Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Chase Peterson dies
OK, dear Terry there were very harming outer circumstances bad strategy, communication, sins, bad luck. However what really made the trouble (trouble = is a problem you cannot solve)- weakness, unreliabily ephemerity of excess heat, Incurable in the cradle cell) Thank you for remembering Chris Tinsley, he was a good frioend we have traveled together to Kishinev, Moldova to inventor Yuri Potapov. Chris, Gene and Jed formed one of the fisrt nuclei of CF Resistence and promotion. Chris has brought Arthur C. Clarke to help CF. He was wise and nice. Quote: "Cold fusion is to hot fusion what biochemistry is to chemistry" He died so young! Peter On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Peter Gluck > wrote: > > Dear Terry, > > > > can you explain how was this possible: > > "The whole bloody fiasco probably set back CF 30 years". > > > > As you probably know (I hope you are reading my Blog, I hope) i > > have an alternative explanation- the first discovered variant of > > LENR is not viable and we have to investigate better variants > > > > If you don't like the idea just forget iy. > > > > Peter > > The ensuing feeding frenzy halted the very investigation of which you > speak. Dr. Storms said it best in the next paragraph of the article I > referenced: > > "These excuses weren't well received. "Conventional science requires > you to play by certain rules," comments cold fusionist Edmund Storms. > "First, thou shalt not announce thy results via a press conference. > Second, thou shalt not exaggerate the results. Third, thou shalt tell > other scientists precisely what thou did. They broke all of those > rules."" > > > > As flawed as our present method of scientific verification is, the > actions by the university ensured that true verification could not > happen. Everyone with a piece of Pd and some heavy water on hand > threw together a test cell. The initial reports of a false positive > by my own alma mater are a perfect example of the sloppy science > resulting from using the public media to make a monumental > announcement. > > > http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/14/us/georgia-tech-team-reports-flaw-in-critical-experiment-on-fusion.html > > The thrill and following disenchantment devastated me personally. It > was not until a brilliant and kind gentleman by the name of Chris > Tinsley responded to a comment I made as a forum manager on CompuServe > (the nascent internet), questioning my dismissal of CF that I opened > my mind again. "Are you sure they were wrong? Why not find out for > yourself by joining Vortex-l?" > > Who knows. Had greed not caused disclosure through the press and F&P > followed the normal scientific process of silent verification, where > might we be today? We know what happened; but, who is to say what > might have happened if those two electrochemists had a few nuclear > physicists to back them? Or anyone other themselves? > > In my opinion, we would be better off today. > > But, maybe not. > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Terry Blanton > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Jed Rothwell > >> wrote: > >> > hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> Was he instrumental in releasing F&P finding to the Press? > >> > > >> > > >> > In the chapter I uploaded, he said no: > >> > > >> > "Fleischmann reportedly said (for reasons never clear) that the > >> > University > >> > of Utah had required the two investigators to go public when they did. > >> > When > >> > I subsequently asked for clarification from the relevant university > >> > office, > >> > people there clearly stated that their policy was to honor all faculty > >> > requests with respect to publication and announcement, not initiate > >> > them." > >> > >> > >> It meant a lot to the university to be the first to announce. From: > >> > >> http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion_pr.html > >> > >> "In their defense, Pons and Fleischmann explained that they couldn't > >> reveal all the details because the University of Utah's patent had not > >> yet been approved. They admitted that the press conference had been > >> premature, but claimed the University had urged them to go public when > >> another scientist - a physicist named Steve Jones - turned out to be > >> pursuing similar work." > >> > >> Jones later became one of F&P's greatest antagonists. The whole > >> bloody fiasco probably set back CF 30 years. > >> > >> Sour grapes indeed. > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Peter Gluck > > Cluj, Romania > > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Who is Steve Jones
