Re: [Vo]:Whopper of the Week

[Bob Higgins]

Piantelli's measurement of the Ni-H reaction shows prompt charged high
energy protons.

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

>
> It is true that little in the way of prompt charged particles have been
> observed in LENR. But that says little about what Rossi may be seeing.
>
> Eric
>

Re: [Vo]:Whopper of the Week

[Alain Sepeda]

2015-12-27 23:45 GMT+01:00 Lennart Thornros :

> I take Rossi's statement as an indication that they can see openings to
> create a propulsion unit for airplanes.
>
...

As I understood, the term "Jet Reactor" seems more to mean a "Brayton
turbine", probably closed cycle like the old nuclear reactor planes.

Brayton turbine are the most dense, but yes it requires high temperature.
If you accept the nameplate temperature of 1200-1400C (whether it was
measured at lugano is a question, but assuming E-cat is real this
temperature must not be incoherent for Rossi, or he would have informed the
testers) a brayton turbine is not so absurd.
Even the temperature observed at Ferarra (confirmed by TC) would allow
Brayton cycle.

beside that as said here the biggest problem maybe cooling.
there are bleeding edge technology that I've seen few years ago for high
density airflow radiators. Heat to power conversion is really the most
complex engineering problem. I'm more confident in LENR nanotech
improvement once billions are flowing, because billion have flown for
turbines since decades.

Re: [Vo]:Whopper of the Week

[a.ashfield]

Jones,

You are wrong and libelous in saying Rossi was convicted of fraud. He 
was convicted of tax evasion.  Considering how his feedstock was 
retroactively classified as hazardous, of course he was in financial 
distress.


Will you admit you were TOTALLY wrong and apologize to those you have 
insulted if it turns out the 1 MW plant did in fact work with a COP>6  
in March 2016?  There is an independent referee as well as the customer 
who is paying for the output, to back up any claim.

Re: [Vo]:Whopper of the Week

[Jed Rothwell]

Alain Sepeda  wrote:


> I take Rossi's statement as an indication that they can see openings to
>> create a propulsion unit for airplanes.
>>
> ...
>
> As I understood, the term "Jet Reactor" seems more to mean a "Brayton
> turbine", probably closed cycle like the old nuclear reactor planes.
>

All gas turbine engines are Brayton turbines. See:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/brayton.html

I agree the fission powered turbine engines might be a model for cold
fusion engines. However, this is tiny, tiny fraction of the total energy
market, and it can only be addressed by experts at places like GE and Rolls
Royce decades from now. I do not think Rossi should devote attention to it
now. It is a distraction. Here is what I mean by "distraction":

Imagine it is December 17, 1903. Wilbur Wright writes in his diary: "we
were planning to fly today but instead we decide to spend the whole day
brainstorming about retractable landing gear on airplanes."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Whopper of the Week

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> If he actually has excess heat from time to time, why would he build a
> financial scam?
>
> 1)  The excess heat is unreliable. He cannot show it on demand
>
> 2)  Rossi does not understand the gain mechanism
>
The people at IH are aware of these problems. I have not discussed this in
depth with them but I know they realize this. Rossi readily discusses these
problems with me and with others.

If I were the decision-makers at IH, such problems would not bother me. The
whole point of investing in R is to overcome such problems. The fact that
it is difficult means they have an opportunity to file many basic patents
and get ahead of the competition.

3)  The COP is in the range of 1.5 to 2
>
That is incorrect. On many occasions the reactor has run without input. The
COP is infinite.


> 4)  The basic patents are owned by BLP, and are pretty strong
>
I would not know about that. I cannot judge BLP's claims. Some of the basic
patents appear to be owned by Piantelli. However, even if the basic patents
are owned by someone else, I am sure there is plenty of room for additional
patents, building on top of the basic ones. The basic patents for
transistors were filed by Bell Labs in 1950, but there have been many other
semiconductor patents after that. Many lucrative semiconductor patents are
granted every year even now. If cold fusion is widely used 100 years from
now, people will still be filing lucrative patents related to it. Fire is
the oldest technology, but people are still filing new patents in
combustion technology.


