[Vo]:Paper of Interest - palladium nanoparticles of 147 atoms.
This paper from Frank Dodd (Tony) Smith, could be called "the paper from another planet"...or maybe it is Tony himself who is from another planet... well, Georgia actually. His credentials are impressive. I hope he applies his unique understanding of LENR specifically to the Mizuno breakthrough. That breakthrough - in terms of being explained in part by this this paper would be all about a technique which produces an adequate number of palladium nanoparticles of an exact size 147 atoms - which is consistent with what we know about the Mizuno burnishing technique. At least it sounds about right. Is his paper (below) fabulous prophecy from a real genius, just good guesses, or a touch of crankiness? There could be a bit of all of those, but there are signs of genius here. I'm going with genius, more or less. "Cold Fusion - Deuterium in 147-atom Pd nanoclusters embedded in Zeolite Cages" http://www.tony5m17h.net/ColdFusionPdD.pdf
[Vo]:Some information on the mesh from the Japanese vendor
See: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6017-mizuno-replication-and-materials-only/?postID=115073#post115073
Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely tobetheprecursor to all future devices
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Fri, 19 Jul 2019 23:05:52 +0200: Hi, [snip] >In nuclear transformation (LENR) D* adds like a double proton and H* >adds like a neutron. That's what we see (exactly measure) from the gamma >radiation signature of complex reactions. Could you give a couple of example reactions? (I'm a little unsure of what you mean when you say "adds like".) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely tobetheprecursor to all future devices
In reply to JonesBeene's message of Fri, 19 Jul 2019 08:14:19 -0700: Hi, [snip] >The energy release per atom would be useful, to narrow down the >possibilities. > >Yes. No doubt this detail would be very useful to know, but is it even >possible to know? I think that with careful work, it is possible. 1) It should be possible to measure the total energy release over a long period. 2) The amount of D used should be able to be calculated by subtracting what is left over at the end from what was made available during the course of the run. The difference (if any) is what was used. I deliberately specified a "long" run, because if the difference is small, then the error can potentially be large, because there is always some measurement error, and a very small signal may be lost in the measurement error. If at the end of such a long run the difference is still small or near to non-existent, then we are obviously dealing with one of the very energetic options. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely tobetheprecursor to all future devices
Am 19.07.19 um 19:32 schrieb Jones Beene: Which is to say: until we get mass spec readings for significant amounts of helium after a long run, fusion remains just a fall-back assumption based on old electrolysis results - and possibly unjustified for anything else. Surprisingly, even with a reactor operating at 3 kw for extended periods - there is no report of tritium or transmutation of any kind. In nuclear transformation (LENR) D* adds like a double proton and H* adds like a neutron. That's what we see (exactly measure) from the gamma radiation signature of complex reactions. Tritium is not possible with most D-D LENR. Only 3-He will be seen. (If you would use neutron rich isotopes then the range of results would be much larger. But this is for large state labs.) Transmutations always happen as side reaction with about 10E-8 of the reaction power equivalent. We at Ecalox measure LENR gamma radiation since about 2 years now. (> 1 spectra stored now) However, Your answer does not answer Robins question about your model’s accurate energy calculations. Separately there are tables of numerous measured isomeric energy states, which could be compared directly with the detailed calculations of your physical 6-D modeling. Are you or anyone else doing such calculations in way of validating you models of nuclei? Bob Cook Currently I have other priorities than extending my model. But, as a strongly handicapped person I would welcome any help. Such a person would of course learn much more than has been written so far! There is good reason to believe that a nice piece of software that models the EM collapse of two ring currents in SO(4) could give some deep insight into the nature of physical constants. Currently I follow a refined approach to model the D-D fusion process that seems to give the same resonance 1000eV as the magnetic moment model and is in good agreement with Mills measurements. But for this you will have to wait as there are to many open tasks now. And to remind everybody: A model is only as exact as experiments tell you. Thus I give you "the most likely value" you can see in a simple experiment. An exact value makes no sense as nobody has an exact measurement... Jürg -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr.22 8910 Affoltern a.A. 044 760 14 18 079 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely tobetheprecursor to all future devices
