Re: [Vo]:tunnelling mechanism

[mixent]

In reply to  JonesBeene's message of Sun, 18 Mar 2018 15:09:24 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Robin,
>
>You might want to add something about Energy Localization and Anharmonic 
>Oscillators (including solitons and the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam (FPU) anharmonic 
>oscillators)
>
>Ahern has a Power Point floating around on this.

Could you send me a copy Brian (or a URL)?

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:tunnelling mechanism

[JonesBeene]

Robin,

You might want to add something about Energy Localization and Anharmonic 
Oscillators (including solitons and the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam (FPU) anharmonic 
oscillators)

Ahern has a Power Point floating around on this.

Basically it presents the conditions where your “powerful wave” is more likely 
to occur than its rarity would imply,


From: mix...@bigpond.com

Hi,

In QM tunneling is a somewhat mysterious mechanism. I propose the following
possible mechanism for fusion based on the ZPF. 

1) If two nuclei are close enough, then the nuclear force may bring about a
fusion reaction.
2) The ZPF jiggles particles.
3) The ZPF comprises a mixture of waves at different powers.
4) The more powerful a wave is, the more rare it is.
4) The further apart two nuclei are, the longer you have to wait for a wave to
come along that is powerful enough to jiggle them hard enough to come within
fusion distance.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

[Vo]:tunnelling mechanism

[mixent]

Hi,

In QM tunneling is a somewhat mysterious mechanism. I propose the following
possible mechanism for fusion based on the ZPF. 

1) If two nuclei are close enough, then the nuclear force may bring about a
fusion reaction.
2) The ZPF jiggles particles.
3) The ZPF comprises a mixture of waves at different powers.
4) The more powerful a wave is, the more rare it is.
4) The further apart two nuclei are, the longer you have to wait for a wave to
come along that is powerful enough to jiggle them hard enough to come within
fusion distance.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Axil Axil]

In the E-Cat reactor design, Rossi was using heat to pump the LENR
reaction. When he did this, heat produces unsolvable control problems in
that meltdowns would happen snore or later. In the Qx design, he uses light
to pump the LENR reaction. Now, light goes in and heat comes out. There is
no connection between the heat input and the heat output. Stop the light
and the LENR reaction stops. Now in the QX, control is easy, The Qx is a
high intensity light. The QX is basically a HID (high intensity discharge)
light where RF drives the production of light. That HID light pumps the
LENR reaction. Stop the RF and the light pumping and LENR also stops; no
more meltdowns.

If anybody wants to produce a commercial LENR product, they must stop using
heat pumping and start using light pumping.

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 12:54 PM, H LV  wrote:

> By Rossi's own standard he hasn't proven anything. ("The market will
> decide")
> Why do his defender's require a lower standard of proof than Rossi himself
> ?
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:06 AM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
> bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Russ—
>>
>>
>>
>> As you point the baggage of negative feedback is great.  It also carries
>> a signature on hopelessness, I would say.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Russ 
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 18, 2018 2:16:34 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:LENR fission
>>
>>
>> At least Jed make the lines of credibility clear, either Rossi is a fraud
>> or Jed is. The jury is still out. If the E-Cat roars then I propose that
>> Jed do the honourable Japanese thing and commit internet seppuku and STFU.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:53 PM
>> *To:* Vortex 
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:LENR fission
>>
>>
>>
>> JonesBeene  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> In fact, his E-Cat system demands it.
>>
>>
>>
>> The E-Cat does not work. It is a fraud.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone who accepts  the positive feedback modality should realize that it
>>  comes with a lot of baggage.
>>
>>
>>
>> The data shows positive feedback. Anyone who rejects data is not doing
>> science. You have to accept what the experiments show.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Axil Axil]

The posit is that the root cause of the LENR reaction is that a specially
formatted magnetic field produces disruption of protons and neutrons. If
that magnetic field is made weaker by nuclear magnetic interference, then
the LENR reaction is stopped or weakened by that nuclear magnetic
interference.

It has been know for many year that even numbered atomic elements like U238
and more affected by the LENR reaction than odd numbered atomic elements
like U235. This is because the even number elements have no or a weak
magnetic moment whereas the odd numbered elements has a large magnetic
moment.

There is good reason to believe that magnetism is the prime mover in LENR.
Under this speculative paradigm, it is interesting to consider the options
and consequences of this conjecture. In such a paradigm, any technology
that is friendly to magnetism would be good for LENR, and conversely, a
technology that undercuts the strength of magnetism is bad.

The Pd/D wet technology is more unfriendly to magnetism than nickel because
it makes magnetism more difficult to maintain. Firstly as a general
technological principle, an isotope must have a nuclear spin of zero to
enable the LENR reaction. There is much experimental evidence to support
this conjecture. For an explanation see below.

