Re: [Vo]:Electron capture acceleration via NMR ?
In reply to Bill Antoni's message of Fri, 3 Dec 2021 02:21:19 +0100: Hi, If you put your detector in a well grounded Faraday cage, it may eliminate most radio interference produced by sparking. Use metal (not nylon) fly wire for the Faraday cage (or at least for a window if you prefer the whole cage be made of metal sheet). The space between the wires is small enough to shield most EM below about 150 GHz, but alpha, beta, or gamma should get through easily. I suggest you add a little credit card sized microprocessor to the detector, that can run on batteries for a few hours, and can easily be included in the Faraday cage, with no protruding wires. The microprocessor can log the counts, and the time, and store it on a microSD card for later use. (Protruding wires would act as an antenna, for the EM, defeating the purpose of the Faraday cage.) BTW to eliminate the Radon, just make the experiment portable, and take it elsewhere. Also let the detector run for a while before the experiment starts, so that you get a good indication of average background radiation. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
Re: [Vo]:Electron capture acceleration via NMR ?
On 2021-12-03 01:18, Robin wrote: If a measurable amount of energy is produced by the cell, and is of nuclear origin, then even an insensitive detector should pick up multiple counts / second. To test your detector, you can use an Americium based smoke detector. That's only about 1 micro Curie, and any significant energy production should produce much more than that. At the time I tried putting the webcam detector close to a KOH canister (slightly radioactive), and there was a slight increase in the number of events (mainly "spots"). The Geiger counter I had earlier on also responded to the KOH canister at close distance. I don't think measurable gamma radiation is going to get directly emitted by experiments like the ones I toyed with, but I find likely that the strong EMI occasionally produced could affect the electronics of more sensitive radiation detectors and potentially give artifacts. If there is more behind that (perhaps even novel forms of radiation), it might require different detector types than used conventionally. Cheers, BA
Re: [Vo]:Electron capture acceleration via NMR ?
In reply to Bill Antoni's message of Thu, 2 Dec 2021 23:47:50 +0100: Hi, [snip] >I tried a webcam/CCD/CMOS detector and while it seems to work for cosmic >muons, on the long term (unpowered cell) it appears to work like a very >insensitive Geiger counter (giving only a few hundred "events" per day), If a measurable amount of energy is produced by the cell, and is of nuclear origin, then even an insensitive detector should pick up multiple counts / second. To test your detector, you can use an Americium based smoke detector. That's only about 1 micro Curie, and any significant energy production should produce much more than that. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
Re: [Vo]:Electron capture acceleration via NMR ?
On 2021-12-02 22:00, Jones Beene wrote: Do you by any chance have a radiation monitor capable of seeing a signal from your cell when unpowered ? It would be significant if there was an increase in counts which tracked the onset of a visible plasma (assuming the plasma itself is below the threshold for detection) I used to have a cheap Geiger counter, but since my background radiation level is too high with daily variations attributable due to radon gas, I've never been able to get useful measurements out of it, so eventually I gave it away. A more sensitive detector similar to one described by Holmlid in a few publications (the "muon detector") would likely work, but it would require a budget of at least 1000-1500$ (with used parts from Ebay or similar) which I cannot justify spending. I tried a webcam/CCD/CMOS detector and while it seems to work for cosmic muons, on the long term (unpowered cell) it appears to work like a very insensitive Geiger counter (giving only a few hundred "events" per day), also tracking daily local radon variations. Furthermore, when the plasma reaction is ongoing, the camera may be affected by heat (increasing background/thermal noise) and electromagnetic emissions from the cell (causing random camera malfunctions) if it's too close, so overall I haven't had much luck with it. I have more successfully measured RF emissions with a 30$ USB-SDR receiver. Measuring signal amplitude in real-time gives a good idea of how intense the reaction is and how it changes with experimental conditions. Curiously, RF emissions increase to a moderately high level just before a visible plasma starts appearing (apparently reflecting current instabilities), then drop to a low level as it appears, and finally progressively increase as voltage is further increased, up to intense levels. Supposedly, it is possible to optimize the reaction with this real-time information. No way of detecting a signal with the cell powered off without some sort of heavy shielding though, due to background RF emissions. Judging by RF emissions, the same plasma reaction appears to emit significantly stronger emissions (keeping other variables about the same) when an acidic electrolyte like 10% HCl is used instead of KOH. Higher concentration HCl or sulfuric acid solution could probably give interesting results in this regard but I never dared trying: the fumes need to be vented away safely and droplet formation is an issue (after a period of operation, most surfaces surrounding the cell become covered by tiny electrolyte droplets, which can be a serious hazard at high electrolyte concentration). With an acidic electrolyte (10% HCl, that I tried) if you drop a thin cathode wire very slowly into the liquid it is also possible to observe a weak plasma from the nano-sized dendrites formed by electroplating from as low as 15V or less (slightly higher values preferred), but no strong RF emissions occur compared to the "true" plasma electrolysis reaction at higher voltages. I hope this helps, Cheers, BA
Re: [Vo]:Electron capture acceleration via NMR ?