I wrote: Even if a scientist erroneously disavows discovering a specific phenomenon > like LENR, I suppose, this is not necessarily to say that history books > won't recognize whatever role he played later on. > Just to clarify -- the above is a hypothetical. Even if what Steven Jones was seeing ended up being LENR proper, the details of the story go back to the early eighties with Fleischmann and then back even further with observations by Paneth and Peters back in the 1920s. So any priority in this instance may be something that is hard one to pin down. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Who is Steve Jones
This looks like it was an effort to establish priority over the discovery. The matter of priority regarding cold fusion was a big concern in 1989 and 1990. It is interesting that what Steven Jones and what Pons and Fleischmann believed they were seeing and reported in their measurements were different enough that they themselves eventually concluded that different phenomena were occurring (or that no phenomenon was happening at the other camp, as the case may be). In that context, I'm not sure there was much in the way of priority to be established. The two groups sort of criss crossed each other but tripped one another up enough to be confusing for everyone involved. In retrospect, Ed Storms might suggest that what Steve Jones was seeing was hot fusion on a small scale and what Pons and Fleischmann were seeing was genuine cold fusion. I'm somewhat doubtful at this point that the distinction is a valid one for this kind of system. Steve Jones might have been observing a similar process to the one observed by Pons and Fleischmann, just on a smaller scale, with more neutrons and no discernable heat. In this context, the two groups might have been right to argue over priority, and Steven Jones might have ended up disavowing it with his "piezonuclear fusion" stuff. Even if a scientist erroneously disavows discovering a specific phenomenon like LENR, I suppose, this is not necessarily to say that history books won't recognize whatever role he played later on. Eric On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > *Of interest: * > > > > *BRIEF HISTORY OF COLD FUSION AT BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY Secondary title: > * > > > > *PIEZONUCLEAR FUSION AT BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY * > > *By BYU Professors Jae Ballif, William Evenson, and Steven Jones* >
RE: [Vo]:Who is Steve Jones
Drowning in technocracy? Is that the one leads to lunacracy? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/movies/christoph-waltz-drowns-in-technocracy-in-the-zero-theorem.html?_r=0 -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Oh, and be on the watch for someone named Qohen Leth.
Re: [Vo]:Who is Steve Jones
Oh, and be on the watch for someone named Qohen Leth.
Re: [Vo]:Who is Steve Jones
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > That would be awesome. Yea, well, just be careful and keep your 27b-6 in your jacket. Notice that lately, Jones, alias Buttle or Tuttle, has done more to obfuscate cold FUSION since Axis(Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire) Axis(Germany, Italy, Japan)? A great man once said, "Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer." Keep your foil hat grounded, soldier.
Re: [Vo]:Who is Steve Jones
That would be awesome. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > > Jones, interesting, what's your interpretation of this? > > Jeeze, 904, don't you get it: Steve Jones . . . Jones Beane . . . > Harry Tuttle . . . . must I spell it out? > >
Re: [Vo]:Who is Steve Jones
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > Jones, interesting, what's your interpretation of this? Jeeze, 904, don't you get it: Steve Jones . . . Jones Beane . . . Harry Tuttle . . . . must I spell it out?