In this respect, palladium has a nuclear spin profile that is about 78%
effective. 105Pd has a non-zero spin and is 22% of the isotopic contents of
run of the mill palladium.

On the other hand, Nickel is much more efficient in terms of supporting
magnetism. 61Ni has a non-zero nuclear spin, but that isotope is only 1.14%
of the isotopic content of Nickel.

Palladium is paramagnetic and Nickel is ferromagnetic. So nickel is more
desirable than palladium as a magnetic reaction catalyst.

In more detail, this thinking is underpinned by a speculative LENR reaction
rule that is interesting to explore. That rule is that the LENR reaction
might better occur among atomic ions that have zero nuclear spin. In
explanation, Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) is a physical phenomenon in
which nuclei in a magnetic field absorb and re-emit electromagnetic
radiation. This energy is at a specific resonance frequency which depends
on the strength of the magnetic field and the magnetic properties of the
isotope of the atoms; in practical applications, the frequency is similar
to old style VHF and UHF television broadcasts (60–1000 MHz). NMR allows
the observation of specific quantum mechanical magnetic properties of the
atomic nucleus.

All isotopes that contain an odd number of protons and/or of neutrons have
an intrinsic magnetic moment and angular momentum, in other words a nonzero
spin, while all nucleotides with even numbers of both have a total spin of
zero. The most commonly studied NMR active nuclei are 1H and 13C, although
nuclei from isotopes of many other elements (e.g. 2H, 6Li, 10B, 11B, 14N,
15N, 17O, 19F, 23Na, 29Si, 31P, 35Cl, 113Cd, 129Xe, 195Pt) have been
studied by high-field NMR spectroscopy as well.

It is now known that Ni61 does not participate well in the LENR reaction.
Ni61 is a NMR active isotope. When a magnetic field is applied to an NMR
active isotope, the magnetic energy imparted to the nucleus is dissipated
by induced nuclear vibrational energy which is radiated away as rf energy.
The non-zero spin of the the nucleus shields the nucleus from the external
magnetic field not allowing that field to penetrate into it. External
magnetic fields catalyze changes in the protons and neutrons in the nucleus
as well as enabling disruption in quark and gluon functions. If this
external magnetic field is shielded by NMR activity, LENR transmutation of
the protons and neutrons in the nucleus is made more difficult.


Therefore, during the course of an extended LENR reaction cycle, isotope
depletion will tend to favor the enrichment and buildup of NMR active
elements.

Both deuterium and nitrogen are known LENR poisons because of their non
zero nuclear spins.

Hydrogen with non-zero spin will not participate in the LENR reaction
whereas cooper pairs of protons will. Expect LENR reactions centered on
pairs of protons with zero spin. The function of hydrogen in LENR is to
produce Ultra dense hydrogen which is a catalyst of the LENR reaction
Hydrogen is not a good fuel for LENR..

Also, as the LENR reaction matures and more NMR active isotopes accumulate,
the LENR reactor will put out increasing levels or rf radiation derived
from the nuclear vibrations of the NMR isotope.

This NMR thinking also applies to the nature of the various isotopes of
hydrogen.

Molecular hydrogen occurs in two isomeric forms, one with its two proton
spins aligned parallel (orthohydrogen), the other with its two proton spins
aligned antiparallel (parahydrogen). At room temperature and thermal
equilibrium, hydrogen consists of approximately 75% orthohydrogen and 25%
parahydrogen.

Orthohydrogen hydrogen has non zero spin, this is bad for Ni/HLENR because
the non zero 

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[H LV]

By Rossi's own standard he hasn't proven anything. ("The market will
decide")
Why do his defender's require a lower standard of proof than Rossi himself
?

Harry


On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:06 AM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Russ—
>
>
>
> As you point the baggage of negative feedback is great.  It also carries a
> signature on hopelessness, I would say.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
> --
> *From:* Russ 
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 18, 2018 2:16:34 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:LENR fission
>
>
> At least Jed make the lines of credibility clear, either Rossi is a fraud
> or Jed is. The jury is still out. If the E-Cat roars then I propose that
> Jed do the honourable Japanese thing and commit internet seppuku and STFU.
>
>
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:53 PM
> *To:* Vortex 
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:LENR fission
>
>
>
> JonesBeene  wrote:
>
>
>
> In fact, his E-Cat system demands it.
>
>
>
> The E-Cat does not work. It is a fraud.
>
>
>
>
>
> Anyone who accepts  the positive feedback modality should realize that it
>  comes with a lot of baggage.
>
>
>
> The data shows positive feedback. Anyone who rejects data is not doing
> science. You have to accept what the experiments show.
>
>
>
> - Jed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Russ—

As you point the baggage of negative feedback is great.  It also carries a 
signature on hopelessness, I would say.

Bob Cook


From: Russ 
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 2:16:34 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

At least Jed make the lines of credibility clear, either Rossi is a fraud or 
Jed is. The jury is still out. If the E-Cat roars then I propose that Jed do 
the honourable Japanese thing and commit internet seppuku and STFU.