> 5)  No one will invest big money with a untrustworthy inventor, even
> if he is a superb experimenter, knowing all of the above
>
Some of "the above" is incorrect or unimportant, as I said. The COP is not
limited to 2 and there is plenty left to patent.

Many inventors and other brilliant people have been untrustworthy, such as
Edison, Jobs, some prima donna computer programmers I have worked with, and
many movie directors, actors and others in show-business, where egomania
runs rampant. This did not stop people from investing in them. Of course
there is some risk in investing in such people but the benefits often
outweigh the risks. Rossi is not as bad as some other cold fusion
researchers I have dealt with.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Whopper of the Week

[Chris Zell]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/why-is-tax-evasion-so-bad-in-italy/2011/11/25/gIQA4NJ3vN_blog.html

Tax evasion is Italy’s favorite sport.  Everything has a context.  Amazing how 
often these ‘scientific’ discussions end up going ad hominem.

[Vo]:IS LENR GREATER THAN WE BELIEVE? IT IS DIFFERENT, FOR SURE!

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/12/dec-28-2015-is-lenr-more-than-we-believe.html

Half vacation, however the LENR world is moving.

Peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Re: Whopper of the Week

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> To invest in Rossi, one would have to bet that Mills’ IP can be
> circumvented . . .
>

To reiterate, you do not need to circumvent a patent. You can invent
something that extends it. The person licensing your patent must also
license the basic patent. For example someone wanting to manufacture
integrated circuit semiconductors 1960 would have to license from both
Texas Instruments and AT

As I mentioned before, this is an important technology with military
applications, so Uncle Sam will never allow Mills to stifle the technology
by not granting licenses. That is not how patent laws are enforced.



> and that Rossi can understand the mechanism well enough to make it
> reliable and increase the COP at the same time. Both are longshots.
>

It is not necessary for Rossi to understand the mechanism. IH might hire
someone else who can do that, with Rossi's assistance.

It is not possible for you or anyone else outside of IH to judge what is a
"longshot" and what is not. You would have to know a great deal more about
the details of Rossi's research, and what others working with IH are up to.
These details are secret.

The COP does not need to be increased, as I said. It only needs to be
controlled. It is already infinite in some cases. If Rossi has any problem
it is the runaway reactions with no input power and an infinite COP.



> I doubt that Cherokee did sufficient due diligence.
>

How would you know? What is the basis for your doubts? Imaginary problems
the COP do not count. Did they consult with you? Have you read their
paperwork and correspondence?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Whopper of the Week

[Eric Walker]

Re the jet engine claim, if Rossi is seeing prompt charged particles, this
could have led him to speculate about the possibility of a jet engine.  If
the Papp engine was real, it is not difficult to imagine that it was
powered by having prompt charged particles (e.g., alpha particles)
momentarily ionize the working gas, which would lead to an abrupt
expansion. The working gas in the case of the Papp engine was confined, but
that need not be the case.

It is true that little in the way of prompt charged particles have been
observed in LENR. But that says little about what Rossi may be seeing.

Eric

[Vo]:Re: Whopper of the Week

[Bob Cook]

It would seem relatively simple with both HEAT and ELECTRICITY  produced by 
Rossi’s E-Cat X to make a jet engine.  Intake air compressed to higher 
pressures and temperatures with an electrically powered turbine/fan much like 
those used in large jets today could be adapted readily.  This may be what 
Alain calls a “Brayton turbine”.  

There may be a good option to use two separate LENR reactors, one to produce 
electricity and one to heat the intake air.   

As suggested by Jed, reliability of the device will take some time to achieve, 
although there is a lot of existing technology associated with high temperature 
rotating machines, turbines and rockets. 

I would think that a good electric motor in an airplane turning props would be 
the first application.  In fact I believe Airbus and probably Boeing have a 
design of an electric airplane which uses batteries for its energy source.   
LENR electrical production seems like a natural improvement for charging 
batteries and gaining reliability, power and range.