RE: [Vo]:Who is Steve Jones
From: Foks0904 Jones, interesting, what's your interpretation of this? Steven is a talented researcher who is still at it, but not in LENR. He posts on Harti’s forum from time to time. He may have suffered more from the negative publicity surrounding P&F then they did. Too bad for all concerned. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Who is Steve Jones
Jones, interesting, what's your interpretation of this? On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > *Of interest: * > > > > *BRIEF HISTORY OF COLD FUSION AT BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY Secondary title: > * > > > > *PIEZONUCLEAR FUSION AT BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY * > > *By BYU Professors Jae Ballif, William Evenson, and Steven Jones* > Compiled in 1989 > > > I. Scientific Team > II. History > > Quote > > > I. Scientific Team > A. Brigham Young University Faculty Members - Department of Physics and > Astronomy Steven E. Jones (PI) E. Paul Palmer J. Bart Czirr, Daniel L. > Decker Gary L. Jensen > B. Brigham Young University Faculty Members - Department of Chemistry > James M. Thorne > C. Brigham Young University students Stuart F. Taylor Rod Price J. W. Wang > David Mince Eugene Sheeley Paul Dahl Paul Banks S. Seth Jones David E. > Jones > D. University of Arizona Faculty Members - Department of Physics Johann > Rafelski > > II. History > A. Scientific paper published March 1986 (submitted June 1985) > The roots of our work regarding piezonuclear fusion are described in a > scientific paper published in the Journal of Physics G: Nuclear physics, > 12: 213-221. This paper was received by the journal on 12 June 1985 (over > three years before we heard of Pons and Fleischmann, or of Andrei Lipson in > Russia, or of their related work) and published in March 1986. > > A1. Theory proposed which presages Brigham Young University experiments > The detailed mathematical framework given in the paper was worked out > primarily by Dr. Clinton Van Siclen, author on the paper with Dr. Steven E. > Jones. The paper discusses fusion at room temperature and how this might be > enhanced by increasing the density of hydrogen isotopes. The paper > discusses the transition of hydrogen to the metallic state under high > pressures and other technical points. One significant concept explored in > this paper is that a hypothetical particle "with mass twice that of the > electron" could lead to room temperature fusion at a rate of approximately > one fusion per minute per kilogram of deuterium. This is close to the > actual rates observed in later experiments at Brigham Young University by > Jones and colleagues, and the theoretical framework given in this early > publication continues to be a possible explanation for the > cold/piezonuclear fusion effect. Indeed, this paper is referred to in our > later papers on the Brigham Young University experiments since it provides > a theoretical, mathematical foundation for cold fusion. > > A2."Piezonuclear fusion" used by Steven Jones of Brigham Young University > to describe cold fusion In addition to initiating the 1985 study, Steven > Jones (one of the authors) coined the term "piezonuclear fusion" in analogy > to the term "thermonuclear fusion," to indicate that the proposed approach > is to induce fusion by "squeezing" the hydrogen nuclei together at near > room temperatures rather than by heating them to very high temperatures. > (The prefix "piezo-" comes from a Greek work meaning to squeeze or > compress.) > > > > *Dr. Paul Palmer used the term "cold fusion" beginning in early 1986.* > > B. Brigham Young University Physics Colloquium 12 March 1986 > E. Paul Palmer suggested geophysical applications > The paper was published in March 1986, and on March 12, 1986 many of the > concepts in the paper were described by Dr. Jones at a Colloquium of the > BYU Physics Department. BYU Physics Professor Paul Palmer was present and > associated these ideas with geological data on heat and helium-3 which are > correlated in volcanoes and other thermal regions of the earth. Both heat > and helium-3 are released in fusion reactions (proton-deuteron and > deuteron-deuteron reactions). Dr. Palmer suggested that rock, lava, or > crystals in the earth might help to catalyze the fusion reaction. This > creative leap is recorded in Dr. Palmer's logbook, dated March 13, 1986 in > some detail (copies available on request to BYU Physics Department). > > C. Report to DOE 13 May 1986 > Our work on cold piezonuclear fusion was reported to the DOE in the > 1985-86 Annual Performance Report, dated 13 May 1986, along with three > related documents: the Van Siclen/Jones paper on piezouclear fusion, a note > entitled "Experiments in Cold Fusion" dated 28 March 1986 by Paul Palmer; > and "Comments on Catalyzed Fusion," a note by Steven Jones dated 1 April > 1986. It was at this time that Prof. Jones received permission from the DOE > funding agent R Gajewiski to pursue research on this aspect of cold nuclear > fusion under an already existing DOE grant to Brigham Young University for > muon-catalyzed fusion research. > > D. Brigham Young University's experimental program D1. Planning began in > March 1986 > As a result of discussions generated by the Physics Department > colloquium by Dr. Jones on March 12, 1986, an experimental program was > worked out to test these new ideas. An import