From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:53 PM
To: Vortex 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

JonesBeene > wrote:

In fact, his E-Cat system demands it.

The E-Cat does not work. It is a fraud.


Anyone who accepts  the positive feedback modality should realize that it  
comes with a lot of baggage.

The data shows positive feedback. Anyone who rejects data is not doing science. 
You have to accept what the experiments show.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Axil—

What does the lack of magnetic moment have to due with the isotopic mass spec 
data likelihood?

Sent from Mail for Windows 10


From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 1:51:30 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission


  *
 *

IF SAFIRE looked into the titanium isotopes that was generated by 
transmutation, they would see that it is mostly Ti47 and Ti49 because those 
isotopes have a large magnetic moment.



Table. Stables isotopes of 
titanium.

Isotope Mass

/Da Natural

abund.

(atom %)Nuclear

spin (I)Nuclear

magnetic

moment (μ/μN)
46Ti45.9526294 (14) 8.25 (3)0
47Ti46.9517640 (11) 7.44 (2)5/2 -0.78848
48Ti47.9479473 (11) 73.72 (3)   0
49Ti48.9478711 (11) 5.41 (2)7/2 -1.10417
50Ti49.9447921 (12) 5.18 (2)0
*
Edit
*   

*   

 *
*   

*



On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Axil Axil 
> wrote:
One of the key features of a sucessful LENR reactor design is the high 
efficiency conversion of LENR energy into heat. Most of the energy that is 
produced by the LENR reaction is formatted as subatomic particle creation. It 
is important in a successful LENR reaction design to capture those particles 
and convert them to heat energy. One method that might do this conversion is a 
magnetic bottle using a quadruple or another  charged particle confining 
magnetic field. The muons that come out of the LENR reaction must be confined 
inside the reactor for up to 10 microseconds to give them enough time to decay. 
This decay will convert most of the mass of the muon ( 105.6583745(24) MeV/c2 
)into heat energy and electrons.

[cid:ii_jevtb9tx0_162359acc47de1f3]


On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Axil Axil 
> wrote:

The COP of the Brillouin reactor is now been verified to be under 1.5... nearly 
useless. If I remember correctly, MFMP produced over unity heat in some of 
their experiments but not very much. The same low COP issue arose in the Lugano 
demo. Low COP is a big problem for LENR. Most of the energy produced by LENR 
comes in the form of sub atomic particle generation which includes huge numbers 
of neutrinos. In the LENR reaction, the heat is provided by a minor energy 
channel involving hawking radiation. The Brillouin reactor is most likely 
pumping out a ton of sub atomic particles as seen in the experiments of 
Holmlid. Those particles need to be converted to heat. Therefore, the heat rich 
LENR reactor should be surrounded by a blanket of molten lead or thorium salt 
to capture muons that will catalyze muon fission. But this type of fission will 
produce a ton of neutrons similar to a hot fusion reactor. The dream of a LENR 
reactor in your basement might well be impossible unless Rossi has found a way 
to increase the proportion of the reaction energy to be radiated in the form of 
heat.

To verify if this opinion is well founded, a LENR reactor should be surrounded 
in lead blocks up to a foot thick. We should see a large flux of neutrons 
produced by the lead.

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Brian Ahern]

I have been calling Rossi a Fraud since January 2009. None of his 'demos' or 
pronouncements have had any value.


He is truly a master of manipulation.


The possibility that he is credible offers hope to the alternative energy 
followers. I hope LENR can be made to work, but It will not come from The 
Impresario.



From: Russ 
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 5:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR fission


At least Jed make the lines of credibility clear, either Rossi is a fraud or 
Jed is. The jury is still out. If the E-Cat roars then I propose that Jed do 
the honourable Japanese thing and commit internet seppuku and STFU.



From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:53 PM
To: Vortex 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission



JonesBeene > wrote:



In fact, his E-Cat system demands it.



The E-Cat does not work. It is a fraud.





Anyone who accepts  the positive feedback modality should realize that it  
comes with a lot of baggage.



The data shows positive feedback. Anyone who rejects data is not doing science. 
You have to accept what the experiments show.



- Jed

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Russ]

At least Jed make the lines of credibility clear, either Rossi is a fraud or 
Jed is. The jury is still out. If the E-Cat roars then I propose that Jed do 
the honourable Japanese thing and commit internet seppuku and STFU. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell  
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:53 PM
To: Vortex 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

 

JonesBeene  > wrote:

 

In fact, his E-Cat system demands it.

 

The E-Cat does not work. It is a fraud.

 

 

Anyone who accepts  the positive feedback modality should realize that it  
comes with a lot of baggage.

 

The data shows positive feedback. Anyone who rejects data is not doing science. 
You have to accept what the experiments show.

 

- Jed