Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart
Yes Axil, I am an RF engineer and I am aware of permalloy/supermalloy sheets used in EMI protection. These materials are added in sensitive instrument applications to shunt low frequency evanescent magnetic fields, not propagating RF EM fields. As I said, RF fields above about 1 kHz would be prevented from escaping from Rossi's hotCat by the hermetic stainless steel reactor enclosure acting as a Faraday cage. There will be no propagating RF escaping from the Rossi's reactor vessel. There is only the possibility of low frequency evanescent fields escaping. Bob Higgins On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > > http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-7/iss-5/p24.pdf > > *How does magnetic shielding work?* > All EMI shielding materials are manufac- > tured from high-permeability alloys that con- > tain about 80% nickel; the alloys vary in the > composition of their remaining metals. They > are usually fabricated as foils or sheets and > are baked at 2,000 °F in a dry hydrogen-rich > atmosphere to anneal them. Annealing sig- > nificantly improves a material’s attenuation, > that is, its ability to absorb and redirect mag- > netic fields. > > A shielding alloy works by diverting a > magnetic flux into itself. The alloy redirects > the magnetic flux away from the sensitive > object and returns it to the north–south > field. Although the field from a magnet is > greatly reduced by a shield plate, the protec- > tive alloy itself is attracted to the magnet, > but with no ill effects. Closed shapes are the > most efficient for magnetic shielding—cylin- > ders with caps, boxes with covers, and simi- > lar enclosed shapes are the most effective > (see figure). > > Magnetic shielding materials offer a very- > high-permeability path for magnetic field > lines to travel through, directing them > through the thickness of the shielding alloy > and keeping them from going where they > are not wanted. It is important that the > shield should offer a complete path for the > field lines, so that they do not exit the mate- > rial in a place where they will cause unin- > tended interference. > > *What is the difference between RF shield -* > *ing and magnetic shielding?* > > Ra d i o-frequency (RF) shielding is > required when it is necessary to block high- > frequency (100 kHz and above) interference > fields. RF shields typically use copper, alu- > minum, galvanized steel, or conductive rub- > b e r, plastic, or paints. These materials work > at high frequencies by means of their high > c o n d u c t i v i t y. Unlike magnetic shields that > use their high permeability to attract mag- > netic fields, RF shielding has little or no > magnetic permeability. However, when they > are properly engineered and constructed, > magnetic-shield alloys become broadband > shields that protect against both EMI and > RF interference. >
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart
I seriously doubt that in the TPT the experimenters would have been allowed to modify the hotCat. A "membrane" would have provided a continuous leak to the limited supply of H2 inside the hotCat; however, a thin area window would suffice if they could modify it. If the reaction produces high energy gamma, it will come right through the vessel, attenuated by the mass per square cm of the reactor vessel. So you don't need a window for high energy gamma. However, we know that high energy gamma cannot be the primary carrier of the heat because too much of the energy would escape the reactor vessel, and it would be dangerous to be around and easily measured. Low energy gamma (below 25 keV) may be a primary carrier of the heat because it would be highly attenuated by the reactor vessel (and thus thermalized). Measuring low energy gamma is difficult because it doesn't escape easily. To measure this, you either need to create a sensor that can be placed inside the reactor (and it would have to work with at the hotCat's high temperature); OR, you need to make your reactor vessel thin in a small spot (a window); OR, make your reactor vessel small, so that the whole containment vessel can be thin (this is what I am doing). Neutrons don't need a window - they will just come through. If the heat were carried by neutrons, the reactor vessel would not get hot because there is not enough mass and capture cross-section there to stop (thermalize) them. The neutrons would just be killing everyone around the reactor. Any few neutrons detected externally are definitely a useful clue about internal reactions, but fortunately few neutrons are ever detected. Bob Higgins On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:57 AM, frobertcook wrote: > A small diameter membrane to allow some internal radiation out seems > like a nice feature in any test, which the professors would certainly > consider. > > In an good test one should expect to see such a feature. > > The same should be expected for neutrons--a neutron window. > > Bob >
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart
For an EM field to propagate, the electric and magnetic fields must be coupled. Once you stop the electric field, the magnetic field will also be stopped. At low enough frequencies, the penetration depth of the field will allow some EM field to escape, attenuated by the propagation through the metal. Even if SiC was used for the tubes, it would block most RF as SiC ceramic is a conductor, but a poor one. SiC is an expensive ceramic to make in the size of the hotCat and if Rossi were using this, it would probably price his hotCat out of the market for home devices. I don't believe he is using SiC in his hotCat - I believe the reactor core is stainless steel (as the Penon report describes) welded closed at the ends of the coaxial tubes. That doesn't mean he hasn't experimented with SiC. SiC is very hard to machine and it would be challenging and expensive to produce a coaxial reactor vessel (as shown in the Penon report) and seal its ends. Bob Higgins On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > NMR is caused by the vibration of the non-zero spin vector of a nucleus. > This vibrating nuclear spin produces a vibrating magnetic field. > > The point of a Faraday cage is that it's made of a conductor, which > responds to electric fields. Both a strong magnetostatic (DC) and Ac fields > are different, and will barely be affected by the Faraday cage. (The cage > may have some magnetic properties, but that's not what makes it a Faraday > cage, and it's unlikely to have a significant impact on magnetic fields.) > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Bob Higgins > wrote: > >> I have posted the cross-section of the hotCat as I have surmised it to be >> constructed. The active medium is entirely in a hermetically sealed >> stainless coaxial tube arrangement. The reactor vessel itself IS the >> Faraday cage. It is not a part of the test, it is a part of the hotCat. >> >> Bob Higgins >> >> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> How do you know that a faraday cage is part of the test? >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Bob Higgins >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The 3.6 keV x-ray photons are easily detected with an x-ray >>>> spectrometer such as the Amptek X-123SDD at >>>> http://www.amptek.com/products/x-123sdd-complete-x-ray-spectrometer-with-silicon-drift-detector-sdd/ >>>> . See their chart at this URL for the different window options that will >>>> easily allow detection down to 1 keV: >>>> http://www.amptek.com/products/c-series-low-energy-x-ray-windows/ . I >>>> am hoping to get one of these some day. >>>> >>>> The bigger issue is that not much will make it out of the hotCat even >>>> if that is the primary channel for conveying the heat. >>>> >>>> In the case of RF, I would expect almost none to escape the hotCat >>>> because the reaction is in a Faraday cage. The RF that could penetrate >>>> would have to be below 1 kHz. >>>> >>>> >
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart
I have posted the cross-section of the hotCat as I have surmised it to be constructed. The active medium is entirely in a hermetically sealed stainless coaxial tube arrangement. The reactor vessel itself IS the Faraday cage. It is not a part of the test, it is a part of the hotCat. Bob Higgins On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > How do you know that a faraday cage is part of the test? > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Bob Higgins > wrote: > >> The 3.6 keV x-ray photons are easily detected with an x-ray spectrometer >> such as the Amptek X-123SDD at >> http://www.amptek.com/products/x-123sdd-complete-x-ray-spectrometer-with-silicon-drift-detector-sdd/ >> . See their chart at this URL for the different window options that will >> easily allow detection down to 1 keV: >> http://www.amptek.com/products/c-series-low-energy-x-ray-windows/ . I >> am hoping to get one of these some day. >> >> The bigger issue is that not much will make it out of the hotCat even if >> that is the primary channel for conveying the heat. >> >> In the case of RF, I would expect almost none to escape the hotCat >> because the reaction is in a Faraday cage. The RF that could penetrate >> would have to be below 1 kHz. >> >>
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart
The 3.6 keV x-ray photons are easily detected with an x-ray spectrometer such as the Amptek X-123SDD at http://www.amptek.com/products/x-123sdd-complete-x-ray-spectrometer-with-silicon-drift-detector-sdd/ . See their chart at this URL for the different window options that will easily allow detection down to 1 keV: http://www.amptek.com/products/c-series-low-energy-x-ray-windows/ . I am hoping to get one of these some day. The bigger issue is that not much will make it out of the hotCat even if that is the primary channel for conveying the heat. In the case of RF, I would expect almost none to escape the hotCat because the reaction is in a Faraday cage. The RF that could penetrate would have to be below 1 kHz. Bob Higgins On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Hoped for prediction – but unlikely due to technical limitations: evidence > of the signature x-ray indicative of DDL/dark matter, in the range of 3.6 > keV. > > > > Since there is no commercial meter for this spectrum, the x-ray would have > to show up in some other clever way, such as film exposure – thus it is > unlikely. > > > > Jones > > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
I think putative DDL state hydrogen (Df/H) and probably hydrinos would be more stable that you give them credit. At our environmental temperatures, the average kinetic energy is 1.5 kT which is about .04 eV at room temperature. Hydrinos would probably need 50eV in an inelastic collision to re-inflate, and Df/H would need something like 500keV. So, hydrinos would find some ppm of re-inflation on the tail of the Boltzmann curve, but the Df/H atoms would not. Long before you got to a 500keV collision, the Df/H would fuse with its collision target. Bob Higgins On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:26 PM, wrote: > > I have previously suggested that a dense cluster might also absorb the >> energy in >> the form of kinetic energy distributed among thousands of densely >> clustered >> atoms. > > > I see that Robin and Jones were talking about hydrino reinflation > yesterday, so my observation was a little late. One detail to add is that, > it seems to me, unless there are a sufficient number of Mills catalysts > lying around to further shrink wayward hydrinos that are thinking of > reinflating, I assume they would all eventually reinflate through > (endothermic) inelastic collisions. You'd start out with normal matter, > get hydrinos, and end with (fully) normal matter. > > Eric > >
[Vo]:Properties of ubiquitous DDL state H?