RE: [Vo]:Who is Steve Jones
Of interest: BRIEF HISTORY OF COLD FUSION AT BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY Secondary title: PIEZONUCLEAR FUSION AT BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY By BYU Professors Jae Ballif, William Evenson, and Steven Jones Compiled in 1989 I. Scientific Team II. History Quote I. Scientific Team A. Brigham Young University Faculty Members - Department of Physics and Astronomy Steven E. Jones (PI) E. Paul Palmer J. Bart Czirr, Daniel L. Decker Gary L. Jensen B. Brigham Young University Faculty Members - Department of Chemistry James M. Thorne C. Brigham Young University students Stuart F. Taylor Rod Price J. W. Wang David Mince Eugene Sheeley Paul Dahl Paul Banks S. Seth Jones David E. Jones D. University of Arizona Faculty Members - Department of Physics Johann Rafelski II. History A. Scientific paper published March 1986 (submitted June 1985) The roots of our work regarding piezonuclear fusion are described in a scientific paper published in the Journal of Physics G: Nuclear physics, 12: 213-221. This paper was received by the journal on 12 June 1985 (over three years before we heard of Pons and Fleischmann, or of Andrei Lipson in Russia, or of their related work) and published in March 1986. A1. Theory proposed which presages Brigham Young University experiments The detailed mathematical framework given in the paper was worked out primarily by Dr. Clinton Van Siclen, author on the paper with Dr. Steven E. Jones. The paper discusses fusion at room temperature and how this might be enhanced by increasing the density of hydrogen isotopes. The paper discusses the transition of hydrogen to the metallic state under high pressures and other technical points. One significant concept explored in this paper is that a hypothetical particle "with mass twice that of the electron" could lead to room temperature fusion at a rate of approximately one fusion per minute per kilogram of deuterium. This is close to the actual rates observed in later experiments at Brigham Young University by Jones and colleagues, and the theoretical framework given in this early publication continues to be a possible explanation for the cold/piezonuclear fusion effect. Indeed, this paper is referred to in our later papers on the Brigham Young University experiments since it provides a theoretical, mathematical foundation for cold fusion. A2."Piezonuclear fusion" used by Steven Jones of Brigham Young University to describe cold fusion In addition to initiating the 1985 study, Steven Jones (one of the authors) coined the term "piezonuclear fusion" in analogy to the term "thermonuclear fusion," to indicate that the proposed approach is to induce fusion by "squeezing" the hydrogen nuclei together at near room temperatures rather than by heating them to very high temperatures. (The prefix "piezo-" comes from a Greek work meaning to squeeze or compress.) Dr. Paul Palmer used the term "cold fusion" beginning in early 1986. B. Brigham Young University Physics Colloquium 12 March 1986 E. Paul Palmer suggested geophysical applications The paper was published in March 1986, and on March 12, 1986 many of the concepts in the paper were described by Dr. Jones at a Colloquium of the BYU Physics Department. BYU Physics Professor Paul Palmer was present and associated these ideas with geological data on heat and helium-3 which are correlated in volcanoes and other thermal regions of the earth. Both heat and helium-3 are released in fusion reactions (proton-deuteron and deuteron-deuteron reactions). Dr. Palmer suggested that rock, lava, or crystals in the earth might help to catalyze the fusion reaction. This creative leap is recorded in Dr. Palmer's logbook, dated March 13, 1986 in some detail (copies available on request to BYU Physics Department). C. Report to DOE 13 May 1986 Our work on cold piezonuclear fusion was reported to the DOE in the 1985-86 Annual Performance Report, dated 13 May 1986, along with three related documents: the Van Siclen/Jones paper on piezouclear fusion, a note entitled "Experiments in Cold Fusion" dated 28 March 1986 by Paul Palmer; and "Comments on Catalyzed Fusion," a note by Steven Jones dated 1 April 1986. It was at this time that Prof. Jones received permission from the DOE funding agent R Gajewiski to pursue research on this aspect of cold nuclear fusion under an already existing DOE grant to Brigham Young University for muon-catalyzed fusion research. D. Brigham Young University's experimental program D1. Planning began in March 1986 As a result of discussions generated by the Physics Department colloquium by Dr. Jones on March 12, 1986, an experimental program was worked out to test these new ideas. An important discussion meeting was held at BYU on April 7, 1986, involving Profs. Czirr, Jones, and Palmer of BYU, and Johann Rafelski of the University of Arizona, along with student researchers. Plans for the research were extensively developed at the mee