Bob Cook

From: Alain Sepeda 
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:07 AM
To: Vortex List 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Whopper of the Week



2015-12-27 23:45 GMT+01:00 Lennart Thornros :

  I take Rossi's statement as an indication that they can see openings to 
create a propulsion unit for airplanes.

...

As I understood, the term "Jet Reactor" seems more to mean a "Brayton turbine", 
probably closed cycle like the old nuclear reactor planes.

Brayton turbine are the most dense, but yes it requires high temperature.
If you accept the nameplate temperature of 1200-1400C (whether it was measured 
at lugano is a question, but assuming E-cat is real this temperature must not 
be incoherent for Rossi, or he would have informed the testers) a brayton 
turbine is not so absurd.
Even the temperature observed at Ferarra (confirmed by TC) would allow Brayton 
cycle.

beside that as said here the biggest problem maybe cooling.
there are bleeding edge technology that I've seen few years ago for high 
density airflow radiators. Heat to power conversion is really the most complex 
engineering problem. I'm more confident in LENR nanotech improvement once 
billions are flowing, because billion have flown for turbines since decades.

Re: [Vo]:Whopper of the Week

[Roarty, Francis X]

Frank,
… hotter on outside than inside could correlate with 5D Calvert theories, 
Axil’s citation about radiation not measured nearby outer reactor wall but some 
readings made at a distance – as you say black hole or relativistic physics 
where radiation might be displaced temporally while still occupying our same 3d 
spatial coordinates as the reactor and immediate surroundings.  If shrunken 
hydrogen in a lattice is relativistic for the reasons predicted by Naudts then 
emitted radiation would travel along the hypotenuse between time and space 
steadily returning to our same time coordinates but  losing power at what it 
perceives as the square of the distance while we perceive nothing  until the 
Lorentzian effects dissipate so that our equipment  can detect it {displaced 
out away from reactor walls]. IMHO this  isn’t the same as relativistic 
velocity of hydrogen ejected from the suns corona where the hydrogen is moving 
relative to a stationary background.. this is negative equivalent velocity 
where the environment is moving around an essentially slow moving hydrogen atom 
causing it to shrink and decay rapidly from our perspective – the escaping 
radiation from any reactions in this environment are still traveling thru this 
Ventorii like area of space time caused by vacuum suppression of the lattice 
and tapestry of Casimir geometry. I think this would explain a lot, anomalous 
decay rates and difficulty in measuring radiation at the source but I am not 
sure what happens to radiation traveling thru the extremes of Casimir 
geometry.. Experiments with lasers across the “mouth” of Casimir plates 
detected very little dilation but I think this was flawed implementation – like 
traveling straight across the bay of a river those experiments would not see 
the real tidal effects where the waterway narrows and whitewater provides a 
tapestry of different accelerations.
Fran

From: Frank Znidarsic [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2015 12:59 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Whopper of the Week

The whole thing makes sense if you take black hole physics, Casimir cavities, 
and shrunken atoms into account.

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene >
To: vortex-l >
Sent: Sun, Dec 27, 2015 12:54 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Whopper of the Week
Whopper of the Week
1)  140 patents in progress
2)  Direct electricity or heat – either one or both
3)  Jet engine application
4)  Fully Robotic factory to make fuel wafers
5)  Reactor hotter on outside than inside
6)  No fuel module replaced in last 300 days
Please add your own favorite miracle to the growing list …

Re: [Vo]:Whopper of the Week

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> Jones,
>
> You are wrong and libelous in saying Rossi was convicted of fraud. He was
> convicted of tax evasion.


Well, that seems like a minor error by Jones, not libel. Fraud is not much
worse than tax evasion. Now, if Jones had said "murder" that would be
libelous.

However, the conviction was thrown out by the courts. Rossi is no longer
guilty of anything, any more than I am. If Jones is aware of that fact then
I guess his statements are somewhat libelous, or at least uncalled for.