As a thought experiment I asked myself, "What would I observe if DDL state hydrogen was ubiquitous?". What follows may be naive, please feel free to say so. We have talked about creating and/or using DDL state hydrogen as part of LENR, but if this DDL state exists as has been described, DDL hydrogen (we can call it Df/H) may be very stable because it cannot interact with photons. It is of such small size that it would readily pass through containers and equalize the pressure on the inside and outside. It would be very difficult to create a pressure difference in the ubiquitous gas. Because of this, we wouldn't see pressure effects of this as a gas. In an RGA, it wouldn't show because you wouldn't be able to produce the ionized species to accelerate. In effect, it could be all around us and within condensed matter in arbitrary density. So how could it be detected? You might compare Df/H to a gas of stable neutrons. If stable neutrons could exist, they would cause spontaneous isotopic shifts from thermal collisions with atoms. The neutron gas density would decline and one would observe isotopic shifts. But Df/H gas would not behave as neutrons - once the Df/H began to penetrate the electron cloud of another nucleus it would experience a smaller Coulomb repulsion [than H] and would still provide a largely elastic collision. However, it seems that Df/H could still cause spontaneous isotopic shift/transmutation from nuclear reactions that would statistically occur in some thermal collisions - at a much greater rate than with H. Could such thermal collisions with a ubiquitous Df/H be responsible for observed but unexplained spontaneous radioactive decay? What other behaviors would be expected of a ubiquitous Df/H gas? What would refute its existence? Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:Gamma fractionalization and the DDL via Quantum dots
Jones, Isn't the problem with this scenario that the ground state H/D atom must GIVE UP energy to enter the DDL state. What you propose is that the H/D atoms could absorb the gamma emission from the transmutation and fractionate the photons to DDL energy chunks. For this to occur, the coupled atoms would already have to be in the DDL state and would then all jump back to the ground state after each absorbed a fraction of the nuclear emitted gamma. While this is not ruled out because it could occur via a coupled-state non-photonic exhange, you must explain how you have so many coupled DDL state atoms in place ready to receive and fractionate a gamma photo. AND how would the ensemble of atoms reset to a DDL state to be ready to absorb/fractionate the next gamma photon. At least in Hagelsteins's theory, the assemblage of coupled atoms is the condensed matter lattice with strong electronic coupling (though it is mostly nearest neighbor coupling). This coupled structure is there to begin with - it is not formed ad hoc just for fractionating. Bob Higgins On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > The almost intractable problem for explaining LENR to physicists, or even > undergrads in physics - is that there is no gamma - presenting a major > obstacle to our understanding if there is to be real fusion. Almost all of > the other problems in Ni-D, the Mizuno reaction, including lack of > transmutation products and lack of neutrons have a possible explanation, > since there is a known reaction with a short half-life that converts Ni58 > and a deuteron to Ni60, leaving no lingering radioactivity. As mentioned in > prior postings, Ni58 is a bit of an anomaly in having too few neutrons > (lower amu than cobalt, for instance). Ni58 could be favored for this kind > of reaction. > > Unfortunately, this reaction is so energetic in net energy, that the lack > of > gamma is almost as problematic as the situation with putative fusion of > deuterons to helium. The most accepted solution to the lack of gammas is > based on Hagelstein's evolving theory, which can be called gamma > fractionalization. That theory is based on downshifting of gamma level > energy, but without the photon emission, all the way to phonon vibrations > at > 8-16 THz, which is a massive drop of about 8-9 orders of magnitude - or a > ratio of at least 100,000,000:1 (100 million to one) - which is an enormous > reduction in energy over a very short time frame. > > Yet, the Hagelstein model, as a general premise could apply to the > fractionalization to other energy levels - other than all the way to weak > phonon vibrations, which are a fractional eV. For instance, a > fractionalization down to the DDL (dark matter) level, is intriguing - in > which case the ratio is much easier to deal with. Apparently, PH has never > considered this as an option, so it is worth mentioning as a possibility > for > future inclusion into a broader theory. > > In Ni-D, such as the recent Mizuno experiment, where deuterium would > transmute Ni58 to Ni60, if that much energy (12 MeV prompt + 6 MeV delayed) > could be taken away as spin, transferred to a large number of atoms - then > voila, that would be a solution. The spin would serve to decrease electron > orbitals of deuterons to form the DDL. The ratio which is required drops > from (100 million to one) all the way down to a few thousand to one. > > In short, Hagelstein's general premise can be improved via a DDL mechanism > (dense deuterium or deep Dirac level). For this to work in practice, there > would need to be perhaps 3000+ molecules of deuterium-loaded-nickel, > operating as a unit (quantum dot unit) with some level of quantum wave > coherence, with which to share the 12 MeV... which energy release would > provide about 3.5 keV per molecule of deuterium - to push the molecule down > into the DDL state. This level would have escaped detection. The quantum > dot > is typically the correct size, but is typically a semiconductor, like NiO > instead of a metal. > > Most of these "shrunken" molecules simply re-expand, giving back the 3.5 > keV > (which is the signature of "dark matter") which is undetectable in > operation, but if at least one or two of them were to fuse to nickel, in > order to repeat the cycle, then we have a limited chain reaction. > > The problem is that even if this scenario worked most of the time, we > should > see a percentage of high energy gammas. When none are seen, this casts > doubt > on the entire explanation. > > But it is worth mentioning, especially if Mizuno's new results should > report > an relative increase in Ni60 relative to Ni58 - or radiation in the 3-4 keV > range. > > Jones > > >
Re: [Vo]:Rossi asks for patent reconsideration extension
What you say, Jed, and what David French has said, is absolutely true: the theory has no real place in the patent and can limit the scope or completely invalidate the claims. On the other hand, if you don't have a good theory for how the invention works, it is nearly impossible to write claims having sufficient breadth to protect your invention and a business based upon it. The validated understanding generally available today for Ni-H LENR is insufficient to write broad protective claims. Tomorrow, when that understanding becomes available, competitors may easily find a workaround to a claim written today. There is also such wide speculation on the mechanism that it puts much of the possible mechanisms into the category of prior art for any patents written today. That is why I believe that there will be no controlling patent on basic foundations (the chemistry) of Ni-H LENR. I think Rossi is pursuing a course needed to build a business - he is right to try. But I believe that even if his patent is granted, it will be useless in protecting his product. I also agree that Rossi has failed to completely disclose his invention. He is in a real catch-22. Bob Higgins On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > The patent examiner will want a solid believable theory for LENR operation >> before a patent is granted. >> > > That is incorrect. The Patent Office never demands a theory. It is a big > mistake to present a theory. Read the papers by David French explaining why. > > The Patent Office normally demands only one thing: > > A complete description with the best of the inventor's knowledge about how > to make the machine. The description must be good enough a that a person > having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) can replicate. > > In a few cases, such as this one, the Patent Office also demands > experimental proof that the device works. In my opinion, this is entirely > reasonable in Rossi's case, and in the Swartz's case, which Rossi cites. > The first and second ELFORSK tests are proof that the device works. I do > not know if they are good enough proof for the Patent Office. In my > opinion, the first test would not be good enough. Obviously I have not seen > the second test. > > Theory is NEVER a consideration, unless the inventor makes it a > consideration by including it. This weakens the patent because even if the > device works, if the theory turns out to be wrong, the patent may be > invalid. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Laura Mersini-Houghton shows that black holes do not exist
Well, of course, natural behavior trumps any model. If you have watched the Nova program, "Monster of the Milky Way", (an outstanding show), you will see the well founded data that there is a million+ solar mass dark object of some kind in the center of our galaxy. This is measured by the highly kinked star orbits looping around the unseen object (you can see the phenomenal orbits in this show). So, it is clear that extreme mass dark objects CAN form. What happens inside the event horizon of such objects is still up for grabs, but obviously this object did not radiate away all of its mass in a radiant explosion. There may be no singularity inside the event horizon - the physics inside does not obey our known laws, and in some similarity to the nucleus of the atom, the nature of the inside of the event horizon is nearly impossible to probe. Bob Higgins On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: > At 09:04 PM 9/24/2014, H Veeder wrote: > >> Carolina’s Laura Mersini-Houghton shows that black holes do not exist >> > > Not quite ... just that collapsing stars won't form them. Also, their > simulation stops shortly after the "bounce" -- they predict an > explosion/evaporation, but can't show that yet. > > >
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Regarding exploding deuterium loaded wires ... On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > But you do admit, one would hope, that deuterium loaded wires, which is a condensed matter environment, following a high amp pulse from a 2000v cap – and no plasma anywhere at the start - will produce lots of hot fusion, even though the deuterons were essentially stationary and extremely dense, and even if the wire was cold as ice. I am not a study of capacitive discharge exploded deuterium loaded wires. From what I know of the subject, the discharge results in the evaporation of the wire and the formation of a short term plasma. Given the wire is pre-loaded with deuterium, the deuterium would be a part of that plasma. I don't think I have seen any reports which time the neutron burst to before plasma or during plasma. However, given that neutron bursts are seen, it is likely the fusion occurs during plasma, making this not a condensed matter fusion, but a simple 2-body kinetic ion-ion (hot) fusion with the corresponding branching ratios of hot fusion. In this case, the wire is nothing but a storage medium for the deuterium, like the pellets in inertial confinement fusion. No one would call the inertial confinement fusion "cold fusion" just because the target is initially in a condensed matter state. Do you have a paper describing the timing of neutron output to plasma formation? Do you have anything that would suggest that the fusion is occurring in the condensed matter prior to the condensed matter being evaporated and turned into a plasma? Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Jones, Claytor's results are not hot fusion because: 1) it only works with certain wire cathodes - the cathode condensed matter must be present and in the right form or there will be no tritium, and 2) the neutron rate he produces is very low (4E-9 of tritium) - not characteristic of hot fusion. Thus, Claytor is producing fusion, but not hot fusion. Since it requires the condensed matter environment, it could easily be classified as a LENR phenomenon. I stand by my remarks about the inability of his 1500V-2500V supply to be able to accelerate electrons or protons to 1.5-2.5 keV due to high pressure scattering collisions in his high density plasma. So, Claytor is LENR and his results indicate fusion. The Farnsworth fusor reference is crazy. The fusor is clearly a plasma 2-body ion-ion interaction that produces classical kinetic hot fusion at a low rate. The neutrons obtained are what you would expect from such a reaction. In fact, to date the only real application for a fusor is as a laboratory neutron source. Yes, there are some anomalies in the driving voltage in the fusor; it seems the accelerating voltage is lower than expected for the reaction to occur. This could easily come from unmeasured resonant effects akin to the collapsing bubble effect in sono-systems. I.E. there could be anomalous acceleration, but the result is strictly hot fusion. If Claytor was producing results with a hot fusion mechanism like the fusor, he would be producing copious neutrons (at a dangerous rate) and he is producing essentially none. I am not minimizing Mizuno's experimental data, I am putting it in its proper perspective. It is you that is maximizing that one data point above all others. I think his results are equivocal. They need to be repeated; particularly the gas species evolution, since it appears that the control behaved the same as the experiment. I do not consider it the most robust experiment in the whole field by any means. But, it is good data. When I said your "theory of no fusion", I mean your theory that the excess heat being reported across the many experiments is due to a process other than fusion or transmutation. Bob Higgins On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > Ø Your attempt to dismiss the Claytor tritium results as being "high > voltage" is again specious. The voltages being used are not capable of > producing hot fusion. > > > > His voltage is capable, and the is no “dismissal,” and the “high” is > relative to electrolysis. Guess you have never heard of exploding wires. > Exploding wire experiment at 2000 volts can produce copious fusion. Voltage > gradients in Claytor’s system have varied over the years – but could in > fact be higher than in the Farnsworth Fusor, for instance. The gradient is > more important the absolute potential. > > > > Ø the mean free path of the electrons is very short and electrons or > protons never attain anywhere near the energy that the source *could* > provide in a high vacuum. > > > > Same for the Fusor, which is a dense plasma. I’m getting the picture that > you do not understand the range of Claytor’s experiments very well and how > they fit into a continuum of cold-to-warm. There was a time when his work > was closer to “cold fusion” and a time when it was closer to the Fusor. > There is a good argument that much of it is not “cold” and that the results > look exactly like the Fusor. > > > > Ø Why do you think that x-ray tubes need really high vacuum?... to > prevent these collisions that slow down the electrons. Again, you think a > single specious sentence can wipe away real, peer reviewed experimental > results. > > > > Wipe away? What are you talking about? It would help if you would read the > prior postings. There is no specious sentence here and Claytor’s results > are certainly strong… but my point is that they are not necessarily LENR in > the same sense that low voltage electrolysis is deemed to be. There is a > continuum, and Claytor has been at times closer to the Fusor, and at other > times closer to a P&F cell. > > > > Put simply, Claytor’s results are to my thinking stronger than anything > seen with helium as the ash, since he does produce tritium – WHICH IS > EXPECTED. > > > > How much clearer can I say that? The problem that you have is that some of > these results could be “hot fusion carried out at low power” in the same > way that a Fusor is, and you want them to be “cold”. That is NOT a > contradiction in terms. It is a semantic distinction that aggravates the > hell out of the helium-ash true believers since they do not want to lose > Claytor’s good results to another category of LENR that looks “hotter” than > cold fusion. > > > &
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
Jones, You are making specious arguments that are below the quality level of your posts. Yes, you are correct and Jed is correct in the arguments that the diffusion of He and Argon in Miles' experiments are essentially constants - note the (s)! When the amount on the inside and outside are far from equilibrium, each gas will diffuse with its own constant (actually it is an exponential constant for each). Jed is correct that diffusion from the outside would provide a clear set of constant rates in the blind experiments and the ones with excess heat. This constant rate signature will not correlate with excess heat. These arguments have been made ad nauseam in peer review of Miles' work. Nothing that was said in the Miles communique that you posted upsets that peered review result at all; in fact, it clearly points out that Miles knew well what he was up against when he designed the experiment. The Miles data stands. At the moment, the small stones you are throwing at it are futile strikes with blinders on. Your attempt to dismiss the Claytor tritium results as being "high voltage" is again specious. The voltages being used are not capable of producing hot fusion. In the dense plasma created, the mean free path of the electrons is very short and electrons or protons never attain anywhere near the energy that the source *could* provide in a high vacuum. Why do you think that x-ray tubes need really high vacuum?... to prevent these collisions that slow down the electrons. Again, you think a single specious sentence can wipe away real, peer reviewed experimental results. You are so determined that your theory of no fusion is correct that you will make up stories in your mind to wash away the good data taken by truly competent experimentalists. You have lost your open mind. Ni-H could well be different. We will just have to wait for more data. Mizuno is just a good data point with its own flaws and insights. Bob Higgins On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > I’m sorry but that is not what Miles seems to be saying now. You are > putting words in his mouth. In any event, the rate measured is incredibly > low – well below any confidence level and well below atmospheric levels - > so it is of negligible value. It is milliwatt level, in a world begging for > kilowatts. > > > > IMO - the only result that matters to most of Science, going forward, will > be the result of experiments of greater than 10 watts, and hopefully 100 > watts or more. > > > > AFAIK – Mizuno is the only player in this game in 2014, insofar as the > putative fusion of deuterium at the 100 watt level is concerned. His > results on this issue of helium, or lack thereof, will stand out as of > highest importance - since it could well be the case that QM allows a small > level of fusion at extremely low levels but with a reverse economy of scale > that prevents it above the watt level. > > > > > > *From:* Jed Rothwell > > > > Jones Beene wrote: > > > > For the collection flasks he could have used anything. It was too late. > > Helium diffuses into the electrolysis cell itself during the operation. > > > > Yes, some does come in. This amount can be measured in a null experiment. > It is the background amount. As it happens, Miles had many null experiments > with no heat. > > > > > > Diffusion is based on amu. Argon is 10 times heaver than helium and it > diffuses much more slowly through a material - when both can be diffused. > However, argon does not diffuse into Pyrex at all and helium does. > > > > As I said, he looked for other gasses as well, and he looked for the > overall amount of helium, which is to say the amount that diffuses in when > you do nothing (let the cell sit there), or when you conduct electrolysis > but there is no excess heat. When there is no excess heat the amount that > diffuses in is always much less than what is measured after there is excess > heat. In other words excess heat produces significantly more than the > background from diffusion, but much less than the atmospheric background. > > > > Other objections have been raised and met. For example, some people said > that perhaps the excess heat changed conditions and allowed more helium to > defuse in. As Miles pointed out, and as I repeated in my report, this > cannot be the case because in some tests with no excess heat the overall > input power was greater than the positive tests, and the cell was hotter. > > > > - Jed > > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
Here are drawings of what I deduced for construction of the HotCat and HT2 versions (mostly from the Penon report): HotCat (first generation) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2SnVSTFJGbnBNR1k/edit?usp=sharing HT2 (second generation with "cat and mouse") https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2dzRreW14cWVlazg/edit?usp=sharing Let me know if you have trouble accessing or viewing these .png image files. Bob Higgins On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Bob Higgins > wrote: > > I posted drawings of these cross-sections. If you don't have them, I can >> post them again. >> > > Yes, please, if you could. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:transmitted radiation for potential reactions in an NiH system
Hi Eric, Nice spreadsheet. I like how it captures a lot of considerations in one place. Have you considered adding the reactions that would include a delta in atomic number of 2N? Seems like there were trends in experiment reports showing transmutations by integer multiples of 2 in atomic number. Bob On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > You can see the model here: > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ylFdUCZ65O7V06MAX1KGmYC4UaaVII4HU5vJ6BIHnPU/edit#gid=399187264 > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
As I recall, the original E-Cats were charged from a bottle source of hydrogen to 5-10 bar (depending on the activity he wished his experiment to show) while the device was still cold and then the gas input was valved off (producing a sealed reaction vessel). Since it was charged at about 300 Kelvin and subsequently heated to about 600 Kelvin, the operating pressure would be nearly double that. The hotCat is different. Its operation has been primarily deduced from the Penon report and its pictures. The total "reactant" is contained between 2 coaxial stainless steel tubes sealed together by welding at each end - the result looking like a single piece of pipe. In between the two coaxial tubes Rossi's Metal powder+catalyst is inserted along with a charged metal hydride. Metal hydrides give off their hydrogen as the temperature increases and peak in hydrogen pressure output into a closed volume at about 30 bar. Above the temperature of peak output pressure, the pressure actually goes down. If I were Rossi, I would pick a hydride whose output pressure would peak near the max desired operating temperature of his reaction. That way if the temperature went hotter, the hydride would provide negative feedback by reducing the hydrogen pressure above its peak pressure temperature. In the hotCat HT2, Rossi filled the inside of the composite cylinder (pipe) with something more like his original recipe powder, and probably a different metal hydride. The ends of the HT2 are cold welded shut with plugs. The inner part is his "mouse" which I believe provides thermal gain beginning at a lower temperature. I posted drawings of these cross-sections. If you don't have them, I can post them again. It is interesting to speculate that the powder used in the hotCat portion may not even be a catalyzed Ni powder - it could be a more refractory metal, perhaps a titanium powder that has been catalytically activated. Rossi said that in his development he tried many powders besides Ni and found other recipes that worked, only they did not work as well as the catalyzed Ni powder. He could have gone back to one of those other chemistries to build the higher temperature hotCat. Bob Higgins On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > > > About the H2 pressure and the mean free path of monoatomic hydrogen -- I'm > curious whether you've seen anything on the pressure in the E-Cat. I got > the impression along the way, probably from reading unrelated experimental > writeups, that the pressure need not be above ambient pressure, and that > the main thing additional pressure would accomplish would be to make > additional p (or d) available to the reaction sites. >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
To be effective, an alpha/beta emitter would have to be highly radioactive to produce enough particles to support a sizable amount of H for LENR reactions. Additionally, at these high pressures, the mean free path of monatomic H is very short, so the radioactive material would have to be placed at the NAE. It would be much better if the reaction were catalytic and positive feedback in formation of monatomic H. For example having a catalyst split the H2, having the NAE fuse it producing low energy photons, each of which photons dissociate multiple H2 molecules for the reaction. If a radioactive additive were hot enough to split enough H2 into monatomic species for the entire reaction, it would pose a danger if the contents were exposed, and of course, would be regulated by the nuclear regulation agencies - which no one wants. I absolutely do not believe that Rossi's reaction relies on radioactive additives. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have an effect on the reaction, I just don't think Rossi uses any. Bob Higgins On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > > Note that an alpha or a beta emitter will also dissociate molecular > hydrogen into monoatomic hydrogen (and potentially Rydberg hydrogen at > that, which will migrate under a potential). (I like a material with a low > work function because it could potentially be heat-activated, as seems to > happen with the E-Cat.) > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
Well, supper's done and I found the reference I was looking for. This is
an interview with Sergio Focardi where he talks about the technology. He
says radiation is present and that is why they have the lead. He talks
about having a radiation detector outside the reactor to shut down the
reactor if radiation is detected because the shielding has been damaged.