Re: [Vo]:Who is Steve Jones
What's also strange about Steve Jones is that he has been at the center of the 9-11 debate over "thermite" being used to bring down buildings. It seems he's both status quo on cold fusion, but insanely anti-status quo on 9-11 Truth. Bizarre? Or am I crazy one? I draw no conclusions about any of this, I just note it as interesting he's been involved in two of the biggest "scandals" of the last 25 years. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > And who has been paying him? From wikipedia: > > Muon-catalyzed fusion[edit] > > In the mid-1980s, Jones and other BYU scientists worked on what he > referred to as Cold Nuclear Fusion in aScientific American article > (the process is currently known as muon-catalyzed fusion to avoid > confusion with the cold fusion concept proposed by Pons and > Fleischman). Muon-catalyzed fusion was a field of some interest during > the 1980s as a potential energy source; however, its low energy output > appears to be unavoidable (because of alpha-muon sticking losses). > Jones led a research team that, in 1986, achieved 150 fusions per muon > (average), releasing over 2,600 MeV of fusion energy per muon, a > record which still stands.[15] > > Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (Pons and Fleischmann or P&F) > commenced their work at approximately the same time. Jones became > aware of their work when they applied for research funding from the > Department of Energy (DOE), after which the DOE forwarded their > proposal to Jones for peer review. When Jones realized that their work > was similar, he and P&F agreed to release their papers to Nature on > the same day (March 24, 1989). However, P&F announced their results at > a press event the day before. Jones faxed his paper to Nature.[16] > > A New York Times article says that although peer reviewers were > harshly critical of P&F's research, they did not apply such criticism > to Jones' significantly more modest, theoretically supported findings. > Although critics insisted that Jones's results were probably caused by > experimental error,[17] the majority of the reviewing physicists > claimed that he was a careful scientist. Later research and > experiments have supported Jones' metallic "cold fusion" reports.[18] > >
[Vo]:Who is Steve Jones
And who has been paying him? From wikipedia: Muon-catalyzed fusion[edit] In the mid-1980s, Jones and other BYU scientists worked on what he referred to as Cold Nuclear Fusion in aScientific American article (the process is currently known as muon-catalyzed fusion to avoid confusion with the cold fusion concept proposed by Pons and Fleischman). Muon-catalyzed fusion was a field of some interest during the 1980s as a potential energy source; however, its low energy output appears to be unavoidable (because of alpha-muon sticking losses). Jones led a research team that, in 1986, achieved 150 fusions per muon (average), releasing over 2,600 MeV of fusion energy per muon, a record which still stands.[15] Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (Pons and Fleischmann or P&F) commenced their work at approximately the same time. Jones became aware of their work when they applied for research funding from the Department of Energy (DOE), after which the DOE forwarded their proposal to Jones for peer review. When Jones realized that their work was similar, he and P&F agreed to release their papers to Nature on the same day (March 24, 1989). However, P&F announced their results at a press event the day before. Jones faxed his paper to Nature.[16] A New York Times article says that although peer reviewers were harshly critical of P&F's research, they did not apply such criticism to Jones' significantly more modest, theoretically supported findings. Although critics insisted that Jones's results were probably caused by experimental error,[17] the majority of the reviewing physicists claimed that he was a careful scientist. Later research and experiments have supported Jones' metallic "cold fusion" reports.[18]
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Chase Peterson dies
