I think we agree on this point. What's needed is to transfer the energy of the decay of a compound nucleus to the environment in a benign way (assuming we have fusion, as I do). Since we don't see gammas, I assume that energy is imparted through some other mechanism. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Jones, Have you or anyone else done the math on whether the burning (oxidation) of Titanium could account for the energy release, which by one account here in vortex says has about a COP of 100. Can such miniscule amounts of nano powder actually account for the energy assuming it is being oxidized as per your conjecture. If it can not, then it is clear another mechanism is at work. Jojo - Original Message - From: "Jones Beene" To: Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:10 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner? From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson Jones, please correct me if I've misinterpreted your premise, but it's my understanding that you are speculating that the BLP "SunCell" process is based primarily on a Ti - plus- O oxidation process that Mills doesn't want potential financial backers catch on to, at least not right away. Steven - That's not it. There is oxidation, yes and with water supplying the oxygen, and he is not hiding that. How could he? But there is more. The only question is this: does the energetic oxidation of catalyst (titanium or an ensemble of catalysts) also cause hydrogen released from water to "fractionalize" by dropping into reduced orbitals. Skeptics say no, but on this point there is good evidence that Mills does see substantial gain. I am in his camp on the gain part. But is it net gain, and is it cost efficient? Granted, it may be naive of me to say this but I'm not at present inclined to conjecture that Mills is operating on such level of deceit. Hopefully, I'll be proven right, but I have no guarantee of that. To be clear, the deceit if there is any - is not related to the oxidation. It is related to the net cost of a system which demands that an expensive catalyst be reused, over and over. He scarcely addresses this issue of rejuvenating the catalyst. As you have pointed out, how much additional energy would the recycling of the oxidation process consume? If this is what is really going on the net energy gain is indeed likely to be distinctively negative. Yes, that is the problem. If there is deceit, it is in the recycling issue and it most a question of active avoidance of a key issue, instead of dishonesty. [snip] Mills response was that all BLP needs to do is "burn" off the free oxygen by systematically re-introducing free hydrogen into the gas mixture and then igniting it. [Snip] POV1: From Jones' conjecture, oxidation is the primary form of energy being released here. As such, when the entire recycling process is taken into consideration there is no net energy gain. That is not exactly correct. I believe that oxidation supplies a part of the net energy and that fractionalization of hydrogen orbitals provides most of the net energy. So there is a bona fide anomaly and possibly a strong one. But ... the bad news ... even with strong gain, it could be insufficient to fully rejuvenate the catalyst - especially if "nano" is required, resulting in the situation where make-up catalyst will be required - or otherwise making the system unrealistic commercially - for all except military and NASA. For some exotic uses (weaponization or rocketry) - a "once through" system at high cost is not a problem. If the gain is 10x over normal rocket fuel, then there would be a huge market for a once-though propellant. Will the military aspects of the SunCell carry the project? I think the answer is yes, but that leaves most of Mills supporters out in the cold insofar as it will not solve the energy crisis in its present design. The would hate it because most of them are idealists who detest the military. Therefore, as it looks now to this long-time observer - as soon as the present round of financing is complete (is it the 8th or 9th round?) then Mills/BLP will drop the SunCell, without further mention, hopefully after selling the rights to LM for another big chunk of funds - and move onto something better. Unfortunately for this long range plan, within the same time frame, Cherokee will have its factory in China churning out millions of HotCats for the masses. :-) Ironically - given the Mills demo, the CHC or China-Hot-Cat could possibly employ photoelectric conversion of heat to electricity, but in the IR range. You heard it first on Vortex. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: One of the things about Hagelstein's proposition that bothers me is that > the excited nucleus does not want to stay excited for very long - it decays > in an incredibly short time. Suppose you are de-exciting a dd* that wants > to release 24 MeV of energy with a set of phonons at 10THz. The frequency > difference is 24MeV=5.8e21Hz compared to 10THz=1E13Hz or a ratio of 5.8E8. > If you are taking the energy away with a 5.8E8x lower frequency phonon, it > seems like it would take 5.8E8x as long to extract the energy. Can an > excited nucleus be coerced into waiting to burp that long? It seems like > it would require extreme coupling between the excited nucleus and the > lattice for that to happen - much more coupling than the exchange coupling > of the electronic lattice can provide. > Yes -- your feeling about phonons is similar to mine (and, for me, spin coupling, too). The problem largely feels like a bandwidth/latency optimization problem. The compound nucleus is optimizing for the fastest, highest throughput decay. So it has different options (observed and hypothesized): - gamma emission -- high latency, high throughput - kinetic disintegration (to 3He, t, etc.) -- medium latency, high throughput - coupling with phonon modes -- low latency, low throughput? - spin coupling -- low latency, low throughput? - electromagnetic impulse (EMP) -- low latency, high throughput? (When seen in the above light, the optimized solution seems to me to be EMP, assuming the different channels have been properly characterized.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
To Eric's discussion of downconversion ... When you speak of the plasma fusion output channels, I like to think of it in a Bohr-sian way. Presuming plasma, you have isolated deuterium nuclei, with each nucleus spinning around random vectors. When a pair approaches with a trajectory alignment that the collision will result in fusion, the relative rotation between the nuclei is still random. The strong force is like fly paper - it is so short range (fraction of a nucleon diameter), you have to essentially "touch" before sticking. So you end up with 3 possibilities of this close approach: 1) proton is closest and hits and sticks first, 2) neutron is closest and hits and sticks first, and 3) the proton and neutron hit just right so that they both hit at the same time and stick in an interlocking fashion. When 1) happens, a neutron is released and you get 3He. When 2 happens, a proton is released and you get tritium, and when 3) happens you get 4He and a gamma. This would predict that 1) and 2) would be fairly common and 3) would be very rare. However, because of the Coulomb field, as the deuterium nuclei approach each other, it would push the protons apart, making the neutrons more likely to face each other, but this only happens at the last minute. Because of this, 2) may be slightly more favored. I don't like to think of this plasma fusion as a black box wherein two nuclei collide and through some magic this set of statistical outcomes emerges. Once you start thinking about why these channels emerge, you can begin to think about why LENR leads to its own output channels. Downshifting reminds me of subharmonic conversion since I come from an EE background. You cannot get subharmonic conversion without coupling to a very strong nonlinearity. Even then, the output resonance must be harmonically matched to the input frequency for any kind of efficiency. When everything is tuned up perfectly, and with a very strong nonlinearity, you get fairly efficient conversion, but that may mean 20-40%. One of the things about Hagelstein's proposition that bothers me is that the excited nucleus does not want to stay excited for very long - it decays in an incredibly short time. Suppose you are de-exciting a dd* that wants to release 24 MeV of energy with a set of phonons at 10THz. The frequency difference is 24MeV=5.8e21Hz compared to 10THz=1E13Hz or a ratio of 5.8E8. If you are taking the energy away with a 5.8E8x lower frequency phonon, it seems like it would take 5.8E8x as long to extract the energy. Can an excited nucleus be coerced into waiting to burp that long? It seems like it would require extreme coupling between the excited nucleus and the lattice for that to happen - much more coupling than the exchange coupling of the electronic lattice can provide. Axil has been talking about interacting waves ... My EE training also tells me that waves are 2 ships that cross in the night and neither knows that the other is there and neither affects the other UNLESS there is the presence of a nonlinear medium that they both traverse simultaneously. I am not saying that the vacuum is perfectly linear, but by most of our experience in the macro world, the vacuum is nearly perfectly linear; otherwise radio would not work as we know it. As we get to nuclear scales, this may be different. Also note that solitons are solutions to a nonlinear equation - it seems that the nonlinearity must be present for solitons to propagate. If it is the case that the "wave" nature of elementary particles is more soliton-like, it may be indicating that the vacuum is not linear at the scales of elementary particles. Once the nonlinearity is invoked at that scale, there may be wave-to-wave coupling. Bob Higgins