The interviewer asks him if Rossi had added "uranium" to the reactor and
he says no. He does not say that there are no radioisotopes, but that
appears to be the intent of what he goes on to say.
- "A radio interview with Sergio Focardi, the father of 'Ni-H Cold
Fusion'"; Radio Citta del Capo - Bologna - Italy.
You can get it off of my Google drive at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2VHhPQ0paM1dvME0/edit?usp=sharing
Bob Higgins
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Bob Higgins
wrote:
> Well, as I went back and checked, it was the earlier paper Focardi wrote
> describing Piantelli's Ni-H experiments where Focardi reported substantial
> gamma. You talk about a Mizuno "hero" experiment where Mizuno reports 108
> MJ, in this Focardi paper, Piantelli had one experiment over 900 MJ and
> another with 600 MJ, and gamma was detected both. There were no
> radioactive ingredients in these experiments. The paper is:
>
>- "Overview of H-Ni Systems: Old Experiments and New Setup"; E.
>Campari, S Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbanco, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi;
>~2004
>
> Also see this paper where the experimenters went to great length to
> protect themselves from previously detected radiation and measures the
> gamma spectrum:
>
>- "Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems"; S.
>Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi; 2004
>
> In Focardi's 2010 paper with Rossi, Focardi describes the reactor as being
> "suitably lead shielded". Obviously from Focardi's previous experience,
> the lead was added. It was not a desirable component, but deemed
> necessary. In this paper, Focardi describes one of the long tests of
> Rossi's early reactors as producing 4774 kWH of excess heat - approx.
> 17,000 MJ. Dwarfing what is done by Piantelli and Mizuno. There was no
> mention made of radioactive ingredients. That paper is:
>
>- "A new energy source from nuclear fusion"; S. Focardi and A. Rossi;
>3/22/2010
>
> I think there is still another paper, but I will have to dig deeper in my
> archives. Clearly, gamma HAS been detected coincident with huge ("hero")
> excess heat in Ni-H systems.
>
> Yes, I am quite aware that some researchers have salted their experiments
> with radioactive isotopes. I also know that Dennis Cravens sometimes use
> thorium oxide for that purpose (he showed me his jar). That doesn't mean
> that Piantelli or Rossi did. In analysis of the Rossi ash by Kullander and
> Essen, a heavy radioisotope would absolutely have been detected - and it
> wasn't.
>
> I never said radioisotopes were never used by anyone. I just claimed it
> was "Bozo speculation" to say that Rossi uses a radioisotope. Maybe "Bozo"
> is mean, but I meant it to be because I believe it to be totally unfounded
> and defamatory to Rossi (it will affect the perception of what he has).
>
> Now you show me the reports and evidence that Rossi *does* use a
> radioisotope in his system.
>
> Time for dinner. :)
>
> Bob Higgins
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>> So many egregious errors ... so little time to correct them all...
>>
>> Bob Higgins: This business of Rossi using a radioactive ingredient is a
>> Bozo
>>
>> speculation based on absolutely nothing. And Rossi is not the only one to
>> measure gamma from a LENR experiment ...
>>
>> Oh... Rossi measured gamma? News to me. Can we see your citation on that
>> one, please. In the mean time, here is precisely what Focardi and Rossi
>> have
>> to say in print - about gamma radiation in the E-Cat:
>>
>> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf
>>
>> Focardi and Rossi: "During experimental tests, continuous controls on the
>> radioactivity levels in close proximity to the apparatus suitably lead
>> shielded, were performed by using a gamma ray detector and three passive
>> neutron bubble detectors, one of which for thermal neutrons: no radiation
>> was observed at levels greater than natural radiation background. No
>> radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process.
>>
>> As for the "Bozo speculation" apparently Higgins in unaware tha
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
Well, as I went back and checked, it was the earlier paper Focardi wrote
describing Piantelli's Ni-H experiments where Focardi reported substantial
gamma. You talk about a Mizuno "hero" experiment where Mizuno reports 108
MJ, in this Focardi paper, Piantelli had one experiment over 900 MJ and
another with 600 MJ, and gamma was detected both. There were no
radioactive ingredients in these experiments. The paper is:
- "Overview of H-Ni Systems: Old Experiments and New Setup"; E. Campari,
S Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbanco, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi; ~2004
Also see this paper where the experimenters went to great length to protect
themselves from previously detected radiation and measures the gamma
spectrum:
- "Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems"; S. Focardi,
V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi; 2004
In Focardi's 2010 paper with Rossi, Focardi describes the reactor as being
"suitably lead shielded". Obviously from Focardi's previous experience,
the lead was added. It was not a desirable component, but deemed
necessary. In this paper, Focardi describes one of the long tests of
Rossi's early reactors as producing 4774 kWH of excess heat - approx.
17,000 MJ. Dwarfing what is done by Piantelli and Mizuno. There was no
mention made of radioactive ingredients. That paper is:
- "A new energy source from nuclear fusion"; S. Focardi and A. Rossi;
3/22/2010
I think there is still another paper, but I will have to dig deeper in my
archives. Clearly, gamma HAS been detected coincident with huge ("hero")
excess heat in Ni-H systems.
Yes, I am quite aware that some researchers have salted their experiments
with radioactive isotopes. I also know that Dennis Cravens sometimes use
thorium oxide for that purpose (he showed me his jar). That doesn't mean
that Piantelli or Rossi did. In analysis of the Rossi ash by Kullander and
Essen, a heavy radioisotope would absolutely have been detected - and it
wasn't.
I never said radioisotopes were never used by anyone. I just claimed it
was "Bozo speculation" to say that Rossi uses a radioisotope. Maybe "Bozo"
is mean, but I meant it to be because I believe it to be totally unfounded
and defamatory to Rossi (it will affect the perception of what he has).
Now you show me the reports and evidence that Rossi *does* use a
radioisotope in his system.
Time for dinner. :)
Bob Higgins
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> So many egregious errors ... so little time to correct them all...
>
> Bob Higgins: This business of Rossi using a radioactive ingredient is a
> Bozo
>
> speculation based on absolutely nothing. And Rossi is not the only one to
> measure gamma from a LENR experiment ...
>
> Oh... Rossi measured gamma? News to me. Can we see your citation on that
> one, please. In the mean time, here is precisely what Focardi and Rossi
> have
> to say in print - about gamma radiation in the E-Cat:
>
> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf
>
> Focardi and Rossi: "During experimental tests, continuous controls on the
> radioactivity levels in close proximity to the apparatus suitably lead
> shielded, were performed by using a gamma ray detector and three passive
> neutron bubble detectors, one of which for thermal neutrons: no radiation
> was observed at levels greater than natural radiation background. No
> radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process.
>
> As for the "Bozo speculation" apparently Higgins in unaware that numerous
> researchers, including Dennis Cravens, who he apparently admires - have
> used
> a radioactive ingredient to jump start the LENR reaction. This technique
> goes back a long way in LENR -all the way back to the first issue of
> Infinite Energy See I.E. # 1, p. 46, "Cold Fusion in a 'Ying Cell' and
> "Probability Enhancement by Boson Stimulation," by Nelson Ying and Charles
> W. Shults III.
>
> I presume that Cravens is not the Bozo, so who is? Celani? He was the first
> to mention this possibility.
>
> All of these guys, and probably Rossi as well found that a small
> radioactive
> source increased the reaction rate by many orders of magnitude at startup -
> way, way beyond its own physical contribution. Rusi Taleyarkhan and others
> in bubble fusion have also used a radioactive source as a trigger, which
> became a problem later on. It may not be S.O.P. but it is done.