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > Dear Terry, > > can you explain how was this possible: > "The whole bloody fiasco probably set back CF 30 years". > > As you probably know (I hope you are reading my Blog, I hope) i > have an alternative explanation- the first discovered variant of > LENR is not viable and we have to investigate better variants > > If you don't like the idea just forget iy. > > Peter The ensuing feeding frenzy halted the very investigation of which you speak. Dr. Storms said it best in the next paragraph of the article I referenced: "These excuses weren't well received. "Conventional science requires you to play by certain rules," comments cold fusionist Edmund Storms. "First, thou shalt not announce thy results via a press conference. Second, thou shalt not exaggerate the results. Third, thou shalt tell other scientists precisely what thou did. They broke all of those rules."" As flawed as our present method of scientific verification is, the actions by the university ensured that true verification could not happen. Everyone with a piece of Pd and some heavy water on hand threw together a test cell. The initial reports of a false positive by my own alma mater are a perfect example of the sloppy science resulting from using the public media to make a monumental announcement. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/14/us/georgia-tech-team-reports-flaw-in-critical-experiment-on-fusion.html The thrill and following disenchantment devastated me personally. It was not until a brilliant and kind gentleman by the name of Chris Tinsley responded to a comment I made as a forum manager on CompuServe (the nascent internet), questioning my dismissal of CF that I opened my mind again. "Are you sure they were wrong? Why not find out for yourself by joining Vortex-l?" Who knows. Had greed not caused disclosure through the press and F&P followed the normal scientific process of silent verification, where might we be today? We know what happened; but, who is to say what might have happened if those two electrochemists had a few nuclear physicists to back them? Or anyone other themselves? In my opinion, we would be better off today. But, maybe not. > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Jed Rothwell >> wrote: >> > hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> >> Was he instrumental in releasing F&P finding to the Press? >> > >> > >> > In the chapter I uploaded, he said no: >> > >> > "Fleischmann reportedly said (for reasons never clear) that the >> > University >> > of Utah had required the two investigators to go public when they did. >> > When >> > I subsequently asked for clarification from the relevant university >> > office, >> > people there clearly stated that their policy was to honor all faculty >> > requests with respect to publication and announcement, not initiate >> > them." >> >> >> It meant a lot to the university to be the first to announce. From: >> >> http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion_pr.html >> >> "In their defense, Pons and Fleischmann explained that they couldn't >> reveal all the details because the University of Utah's patent had not >> yet been approved. They admitted that the press conference had been >> premature, but claimed the University had urged them to go public when >> another scientist - a physicist named Steve Jones - turned out to be >> pursuing similar work." >> >> Jones later became one of F&P's greatest antagonists. The whole >> bloody fiasco probably set back CF 30 years. >> >> Sour grapes indeed. >> > > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Hydrogen From Water Using Nickel nanoparticle Catalyst
In reply to Patrick Ellul's message of Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:42:30 +1000: Hi, [snip] >A cheap hydrogen generator that relies on a nickel nanoparticle may be the >game-changer we have been waiting for. >https://beta.cosmosmagazine.com/physical-sciences/hydrogen-fuel-water-almost-within-our-grasp Finding the right catalyst is not the main problem. The main problem is finding clean energy to do the job in the first place. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:42:04 -0700: Hi Eric, On the face of it this sounds reasonable, but real life is seldom so simple. Some deuterons will bounce off lattice nuclei in elastic collisions and head off in completely different directions, so I would expect at least some reactions to produce protons that end up injected into the lattice. Note that at the atomic level material surfaces are often rough. >On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:33 PM, wrote: > >...but wouldn't you expect 1/2 to fly away from the surface, and half to fly >> into it? >> > >I would expect there to be an anisotropy. As I envision it, there's an >electric arc pulling a mass of protons into a recess. For a fraction of a >moment, the pressure is astronomical. During this brief moment a deuteron >(the smaller species are all ionized within the arc) is forced up against a >lattice site, coming from the direction of the open area and the current >towards the wall of the substrate. Unless there's some kind of rotation >during the moment of contact, if the lattice