People who have experience doing business in Italy tell me that unfair
convictions, government corruption, and interference by the Mafia are
common. It sounds like doing business in the U.S. in the late 19th century.

- Jed

[Vo]:ECAT plus solar cells

[David Roberson]

I have a suspicion that the latest news from Rossi that DC output can be useful 
with his latest ECAT is believable.   The amount of light emitted by his active 
device near the heated core has an intensity that is far greater than that due 
to normal sun light.  

It reminds me of the systems that use lenses to concentrate the incoming normal 
sun light in order to allow for the usage of smaller solar cells.  All Rossi 
has to do is to place two 1 foot square panels of cells within the structure 
that supports his patented core system.   Each panel within the device needs to 
be in contact with the outer support structure while leaving a space between it 
and the actual 1200 C plus temperature core element.  The later spacing is to 
ensure that radiation is the main path that the escaping power takes on its way 
to the coolant.

I would expect the small gap between the solar cells and the core to remain 
free of coolant while operating due to the extreme temperature residing within 
that region.  A modest seal would be all that is required in order to 
accomplish that task.  Once operating temperature is achieved any leakage 
coolant would be evaporated from the gap.

The opposite side of the solar cell panel would be cooled by the circulating 
coolant which can be at a much lower temperature than the core heating element 
thus allowing it to operate efficiently.

Does anyone detect a reason why the system described above would not work?  It 
seems appropriate to collect the concentrated photon energy from such a 
concentrated source and directly convert it into DC.

Dave

Re: [Vo]:The E-Cat Patent. How?

[Daniel Rocha]

I think you should repeat the example of the  Wright brothers until
someone's head or hands explode.

2015-12-28 18:38 GMT-02:00 Jed Rothwell :

>
> That is for the patent office examiner to decide. If he or she agrees with
> you that this claim is crazy, that will be grounds to reject the patent
> application.
>
> This illustrates why it is better to leave out all theoretical claims. If
> Rossi never says "the heat source is a catalyst" they cannot reject the
> application on that basis. Since a PHOSITA can replicate without that
> information (?), there is no benefit to including it.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The E-Cat Patent. How?

[Jed Rothwell]

Having said all that, I should acknowledge that some patents include
statements about theory, in order to broaden the scope of the patent. If
the theory holds up, it is very difficult to invent around it. Here is a
good example -- the Bell Labs transistor patent of 1950:

https://www.google.com/patents/US2524035

The claims section does not include much about theory, but the discussion
does. There is a lot of talk about N-type and P-type carriers. I do not
know how well that was established in theory by 1950. Obviously it held up
and was soon widely accepted. But look at this sentence, which I think has
been carefully crafted to avoid staking the patent on a theory:

"Without necessarily subscribing to any particular theory, the following
hypothesis is presented to account for the. experimentally determined
facts, with all of which it is consistent. It is believed that the
preparation of the semi-conductor material and its surface treatment result
in the formation of an oxide film, and, below it, of a layer or film 3 of
P-type conductivity on the surface of the block, separated from the main
body, which is of N-type, by a high resistance barrier 4."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Whopper of the Week

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Piantelli's measurement of the Ni-H reaction shows prompt charged high
> energy protons.
>

Indeed.  As well as "heavy particles" (my vote: alphas) [1].

In saying that little in the way of prompt charged particles has been
observed I am close to parroting the teaching that charged particles are
not commensurate with excess heat. David Nagel wrote the following, which
is interesting to consider:

Temporal and quantitative correlations between excess heat and both fast
> particles and photons have been sought in a few cases. Such experiments are
> challenging. First, there has to be production of excess power, which is
> not always possible to achieve. Even when there is excess power production,
> it is commonly unsteady as a function of time. Good equipment for
> measurement of energetic particles is relatively expensive and not widely
> available. It is well known that the number of fast neutrons or charged
> particles emitted from LENR experiments is generally small. [2]


So the experiments are challenging and require expensive equipment.  The
last point about neutrons is easy to agree with; harder so with charged
particles.

