Re: [Vo]:Count Rumford's theory of cooling and warming rays
Sorry about the OCR errors in the last post. I cleaned them up in this post... The following is from _Pictet's experiment: The apparent radiation and reflection of cold_ by James Evans and Brian Popp (1985). (google search for full pdf paper) I think Evan's and Popp's criticism of Rumford's theory in the last paragraph below is mistaken. It is only the relative difference in frequency that determines whether a ray will be cooling (frigorific) or warming (calorific) rather than a relative difference in amplitude. An increase or decrease in amplitude will only affect the rate at which cooling or warming occurs so Rumford's theory is not plagued by internal inconsistencies as they argued. Another interesting part of Rumford's theory is that a body only cools or warms by the rays it receives rather than by the rays it emits. Evans and Popp also insist this causes problems for Rumford's theory but they don't say why. --Begin quote-- Rumford's own explanation of the radiation and reflection of cold was thoroughly undulationist in nature. As suggested at the beginning of this article, Rumford regarded radiant heat as an undulation analogous to sound, and seems to have viewed Pictet's experiment more or less as a case of a driven oscillator: "The cold body in one focus compels the warm body (the thermometer) in the other focus to change its note." This was the explanation he ventured to offer his companions at Edinburgh in 1800. Later, in his paper of 1804, he gave a more or less complete sketch of his view of radiant heat. To begin, imagine a bell, or any other body perfectly elastic, placed in a perfectly elastic fluid medium and surrounded by other perfectly elastic bodies. When the bell is struck and made to vibrate, its vibrations are gradually communicated, by means of the undulations or pulsations they occasion in the elastic fluid medium, to the other sur-rounding bodies. If these bodies should happen already to be vibrating at the same frequency with which the bell vibrates, the undulations occasioned in the elastic medium by the bell would neither increase nor diminish the frequency of the vibration of the surrounding bodies; nor would the undulations caused by the vibrations of these bodies tend to accelerate or retard the vibrations of the bell. But if the vibrations of the bell were more frequent than those of the surrounding bodies, the undulations produced by the bell in the elastic fluid would tend to accelerate the vibrations of the surrounding bodies. On the other hand,the slower vibrations of the surrounding bodies would retard the vibrations of the bell. The bell and the surrounding bodies would continue to affect one another until, by the vibrations of the latter being gradually increased and those of the former diminished, they would be reduced to the same tone. Now, if heat is assumed to be nothing more than the vibrations of the constituent particles of a body, the cooling of a hot object by radiation will entail a series of actions and reactions similar to those just described for the case of the bell. The rapid undulations produced in the surrounding ethereal fluid will act as calorific rays on the neighboring bodies, and the slower undulations produced by the vibrations of these colder bodies will act as frigorific rays on the hot body. These reciprocal actions will continue until the hot body and the colder bodies around it have acquired the same temperature, i.e., until their vibrations have become isochronous. It follows that cold and heat are relative terms. The rays from one particular object will be either frigorific or calorific, according as they impinge on other objects either warmer or colder than itself. Imagine three identical bodies, A, B, and C. Let A be at the temperature of freezing water, B at the temperature of 72 °F, and C at 112 °F. The Rays emitted by B will be calorific with respect to the colder body A, but frigorific with respect to C. Moreover, they will be just as efficacious in heating the former as in cooling the latter. "According to this hypothesis, cold can with no more propriety be considered as the absence of heat than a low orgrave sound can be considered as the absence of a higheror more acute pitch; and the admission of rays which generate cold involves no absurdity and creates no con-fusion of ideas." 48 The application of Pictet's experiment is immediate and obvious. The rapid vibrations of the particles of the thermometer produce rapid undulations in the surrounding elastic fluid. These undulations arrive, after two reflections, at the cold body, where they act to raise its temperature. Simultaneously, the slower vibrations of the cold body give rise to slower undulations in the elastic medium which proceed, again by means of two reflections, to the thermometer. The accumulation of these frigorific rays in the thermometer causes its temperature to fall. And, concludes Rumford, "...this is what actually happened in the celebrated experime
[Vo]:Count Rumford's theory of cooling and warming rays