The elements transmuted by the LENR reaction are usually calcium, magnesium, sulfur, carbon, iron, aluminum. Helium is not usually found. In nature, supernova nucleosynthesis: the nucleosynthesis of chemical elements in supernova explosions are the usual nature generators of these heavier elements. Shock-wave based supernova nucleosynthesis and hydrostatic-burning processes create most of the isotopes of the elements carbon (Z = 6), oxygen (Z = 8), and elements with Z = 10–28 (from neon to nickel). How can LENR reproduce the conditions inside an exploding supernova using a compression of elements in the fusion process? Any detection of elements heavier that helium precludes the fusion process as the cause of LENR transmutation. By the way, living thing have be found to produce supernova nucleosynthesis type elements as a usual byproduct of their life cycle. On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 1:34 PM Jones Beene wrote: > Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > > > In the Mizuno case we can exclude this behavior, as clustered D-D, > inside larger clusters, always will undergo fusion... > > > Always? ... doubt it. There is no evidence from Mizuno of helium and it > makes no sense to be dogmatic on the issue until evidence arrives. > > Which is to say: until we get mass spec readings for significant amounts > of helium after a long run, fusion remains just a fall-back assumption > based on old electrolysis results - and possibly unjustified for anything > else. > > Surprisingly, even with a reactor operating at 3 kw for extended periods - > there is no report of tritium or transmutation of any kind. Mizuno is > reportedly an expert at radiation detection so the lack of any mention by > him is curious, to say the least. Even if the branching ratio of LENR in > general favors mostly helium - at this high level of output there is little > logical way to claim that absolute quenching of the normal branching ratio > all the way back to zero tritium; and tritium could not be missed by him in > small amounts, if it was present. > > Home usage of the reactor almost guarantees he assumes no tritium even at > very high thermal output. He would not jeopardize his family's health. > > I agree that most of the LENR experts think deuterium fusion is > responsible for the excess heat, but as of now that seems like little more > than speculation to me - especially since in the earlier runs at 4000 Pa, > with only protium as fuel (but with rubbed Pd on nickel), more excess > energy was seen with protium-- than with deuterium under the same > conditions. This favors a non-fusion modus operandi. > > Jones > > >
Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely tobetheprecursor to all future devices
Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > In the Mizuno case we can exclude this behavior, as clustered D-D, inside larger clusters, always will undergo fusion... Always? ... doubt it. There is no evidence from Mizuno of helium and it makes no sense to be dogmatic on the issue until evidence arrives. Which is to say: until we get mass spec readings for significant amounts of helium after a long run, fusion remains just a fall-back assumption based on old electrolysis results - and possibly unjustified for anything else. Surprisingly, even with a reactor operating at 3 kw for extended periods - there is no report of tritium or transmutation of any kind. Mizuno is reportedly an expert at radiation detection so the lack of any mention by him is curious, to say the least. Even if the branching ratio of LENR in general favors mostly helium - at this high level of output there is little logical way to claim that absolute quenching of the normal branching ratio all the way back to zero tritium; and tritium could not be missed by him in small amounts, if it was present. Home usage of the reactor almost guarantees he assumes no tritium even at very high thermal output. He would not jeopardize his family's health. I agree that most of the LENR experts think deuterium fusion is responsible for the excess heat, but as of now that seems like little more than speculation to me - especially since in the earlier runs at 4000 Pa, with only protium as fuel (but with rubbed Pd on nickel), more excess energy was seen with protium-- than with deuterium under the same conditions. This favors a non-fusion modus operandi. Jones
RE: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely tobetheprecursor to all future devices
Jones— I agree with your observation regarding multiple simultaneous events and the apparent lack of the involvement of single nuclei in a LENR event. Magnetic coupling between multiple particles (nucleons and atomic and or plasmonic electrons or other magnetic dipoles) can allow sharing their angular momentum (spin energy) simultaneously without the production of energetic charged particles. This is a desirable characteristic of LENR, since it significantly reduces or eliminates hazardous radiation and nuclear activation associated with releases of neutrons. Mundane heat energy results in the small kinetic energy increases of many electrons and multiple nucleons in a crystal lattice. Bob Cook From: JonesBeene Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 7:14:19 