site is on the left and the >deuteron is coming from the right to the left, I would expect the daughter >proton to push off of the daughter nickel and be expelled back out to the >right, which is the open area. I assume this would all happen too quickly >for any kind of rotation of the nickel/deuteron system. > >Eric Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Thanks Axil, good citation and not surprising – I have been following this near field region since day one, convinced that there is relativistic magic occurring as you approach the focal limits described by Liptschitz et all where the quantum forces from the solid geometry can initially focus. The author is calling for further research in light of data that doesn’t agree with our present models, instead the data suggests the force falls much faster with separation for this configuration[corrugated plane / sphere]. The geometry is not the standard perpendicular plate arrangement. I assume he applied the appropriate Casimir formulas for this geometry but the data – by disagreeing with calculated value indicates the better documented case for parallel plates is just coincidental [perhaps some missing parameter that cancels for the parallel case]. We knew that pv1=pv2 for a long time before the parameters were contained and we realized pv1/t1=pv2/t2 and the era of refrigeration was born. My gut still screams relativistic effects even though there is no dv/dt approaching C there is the intriguing possibility that the longer wavelength/larger virtual particles supposedly restricted from occurring between boundaries of smaller separation are actually still able to occupy the region by shrinking from our perspective such that any gas atoms present also seem to shrink [ie hydrino /fh]. My bet is that one day some math guy will prove a relationship between the Casimir formula and the dilation formula made famous in the Twin Paradox. I firmly believe these f/h can actually slip between separations we perceive as less than atomic orbital diameters because they are temporally displaced and still riding that focal distance between solid boundaries because they perceive a spatial separation due to dilation/contraction [ the fractional hydrogen is temporally displaced without the need for near C velocity] Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:59 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation Fran: As is have posted many times, it is hard to tell what emerges from what. What comes first the chicken of the egg. Did you know that the Casmir force and zero point energy can be completely controlled by polariton condensation. New regime in the Casimir force observed http://phys.org/news/2013-12-regime-casimir.html and Dymamical Casimir emission from polariton condensates http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1027 The Casmir effect can be eliminated or greatly amplified by polariton condensation. This new understanding in among the new hot topics in cavity physics. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Roarty, Francis X mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>> wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:32:02 -0700: [snip] The usual "lame" rationalizations we have used is that the energy was >borrowed in advance to overcome the Coulomb barrier or shed in advance to >achieve the redundancy ...[/snip] IMHO the lock step motion of gas atoms in a loaded lattice provide the "bank" that loans energy to the reaction. I see this as ZPE underpinning where the geometry organizes random motion even extending down into the smaller NAE region where the very local defects in the lattice oppose the quantum forces of cavity geometry all occurring unbeknownst to the gas atom who always sees his local environment full of virtual particles unchanged and simply responds to HUP to derive his normal random motion much like local and global geometry establishes local and regional weather patterns. My point is that I agree it may not be fusion but disagree wrt there not being a source of energy to borrow.. the lock step motion of that many atoms represent a bank or a hammer and the closed cavity of the NAE is the loan seeking anvil. Fran
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