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
I believe the thinking is that the fusion of DDL atoms begins with the formation of a DDL "pico-molecule". Meulenberg then proposes that the two electrons in combination (his Lochon) are involved in the fusion. When fusion would occur, the electrons are so close to the nucleus that they are highly coupled to the nucleus. So, an intermediate DDL He could form, but as part of the de-excitation of the nucleus, energy could be coupled from the nucleus to an electron to move it back to ground state (uses up ~511 keV) or completely ionize the atom by coupling more energy to the electron than is required to restore it to a ground state orbit. The fusion mechanics of such a "pico-molecule" are not very clear. Meulenberg has a paper entitled, "From the Naught Orbit to the 4He Excited State" that you might find interesting. This business of DDL atoms other than hydrogen seems kind of fishy. An electron would have to descend from an s orbital to a DDL state that would be in a new orbital. 2 electrons in an s orbital are synchronized - it seems like this would have to be lost when an electron descends into a DDL state in a closer orbital. Somehow in the process of the electron giving up energy to enter the DDL state, that energy would have to be given to the other electrons. That energy is so great as to completely ionize the atom for small atomic number. I can't quite wrap my head around how this can happen. Bob Higgins On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:30 AM, H Veeder wrote: > Also if two DDL hydrogens fuse is the product a DDL helium? > If they do then the product would tend to look like tritium. > > Harry >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
experiments were expected to be controversial and the researchers went to great pains to make sure the data was many sigma above the background and control. Experiments of similar analytic control simply have not been done (or not reported) for Ni-H. So, we don't know where Ni-H is in terms of energy/event. You seem to be able to dismiss experiments too easily that don't fit with your view. This business of the gamma in Rossi's experiments coming from an added radioactive ingredient is another absolute absurdity. Focardi, a well reputed nuclear scientist, ascribed the measured gamma to the Ni-H reaction in his paper. He would not have associated the gamma seen with the reaction if he suspected a radioactive source was an ingredient - he would have looked like a fool. This business of Rossi using a radioactive ingredient is a Bozo speculation based on absolutely nothing. And Rossi is not the only one to measure gamma from a LENR experiment - at minimum, Ed Storms has also reported this. Nuclear effects are unquestionably being seen. What is not clear is the balance between possible DDL transitions and nuclear effects. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
Hi Jack, That is unfortunate. We need to find a schematic for this spot welder or open it up and create one. It could be the secondary is just grounded to the ground pin. If so, we need to know how it is grounded. Ground loops, when such high currents are involved, can ruin your test equipment that is also grounded in the worst case. Strictly speaking there should be no ground current. However, I have seen equipment being damaged by ground loops when the setup was simply connected to the right connections, but in the wrong order of connection. Better we step back and do a little more research on the circuit for the welder you have. I will look to see if I can find anything online. Bob On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Jack Cole wrote: > Hi Bob, > > Unfortunately, I do not get infinite resistance. On the plugin ground > pin, I get 1 ohm on the bottom electrode bar and the top bar I get > different behavior. Specifically, when the top and bottom electrodes are > close together, but not touching, I get infinite resistance between the top > bar and ground pin. When the top bar is pulled up higher away from the > bottom bar, I get resistance. Is this a safety mechanism perhaps? I get > infinite resistance between the other connectors on the plugin and the bars. >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
Lack of fusion cannot be claimed over all of the LENR experiments. He, Tritium, gamma, and transmutation have all been reliably reported. You cannot simply brush away these good, and in many cases replicated, experiments simply because you find the Mizuno results personally satisfying. I find the Mizuno results to be compelling in the case of excess heat. The Ni-D system is also where Dennis Cravens is reporting excess heat, and with a similar COP. The Mizuno gas composition data is refutable (by similarity to control) and has not been replicated. It is interesting to speculate that DDL and fusion may both contribute heat in more or less proportion depending on the conditions. We know that early on Rossi had problems with gamma emission in his Ni-H (D?) system. Later it seemed that gammas showed up only in the startup and shutdown of his reactor. Could it be that the gamma was present when the conditions were right for fusion and the excess heat during the main output was simply from sending H/D into the DDL state? It is an interesting, ironic conjecture. If such is the case, then H should work as well as D, because it is unlikely that the extra neutron in the D will have much affect on the DDL states or the ability of the electron to transition into them. To relegate Storms' theory to being "brain-dead" is the pot calling the kettle black. You have not proposed anything that suggests how energy that is coupled out of an atom to take it into a DDL state is dissipated. There is so much energy in sending the H/D atom into a DDL state [if not, then you have no argument that the excess heat is from DDL] that it must somehow be split among many atoms all at once or taken out serially by some mechanism. Those that are close to the DDL solution math insist that photons cannot be used to transition in the DDL states (inadequate angular momentum in DDL electrons - Meulenberg). I think Ed Storms provides a mechanism for serially removing the energy from the atom that is a match made in heaven. The hydroton is a multi-atom coupled resonant system - just the kind of evanescent coupling needed to move H atoms into DDL states. Even if fusion is rare, the hydroton may be the mechanism for shrinking the H/D into the deep DDL state. If hydroton DDL shrinkage is happening, then it is likely that the hydroton is going to shrink multiple atoms in unison, making the "pico-molecules" of Meulenberg a highly likely result, and fusion likely to occur. Why invent a fusion pathway when you do not need one to show gain? Going to the DDL is sufficient to explain thermal gain. Heat / mole of He produced suggests much greater heat per event than DDL can explain by itself, so DDL is not sufficient to explain the thermal gain. The heat-He correlates to nearly the 24MeV of a D-D fusion event in a Pd-D system. Even if the 24MeV per event were off by an order of magnitude, it would still be 3 times what is achievable via DDL. So we know that DDL cannot be responsible for the Pd-D data. It doesn't mean that DDL is not a part of the puzzle, just not the whole puzzle. Maybe it is a bigger part of the puzzle in Ni-H(D). Jones, you are standing on a stool with only 1 leg - you have more juggling to do to substantiate your position. Bob Higgins On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > One more facet of the DDL connection is that chemically bound DDL > molecules are entirely possible - such as D^D and D^D^. Meulenberg > proposes that these "pico-molecules" will fuse in "10s of picoseconds". > > > > The problem with this hypothesis is simple. Mizuno presented the most > robust experiment in the history of LENR – a full 600% more gain than the > next best experiment (Roulette/Pons) and guess what – no sign of fusion. No > mass-4. No gammas. But plenty of excess heat. > > > > If there was a route to fusion via DDDL - then it should have shown up in > the thirty days of the Mizuno experiment. Since there was no evidence of > fusion in the most important experiment since 1989, it is fair to say that > we should focus elsewhere. > > > > Why invent a fusion pathway when you do not need one to show gain? Going > to the DDL is sufficient to explain thermal gain. If we stop there, then we > do not need Storm’s brain-dead explanation for lack of gammas. > > > > The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is > lack of fusion. > > > > Jones > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
One more facet of the DDL connection is that chemically bound DDL molecules are entirely possible - such as D^D and D^D^. Meulenberg proposes that these "pico-molecules" will fuse in "10s of picoseconds". It is likely that "pico-molecules" could form inside of Ed Storms' hydroton. These pico-molecules could be responsible for fusion with heavy nuclei, and given the "wierd-ness" of the input to the heavy nucleus, it is not inconceivable that "wierd-ness" could result - for example the formation of a stable heavy nucleus. I don't think I entirely believe Meulenburg's lochon hypothesis (binding of 2 electrons), but his DDL papers are well worth reading for the context of LENR from DDL state hydrogen isotopes. Bob On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > the book of Ed Storms beside his theory put the finger on key weirness of > LENr evidence. > > one is that Iwamura experiments shows a fusion of heavy nucleus with an > even number of deuterons, precisely one that lead to a stable result... > finding an explation for those two weirness is a key. > the even number is explained by the hydroton, but the stable nucleus, as > far as i understood does not. > > tritium is a key too... > hydrogen fusion results is not known, and Ed propose some successive > fusion to deuterium, tritium, helium, and why not more...(it is not clear > for me) > not far from the ladder of Brillouin. > > maybe Ni62/64/60/61 specificities in E-cat will lead to some new key facts > to sort out the theories... > > many keys, but many more doors. > > > > 2014-08-31 20:51 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker : > >> On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >> Hydrogen will most likely will preferably assume a metastable state in >>> which a one dimensional crystalline form of Rydberg matter is surrounded >>> by a cloud of many electrons in orbit around a long string like core of >>> many protons. >>> >> >> Sounds vaguely like a hydroton. ;) >> >> Eric >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
Hi Jack, I have created some diagrams to help communicate the setups that I am going to describe. It on my Google drive at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2MTlIX1pwMC1PdHc/edit?usp=sharing These setups presume that when you measure between the high current bars and the pins of the 120VAC input plug, that in all cases you measure an OPEN circuit (infinite resistance). If this is not the case, then we need to re-think the setups ... but it should be the case. Referring to the set of diagrams in the file above, the setups are described as follows: Setup 1: This is to measure the peak voltage out of the welder during a spot weld. Do this with a voltmeter and the circuit shown. The voltage you measure will be the AC peak voltage. The actual voltage that is present will be about +/- (the measured voltage + about 1V). This measurement will be done without the oscilloscope so as to see what voltage is coming out of the welder to insure that your oscilloscope can handle the voltage range. Setup 2: Measure the resistance of the welding bar as a current shunt. Even though the actual current will be AC, the resistance for a current shunt can be measured with DC. The actual current that is required in the measurement is not critical as long as the value supplied (I_BC) is known. The current should be the max. the source can provide to get best accuracy. So, put your supply into current limit mode and crank up the current limit until the max for the supply is reached. Measure the voltage (V_BA) across the points B-A. The resistance will be R=V_BA /I_BC . This is your current shunt resistance. Setup 3: Measure the spot welding waveforms. Use a heavy wire to connect from point B to the oscilloscope ground terminal. No current should be flowing in this conductor, but you want its resistance to be lower than the resistance from the probes shields to that ground point. That way if you get an anomalous ground current, it won't flow through the probes. In fact, I would begin this test with no ground connections for the probes. In fact, once you get a handle on the voltages, you will probably not want to use 10x probes, you will want a straight through connection. The voltage sources you are measuring are extremely low impedance and can easily drive the low impedance of the oscilloscope without the 10x probe. You will get cleaner signals without the 10x probes, but I would measure with the probe first. The voltage you measure in channel 1 as shown will be the voltage as a function of time. I would trigger on this voltage's rising edge. The voltage on channel 2 is the NEGATIVE of the voltage across the shunt resistor. When calculating power, you will need to multiply this trace by -R to get the current vs. time. This was done to avoid the need for signal subtraction in only a 2-channel scope. It may be necessary, as I mentioned in a previous post to create a compensating loop to subtract out current induced error voltages in these measurements. Think of that as a possible future improvement in accuracy of what you are measuring. Bob On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Jack Cole wrote: > Bob, > > I'm getting ready to work on implementing what you suggested. > > Could you take a look at this sketch to see if this is what you are > suggesting for hooking up the oscilloscope? > > > http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/power-measurement.png > > I won't be able to do 10 amps for calibration, but I can do anything up to > 5 amps with my lab power supply. > > Best regards, > Jack >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
While Va'vra is recently trying to connect the 511 keV galactic signal with DDL hydrogen, his theory about multi-photon DDL transitions is older. He has been doing work with spark discharge in hydrogen and uses a large cylindrical scintillator with an axial hole to look for coincident detection of multiple photons, that he thought may add up to 511 keV. Of course, the 511 keV galactic signal is not Va'vra's observation. He was just citing that with a speculation that DDL hydrogen could be implicated. One of the things that QED analysis may provide a better handle on is how DDL transitions might occur. Meulenberg states that DDL state electrons do not have sufficient angular momentum for photon transactions, making it difficult to visualize how DDL state transitions occur. Shrodinger, KG, and Dirac really don't contain information about the photon interaction with the electron, but QED does. Bob On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > There is a third possibility – that Va’vra is measuring something > completely different… since as I recall, he is trying to explain a > phenomenon of the Milky Way, and the others who see emissions from distant > galaxies in the range of 3.5 keV are seeing a characteristic emission of > dark matter which is far removed. > > > > The emission line which they see (5 or 6 different papers) is red-shifted, > but is not clear if the originating radiation is 3.7 keV or not. At any > rate it is NOT as Mills suggests, the 3.4 keV which he calculates, since > the red-shift would lower that. So we know that Mills is wrong, if nothing > else as his value is lower than what is actually seen, when it should be > higher. > > > > The fourth possibility is the most likely. Va’vra is seeing positron > annihilation, which he tries to marginalize as a possibility, but it is too > coincidental to be otherwise. > > > > *From:* Eric Walker > > > > Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all > of the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full > solid angle, this will add up to 511 keV. > > > > Looking at the 2013 paper again, that is just one of two possibilities. > One possibility is that the DDL gives off a 511 keV emission (explaining > the signal in the cosmic background) and the other is that the DDL > emissions sum up over a solid angle (not explaining the signal, presumably) > [1]. He does something similar with the capture cross section of DDL > hydrogen -- it might or might not be all that high (p. 6). > > > > Eric > > > > > > [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf, p. 5 > > >
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