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely tobetheprecursor to all future devices “The energy release per atom would be useful, to narrow down the possibilities.” Yes. No doubt this detail would be very useful to know, but is it even possible to know? Probably NOT as of now – since it makes a fundamental assumption which is not proved. That fundamental assumption is that energy release happens only once per atom – as in fusion. At first this seems to be a logical assumption, but fusion is not yet proved. If atoms produce lesser energy sequentially (still giving up mass) then the energy per atom would not be relevant since any atom could radiate excess energy several times or several million times during the run. At this point we do no need to be specific about the details of the alternative mechanism to show the logical error, but there are several recognized possibilities that actually make as much sense as fusion including a version of the Hotson theory. One particular operative mechanism which could change perceptions is related to the experimental findings which have been provided by Hora, Miley, Winterberg and Holmlid, et al. going back many years, which involve Bose-Einstein clustering. There is no apparent limitation on how many times an individual atom can give up mass-energy in the Coulomb explosion if and when they occur sequentially. To complicated matters – these experts suggest that the BEC cluster can act as an extremely efficient fusion target to be imploded with a laser. In that case the energy release per atom in the cluster would be less than the fusion of two deuterons – on average but the helium is thereafter unreactive so energy per atom would be useful to know. There are other alternative mechanisms for gain not involving fusion. These researchers also suggest or imply that clustering “alone” can produce significant excess energy with no fusion and/or a delayed nucleon annihilation event. Here, we find the sequential Coulomb explosion where atoms can participate many times. Moreover, the Coulomb explosion is presently a proved mechanism with a signature emission which has been documented via experiment. In contrast there is no documented fusion evidence from the Mizuno breakthrough - as of now. It is a mistake to assume that this proof is just around the corner. It may not happen. I predict it will not. If one is firmly convinced that deuterium fusion must be happening in the new Mizuno breakthrough due to the robustness of the output or their own per theory or patent - be prepared to jump- ship since there is NO report of helium which is an absolute requirement to prove that particular mechanism . Until that time that substantial helium-4 is detected – the only gainful outcomes we know of now from the published record are non-fusion and one of them relates to the ~630 eV emission from Coulomb explosions. This gain is probably nuclear related but also probably not related to nuclear fusion, unless fusion is time-shifted in the QM sense so as to replace a deficit. Jones
RE: FW: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely tobetheprecursor to all future devices
Jurg- Thanks for that instructive reference to the Berkley etal. Paper. It suggests likely plasma LENFR mechanisms and connects metal hydride LENR with the Rossi, Mills, ball lightening folks, etal. LENR like events. The list of references is also revealing as to who is doing the research in plasma LENR. However, Your answer does not answer Robins question about your model’s accurate energy calculations. Separately there are tables of numerous measured isomeric energy states, which could be compared directly with the detailed calculations of your physical 6-D modeling. Are you or anyone else doing such calculations in way of validating you models of nuclei? Bob Cook __ From: Jürg Wyttenbach Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 4:15:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: FW: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely tobetheprecursor to all future devices If it can be exactly calculated, why do you say "about 500 eV"? There are almost always different energies that couple. The formulas give the exact energies for then individual contributions but depending on the interaction you have to count in the change in charge induced classic potential change or the coupling with the proton magnetic moment as seen in https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1905/1905.03400.pdf 1000 +-250eV. Jürg Am 18.07.19 um 21:34 schrieb mix...@bigpond.com: > In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:37:44 +0200: > Hi, > [snip] >> In the Hydrogen LENR (?) the H-H --> H*-H* condensation produces about >> 500eV of magnetic potential energy due to SO(4) spin coupling of the >> perturbative proton mass. This can exactly be calculated. > If it can be exactly calculated, why do you say "about 500 eV"? > > > Regards, > > > Robin van Spaandonk > > local asymmetry = temporary success > > > -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr.22 8910 Affoltern a.A. 044 760 14 18 079 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely tobetheprecursor to all future devices