Fran: As is have posted many times, it is hard to tell what emerges from what. What comes first the chicken of the egg. Did you know that the Casmir force and zero point energy can be completely controlled by polariton condensation. *New regime in the Casimir force observed* http://phys.org/news/2013-12-regime-casimir.html and *Dymamical Casimir emission from polariton condensates* http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1027 The Casmir effect can be eliminated or greatly amplified by polariton condensation. This new understanding in among the new hot topics in cavity physics. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:32:02 -0700: > [snip] The usual "lame" rationalizations we have used is that the energy was > >borrowed in advance to overcome the Coulomb barrier or shed in advance to > >achieve the redundancy ...[/snip] > > IMHO the lock step motion of gas atoms in a loaded lattice provide the > "bank" that loans energy to the reaction. I see this as ZPE underpinning > where the geometry organizes random motion even extending down into the > smaller NAE region where the very local defects in the lattice oppose the > quantum forces of cavity geometry all occurring unbeknownst to the gas > atom who always sees his local environment full of virtual particles > unchanged and simply responds to HUP to derive his normal random motion > much like local and global geometry establishes local and regional weather > patterns. > > My point is that I agree it may not be fusion but disagree wrt there not > being a source of energy to borrow.. the lock step motion of that many > atoms represent a bank or a hammer and the closed cavity of the NAE is the > loan seeking anvil. > > Fran > > >
RE: [Vo]:Hydrogen From Water Using Nickel nanoparticle Catalyst
Quantum Sphere has been making this kind of NiO nanopowder for many years. It is available now but not cheap. http://qsinano.com/ http://qsinano.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/qsi_nano_nickel_ni_5_oct_09.pdf Ahern used it in his Arata replication and found it gave a small amount of excess heat in LENR. Several others here may have found no excess heat. Brad Lowe sent his supply to Ryan Hunt and that group was apparently planning a run with it. The QSI first application was actually water splitting – and it does lower the voltage required - but it does not split water well enough to compete with the alternative process (water-gas shift) From: Patrick Ellul A cheap hydrogen generator that relies on a nickel nanoparticle may be the game-changer we have been waiting for. https://beta.cosmosmagazine.com/physical-sciences/hydrogen-fuel-water-almost-within-our-grasp
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi & copper transmutation
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:32:02 -0700: [snip] The usual "lame" rationalizations we have used is that the energy was >borrowed in advance to overcome the Coulomb barrier or shed in advance to >achieve the redundancy ...[/snip] IMHO the lock step motion of gas atoms in a loaded lattice provide the "bank" that loans energy to the reaction. I see this as ZPE underpinning where the geometry organizes random motion even extending down into the smaller NAE region where the very local defects in the lattice oppose the quantum forces of cavity geometry all occurring unbeknownst to the gas atom who always sees his local environment full of virtual particles unchanged and simply responds to HUP to derive his normal random motion much like local and global geometry establishes local and regional weather patterns. My point is that I agree it may not be fusion but disagree wrt there not being a source of energy to borrow.. the lock step motion of that many atoms represent a bank or a hammer and the closed cavity of the NAE is the loan seeking anvil. Fran
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Chase Peterson dies
Dear Terry, can you explain how was this possible: "The whole bloody fiasco probably set back CF 30 years". As you probably know (I hope you are reading my Blog, I hope) i have an alternative explanation- the first discovered variant of LENR is not viable and we have to investigate better variants If you don't like the idea just forget iy. Peter On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > > hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> Was he instrumental in releasing F&P finding to the Press? > > > > > > In the chapter I uploaded, he said no: > > > > "Fleischmann reportedly said (for reasons never clear) that the > University > > of Utah had required the two investigators to go public when they did. > When > > I subsequently asked for clarification from the relevant university > office, > > people there clearly stated that their policy was to honor all faculty > > requests with respect to publication and announcement, not initiate > them." > > > It meant a lot to the university to be the first to announce. From: > > http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion_pr.html > > "In their defense, Pons and Fleischmann explained that they couldn't > reveal all the details because the University of Utah's patent had not > yet been approved. They admitted that the press conference had been > premature, but claimed the University had urged them to go public when > another scientist - a physicist named Steve Jones - turned out to be > pursuing similar work." > > Jones later became one of F&P's greatest antagonists. The whole > bloody fiasco probably set back CF 30 years. > > Sour grapes indeed. > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