RE: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson Jones, please correct me if I've misinterpreted your premise, but it's my understanding that you are speculating that the BLP "SunCell" process is based primarily on a Ti - plus- O oxidation process that Mills doesn't want potential financial backers catch on to, at least not right away. Steven - That's not it. There is oxidation, yes and with water supplying the oxygen, and he is not hiding that. How could he? But there is more. The only question is this: does the energetic oxidation of catalyst (titanium or an ensemble of catalysts) also cause hydrogen released from water to "fractionalize" by dropping into reduced orbitals. Skeptics say no, but on this point there is good evidence that Mills does see substantial gain. I am in his camp on the gain part. But is it net gain, and is it cost efficient? Granted, it may be naive of me to say this but I'm not at present inclined to conjecture that Mills is operating on such level of deceit. Hopefully, I'll be proven right, but I have no guarantee of that. To be clear, the deceit if there is any - is not related to the oxidation. It is related to the net cost of a system which demands that an expensive catalyst be reused, over and over. He scarcely addresses this issue of rejuvenating the catalyst. As you have pointed out, how much additional energy would the recycling of the oxidation process consume? If this is what is really going on the net energy gain is indeed likely to be distinctively negative. Yes, that is the problem. If there is deceit, it is in the recycling issue and it most a question of active avoidance of a key issue, instead of dishonesty. [snip] Mills response was that all BLP needs to do is "burn" off the free oxygen by systematically re-introducing free hydrogen into the gas mixture and then igniting it. [Snip] POV1: From Jones' conjecture, oxidation is the primary form of energy being released here. As such, when the entire recycling process is taken into consideration there is no net energy gain. That is not exactly correct. I believe that oxidation supplies a part of the net energy and that fractionalization of hydrogen orbitals provides most of the net energy. So there is a bona fide anomaly and possibly a strong one. But ... the bad news ... even with strong gain, it could be insufficient to fully rejuvenate the catalyst - especially if "nano" is required, resulting in the situation where make-up catalyst will be required - or otherwise making the system unrealistic commercially - for all except military and NASA. For some exotic uses (weaponization or rocketry) - a "once through" system at high cost is not a problem. If the gain is 10x over normal rocket fuel, then there would be a huge market for a once-though propellant. Will the military aspects of the SunCell carry the project? I think the answer is yes, but that leaves most of Mills supporters out in the cold insofar as it will not solve the energy crisis in its present design. The would hate it because most of them are idealists who detest the military. Therefore, as it looks now to this long-time observer - as soon as the present round of financing is complete (is it the 8th or 9th round?) then Mills/BLP will drop the SunCell, without further mention, hopefully after selling the rights to LM for another big chunk of funds - and move onto something better. Unfortunately for this long range plan, within the same time frame, Cherokee will have its factory in China churning out millions of HotCats for the masses. :-) Ironically - given the Mills demo, the CHC or China-Hot-Cat could possibly employ photoelectric conversion of heat to electricity, but in the IR range. You heard it first on Vortex. Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > What happens in the endothermic energy case where energy is delivered to > enable the reaction. As in Mizuno, when deuterium becomes podium. > ***Well, perhaps you made a joke without realizing it... how does deuterium become a podium? https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT_tTQkb2p32Pi43W_57tPRBA6_IVsB-9Ss6jZH9v-5V0jpT5_1sQ At any rate, I could not work backwards to decipher what you were trying to say. What I think happens in the "endothermic case" is that it is the natural pathway to generating high energy LENR. You have to COOL things down to generate BECs (Hu, Sinha, Kim) and then once BECs are formed, you have nuclear reactions. There is a slight transition point when BECs are forming and start generating high energy reactions, emitting gammas before the device settles into a more stable LENR state. Rossi was very careful not to let Celani measure these telltale gammas. MFMP recently saw these Gammas. They only occur in one phase of the reaction and then they stop. Focardi probably got cancer as a result of being exposed to these gammas.