Am 19.07.19 um 17:14 schrieb JonesBeene: There are other alternative mechanisms for gain not involving fusion. These researchers also suggest or imply that clustering “alone” can produce significant excess energy with no fusion and/or a delayed nucleon annihilation event. Here, we Clustering energy in the range of 500-1000eV is seen in Takahashi's Ni-H process where he produces about 50 watt's of excess energy. Also R. Mills process leads to toroidial H* clusters with the same "low" energy gain. In the Mizuno case we can exclude this behavior, as clustered D-D, inside larger clusters, always will undergo fusion The energy of the Mizuno process is in the region > 100'000keV /Pd or surface Ni, what also excludes H*/D* condensation as a final source of energy. Pd-D or Ni-D fusion so long always produced 4-He with minor amounts of 3-He (< 10E-6). There is more than enough experimental proof and to ask doing it again is interesting only for detecting how much Pd/Ni gets transmuted. Usually such side reactions that transmute Pd/Ni are below 10E-8 compared to D-D fusion reactions. I guess after the first successful replication of Mizuno will see a sudden death of ITER and similar approaches. Jürg -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr.22 8910 Affoltern a.A. 044 760 14 18 079 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely tobetheprecursor to all future devices
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAsceiIMY2I The question is "how can microorganisms produce enough power to transmute elements". The answer to this question could involve a global Bose condensate (BEC) that forms throughout the entire extent of the bug colony. This BEC connects each bug through quantum mechanical entanglement into a network where any single bug can tap into the total power potential of the entire colony through a process called superradience. As the transmutation of elements takes place, the LENR reaction does not expose the fradual bodies of the individual bugs to the destructive radiation, energy, and particles produced by the transmutation process. But the entangled connectivity provided by the BEC can distribute the transmuted elements to each bug as required. We have seen this sharing of transmuted elements between LENR active agents in the LION reactor experiments. The bugs aquire the elements they need to sustain their life cycle but LENR hides the destructive potential that this life sustaining transmutation of elements engenders. On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 11:14 AM JonesBeene wrote: > *“The *energy release per atom would be useful, to narrow down the > possibilities.” > > > > Yes. No doubt this detail would be very useful to know, but is it even > possible to know? > > Probably NOT as of now – since it makes a fundamental assumption which is > not proved. > > That fundamental assumption is that energy release happens only once per > atom – as in fusion. At first this seems to be a logical assumption, but > fusion is not yet proved. If atoms produce lesser energy sequentially > (still giving up mass) then the energy per atom would not be relevant > since any atom could radiate excess energy several times or several million > times during the run. > > At this point we do no need to be specific about the details of the > alternative mechanism to show the logical error, but there are several > recognized possibilities that actually make as much sense as fusion > including a version of the Hotson theory. > > One particular operative mechanism which could change perceptions is > related to the experimental findings which have been provided by Hora, > Miley, Winterberg and Holmlid, et al. going back many years, which involve > Bose-Einstein clustering. There is no apparent limitation on how many times > an individual atom can give up mass-energy in the Coulomb explosion if and > when they occur sequentially. > > To complicated matters – these experts suggest that the BEC cluster can > act as an extremely efficient fusion target to be imploded with a laser. In > that case the energy release per atom in the cluster would be less than the > fusion of two deuterons – on average but the helium is thereafter > unreactive so energy per atom would be useful to know. > > There are other alternative mechanisms for gain not involving fusion. > These researchers also suggest or imply that clustering “alone” can > produce significant excess energy with no fusion and/or a delayed nucleon > annihilation event. Here, we find the sequential Coulomb explosion where > atoms can participate many times. > > Moreover, the Coulomb explosion is presently a proved mechanism with a > signature emission which has been documented via experiment. In contrast > there is no documented fusion evidence from the Mizuno breakthrough - as of > now. It is a mistake to assume that this proof is just around the corner. > It may not happen. I predict it will not. > > If one is firmly convinced that deuterium fusion must be happening in the > new Mizuno breakthrough due to the robustness of the output or their own > per theory or patent - be prepared to jump- ship since there is NO report > of helium which is an absolute requirement to prove that particular > mechanism . > > Until that time that substantial helium-4 is detected – the only gainful > outcomes we know of now from the published record are non-fusion and one > of them relates to the ~630 eV emission from Coulomb explosions. This gain > is probably nuclear related but also probably not related to nuclear > fusion, unless fusion is time-shifted in the QM sense so as to replace a > deficit. > > Jones > > > >