Hi Jack, I have started doing a little digging into the electrical implementation of typical spot welders. Basically it appears that the spot welder arms are just the output of a low voltage transformer (probably with a saturating core). What this means is that the output will be AC current and voltage. One thing to test is to make sure that the spot welder arms are open circuit to the primary. - Can you measure the DC resistance between the arms and the ground terminal on the power plug? We need to make sure that you will not damage your oscilloscope. Also, since the output is AC, it may be safer to measure the current with a clip-on current probe. If you don't have one, you can make one. However, if you use a clip-on probe, you will have to calibrate it with an AC current. I will also draw a diagram for how I think you can make your measurement and will post it. Bob On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Jack Cole wrote: > Bob, > > I'm getting ready to work on implementing what you suggested. > > Could you take a look at this sketch to see if this is what you are > suggesting for hooking up the oscilloscope? > > > http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/power-measurement.png > > I won't be able to do 10 amps for calibration, but I can do anything up to > 5 amps with my lab power supply. > > Best regards, > Jack > > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Bob Higgins > wrote: > >> Jack, >> >> You are on the verge of the LENR precipice - where you dive off into the >> meat of the phenomenon. What you are seeing is that it is hard to discover >> whether anything special has been achieved. How do you whether something >> special has happened? Well, you need to measure the energy balance. Only >> if you measure more energy out than is put into the reaction with >> electrical power and chemical enthalpy, did something special happen. A >> big flash doesn't tell you anything. A flashbulb can be ignited with an AA >> battery and will make a very bright flash - due to the chemical energy of >> the burning metal. This spot welder will create a plasma hot enough to >> ignite many metals and when you put the water there it dissociates to >> provide a high concentration of O2 - you get the chemical effect of the >> burning metal. >> >> Mills claims that his metal host is not burned and is re-usable. That >> must be a really refractory metal to not burn at plasma temperatures. >> Let's say that he is correct. The plasma still dissociates the H2O into >> H, O, OH, H2, and O2 and these will re-combine within the ejecta creating a >> hydrogen flash which will be very hot and bright. Did he produce >> over-unity? I wasn't convinced by what I saw that he showed. >> >> Jumping over the precipice, you will need to use one of the big copper >> arms as a current shunt. Connect a lead across two points on one arm. Use >> another calibrated source to run X known amps (lets say 10A) of current >> across the two points and see what voltage you get out. Calculate the >> shunt resistance as a calibration factor. Now you can use a digital >> storage oscilloscope to measure the differential voltage and capture the >> current waveshape. Next you need an oscilloscope connection across the two >> arms to simulaneously (with the current measurement) measure the voltage >> across the contacts - the connections don't have to be super close to the >> contacts because the voltage drop across the big conductors will be small. >> Then you can capture the voltage waveform. I don't think it will exceed >> 50V. To test, you can put a diode to capacitor across the gap and capture >> the peak voltage to know what you will need to protect against. You will >> need the simultaneous voltage and current waveform to calculate the input >> energy. There are other ways to do this, but this provides a lot of >> information. >> >> So how do you measure the power out? You can build a water calorimeter. >> In fact, you could fire the whole thing inside high resistance deionized >> water which would do a pretty good job of capturing all of the heat. You >> would need to put a blackened piece of pipe around it in the water to >> capture the light and thermalize it into the water. If you embed the >> electrodes reasonably well into the water, you may be able to avoid most of >> the error for the heat that goes into the electrodes. Calculate heat by >> temperature rise of the water. With practice, you will be able to measure >> the joules (energy) in and joules out from heat rise. You will need to >> stir th
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
This is in part because Va'vra hypothesizes that it may be possible to produce DDL transitions with multiple photons. If multiple photons are involved, there is nothing to insure that all photon components would come out in the same direction (like a laser). Hence, you would have to integrate all of the photon energies in 4pi solid angle in an instant and look to see if they added up to the 511keV. It is not clear how Va'vra envisions that these photons would be catalyzed out of the DDL atom, because as Meulenberg points out, the DDL electrons have insufficient angular momentum to absorb or emit a photon. Thus, to get multiple photons out, it would seem that multiple other atoms must be coupled to the DDL electron to extract energy from it and then those other atoms would emit the extracted energy as a photon. Starts to sound like Mills, doesn't it? Bob On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Another interesting possibility has come up (within the hour, actually) – >> which can be called “meta-states” of dark matter. These are accumulated >> meta-states in the sense that the 511 keV line comes not from a decay of >> any particle ... > > > Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all of > the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full solid > angle, this will add up to 511 keV. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
Clearly Dr. Va'vra has not given up his belief in the existence of the DDL states, as his 2013 paper is proposing DDL as a possible explanation for the galactic 511keV signal. He says in this paper that the previous calculations were based on the QM formulations of the 1920's and that the problem should be solved using modern QED. For this, he refers to Dr. James Vary (Iowa State University) who is apparently continuing the DDL work with his graduate students. Apparently Dr. Vary also checked the DDL work done by Dr. Va'vra and found no errors. Here are some interesting points I have noted from reading these DDL papers: - The Shrodinger equation is not a relativistic model. It doesn't predict the DDL states and it is not entirely accurate even in the ground state due to relativistic effects not being included. The slower the electron is traveling (larger radius states), the more accurate its solution is. - The Klein-Gordon equation (KG) added special relativistic effects to the model, but not spin. The KG equation predicts a single DDL state that is very about 350 Fermi equivalent Bohr radius (the normal ground state hydrogen is 52,900 Fermi, and a muon orbit would be about 250 Fermi). - The Dirac equation includes both special relativity and spin. Dr. Va'vra's solutions to the Dirac equation predict many DDL levels. These levels are solutions to the "S-" portion of the equation normally discarded because conventional formulations predicts an infinity at r=0 because a point source is presumed for the nucleus. This is solved by re-formulating the problem with a distributed charge source model for the nucleus. The resulting solution predicts the normal hydrogen states more accurately than the Shrodinger and KG equations. The Dirac DDL solutions include states with orbits less than 300 Fermi. - None of these equations model the effects of the 2-body mass problem. It is well known that the Earth and the Sun orbit around the common center of mass and the Earth causes the Sun to wobble in its position. This effect is not accounted for in any of these equations. - These DDL states appear to not have enough angular momentum to create or absorb a photon [Meulenberg]. So, it becomes problematic for how energy is transferred into or out of an atom to change DDL states. With this being the case, an auxiliary atom or coupled system is needed that can exchange energy. This is a problem for detection of DDL states. - The DDL atom is also so small, it behaves more like a quasi-neutron and has a very low reaction cross-section. It will readily pass through containers. - Most agree that if two DDL hydrogen isotope atoms form a DDL molecule, they will fuse immediately (within 10's of picoseconds). Bob Higgins On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > Jones-- > > Thanks for that repeat. > > I missed it the first time. > > Eric also identified the recent (2013) Va’vra paper, which is quite > interesting including it reluctance to try to discuss theory, this being a > change from his actions in the 1993 paper. I wonder what changed his mind > about addressing theory? >
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
You do not appear to know what you are talking about; except in one respect: You are correct that it is Jack's experiment and his course of action is absolutely his choice. My inputs to this topic are terminated. I have no intention to contributing to this becoming a flame like some of the other off-topic junk showing up on Vortex-L (to which you seem to be contributing). On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: > First, you can not guarantee that the water is 100% deionized, can you? > DI water sold in stores is not completely Deionized. > > Second, because you can not guarantee number 1 above, you can not > guarantee that no electrolysis will occur. If there is current flowing > thru that water, it will electrolyze water, possibly preventing enough > energy to catalyze a hydrino transition. Water will electrolyze first > before doing a hydrino transition. That is the chemical environment you > are putting your electrodes in. You can not ignore this chemical process > that will always take precedence over your hydrino transition. > > Bottom line is, you can not guarantee a hydrino transition under water. > If you can not guarantee a hydrino transition, what then are you measuring > with your water bath? You would just be measuring the heat of your > electrolysis. > > This is the reason why I believe it won't work - it's a non-starter. > > I believe a better approach is simply follow Mill's lead. Use solar > panels to measure output. Like I asked before, what is our goal? Is it to > figure out a complete energy balance accounting or simply to verify certain > aspects of Mill's claims. Jack needs to answer this for himself so that he > can decide which direction to go. This is his experiment after all. >
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
It would appear that you are not qualified to say that "calorimetry using water is a non-starter". First, in DI water there is no electrolyte added (just the opposite) and there will be no current flowing through this water being used to capture the heat and thermalize the UV. The DI water has no current, hence not hydrolysis. Second, Mills' experiment begins with water. Within the high current flow, the water in the porous metal container (particle) is thermally and electrically decomposed into various hydrogen, oxygen, and hydroxide species both neutral and ionized, though the voltage is specifically held low to help prevent impact ionization of the hydrogen (the hydrino state requires the electron). I proposed isolating the test pellet in a wax container so that the DI water does not contaminate the water in the test pellet, though that may not be necessary. If Mills is correct, the whole reaction is chemical. If you have a better idea for calorimetry, describe it. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: > In my opinion. Calorimetry using water is a non-starter. There is just > to many points of entry where error can creep in. The biggest of which > would be, will a hydrino transition even occur under water. It seems to me > that it would electrolyze and split the water first before it initiates a > hydrino transition reaction. Remember Ed's mantra - you can not ignore the > Chemical environment. >
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
In his previous bomb calorimetry, only a COP of about 2 was reported. I have previously pointed out in detail the flaw in this calorimetry owing to the variable heat taken away by the large copper electrodes between the control and the actual experiment. Because of this flaw, the COP could be substantially over-estimated - easily by a factor of 2. Thus, even the COP of 2 was not "demonstrated". I think it extremely unlikely that by controlling the gap you could tune the energy delivered down by even 50%. This type of welder has no separate means of initiating plasma - it requires the contact. It probably has a saturable core to limit the current flow. A special apparatus would be needed to deliver an ignition pulse and then a controlled energy in the plasma conduction. This would probably be a regulated capacitor discharge circuitry to get to the very high current, but short pulse needed to create a 5 joule ignition. I think there is no chance to verify a 5 joule ignition with this spot welder setup. Best case is to replicate what Mills has done with ~200 joule input and with better calorimetry (for example, doing it with the electrodes under water). Bob Higgins On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: > In his bomb calorimetry demo, he demonstrated an input of about 200+ J. > > Correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm working from memory here. In the bomb > calorimetry, they seems to have demonstrated a COP of 4+ > > I think the spot welder need to be modified to maintain a fix gap between > the electrodes where the fuel pellet needs to be slightly wedged in. This > way, as soon as the fuel pellet detonates, that automatically stops the > welder from delivering more power, since there would be a gap where no > further current can flow. The open voltage of the welder would not jump > the gap. If we did this, we can control how much input energy is being > delivered. From there, we can verify the 5J claim. >
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
This type of spot welder is likely to deliver something in the range of 50-300 joules, without any means of controlling it (but measurable). Mills only claims that he "should" be able to detonate his wet particles with 5 joules and get the same output, but has never demonstrated this AFAIK. The claim of 100 COP would only be if he got the *same output* with an input of 5 joules; which, as far as I can tell, he has only speculated and not demonstrated. With the equipment Jack has, he will not be able to adjust his spot welder for a 5 joule input. He will only be able to replicate what Mills has done, which is with an input of about 200 joules. Bob Higgins On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: > You have a point. > > Though my view is, it may not be worth making these elaborate > modifications. Are we striving for superaccuracy, or are we just trying to > hit it in the ballpark? To me, the most important question is to see if > the input power is in the vicinity of 5J. If it is, that would be a slam > dunk for Mills cause you can't deny the output power. Those Solar panels > have known efficiency figures. So, output power appears to be more or less > accurate, which would bring the COP to 100 or more - more or less. > > > Jojo > > >
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
Last night it struck me that these voltage measurements are going to require a compensating loop to subtract out the induced voltage in the measurement loops. If you had a simple twisted pair wire to make the measurement, you would still end up with a measurement loop through which the magnetic fields from the welding action will flow. These magnetic fields will induce a voltage in the measurement loop, even if the voltage across the gap is 0V. To get rid of this error voltage, you need to make the measurements with a compensating loop present. The compensating loop will cancel this induced voltage by being connected in anti-series with the measurement connection. I have never had to do this in other experiments because the currents were so low in those cases, but it is probably necessary in this case. I don't know if Mills' team knew to do this. Also, it would be possible to measure the current with a clip-on probe. Such a probe only measures AC, so you would have to integrate the waveform that you measure and use the condition that at t=0, the current was 0. You would also have to calibrate with an AC current. It would probably be useful to do both current measurements. Just doing a control calorimetry experiment is not good enough. Let's say you are using a porous titanium particle to hold the milligrams of water that supposedly compose the hydrino reaction. Encapsulate a dry particle in wax and detonate it underwater and measure the energy that heated the water. Then, add the water to the titanium particle and encapsulate it in wax [one way to do this might be to freeze the particle with its water and then coat it with wax]. Then repeat the experiment and see how the energy obtained from the temperature rise in the water compared. This comparison is simple only if the electrical energy input in both cases was the same - which is not likely. So you would still need to measure the electrical energy from the current and voltage waveforms to make sense of the results. These are the kinds of details that go into research that is unassailable - it is meticulous work. Bob Higgins On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > Jumping over the precipice, you will need to use one of the big copper > arms as a current shunt. Connect a lead across two points on one arm. Use > another calibrated source to run X known amps (lets say 10A) of current > across the two points and see what voltage you get out. Calculate the > shunt resistance as a calibration factor. Now you can use a digital > storage oscilloscope to measure the differential voltage and capture the > current waveshape. Next you need an oscilloscope connection across the two > arms to simulaneously (with the current measurement) measure the voltage > across the contacts - the connections don't have to be super close to the > contacts because the voltage drop across the big conductors will be small. > Then you can capture the voltage waveform. I don't think it will exceed > 50V. To test, you can put a diode to capacitor across the gap and capture > the peak voltage to know what you will need to protect against. You will > need the simultaneous voltage and current waveform to calculate the input > energy. There are other ways to do this, but this provides a lot of > information. > >