Bill Antoni wrote: > in relation to Robin's suggestion of using a saturated KOH solution in an > electrolytic cell, which I found interesting because that is something I > personally explored a while back in crude experiments, as it can > significantly lower the voltage from which a visible plasma can be observed > (about 25-30V) Do you by any chance have a radiation monitor capable of seeing a signal from your cell when unpowered ? It would be significant if there was an increase in counts which tracked the onset of a visible plasma (assuming the plasma itself is below the threshold for detection)
[Vo]:Are OU Techs Inadvertently the 'Great Filter'?
The La Palma eruption continues to surprise and confound: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXhfSNFAUuk ..no longer a case of guesstimating the stored potential energy, so much as the ongoing processes apparently replenishing it. What's been bugging me for some time is that OU solutions solve themselves when input and output work / energy fields are in inertially-decoupled reference frames; IOW, when we invoke any effective workarounds for Lenz's law or Newton's 3rd and thus 1st laws more generally. For instance consider that we can largely reverse-engineer an apparent 'perpetual motion gravity wheel' from first-principle inductive reasoning: • it gains angular momentum, which can only have come from gravity and time in an otherwise-closed system of masses interacting about a common axis • its energy cost / work done to buy momentum from G*t must be constant, invariant of some effective range of RPM Net input energy then scales as the per-cycle constant times the number of elapsed cycles while net output energy squares with the accumulating velocity component, the latter plot inevitably intersecting the former at some unity-threshold velocity, below which we're under-unity and above which, over. IOW the singular mechanic responsible for causing the input energy cost of buying momentum from G*t to square with rising velocity is Newton's 3rd and thus 1st laws, essentially the time-conservation of momentum, and thus time-asymmetric interactions with fundamental force fields (those reducing to a dp/dt) - buying momentum directly from a fundamental force constant and time, rather than by pushing against some external inertia - offer the potential of circumventing that constraint.. cutting the tether to the output inertial frame (ie. the lab / earth). In the diverging input inertial frame, accelerating say 1 kg-m² by 1 rad/s might only cost say 1 J, half of it dissipated to inelastic collisions each cycle, hence by the time you've input 10 J of work you've made 5 J of heat but 50 J of rotKE. The momentum source is gravity and time, and the energy source whatever constitutes 'inertia'. But likewise, we can generalise this fundamental dynamic to ANY OU system - if O>I energy, that difference has an equivalent corresponding 'velocity' component; any OU system is thus thermodynamically opened because it is inevitably gaining momentum along with energy.. that is, any ostensibly-closed system demonstrating OU (ie. a non-local energy source / sink) is, by definition, also undergoing anomalous acceleration. Assuming the amount of mass is constant, of course.. ie. the momentum gain that necessarily accompanies an OU energy gain must have equivalent components of 'mass / inertia' and/or 'velocity'. You can gain angular momentum by increasing radius without increasing speed (tho physically any change in momentum is still an effective 'acceleration'), but just assuming the net system inertia's constant, if the source is an asymmetric exchange of signed h-bar with the vacuum then the sink (the FoR of the lab) must be accelerating, it is that simple and fundamental. It's a complete coincidence that a super-volcanic eruption on NZ's Alpine fault line seems to date to around the same time Bessler was demonstrating his largest most powerful wheel on the exact polar opposite side of the globe during winter 1717. Geologists haven't yet pinned down a tighter date range. But it's also an unsettling coincidence that an unprecedented and devastating pair of tsunamis struck the NW European coastline over Christmas that winter.. Consider for instance a gravitationally-augmented inertial interaction that effectively sinks counter-momentum to G*t by employing a falling weight as a pseudo-stator; ie. apply a 9.81 N vertical force between two 1 kg masses in free-fall and only the lower one drops - the upper one hovering motionless in mid-air.. yet surely the planet is still accelerating upwards in its mutual attraction to the inertially-suspended weight, no? Cyclically gaining fixed-rate momentum this way might thus apply a vertical force component to the planet, effectively causing it to accelerate 'upwards' relative to wherever on earth's surface the gravitationally non-reciprocating exploit is deployed: planet accelerates 'upwards', fluids slosh 'downwards', bounce off the southern hemisphere and rebound back up to the point of origin of the applied linear acceleration.. Remember, there were TWO tsunamis, a fortnight apart. This was no freak atmospheric pressure system striking twice in the same locale.. but obviously a rebound wave of some kind, centered on that part of the globe for some reason. Both events - the tsunamis, and the demonstration of mechanical OU from an apparent gravity wheel - the very definition of 'unprecedented'.. coincident in time, but also consistent WRT potential means of causation.. FFWD 300 years and once again, at least one example we know of is claiming robust OU (non-local
Re: [Vo]:Electron capture acceleration via NMR ?