There are people who will argue vociferously that prompt charged particles
are not part of the main process or processes in LENR.  I suppose there are
always a few people who will argue one or another position vociferously.
Such people are entitled to their opinion.  I myself find this avenue of
investigation very interesting. I have many questions:  how sure are we
about the limits on prompt charged particles?  Has an easy generalization
been allowed to slip through without a proper investigation?  (If so, this
would not be the first time.)  In those experiments that have been done, in
which was there a lot of excess heat?  What about the so-called "hamburger"
tracks seen in some of the CR-39 experiments?  Etc.

Eric


[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6id5Hf-xMWOYXVjekJCN1ZkQk0/view,
slide 30.
[2] http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Nagel118.pdf

[Vo]:Re: Whopper of the Week

[Bob Cook]

For what its worth, I agree with the implication David has made relative to 
fast protons or alphas.  My experience is that any fast charged particles 
creates x-rays which would be observed and correlated with the ejection of 
electrons from the inner electron shells of atoms.  Also, if there are no fast 
neutrons, it is unlikely that one would expect to observe fast charged 
particles nor gammas, since they would likely be born from a nuclear 
transmutation.  The Be-8 decay may be an exception.   In addition, if the LENR 
reactions take place in a coherent system of significant size,  the probability 
of the production of  high kinetic energy particles may be low compared to the 
distribution of energy in many small amounts and/or directly as phonic energy 
of a lattice being part of a coherent system.  

Nevertheless, I agree with Eric that looking for fast charged particles should 
be accomplished and will be as more money is applied.  As I have suggested 
before, I believe that the US, for example, DOE, NASA and the DOD have already 
spent a good deal on LENR R and probably know the answers to these questions. 
 

It is a shame that the government does not take action like it did in the 
1950’s to follow up with a civilian demonstration project analogous to the 
Shippingport Reactor Project based on light water reactor R accomplished by 
the Naval Reactors organization.  

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 2:39 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Whopper of the Week

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:


  Piantelli's measurement of the Ni-H reaction shows prompt charged high energy 
protons.

Indeed.  As well as "heavy particles" (my vote: alphas) [1].

In saying that little in the way of prompt charged particles has been observed 
I am close to parroting the teaching that charged particles are not 
commensurate with excess heat. David Nagel wrote the following, which is 
interesting to consider:

  Temporal and quantitative correlations between excess heat and both fast 
particles and photons have been sought in a few cases. Such experiments are 
challenging. First, there has to be production of excess power, which is not 
always possible to achieve. Even when there is excess power production, it is 
commonly unsteady as a function of time. Good equipment for measurement of 
energetic particles is relatively expensive and not widely available. It is 
well known that the number of fast neutrons or charged particles emitted from 
LENR experiments is generally small. [2]

So the experiments are challenging and require expensive equipment.  The last 
point about neutrons is easy to agree with; harder so with charged particles.

There are people who will argue vociferously that prompt charged particles are 
not part of the main process or processes in LENR.  I suppose there are always 
a few people who will argue one or another position vociferously.  Such people 
are entitled to their opinion.  I myself find this avenue of investigation very 
interesting. I have many questions:  how sure are we about the limits on prompt 
charged particles?  Has an easy generalization been allowed to slip through 
without a proper investigation?  (If so, this would not be the first time.)  In 
those experiments that have been done, in which was there a lot of excess heat? 
 What about the so-called "hamburger" tracks seen in some of the CR-39 
experiments?  Etc.

Eric


[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6id5Hf-xMWOYXVjekJCN1ZkQk0/view, slide 30.
[2] http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Nagel118.pdf

Re: [Vo]:The E-Cat Patent. How?

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:


> Will the patent office allow such a patent that cannot explain how energy
> is produced?
>

Yes, it will. David French and many other experts have told me this, and
this is also how I read the P.O. rules. Many discoveries without
theoretical explanations have been patented.