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
Eric, I am an EE. I would try it myself, but I don't have a spot welder. DI water is very high resistance - essentially an insulator. But it won't stay non-conductive for long if you are welding in it. One of the electrodes is likely ground. To boot, you are normally connecting the electrodes to conductive sheet metal and no one is getting electrocuted. I would be more concerned about the energetics. I would just start with snapping the electrodes in a plastic bucket with DI water - or maybe distilled water to start. I would put the electrode bars through holes in a sheet of plastic so water cannot splash up into the welder. Doing this underwater I estimate to be a step forward over what Mills did; and simpler. When testing with a fuel pellet, I might encapsulate the prepared pellet in wax to isolate it - then crush through the wax with the electrodes. Of course, if someone is uncomfortable with doing this, they shouldn't try it! Protect yourself! Bob On Aug 26, 2014 8:49 PM, "Eric Walker" wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Bob Higgins > wrote: > > If you embed the electrodes reasonably well into the water, you may be >> able to avoid most of the error for the heat that goes into the electrodes. >> > > Asking as someone who knows little about electronics, what are the hazards > of submerging the electrodes of a spot welder and then turning it on? > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
Jack, You are on the verge of the LENR precipice - where you dive off into the meat of the phenomenon. What you are seeing is that it is hard to discover whether anything special has been achieved. How do you whether something special has happened? Well, you need to measure the energy balance. Only if you measure more energy out than is put into the reaction with electrical power and chemical enthalpy, did something special happen. A big flash doesn't tell you anything. A flashbulb can be ignited with an AA battery and will make a very bright flash - due to the chemical energy of the burning metal. This spot welder will create a plasma hot enough to ignite many metals and when you put the water there it dissociates to provide a high concentration of O2 - you get the chemical effect of the burning metal. Mills claims that his metal host is not burned and is re-usable. That must be a really refractory metal to not burn at plasma temperatures. Let's say that he is correct. The plasma still dissociates the H2O into H, O, OH, H2, and O2 and these will re-combine within the ejecta creating a hydrogen flash which will be very hot and bright. Did he produce over-unity? I wasn't convinced by what I saw that he showed. Jumping over the precipice, you will need to use one of the big copper arms as a current shunt. Connect a lead across two points on one arm. Use another calibrated source to run X known amps (lets say 10A) of current across the two points and see what voltage you get out. Calculate the shunt resistance as a calibration factor. Now you can use a digital storage oscilloscope to measure the differential voltage and capture the current waveshape. Next you need an oscilloscope connection across the two arms to simulaneously (with the current measurement) measure the voltage across the contacts - the connections don't have to be super close to the contacts because the voltage drop across the big conductors will be small. Then you can capture the voltage waveform. I don't think it will exceed 50V. To test, you can put a diode to capacitor across the gap and capture the peak voltage to know what you will need to protect against. You will need the simultaneous voltage and current waveform to calculate the input energy. There are other ways to do this, but this provides a lot of information. So how do you measure the power out? You can build a water calorimeter. In fact, you could fire the whole thing inside high resistance deionized water which would do a pretty good job of capturing all of the heat. You would need to put a blackened piece of pipe around it in the water to capture the light and thermalize it into the water. If you embed the electrodes reasonably well into the water, you may be able to avoid most of the error for the heat that goes into the electrodes. Calculate heat by temperature rise of the water. With practice, you will be able to measure the joules (energy) in and joules out from heat rise. You will need to stir the water and measure the water in multiple points. You will need an insulated container. Either that, our you need to be good at telling stories about the big fish that got away (is this Mills?). BTW, I applaud your efforts. Bob Higgins On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Jack Cole wrote: > Now that I have demonstrated a roughly equivalent level of light with > nitinol (comparing dry and dipped in water), I believe it invalidates the > hypothesis that there is something special going on here. The light > intensity with nitinol was far greater than any other trial with or without > the addition of water. So, it may well be that Dave's theory is > correct--that it is produced by higher impedance (and impedance matching > with the transformer). I wouldn't say this invalidates Mills work, but > strongly suggests to me that we are not seeing anything special with this > portable spot welder. I'll try some other things, and report back if there > is anything of interest. > > You can see what happens with nitinol here: > http://youtu.be/KTZ6UtUpvbg > > The full set of comparison photos is here: > http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2014/08/26/sun-cell-lite-testing/ > > Jack > > Hi Folks, > > I was excited to receive my spot welder today. After ensuring it was in > working order, I decided to get right to it and see if I could get anything > like what BLP showed. Lo and behold I got something on the first try. > > I remembered Mills talking about all the different possibilities for types > of conductors that they might use in the commercial device, and copper was > one of them. I cut a very small piece of copper wire, dipped it in water, > placed it on the electrodes, hit the switch, and pop with some bright > light! > > Here's a link to the vid. Sorry for the bad camera work. > > Let me know what you think. I'll do another vid soon in complete > darkness. > > http://youtu.be/d6XYqEhwZgA > > Jack >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
There is also such a thing as a thermomagnetic heat pump. It is usually envisioned with moving magnets. However, just as one can imagine a moving magnetic field from a 3-phase drive producing a linear magnetic motor, one can envision a motion-less thermomagnetic heat pump in a ferrite. There may be a thermomagnetic heat pumping effect involved in the cooling effect of the core. Bob On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > From: Bob Higgins > > I am convinced of this connection: if one can document a cooling effect in > a > transformer core which should be heating up (but instead is significantly > below ambient during operation) then that physical property is strong > indication of electrical gain. This was documented in the Manelas device. > > Jones > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
Also see: *http://www.rfcafe.com/references/radio-news/subminiature-magnetic-amplifiers-dec-1957-radio-tv-news.htm <http://www.rfcafe.com/references/radio-news/subminiature-magnetic-amplifiers-dec-1957-radio-tv-news.htm>* Bob On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: > Thanks for the input, Jones. > > The pin stays in the same place when it is rotated 180 degree and put back >> in the tube - and/or – get this: the pin stays in the same place when the >> entire system is turned 180 degree (the pin does not drop away due to >> gravity in either of the two upside down alignments) >> >> >> >> The are four possibilities for levitating alignment and the pin stays in >> the same spot for all 4 of them. Brian Ahern actually has 4 images of the >> four possibilities - to prove this. >> >> >> >> The pin has no lateral/vertical stability – thus lateral support is >> needed to keep it stable. It flies over to any one of the four corners >> otherwise. >> > > If the pin is just a lightweight soft reluctor, then it would tend to stay > aligned to magnetic field lines and a symmetric divergence of the field > could hold it in place. OK, I can buy that. I don't buy that there is a > continuous oscillation of the magnetic field. What evidence is there of > any oscillation? Obviously if there were oscillations, it would be > possible to extract energy. > >> >> >> This billet has been conditioned in a manner which was based on the work >> of Floyd Sweet. >> > > There is an old technology called "magnetic amplifiers" which could be > related to this effect. See the wikipedia page: > *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_amplifier > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_amplifier>* . I would look > closely at this old technology to hypothesize how the Sweet device works. > > The conditioning involves huger burst of power though solenoid coils place >> in different areas around the edges of the magnet. There is information >> online about this. >> > > This is the classic description of how an uncharged magnet gets charged - > with a burst of current through a solenoid. It appears that this ferrite > magnet material gets charged in multiple domains at the same time to > produce a prescribed field pattern. > >> >> >> Yes I have such a billet and have seen the effect, but my billet is >> thinner (1/4”) and the levitation distance is less, and I must use a light >> sewing pin. A nail is too heavy. Sadly, I have not been able to reproduce >> the energy gain but believe it is there and that this magnet and the >> circuit is the key to it. >> >> >> >> This “levitating pin effect” can, and has been, simulated with two >> magnets – one toroid and one ring speaker magnet, axially magnetized. That >> should tell you something. Place a clear tube with a pin inside a toroid >> which will hold the tube, and place that assembly inside, near the top, of >> a woofer speaker magnet, and the effect can be seen. The pin is “locked” in >> space, and levitated no matter what alignment it is in. >> > > It would seem important to create a field axis normal to the slab, but > also create a second domain near the surface to cancel the field there, so > that above the slab is a field divergence to hold the pin in place. This > levitation demonstration seems to be just spectacle and I cannot see how it > would be related to energy production. > > Bob Higgins >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
Thanks for the input, Jones. The pin stays in the same place when it is rotated 180 degree and put back > in the tube - and/or – get this: the pin stays in the same place when the > entire system is turned 180 degree (the pin does not drop away due to > gravity in either of the two upside down alignments) > > > > The are four possibilities for levitating alignment and the pin stays in > the same spot for all 4 of them. Brian Ahern actually has 4 images of the > four possibilities - to prove this. > > > > The pin has no lateral/vertical stability – thus lateral support is needed > to keep it stable. It flies over to any one of the four corners otherwise. > If the pin is just a lightweight soft reluctor, then it would tend to stay aligned to magnetic field lines and a symmetric divergence of the field could hold it in place. OK, I can buy that. I don't buy that there is a continuous oscillation of the magnetic field. What evidence is there of any oscillation? Obviously if there were oscillations, it would be possible to extract energy. > > > This billet has been conditioned in a manner which was based on the work > of Floyd Sweet. > There is an old technology called "magnetic amplifiers" which could be related to this effect. See the wikipedia page: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_amplifier <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_amplifier>* . I would look closely at this old technology to hypothesize how the Sweet device works. The conditioning involves huger burst of power though solenoid coils place > in different areas around the edges of the magnet. There is information > online about this. > This is the classic description of how an uncharged magnet gets charged - with a burst of current through a solenoid. It appears that this ferrite magnet material gets charged in multiple domains at the same time to produce a prescribed field pattern. > > > Yes I have such a billet and have seen the effect, but my billet is > thinner (1/4”) and the levitation distance is less, and I must use a light > sewing pin. A nail is too heavy. Sadly, I have not been able to reproduce > the energy gain but believe it is there and that this magnet and the > circuit is the key to it. > > > > This “levitating pin effect” can, and has been, simulated with two magnets > – one toroid and one ring speaker magnet, axially magnetized. That should > tell you something. Place a clear tube with a pin inside a toroid which > will hold the tube, and place that assembly inside, near the top, of a > woofer speaker magnet, and the effect can be seen. The pin is “locked” in > space, and levitated no matter what alignment it is in. > It would seem important to create a field axis normal to the slab, but also create a second domain near the surface to cancel the field there, so that above the slab is a field divergence to hold the pin in place. This levitation demonstration seems to be just spectacle and I cannot see how it would be related to energy production. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
Ferrites encompass a large body of magnetic materials. Does this photo (slide 6) show a slab of ferrite magnet? - probably. The long thin hat pin is magnetized and the plastic tube keeps the long hat pin magnet from flipping and is thus able to levitate. I don't see anything mysterious here. It is just showing that the ferrite slab is permanently magnetized. However, if a permanent magnet is used as a transformer core, I am not sure what the result would be. It would certainly be nonlinear. In a passive device reciprocity is not guaranteed if a DC magnetic field is present. Bob Higgins On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Something similar wrt a non-stationary magnetic field happens with another > anomalous device – which is called the Manelas/Sweet device, mentioned here > before. There may be a non-obvious connection to LENR. A visual image of > levitation of a hat pin, above the magnet of this device, is seen in > slide-6, here: > > http://e-catsite.com/manelas-device/ > > > > I have one of these conditioned billets. The field strength on the surface > is not high, typical for a ferrite and it alternates in polarity across the > surface, and is fluid - in the sense of self-moving in certain areas where > the poles change. There is a focal point of highest field strength > purposely located above the center region, which is significantly away > (removed) from the surface. > > > > This magnet was the impetus which has pushed Ahern towards a theory of > “nanomagnetism” which is seen in both LENR and in exotic electronic devices. > > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
After reading the "Electron Transitions on Deep Dirac Levels II" by Dr.s Maly and Va'vra, I was intrigued to find the other papers. I did not find a copy of "... I", or any of the III, IV, and V versions that Dr. Va'vra indicated were submitted [note: if any of you have a copy of "Electron Transitions on Deep Dirac Levels I", could you please share a copy with me?]. When I researched the ANS publication Fusion Technology, I found in their listing the "... I" and "... II" papers, but none of the others. So, I did some additional research to find Dr. Va'vra. I found his email and asked him about the latter 3 papers. Here was his interesting response: "The papers III,IV and V do exist, but they were not published. I think the editor of the Fusion Technology had enough at that time. However, there is a problem with all these types of calculations. They use a 1920-1930 quantum mechanics. The correct treatment must use QED. There were attempts to do that, and I mention that in my more recent ArXiv paper: 1304.0833v3. Mills used fractional quantum numbers. That is a "no no" for the classical quantum mechanics. So, I consider his method wrong. Regards, Jerry" Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf) - I think it is a fascinating fit to this thread. If someone else already cited this, I apologize for the duplication. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Lest we not forget ... A field was never a physical "thing". "Fields" have always been a mathematical artifice used to describe/visualize the action at a distance supplied by charges - stationary and in motion. According to Hotson, these actions at a distance are all transmitted by the essentially mass-less epo sea - epos being polarizable. Physics is applying mathematical models to the observed behaviors of the real world around us. Physics is not reality. These physical models are NEVER correct, but the best models reproduce a great deal of actual behavior (but NEVER all behavior). Physics LAWS are just rules of thumb that have proved to be valid most of the time (perhaps all of the time in our historical experience, but that does not make them inviolable). Bob Higgins On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > > Another possibility is that there is no such thing as a field. >> > > What would we do without fields? If there is no such thing, what replaces > them? > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection
Yes, this faux transmutation does sound like a really wild speculation. IF you could get an inner electron into a DDL state, it would have to fluoresce in x-ray like the transmuted element because, for example, the detection of Cu in Rossi's ash was via XRF. Further, how would you even go about putting an inner electron in a DDL state? Seems like you would have to first fully ionize the atom - well, all electrons but one. And we don't even know how to put H into a DDL state with its completely exposed DDL electron. It appears to require sucking out a large energy without using photons. But, the speculation was interesting. Bob Higgins On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Another wild thought on nuclear “faux-transmutation.” > > > > If a DDL can displace an inner electron of some elements (K or L shell) > then the resultant species will possibly react chemically as if it was the > next element to the right in the periodic table, even if there has been no > “real” nuclear transmutation. There could be differences, but basically if > nickel were to bind with a DDL in an inner orbital, then the resultant > species NiH* (where H* is a DDL) would look like copper. > > > > Perhaps it would not look exactly like copper but it could be similar > enough to fool many instruments and possibly would be copper-colored > instead of silvery. The H* could possibly displace one electron’s average > position in a p-orbital of an L shell and be held there magnetically. What > are the objections to that ? (other than that it is shockingly at odds with > the mainstream). > > > > …And lest we forget the amazing claims of Louis Kervran in biological > transmutation, it should be noted that CaCO3 (as a transmutation product > for chicken eggs) has a notable signature in its *3.7 keV* fluorescent > X-ray line. > > > > The latter is possibly unrelated… if one believes in truly random > coincidences. > > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
Bob, Can you explain the reference to "13" that you made here? I am confused as to the reference. Thanks, Bob On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > Bob -- > > If I understood the last paper from 13 the folks from Los Alamos wrote, > commenting on the Kim rejection of the DDL theory, the most likely electron > energy state to best support the >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection
Jones, I think you may be mis-identifying the effects of the magnetic field in a DDL atom. By the same token that the interior magnetic field would increase as the electron orbital radius shrinks, the external magnetic field shrinks as r^-3 as r gets bigger. Thus, at the normal atomic radius, the magnetic field will be largely the same for a DDL as a normal ground state hydrogen. When it comes to affecting the approach of two DDL atoms, the magnetic field dipole would cause the two atoms to align N pole to S pole and may cause them to bind! Further, and I would have to think about this more carefully, if the interior magnetic field is increased, it may increase the coupling between the nucleus and the electron - could that possibly allow energy exchange between the electron and the nucleus? Could the enhanced magnetic field attraction help initiate a cold fusion? I certainly don't think the possibility of fusion is dead. I absolutely do NOT discount helium formation in deuterium LENR. The Arata work shows 4He forming in a clean deuterium gas LENR cell using zirconia - Pd nanopowders. To get measurable 4He you need significant D-D fusion to have occurred. DDL without fusion cannot explain this. That doesn't mean that other DDL effects may not be occurring and these may be used just as we use other chemical energy. Of course, this is exactly what Mills is trying to leverage. Getting 100x or 1000x over existing chemical reactions would be hugely beneficial. However, LENR at 1,000,000x would be even better. Bob Higgins P.S.: Terry, Thank you for posting Vavra's presentation. On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Sooner or later, CMNS will also pick up on a most important factoid about > the DDL – which has been mentioned here many times – which is its increased > magnetic field intensity (and its negative near field – which actually > prohibits nuclear fusion) – but who needs fusion !?! > > Answer: no one needs fusion for LENR and “cold fusion” is dead. We have a > ready-made source of energy in DDL without fusion! As to whether this > source > is real nuclear energy - is not of greatest concern for the immediate > future. We have identified what is likely to be the proximate cause of LENR > and it will not long until this is tied (most likely through nanomagnetism > and spin coupling) to the ultimate cause. > > The magnetic field of an atom of hydrogen or deuterium, based on the single > electron, when aligned in a fixed vector is 12.5 T at the circumference of > the atom. On shrinkage from approximately 50 pm to .1 pm in radius, the DDL > has an increased magnetic field of 500^2 or a factor of 250,000 times > greater field intensity. The electric near field would be a similar > increase. That is too much to overcome for actual fusion, but again – we do > not need fusion since the energy from the DDL state is thousands of times > greater than chemical. > > Jones > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection
The noise in systems processed by a Multi-Channel Amplifier (MCA) manifests itself as the width of the measured peak in energy when the input is known to be a single impulsive line. There is a lot of engineering that goes into low noise sensors for X-ray spectroscopy inside SEMs (in a vacuum). The best sensors today are high purity germanium cooled to liquid nitrogen temperatures which have an energy detection FWHM of about 120eV. Lithium Drifted Silicon sensors cooled to LN2 temps get to FWHM of about 130eV and Silicon Drifted Detectors get to about 130eV at about -30C (thermoelectrically cooled). If you want to detect and discriminate low keV photons, you need a sensor with narrow FWHM. Of course, you also need to get your photons to the sensor, which is one of the hard parts in setting up to measure these photons in a high pressure Ni-H reactor. Basically the cold sensor needs to be exposed without a window or a good high pressure window needs to be found that will pass this low energy range of photons that can withstand high H2 pressure. Bob Higgins On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Bob Higgins > wrote: > > The problem is the noise. Noise affects the FWHM of the system and >> normally getting this noise low enough so that the FWHM is smaller than >> 1keV (to get some resolution of low keV photons) requires cooling the >> sensor to liquid nitrogen temperatures. >> > > I imagine the noise obscuring the lower energy signals is stochastic. I > wonder whether a filter could be developed to do a fourier analysis and > then partially subtract out predominant frequencies seen during calibration > runs. Perhaps something like that could be effective enough to avoid the > need for liquid nitrogen cooling. >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection
At least one place where Piantelli reports use of the cloud chamber on his rod was at "10th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals"; Siena, Italy; April 10-14, 2012, in his slide set. Author are F. Piantelli, and W. Collis. This can be found at: http://www.iscmns.org/work10/PiantelliFsomeresult.ppt . There are a number of places on YouTube that describe the construction of a cloud chamber - they are really simple. Harder will be a way to record data from them in a way that can be quantified. I am thinking to use a stereo video camera to record the tracks with and without a magnet being present in the chamber. Bob Higgins On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > > > That would be pretty cool. On occasion I've looked for the Piantelli > anecdote, which I read somewhere, but I haven't succeeded yet in tracking > it down. >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection
Jones, I don't understand the basis for this "conclusion". It is well known that muons catalyze fusion to a reasonably high rate and that the primary reason is Coulombic screening to a much smaller inter-nuclear separation due to the fact that the muon orbital radius is so much smaller than the electron orbital radius. We also know that DDL state hydrogen (if it exists) would have a much smaller orbital radius than that of the muonic orbital. Thus, a DDL state hydrogen will be screened to much closer separation than a muonic pair and would be more likely to fuse with another like DDL hydrogen than a muonic isotope (but it doesn't have a catalytic action like the muon). If a DDL molecule of HH, HD, DD, etc forms, fusion is highly probable. If we presume that the f/H Mills' states form, it is a separate question whether these atoms will fuse because the intermediate f/H radii are not as small as the ~1/137 DDL state. However, if you have an engine that can crank the atoms into the f/H states, could not that same engine keep ratcheting the atoms down in fraction/size toward that ultimate DDL state? The NAE (engine) that Storms proposes, would be a match made in heaven for this type of ratcheting down in size. Further, because the atoms would be part of a multi-H chain, the formation of the molecular species is highly likely and the molecules could be ratcheted down in fraction in lock step with the assembly radiating away the energy at each step. It is interesting that the Dirac equation doesn't seem to predict the intermediate f/H eigenvalues that Mills predicts. One interesting thought is that the intermediate f/H states may only be a property of the fractional molecular form. I have not seen that anyone has calculated the eigenvalues of the more complicated 4-body problem of molecular H from a Dirac-like formulation. The calculation would have to be formulated without simplifying assumptions and then the eigenvalues would have to be calculated without simplifications that could obscure unexpected states. This would probably best be tested by using a computer to evaluate the solution space numerically without simplifying assumptions. Bob Higgins On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Bob Cook > > > > Jones, do you know what they said about the possible reactions in the ref > 7 document noted above? Their comments may be of interest to LENR as well > as dark matter. > > > > The unavoidable conclusion, whether they like it or not, has to be that > the DDL does not lead to fusion, but can lead to thermal gain. >
Re: [Vo]:TechCrunch: Y Combinator And Mithril Invest In Helion, A Nuclear Fusion Startup
In the diagram in the TechCrunch article, they talk about fusing deuterium and helium. A deuterium-deuterium fusion would produce copious neutrons and is highly undesirable. They want charged particles to enable direct conversion to electrical. The Wikipedia page says they have published something about deuterium and helium-3 fusion, which Wikipedia says is an improbable commercial reaction due to limited availability of helium-3. In the TechCrunch article, the diagram shows extraction of helium(-3?) from the exhaust for injection as fuel. What I don't understand is what will PREVENT D-D fusion if the conditions are present for D-3He fusion. In fact, if they intend to breed 3He, then it seems there will be other reactions going on that probably will not be aneutronic. It sounds like a pretty neutronic mess to me, and I don't think I would want to be anywhere near the ongoing experiments. Bob On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > See: > > > http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/14/y-combinator-and-mithril-invest-in-helion-a-nuclear-fusion-startup/ > > Some points to mention: > >- Three years for them to get things going is considered a long time >(cf. BLP). >- They do not appear to be using d+t, and instead are using just >deuterium (if I've understood this detail). >- They're aiming to build a rather small device that will compete with >things like diesel generators. > > (I'm guessing they won't achieve break-even in three years' time.) > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5
Jack, You may wish to do a little more research on Mills' technique and this welder before buying. I recall (but cannot find the reference at the moment) that Mills claimed that at least 4.5V was needed to split the water into monatomic H ions. The spec for this spot welder is 2.5V, but I don't imagine that is the maximum voltage - it may just be the voltage at which it peaks at 3200 amps. Initially, like most welders, the voltage may be higher and as the plasma and melt forms, it drops to the lower voltage. I think part of Mills' technology is packaging the water in a way, that as the plasma forms, the resistance is such that the voltage is still greater than 4.5V. That is why he is claiming he needs 5V for his apparatus. Titanium may be used for keeping the voltage high enough in the arc. Also, the gap and pellet size may be chosen to maintain the voltage in the arc high enough for the disassociation he claims is required. Bob Higgins On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Jack Cole wrote: > Thanks Jones. > > Regarding Mills and titanium fuel. Anyone have a sense the degree to > which he has specially prepared the particles with water? > > I'm wondering about a relatively low cost replication attempt with a cheap > spot welder. > > > http://www.ebay.com/itm/115V-Electric-Spot-Welder-Metal-Stud-Welding-Tool-Kit-1-8-Capacity-Copper-Motor-/350848798288?pt=BI_Welders&hash=item51b037ce50 > > It says 8KW in the specs with 2.5 V. So that would be 3200 amps. This > would be ~1/6 the power input he is using. > > Best, > Jack > >
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
Jones, Do you have a reference for Naudts' paper? It would be interesting to get Yeong Kim's take on this. Some time ago, he published a paper refuting the existence of any stable f/H state. Eigenvectors, in a linear system, are a complete basis for expansion/description of any driven solution (the general solution) - even a transient one. However, I thought one of the precepts of these f/H states was that we are now entering into a relativistic framework - the smaller orbital has increasing electron velocity, making the electron effectively more massive. This is where Dirac's equation comes in, handling the special relativistic aspects of the solution. However, my understanding (and my differential equations study is many years old) is that with the addition of special relativity effects, the system is no longer linear. Thus, the eigenstates can no longer be used as a complete orthogonal basis for the general solution. It doesn't necessarily mean that the eigenvalues are wrong, only that they cannot be used in linear combination to form the general solution. General solutions to nonlinear systems are hard. As I understand it, this is where solitons emerge in the solution set. On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Should have added this. > > In the Naudts paper often quoted by Fran Roarty, the author shows that one > can make a good argument in favor of a deep fractional ground state: which > we can call f/H (the hydrino-state is trademarked) using only the standard > theory of relativistic quantum mechanics. Mills actual theory can be seen > as > superfluous, in that regard - at least as far as the deep state of f/H is > concerned - as is his rejection of QM. > > IOW - the Klein-Gordon equation has a low-lying eigenstate with square > integrable wavefunction. The corresponding spinor solution of Dirac’s > equation is apparently not square integrable. For this reason the deep > hydrino state was rejected in the early days of quantum mechanics... “Maybe > it is time to change opinion” on that rejection - is Naudt’s conclusion. > > BTW – it has been mentioned here before, that one way to overcome some of > the objections to f/H is to view the reduced ground state as transitory, > with a short but nontrivial lifetime, and with inherent asymmetry between > the “shrinkage” and the “reexpansion”. > > The inherent asymmetry will provide the energy gain in the form of UV > photons. Perhaps that is the explanation for why the spinor solution of > Dirac’s equation is not square integrable, and what we are missing in prior > understanding is the metastate permitting both. > > From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe > entangelment ... > > Just to note, I have a few issues with > Mills > CQM. > 1. Transients seam to not be covered by the > theory, only the eigen states > 2. I don't know how you do combinations of > eigenstates, QM is a linear L^2 theory, I can't find any references if > Mills > can combine solutions as in QM and how he then does it. Anyway I suspect > that you need at least 2 and proabably 1 as well in order to say something > about entanglement. No? what do you think? >
Re: [Vo]:NASA Telescope Observes Signal That Can't Be Explained By Known Physics