On 2021-12-02 19:35, Jones Beene wrote: This doesn't give us much of a clue about what could be the cause of excess hydrogen... unless Holmlid's muons are carrying away heat somehow while splitting off protons in the process. The authors suggested that thermolysis was occurring, i.e. that water was being split by the heat of the plasma reaction. My supposition is that excess hydrogen was observed when at least part of it was not "consumed" inside the cell (producing excess heat there). Possibly the heat of formation of Hydrinos could be involved instead? Admittedly, this does not have much to do with the initial NMR idea of this thread and I was not trying to link it to that. It was more in relation to Robin's suggestion of using a saturated KOH solution in an electrolytic cell, which I found interesting because that is something I personally explored a while back in crude experiments, as it can significantly lower the voltage from which a visible plasma can be observed (about 25-30V). Other electrolytes at saturation concentration are instead more likely to accumulate on the cathode and dissociate there, producing larger amounts of metallic K which might actually be more useful for Robin's proposal. Cheers, BA
Re: [Vo]:Electron capture acceleration via NMR ?
Bill Antoni wrote: > FWIW, excess hydrogen output (relative to Faraday efficiency) has been > measured in plasma electrolysis cells in the early 2000s by Mizuno et al., > but they found it to be correlated with negative heat (endothermic > reaction). When excess heat was present, there was no excess hydrogen... > Furthermore, in their case the overall energetic efficiency was low due to > the high voltages required. This doesn't give us much of a clue about what could be the cause of excess hydrogen... unless Holmlid's muons are carrying away heat somehow while splitting off protons in the process. An interesting and slightly different approach about increasing the 40K decay rate is based on acknowledging that it should be forbidden altogether, given the nuclear spins involved. Of all isotopes - this is the longest known half-life for any primordial positron-emitter... which is due to spin 4 -- and since its decay products have spin 0. This anomaly makes me think that by strongly increasing Larmor precession i.e. the nuclear spin of the electrolyte - then the half-life can of 40K will be shortened and maybe the result will be seen as gammas. This supposes that there is a connection between spin and nuclear stability that is not fully understood. That outcome would possibly make it worthwhile to design a simple experiment to investigate,
Re: [Vo]:The "hero" LENR experiment ?
> His failures are waaay past 'E' in the alphabet. ..well as someone up to hexadecimal figures i maybe have a low bar; whatevs, SOMETHING's going down next Thursday so don't forget to cast a weary eye that way even if you're not stocking up on popcorn (me neither, honestly). One or two contributors on ECW are planning calorimeters for when they can get their hands on a magic lamp.. Rossi for his part a) won't give I/O energy efficiency in terms of total radiative flux, and b) has expressed doubt that excess heat would be measured anyway, in spite of the seemingly-incredible lm/W figures claimed. That's re. the SKLED, an actual (potential) product (1M pre-orders notwithstanding); he'll also apparently be showing a PoC of what's provisionally dubbed 'SKLEP', a general-purpose PSU, though i've no idea if it's a closed system or runs off the mains for 'reasons' etc., all a case of wait'n'see eh. But considering the flux of quantum entropies implicit to the nature of Pauli exclusion and known electron condensation regimes - ie. the fact that aggregate-scale condensation of like-polarised electron spins could in principle cause extreme fluctuations in Fermi numbers - it does seem a novel potential means of harnessing an effective daemon.. Like all good X files, at least in the 'OU' section, all the most tantalising evidence is purely circumstantial for now. But just this old nugget from ML's interview with Fabiani has GOT to give anyone interested a semi: https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/ "As a skeptic I started there, and in the beginning Rossi wouldn’t let me see any data. Gradually he gained confidence since I solved a few problems. And after some time I found myself with the truth in my hands, having made some calculations, and I was amazed. I made the same calculations twenty times and I tried to find the error, but there was no error." “Now after seeing everything that Rossi is doing, and the levels at which we have arrived, there really is no error, but already at that time he saw things that ordinary people were not yet able to see." “Either you have seen this from the start, or you have to remain puzzled. If you’re skeptical, then until you have a 100 percent proof, until the hammer hits your finger, you won’t believe that your adversary has a hammer." "I really saw the new frontier of energy. There is nothing in comparison. You cannot imagine." This implies there's a functioning - if largely novel - theoretical framework underpinning the research and whatever results he may be trying to peddle.. ie. you can calculate gains from first principles if you know which parameters to juggle.. Frank Acland (ECW's sysop) visited Rossi last week and seems chipper, if tight-lipped, about the prognosis.. like i say, all circumstantial tho.