The following is from _Pictet's experiment: The apparent radiation and reflection of cold_ by James Evans and Brian Popp (1985). (google search for full pdf paper) I think Evan's and Popp's criticism of Rumford's theory in the last paragraph below is mistaken. It is only the relative difference in frequency that determines whether a ray will be cooling (frigorific) or warming (calorific) rather than a relative difference in amplitude. An increase or decrease in amplitude will only affect the rate at which cooling or warming occurs so Rumford's theory is not plagued by internal inconsistencies as they argued. Another interesting part of Rumford's theory is that a body only cools or warms by the rays it receives rather than by the rays it emits. --Begin quote-- Rumford's own explanation of the radiation and reflection of cold was thoroughly undulationist in nature. As suggested at the beginning of this article, Rumford regard-ed radiant heat as an undulation analogous to sound, and seems to have viewed Pictet's experiment more or less as a case of a driven oscillator: "The cold body in one focusCompels the warm body the thermounctcr, in the ciber to-cus to change its note." This was the explanation he ven-tured to offer his companions at Edinburgh in 1800. Later,u lis eper of 1804, he gave a more or less complete sketch of his view of radiant heat. To begin, imagine a bell, or any other body perfectly elastic, placed in a perfectly elastic fluid medium and sur-rounded by other perfectly elastic bodies. When the bell is struck and made to vibrate, its vibrations are gradually communicated, by means of the undulations or pulsationsthey occasion in the elastic fluid medium, to the other sur-rounding bodies. If these bodies should happen already to be vibrating at the same frequency with which the bell vi-brates, the undulations occasioned in the elastic medium by the bell would neither increase nor diminish the fre-quency of the vibration of the surrounding bodies; nor would the undulations caused by the vibrations of these bodies tend to accelerate or retard the vibrations of the bell.But if the vibrations of the bell were more frequent than those of the surrounding bodies, the undulations produced by the bell in the elastic fluid would tend to accelerate the vibrations of the surrounding bodies. On the other hand,the slower vibrations of the surrounding bodies would re-tard the vibrations of the bell. The bell and the surrounding bodies would continue to affect one another until, by the vibrations of the latter being gradually increased and those of the former diminished, they would be reduced to the same tone. Now, if heat is assumed to be nothing more than the vibrations of the constituent particles of a body, the cooling of a hot object by radiation will entail a series of actions and reactions similar to those just described for the case of the bell. The rapid undulations produced in the surrounding ethereal fluid will act as calorific rays on the neighboring bodies, and the slower undulations produced by the vibra-tions of these colder bodies will act as frigorific rays on the hot body. These reciprocal actions will continue until the hot body and the colder bodies around it have acquired the same temperature, i.e., until their vibrations have becomeisochronous.It follows that cold and heat are relative terms. The rays from one particular object will be either frigorific or calo-rific, according as they impinge on other objects either warmer or colder than itself. Imagine three identical bo-dies, A, B, and C. Let A be at the temperature of freezing water, B at the temperature of 72 °F, and C at 112 °F. The Rays emitted by B will be calorific with respect to the colderbody A, but frigorific with respect to C. Moreover, they will be just as efficacious in heating the former as in cooling the latter. "According to this hypothesis, cold can with no more propriety be considered as the absence of heat than a low orgrave sound can be considered as the absence of a higheror more acute pitch; and the admission of rays which generate cold involves no absurdity and creates no con-fusion of ideas." 48 The application of Pictet's experiment is immediate and obvious. The rapid vibrations of the particles of the ther-mometer produce rapid undulations in the surrounding elastic fluid. These undulations arrive, after two reflec-tions, at the cold body, where they act to raise its tempera-ture. Simultaneously, the slower vibrations of the coldbody give rise to slower undulations in the elastic medium which proceed, again by means of two reflections, to the thermometer. The accumulation of these frigorific rays in the thermometer causes its temperature to fall. And, con-cludes Rumford, "...this is what actually happened in the celebrated experiment of my ingenious friend, ProfessorPictet, of Geneva.”:49 Rumford thus explains the experiment solely in terms of frequencies of vibration. That is, he assumes that t
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:59 PM Robin wrote: > In reply to H LV's message of Tue, 15 Sep 2020 14:31:04 -0400: > Hi Harry, > > Are you getting bored because of the low level of activity on Vortex? :) > > Physics needs some fizzle. Harry
Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 16 Sep 2020 00:51:24 + (UTC): Hi, [snip] If the electrons are shrunken, then they may well tunnel along with the protons, making an enhanced electron capture process possible. A possibility which you may recall I first posted here in the thread "Mizuno phenanthrene paper uploaded" on 3 Dec. 2008. (previously suggested in private correspondence to Mike Carrell on 14 Nov. 2002). However it surprises me that the whole bound molecule tunnels rather than a single proton/atom. I find it even further surprising that this happens with something as large as n=1/4, and that two EC reactions occur. I would have thought one would at least occasionally see that only one or no EC reactions occurred. Depending on the target nucleus, there should be some combinations where capture of one or more protons would lead to a more stable nucleus than capture of two neutrons? Odd numbered nuclei might be an interesting starting point. E.g. Al27, since capture of a proton here yields the very stable Silicon. Also desirable since Al27 is so common in the Earth's crust. If two neutrons are captured, then a good starting point would be light isotopes of even numbered nuclei. E.g. O16 + H*-H* -> O18 + 10.6 MeV. Both start and final isotopes are stable, and O16 is plentiful. H2O => O18? :) Perhaps the electron shrinks during the capture process, providing better shielding to the proton(s)? If so, I wonder if there is a threshold shrinkage level where this collapse begins? >Think about the implications of dense hydrogen in the role of binding and >reacting with another (larger) nucleus as if were two neutrons. This is >completely new physics. > >Such a discovery would open an entirely new world of overlooked nuclear >reactions which were never given much hope before. It could make nuclear >fission the top energy source once again, in the grand scheme of things and >rid us of the false expectation that nuclear fusion has a real future. It is >simply too expensive. > >However we cannot gauge probabilities yet, and all of this is speculative. It >would be essential to know the cross-section of various element (for >absorption of H*-H*) so as to determine the commercially valuable products >and isotopes. It might be possible to get more in value from new isotopes than >from the excess heat of hydrogen densification... or it all could be used >together so that fission energy becomes far more attractive than before. > >Here is one kind of potential reaction that you may not have thought about. >Thorium based. >If the H*-H* acts like two neutrons with thorium as a target, one might expect >to convert 232Th into 234Th which has a short half-life and goes to 234Pa and >then to 234U. Now 234U is interesting in a surprising way if it can be made >cheaply, even though it is NOT fissile. Well, technically. it is not fissile - >but it can be viewed as virtually fissile. > >The hidden value of 234U would be because it has a long half life plus a known >and very large cross section for neutrons. Thus in a reactor it would almost >immediately become 235 U which is probably the best of all uranium isotopes. >Thus a breeder reactor becomes very feasible possibly with natural U. > >In short although this is a naive possibility given that we have so little >data to look at - the H*-H* having similar reactivity to 2n - that would be >extremely important in framing a revival of fission, and who knows what else?
Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"
Think about the implications of dense hydrogen in the role of binding and reacting with another (larger) nucleus as if were two neutrons. This is completely new physics. Such a discovery would open an entirely new world of overlooked nuclear reactions which were never given much hope before. It could make nuclear fission the top energy source once again, in the grand scheme of things and rid us of the false expectation that nuclear fusion has a real future. It is simply too expensive. However we cannot gauge probabilities yet, and all of this is speculative. It would be essential to know the cross-section of various element (for absorption of H*-H*) so as to determine the commercially valuable products and isotopes. It might be possible to get more in value from new isotopes than from the excess heat of hydrogen densification... or it all could be used together so that fission energy becomes far more attractive than before. Here is one kind of potential reaction that you may not have thought about. Thorium based. If the H*-H* acts like two neutrons with thorium as a target, one might expect to convert 232Th into 234Th which has a short half-life and goes to 234Pa and then to 234U. Now 234U is interesting in a surprising way if it can be made cheaply, even though it is NOT fissile. Well, technically. it is not fissile - but it can be viewed as virtually fissile. The hidden value of 234U would be because it has a long half life plus a known and very large cross section for neutrons. Thus in a reactor it would almost immediately become 235 U which is probably the best of all uranium isotopes. Thus a breeder reactor becomes very feasible possibly with natural U. In short although this is a naive possibility given that we have so little data to look at - the H*-H* having similar reactivity to 2n - that would be extremely important in framing a revival of fission, and who knows what else?
Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"
Well, you could be getting inferior advice. It makes little sense to worry about IH or anyone else when a trip to Stockholm (for the big prize) is waiting for positive results showing H*-H* absorption... No one is going to get rich on this anyway, other than patent attorneys and Wall Street. There is too much IP already issued to waste time with more. Rgds, Jones Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: We do currently not publish the spectra as there are to many patent trolls like IH just waiting for it... But I have tons of files with interesting details. Anybody serious that is willing to support us either by labor or some significant financial support will get access to our knowledge. Further I consult other experimenters on how to enhance their reactions. J.W. Jones Beene wrote: Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > What we see in experiments is that H*-H* reacts like two neutrons. This in respect to the intermediate products we see. Are any of these experiments published ? Absorption of 2 neutrons when proved would be absolutely huge in importance, since AFAIK this does not happen in standard physics. For one thing, two normal neutrons never bond. +41 79 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"
We do currently not publish the spectra as there are to many patent trolls like IH just waiting for it... But I have tons of files with interesting details. Anybody serious that is willing to support us either by labor or some significant financial support will get access to our knowledge. Further I consult other experimenters on how to enhance their reactions. J.W. On 16.09.2020 01:01, Jones Beene wrote: Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > What we see in experiments is that H*-H* reacts like two neutrons. This in respect to the intermediate products we see. Are any of these experiments published ? Absorption of 2 neutrons when proved would be absolutely huge in importance, since AFAIK this does not happen in standard physics. For one thing, two normal neutrons never bond. -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"
Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > What we see in experiments is that H*-H* reacts like two neutrons. This in > respect to the intermediate products we see. Are any of these experiments published ? Absorption of 2 neutrons when proved would be absolutely huge in importance, since AFAIK this does not happen in standard physics. For one thing, two normal neutrons never bond.
Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"
What we see in experiments is that H*-H* reacts like two neutrons. This in respect to the intermediate products we see. On the other side D*-D* reacts like two protons! J.W. On 14.09.2020 15:12, JonesBeene wrote: Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: … Dense Hydrogen. aka "Hydrino", aka H*-H* is a weak nuclear bond between two protons. It can be exactly calculated by SO(4) physics and is in full agreement with Randall Mills measurement of so called 1/4 Hydrinos Jürg The H*H* which you describe above would seem to be neutral in net charge, weakly bound and very dense, correct? Will the dense hydrogen of your model interact with the nucleus of a host metal matrix as if it were two neutrons? Is this species diamagnetic? -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
In reply to H LV's message of Tue, 15 Sep 2020 14:31:04 -0400: Hi Harry, Are you getting bored because of the low level of activity on Vortex? :)
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
I wrote: > Count Rumfordd would say on the nightside the Earth is cooled by > frigorific rays from space, whereby the frigorific rays > slow the movements of atoms. He had this interesting conception of > radiation as being capable of either heating or cooling, i.e. accelerating > or dampening the motion of atoms depending on the ray's 'frequency' and the > mass of the atoms. > > > eg. A ray which cooled atoms would work like a tuned mass damper. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 3:22 PM Robin wrote: > In reply to H LV's message of Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:13:59 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >She isn't interested in how the heat is conveyed to the surface. Her > >argument is that it can`t be discounted. > > Whether or not it can be discounted depends on how much of it there is. > One would need to estimate the average power > output of a "black smoker", and multiply by an estimate of their number to > determine that. > An estimate of their number can be obtained by taking some random samples > of their density (number per km) along the > "ring of fire". > > > > >>However, in her mind heat is _only_ kinetic > >> >energy so it can't be radiated into space unless that radiation is > >> >received by a relatively cooler body in space. > >> > >> The relatively cooler body is space itself. > > > > > >She doesn`t think space is an entity that is capable having of a > >temperature. In her mind kinetic energy can only reside in material > bodies. > > Kinetic energy can only reside in material bodies, however radiant energy > and kinetic energy are interchangeable. > Every body at a temperature above absolute zero radiates, and cools down > as it does so. This is why night is colder than > day. > If the Earth didn't radiate heat into space at night the temperature > wouldn't drop. > If it didn't accept radiant energy from the Sun during the day, it > wouldn't get warmer during the day. > Obviously radiant energy can be converted into kinetic energy and vice > versa. > > I find her conception of energy to be thought provoking. Unfortunately, I don't think she realises