Not only is this allowed, but French and other experts say you should leave
out all mention of theory in your patent, even if you have a theory. If you
include a theory, and it turns out to be wrong, the patent may be ruled
invalid. Whereas if the patent does not include your theory, it makes no
difference whether the theory is right or wrong. As a rule, you should not
include anything in the patent other than what the Patent Office says you
must include. Anything extra may weaken the patent, and will not make it
stronger.

The only thing you must include in a patent is a description that will
allow a PHOSITA (person having ordinary skill in the art) to replicate. A
PHOSITA can replicate without knowing a theory.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The E-Cat Patent. How?

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

But Jed...
>
> He stated in the patent that the heat source was a catalyst. But catalysts
> cannot produce electric power. How can that crazy claim be accepted by the
> patent office?
>

That is for the patent office examiner to decide. If he or she agrees with
you that this claim is crazy, that will be grounds to reject the patent
application.

This illustrates why it is better to leave out all theoretical claims. If
Rossi never says "the heat source is a catalyst" they cannot reject the
application on that basis. Since a PHOSITA can replicate without that
information (?), there is no benefit to including it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:ECAT plus solar cells

[Axil Axil]

Rossi has stated that he can control the voltage and amperage through a
tradeoff  control parameter. He also stated that he can control the
electrical and heat output through a tradeoff  control parameters. A solar
cell approach would provide a constant output of current/voltage only.

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 12:59 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I have a suspicion that the latest news from Rossi that DC output can be
> useful with his latest ECAT is believable.   The amount of light emitted by
> his active device near the heated core has an intensity that is far
> greater than that due to normal sun light.
>
> It reminds me of the systems that use lenses to concentrate the incoming
> normal sun light in order to allow for the usage of smaller solar cells.
> All Rossi has to do is to place two 1 foot square panels of cells within
> the structure that supports his patented core system.   Each panel within
> the device needs to be in contact with the outer support structure while
> leaving a space between it and the actual 1200 C plus temperature core
> element.  The later spacing is to ensure that radiation is the main path
> that the escaping power takes on its way to the coolant.
>
> I would expect the small gap between the solar cells and the core to
> remain free of coolant while operating due to the extreme temperature
> residing within that region.  A modest seal would be all that is required
> in order to accomplish that task.  Once operating temperature is achieved
> any leakage coolant would be evaporated from the gap.
>
> The opposite side of the solar cell panel would be cooled by the
> circulating coolant which can be at a much lower temperature than the core
> heating element thus allowing it to operate efficiently.
>
> Does anyone detect a reason why the system described above would not
> work?  It seems appropriate to collect the concentrated photon energy from
> such a concentrated source and directly convert it into DC.
>
> Dave
>

Re: [Vo]:The E-Cat Patent. How?

[Axil Axil]

But Jed...

He stated in the patent that the heat source was a catalyst. But catalysts
cannot produce electric power. How can that crazy claim be accepted by the
patent office?

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>> Will the patent office allow such a patent that cannot explain how energy
>> is produced?
>>
>
> Yes, it will. David French and many other experts have told me this, and
> this is also how I read the P.O. rules. Many discoveries without
> theoretical explanations have been patented.
>
> Not only is this allowed, but French and other experts say you should
> leave out all mention of theory in your patent, even if you have a theory.
> If you include a theory, and it turns out to be wrong, the patent may be
> ruled invalid. Whereas if the patent does not include your theory, it makes
> no difference whether the theory is right or wrong. As a rule, you should
> not include anything in the patent other than what the Patent Office says
> you must include. Anything extra may weaken the patent, and will not make
> it stronger.
>
> The only thing you must include in a patent is a description that will
> allow a PHOSITA (person having ordinary skill in the art) to replicate. A
> PHOSITA can replicate without knowing a theory.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Whopper of the Week

[Eric Walker]

Hi Bob,

Your experience in the nuclear energy sector is no doubt relevant here.

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

My experience is that any fast charged particles creates x-rays which would
> be observed and correlated with the ejection of electrons from the inner
> electron shells of atoms.