RE: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely tobetheprecursor to all future devices
“The energy release per atom would be useful, to narrow down the possibilities.” Yes. No doubt this detail would be very useful to know, but is it even possible to know? Probably NOT as of now – since it makes a fundamental assumption which is not proved. That fundamental assumption is that energy release happens only once per atom – as in fusion. At first this seems to be a logical assumption, but fusion is not yet proved. If atoms produce lesser energy sequentially (still giving up mass) then the energy per atom would not be relevant since any atom could radiate excess energy several times or several million times during the run. At this point we do no need to be specific about the details of the alternative mechanism to show the logical error, but there are several recognized possibilities that actually make as much sense as fusion including a version of the Hotson theory. One particular operative mechanism which could change perceptions is related to the experimental findings which have been provided by Hora, Miley, Winterberg and Holmlid, et al. going back many years, which involve Bose-Einstein clustering. There is no apparent limitation on how many times an individual atom can give up mass-energy in the Coulomb explosion if and when they occur sequentially. To complicated matters – these experts suggest that the BEC cluster can act as an extremely efficient fusion target to be imploded with a laser. In that case the energy release per atom in the cluster would be less than the fusion of two deuterons – on average but the helium is thereafter unreactive so energy per atom would be useful to know. There are other alternative mechanisms for gain not involving fusion. These researchers also suggest or imply that clustering “alone” can produce significant excess energy with no fusion and/or a delayed nucleon annihilation event. Here, we find the sequential Coulomb explosion where atoms can participate many times. Moreover, the Coulomb explosion is presently a proved mechanism with a signature emission which has been documented via experiment. In contrast there is no documented fusion evidence from the Mizuno breakthrough - as of now. It is a mistake to assume that this proof is just around the corner. It may not happen. I predict it will not. If one is firmly convinced that deuterium fusion must be happening in the new Mizuno breakthrough due to the robustness of the output or their own per theory or patent - be prepared to jump- ship since there is NO report of helium which is an absolute requirement to prove that particular mechanism . Until that time that substantial helium-4 is detected – the only gainful outcomes we know of now from the published record are non-fusion and one of them relates to the ~630 eV emission from Coulomb explosions. This gain is probably nuclear related but also probably not related to nuclear fusion, unless fusion is time-shifted in the QM sense so as to replace a deficit. Jones
Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices
My criticism allows for such a possibility. Harry On Wed., Jul. 17, 2019, 4:06 p.m. , wrote: > In reply to H LV's message of Tue, 16 Jul 2019 19:49:22 -0400: > Hi Harry, > > You are making the assumption that it actually has something to do with > nuclear > structure. However it is by no means certain as of yet, that such is the > case. > That's precisely why the energy release per atom would be useful, to > narrow down > the possibilities. > > >If mass energy conversion is treated as a cause of nuclear structure then > >you are correct. I am looking at it as an effect of nuclear structure so > >the energy produced per atom would only tell us that nuclear forces are > >involved. > >Harry > [snip] > Regards, > > > Robin van Spaandonk > > local asymmetry = temporary success > >
Re: FW: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely tobetheprecursor to all future devices
If it can be exactly calculated, why do you say "about 500 eV"? There are almost always different energies that couple. The formulas give the exact energies for then individual contributions but depending on the interaction you have to count in the change in charge induced classic potential change or the coupling with the proton magnetic moment as seen in https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1905/1905.03400.pdf 1000 +-250eV. Jürg Am 18.07.19 um 21:34 schrieb mix...@bigpond.com: In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:37:44 +0200: Hi, [snip] In the Hydrogen LENR (?) the H-H --> H*-H* condensation produces about 500eV of magnetic potential energy due to SO(4) spin coupling of the perturbative proton mass. This can exactly be calculated. If it can be exactly calculated, why do you say "about 500 eV"? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr.22 8910 Affoltern a.A. 044 760 14 18 079 246 36 06