that it raises 10 times more questions then it answers. Count Rumfordd would say on the nightside the Earth is cooled by frigorific rays from space, whereby the frigorific rays slow the movements of atoms. He had this interesting conception of radiation as being capable of either heating or cooling, i.e. accelerating or dampening the motion of atoms depending on the ray's 'frequency' and the mass of the atoms. Harry > > >Theoretically in a universe with only one black body with given > >temperature, she would say it will shine indefinitely at the same > >temperature unless there is another cooler or hotter black body somewhere > >else in the universe with which it can exchange kinetic energy. > > Nonsense. > > > > > > >The only incoming energy of any significance is from other nearby bodies, > >> i.e. the Sun, and the Moon, and thousands of orbiting satellites. ;) > >> By far the most significant of these being the Sun (obviously). > >> Note the temperature on the Moon when the thermometer is in shadow. > >> ( > >> > https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/168-What-is-the-temperature-on-the-Moon- > >> ) > >> > > > > > > > >She would say that is because the moon has accepted kinetic energy from > the > >Sun. If the moon wasn`t there the Sun would have shed less kinetic energy. > > ...and exactly how is that kinetic energy supposed to be transferred from > the Sun to the Moon if not via radiation? > Let's get real, you can feel yourself getting warmer when you stand in > sunlight. Step into the shade and the effect > diminishes. The difference between the two positions is the > presence/absence of direct radiant energy from the Sun. > [snip] > >
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion comic book "Discover Cold Fusion"
I only bought the one. I certainly would have loved to send one to Bob Parks; but, I suppose science IS advancing by funerals. Cheers! On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 8:37 AM William Beaty wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2020, Terry Blanton wrote: > > > L5.95GBP or ~$7.65USD, 32pp., "Limited Print Edition" w/thicker cover > > > > If you can afford it. One copy is $18.20 with shipping. > > I paid $54+ship for five copies, shipping appears to be > flat rate $15.25USD > >https://www.curtis-press.com/product-category/comics/ > > > > ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) > William J. Beaty https://electricatechnology.com > beat...@gmail.comCTO, Inventor, Research Engineer > bi...@amasci.com > 206-762-3818 vm5459 Wilkinson Rd, Langley, WA 98260-8700 > >
Re: [Vo]:Out of 1920
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020, Frank Znidarsic wrote: with this arrangement I can unplug them. These earphones are of a 3000 ohm high impedance design. The voice coil goes over a fixed magnet. The magnet operates on a thin steel armature with no electrical connections on it. The sound is very tinny and awfull The Radiola III actually sounds much better with modern low impedance earphones. I wonder how those differed from earpieces in telephones of the time? Back then, everyone just took the "receiver" out of telephones. See Nikola Tesla's 50-microvolt radio receiver pdf below. When actually built, it turned out to be an amplifier element, with multiple LC circuits giving it "regen" bias, plus even a local BFO oscillator so that CW Morse would be heard as beeps. The Corums measure its gain as orders better than any receiver before Armstrong's regen/superregen receivers. Tesla's receiver, a parametric amplifier, slow-rotating coherer http://www.teslasociety.com/teslarec.pdf Tesla kept it secret, unpatented. The plans appeared in "Colorado Springs Notes" found in the 1970s. (The museum in Beograd had them, but wasn't releasing them until forced to publish, since the notes would harm Tesla's reputation of never taking notes, but only using his photographic memory! sheesh.) There I am hoping to live to see the upcoming modern age of the low impedance high fidelity loud speaker. Try these 1925-era science-project magazine PDFs, with loudspeaker ads. (Note that some of those science projects appear to be "lost technology" which only appears in these pdfs, but weren't published in all the Popular Electronics or Scientific American project magazines. The "matter disintegrator" project, making weird carbon compounds from methane feed into a rotary spark-gap, probably was producing Fullerenes and diamonds in gram quantities! The Experimenter https://worldradiohistory.com/The_Experimenterr.htm More, earlier: https://worldradiohistory.com/Electrical_Experimenter.htm When you find something like this from the incipient age of electrical communication and get it working, you realize how short of a time that our modern electrical age has existed. Frank Znidarsic http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/OutOf1923.jpg ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) William J. Beaty https://electricatechnology.com beat...@gmail.comCTO, Inventor, Research Engineer bi...@amasci.com 206-762-3818 vm5459 Wilkinson Rd, Langley, WA 98260-8700
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion comic book "Discover Cold Fusion"
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020, Terry Blanton wrote: L5.95GBP or ~$7.65USD, 32pp., "Limited Print Edition" w/thicker cover If you can afford it. One copy is $18.20 with shipping. I paid $54+ship for five copies, shipping appears to be flat rate $15.25USD https://www.curtis-press.com/product-category/comics/ ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) William J. Beaty https://electricatechnology.com beat...@gmail.comCTO, Inventor, Research Engineer bi...@amasci.com 206-762-3818 vm5459 Wilkinson Rd, Langley, WA 98260-8700