X-rays have been observed on many occasions and have been correlated with
excess heat. In addition, characteristic x-rays that go back to the
ionization of inner shell electrons are of an energy that is readily
attenuated by quartz, water and stainless steel, which means you have to
take special steps to measure them. (Also, the x-rays are often collimated
for some reason.)

Also, if there are no fast neutrons, it is unlikely that one would expect
> to observe fast charged particles nor gammas, since they would likely be
> born from a nuclear transmutation.


This is an expectation that goes back to a certain understanding of what's
going on (i.e., it is partly a theoretical understanding). That begs the
question -- what if something different is going in in this case?

In addition, if the LENR reactions take place in a coherent system of
> significant size,  the probability of the production of  high kinetic
> energy particles may be low compared to the distribution of energy in many
> small amounts and/or directly as phonic energy of a lattice being part of a
> coherent system.


This is another theoretical expectation. Some people, such as Peter
Hagelstein and Mitchell Swartz, like explanations involving a coherent
system of some kind.  I personally find such approaches difficult to grasp
in light of basic thermodynamical considerations.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Direct power from E-Cat X

[Jed Rothwell]

There have been various claims of direct production of electricity from
cold fusion over the years. Nothing definitive or independently replicated
as far as I recall, but anyway, Rossi is not the first to claim this.

- Jed

[Vo]:[Vo] X-rays in LENR

[Alain Sepeda]

Lou Pagnuco on LENR-Forum found an arxiv paper.

do you think it have connection ?

I see also connections with Hydroton's theory...

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.08504v1.pdf
"X-ray laser pulses from solids"
ABSTRACT: In experiments on irradiation of metal surfaces by ions of keV
energy, X-ray laser radiation  was observed despite population inversion
was unexpected. The radiation continued after the bombarding by ions was
switched off. In this paper unusual properties of that X-ray radiation are
analyzed. Anomalous states are formed inside the metal. These states are
associated with narrow potential well created by the local reduction of
zero point electromagnetic energy. This reminds the van der Waals potential
well. States in the well are long-living which results in population
inversion and the subsequent laser generation observed.

The author speculates that LENR may be due to up-conversion of low energy
quanta into
nuclear excitations.

Peter Hagelstein discusses the Karabut results in --
"Directional X-ray and gamma emission in experiments in condensed matter
nuclear science"
http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Directional-X-ray-and-gamma-emission-in-experiments-in-condensed-matter-nuclear-science.pdf


from:
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2427-Re-examing-Karabut-s-anomalous-collimated-X-rays/

2015-12-29 0:37 GMT+01:00 Eric Walker :

> Hi Bob,
>
> Your experience in the nuclear energy sector is no doubt relevant here.
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:
>
> My experience is that any fast charged particles creates x-rays which
>> would be observed and correlated with the ejection of electrons from the
>> inner electron shells of atoms.
>
>
> X-rays have been observed on many occasions and have been correlated with
> excess heat. In addition, characteristic x-rays that go back to the
> ionization of inner shell electrons are of an energy that is readily
> attenuated by quartz, water and stainless steel, which means you have to
> take special steps to measure them. (Also, the x-rays are often collimated
> for some reason.)
>
> Also, if there are no fast neutrons, it is unlikely that one would expect
>> to observe fast charged particles nor gammas, since they would likely be
>> born from a nuclear transmutation.
>
>
> This is an expectation that goes back to a certain understanding of what's
> going on (i.e., it is partly a theoretical understanding). That begs the
> question -- what if something different is going in in this case?
>
> In addition, if the LENR reactions take place in a coherent system of
>> significant size,  the probability of the production of  high kinetic
>> energy particles may be low compared to the distribution of energy in many
>> small amounts and/or directly as phonic energy of a lattice being part of a
>> coherent system.
>
>
> This is another theoretical expectation. Some people, such as Peter
> Hagelstein and Mitchell Swartz, like explanations involving a coherent
> system of some kind.  I personally find such approaches difficult to grasp
> in light of basic thermodynamical considerations.
>