This is a good point, Terry. My understanding was that Mills describes these f/H states as requiring energy extraction by something other than a photon - I.E. evanescent coupling, which could be electric or magnetic field coupling to another atom. Such coupling is very short range. The interstellar medium is diffuse - more diffuse in general than an ordinary plasma. I can imagine this evanescent coupling occurring in condensed matter, but not in a diffuse interstellar medium. Perhaps the instances of the 3.48 keV spectra emission are coming from very dense shock waves in the medium which could behave more like condensed matter - but that would just be a guess. The simpler answer is that the f/H states are probably not the explanation for the observation. Bob Higgins On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Eric Walker > wrote: >> >> I have two questions that maybe someone knows the answer to: >> >>- Is Mills "predicting" a "cutoff," i.e., a broadband spectrum with a >>cutoff at 3.48 keV, or a sharp peak at 3.48 keV? >>- Is the finding in the original article a broadband spectrum with a >>cutoff, or a sharp peak? >> >> Either way, how does the H atom go from the accepted ground state to the > 1/137 fractional state in order to emit this single photon? Is that > covered in General Mills' serial? >
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
Jones, >From what I have read, you are correct that some QMS RGA instruments can read negative ions (such as potentially f/D-), but it must have a dual mode ionizer front end. In normal mode the ionizer has fast electrons that will not produce significant negative ions, and in fact the high speed electrons will typically disassociate molecules. To measure negative ions, the front end must be configurable for low speed electrons that will not cause impact ionization and will allow electron attachment. So there is easy and intentional discrimination between normal positive ion mode and optional negative ion mode of the front end. We don't know if Mizuno's RGA has the negative ion capability, but it most certainly has positive ion mode as its main (and perhaps only) mode. What was reported was highly likely the positive ion readout. We should probably presume the positive ion mode and also molecular fragmentation. Thanks for stimulating me to take a closer look at QMS. Bob Higgins On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > The quadrapole mass spec RGA will have a front end ionizer to extract an > ionized sample for measurement. I think this front end is likely to only > extract positive ions and there will be no f/D+ because there is no such > thing. > > > > AFAIK - Mass specs can be run in positive mode or negative mode. > > > > If an f/D- exists, I don't think it would be measured by the RGA. So, > M/e=2 would have to be D+ or H2+. > > > > We need to know if they were running in positive mode before we can go > that far. You could be right, but we do not have enough information. > > > > Robin may weigh in on redundant deuterons. To be honest, I had always > marginalized the possibility of “deuterino deuteride” before Yoshino/Mizuno. > > > > The great allure of it, is that it explains things in a way that is hard > to do otherwise. This is how Physics, or Fizzix, if you are in doubt - > ended up with the “neutrino”. It was invented many years before it was > found, simply to answer questions. Later it was actually found. Sometimes > you can work backward from known results. > > > > There is no doubt that lots of people thought the neutrino was a stretch. > A few still do. Nevertheless it is a case in point for using the best data > fit and then working backwards from that by the process of elimination. > > > > Jones > > >
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
Jones, Your explanation below seems really a stretch, but it certainly is a mystery. The quadrapole mass spec RGA will have a front end ionizer to extract an ionized sample for measurement. I think this front end is likely to only extract positive ions and there will be no f/D+ because there is no such thing. If an f/D- exists, I don't think it would be measured by the RGA. So, M/e=2 would have to be D+ or H2+. Even in the lower pressure of his experiment, there is likely to be little free monatomic D+ except that created by the front end ionizer of the RGA. This would make a D+ M/e=2 reading inversely related to the M/e=4 reading for D2+. Something about the experiment could be causing the RGA front end to become more effective in producing D+ in ionization of the D2 gas species as the experiment goes on. Perhaps this could be cleaning the oxide off of the RGA front end, making it more effective at breaking the D2 apart. If this were to happen, the measured M/e=4 would decline and the M/e=2 would increase at twice the rate - this would have nothing to do with the relative abundance of the species in the bulk of the apparatus. This is a simpler explanation than the one you propose. Bob Higgins On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > I have a few observations that are not being discussed here (and I may be > missing something) from the slides from the MIT Colloquium. > > · *The report for the control experiment with no excess heat also > showed the decline of the M/e=4 species and rise of the M/e=2 &3 species*. > > > This is consistent with the basic fractional deuterium reaction, in a > modified Millsean understanding, where the first redundant state is energy > neutral. There is no excess heat because, and unlike Mills theory, the > first stage ionization and redundancy is itself endothermic, and borrows > from the output. After the first step there is net gain, but it takes time > to build up a population of fractional D (designated as f/D or f/D- if in > the hydride state, which is stable and shows up as M/e=2. This stable ion > is what Mills might call deuterino deuteride. It is the correlate of > hydrino hydride – a stable negative ion. > > Of course, it is more complicated than that, since there needs to be some > hydrogen retained in the nickel (to give M/e=3 by exchange reaction) but > with as many runs as Mizuno made in the testing – and with both H2 and D2, > I do not believe he can completely clean the system of one species or the > other for every run. > > Jones >
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
I have a few observations that are not being discussed here (and I may be missing something) from the slides from the MIT Colloquium. - *The report for the control experiment with no excess heat also showed the decline of the M/e=4 species and rise of the M/e=2 &3 species*. The two curves look qualitatively the same. - In both experiments (excess heat and control), there appears to be a loss of total mass of gas vs. time - by almost half in mass across the experiment. - Most of the mass loss was lost in the first half of the experiment, then remaining nearly constant - yet the excess heat continued at about the same power. It appears that the excess heat does not correlate well with the loss of total mass of gas. - The excess heat does not correlate with the amount of M/e=4 species. - The gas "quantity" (is this a number of particles "quantity"?) grew across the experiment even though the gas total mass declined. - The excess heat does seem to correlate with Mizuno's total gas quantity curve and the M/e=2 curve which look similar. Bob Higgins On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Apparently, many of the observers of LENR, especially among those who did > not attend, are unwilling to give due credit to the paradigm shift which > happened earlier this year at the MIT colloquium - in the Clean-Planet > presentation of Yoshino, based on Mizuno's work. This is arguably the most > important experiment with deuterium since 1989. This was like a > hand-grenade > being tossed into the field of LENR and Yoshino's demeanor blew away the > audience. > > This reluctance of others to see the full impact of this amazing result - > despite the fact that Mizuno's experiment appears to be far and away the > most robust experiment ever conducted with deuterium as the active gas > (over > 100 megajoules) is regrettable. The images of the setup should give every > indication of a top-notch, well-funded effort. Nothing comparable is > going-on with deuterium anywhere in 2014, AFAIK. > > What is the next highest energy output for a single run (using deuterium, > not hydrogen) to compare against this 100 megajoules? My suspicion is that > it is at least 500% lower. > > The problem with Yoshino/Mizuno is that it does not fit into prior > expectations of 24 years, not into the explanatory framework of cold > fusion. > In fact, it overturns the apple-carts in a way that many find most > disturbing, especially since it really could be the premier experiment with > deuterium. Yet: > > 1) Deuterium does not convert into helium > 2) Deuterium molecules, in the sense of a mass-4 species, are > essentially gone and replaced with mass-2 species which is not necessarily > H2. > 3) There were indications of mass-3 and of course mass-4 earlier in > the > experiment > > Curiously, there is an hybrid explanation which is "out there" and can > accurately explain this circumstance completely, and can even explain the > past claims of helium in the legion of milliwatt experiments, but it > involves merging CQM and nanomagnetism with LENR. The so-called experts are > balking at any hybrid. > > I doubt that many here on vortex, really grasp how elegant this explanation > is, other than Robin and a few others who have already been trying to > integrate the two cultures. That is because LENR supporters want to freeze > out CQM, and Mills supporters want to freeze out LENR. Most disturbing, > Mizuno himself seems to be immune to accurate explanations, since he cares > mostly about the data (to his credit) but apparently thinks his work is > still a form of fusion (out of habit). > > It is almost a clash of cultures but it is finally coming to a resolution. > > Jones > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
In this case, I am talking about the previous demonstration where the COP was only about 2. Were we supposed to forget about that one? Because the calorimetry was not described, and how the conductor heat loss was considered was not spelled out, it is not fair to assume they were ignored. The difference could be a factor of 2, depending on how these losses were accounted. Calorimetry is frequently done by measuring temperature as a function of time - this provides no evidence that the Qcond was considered or ignored. I believe that Mills IS showing an overunity device. Others that preceded him with arc driven systems also showed overunity devices. Santilli shows that LENR is occurring in an arc driven system (unmistakable transmutation evidence). I think it is likely that Mills is seeing LENR. He would not want to say this because his patents only cover the f/h heat generation and if it were LENR, he wouldn't have any more protection than anyone else. This would affect investor response. Claims for COP being large are a big deal for Mills' company and investors. If the COP is less than about 5, he is going to have a hard time reaching electrical break-even. A COP of 5 is revolutionary, but it is not going to be a simple machine or cheap source of electrical power - this affects the business case and the investment. Claiming COPs of >10 at this point, without supporting data is just speculative propaganda, and reduces the credibility of all of the LENR field. Mills does have the advantage in working in a high enthalpy regime. The enthalpy of electrolytic LENR systems was really low - hard to convert to useful energy. Rossi really amped up the enthalpy by first going to steam temperatures, and now 400-600C operating temperatures. Mills' arc driven system is much hotter and higher enthalpy still - probably operating in the 1000C+ range. In this range, the enthalpy is high and the Carnot efficiency is high. Don't get me wrong. I have not ruled out Mills' f/h states or even a single DDL state as being possible. In fact, I like the idea and feel that if these states exist, they would be instrumental in LENR by providing a means for the energy to be removed from the input atoms before fusion occurs, eliminating the need for a big energy release after fusion occurs (which is not observed). Yeong Kim published a QM analysis that said these states basically do not exist. However, the existence (or not) could be pre-determined by the formulation of the problem. Mills formulated the problem in a different way and found these states to exist. So, I am still hopeful that these states exist. I applaud Mills for his steadfast research and getting the funding to do the work. What I hate is the unwarranted hype with big short term claims that just seem to disappear into the noise as their completion date approaches - when they fail and are discarded. It hurts the credibility of LENR research and the ability of others to get funding. Bob On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: > Bob, if you view the video where the calorimetry was being demonstrated, > it appears that the heat was calculated from the temp rise. It seems to me > that if there was Qcond being conducted out of the conductor, it was > ignore. That means that the energy output was underestimated because Qcond > was not measured at all; only the temp rise in the calorimeter was > considered. > > Also, the COP was 4+ based on this specific single explosion, Mills did > not claim COP of 2. > > Jojo > > > - Original Message - > *From:* Bob Higgins > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:28 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner? > > I thought it was important to say more explicitly why I believe the > Mills demo calorimetry may be flawed. I hope the enclosed diagram will > come through to Vortex – I have seen others come through recently and I > tried to make this a small image file. If it doesn’t come through, I > apologize. Since I was not there to examine the calorimeter, I am > describing what I believe was used - and this is just reasonable > speculation. > > > > > If we had an ideal calorimeter, and some energy is input inside, Ein, one > would expect to measure a total heat flux of the calorimeter, Qmeas, equal > to Ein. If you put in 5 joules of input energy, the total integrated heat > measured (Qmeas) should be 5 joules of heat. In the ideal calorimeter, all > heat generated inside gets measured, 100%. > > > Now, for Mills to measure his water/catalyst arc detonations, large > electrodes must be inserted through the calorimeter walls so that the > detonation occurs inside. In general, the apparatus to provide the source > energy for the arc is outside of the calorimeter (physically large). In > thi
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
I thought it was important to say more explicitly why I believe the Mills demo calorimetry may be flawed. I hope the enclosed diagram will come through to Vortex – I have seen others come through recently and I tried to make this a small image file. If it doesn’t come through, I apologize. Since I was not there to examine the calorimeter, I am describing what I believe was used - and this is just reasonable speculation. If we had an ideal calorimeter, and some energy is input inside, Ein, one would expect to measure a total heat flux of the calorimeter, Qmeas, equal to Ein. If you put in 5 joules of input energy, the total integrated heat measured (Qmeas) should be 5 joules of heat. In the ideal calorimeter, all heat generated inside gets measured, 100%. Now, for Mills to measure his water/catalyst arc detonations, large electrodes must be inserted through the calorimeter walls so that the detonation occurs inside. In general, the apparatus to provide the source energy for the arc is outside of the calorimeter (physically large). In this simplified description, there are 2 ways for the heat to leave the calorimeter: 1) through the calorimeter’s heat sensing mechanism (measures Qmeas), and 2) through the arc conductors, call this heat Qcond. Since there is a large current flowing in the arc, it is nearly impossible to insert something in the conductor so as to directly measure the heat flow going through the conductor. So, what to do? Well, Ein is usually measurable electrically. To find Qcond, then perform a reference (blind) experiment. Don’t put anything inside the arc gap, fire it with energy, Ein1, measure Qmeas1 and calculate Qcond1 = Ein1 – Qmeas1 Now put in the water/catalyst in the arc gap and detonate it. You think Qcond should be the same (Qcond1) and you calculate the total energy output as Qtot2 = Qmeas2 + Qcond1 and you go on to calculate the COP as COP = (Qmeas2 + Qcond1)/Ein (presuming Ein is constant for now) So, where is the flaw in this? Consider (for a mental experiment) that for the blind you evacuated the calorimeter. When the arc is fired, all of its electrons will impact the positive electrode. Most of the energy will be deposited as heat directly in the electrode and will be conducted out as Qcond; very little will show up in Qmeas. In this case Qcond may be fairly close to Ein. Now lets say you put in some micro-encapsulated metal (so that you don’t short the electrodes), and you fire the arc. Most of the electrons will impact the metal in the gap and heat it to a quite high temperature. There will be some evaporation, and some material expelled (ejecta) that is very hot. In this case, more of Ein will be measured by the calorimeter as Qmeas, and Qcond will be smaller than the vacuum case. Now, put in the water/catalyst and fire the arc. As the demonstration showed, the detonation is a lot louder and brighter. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the heat generation was any more, but it does mean that there was more ejecta (including steam) and increased visible photon radiation. All of the ejecta (including steam) and the light carry energy away from the arc and Qcond is less still. Call Qmeas-wc the heat measured by the calorimeter when the water/catalyst is used and Qcond-blind the conductor heat calculated from the blind calibration calculation. When the COP is calculated as COP = (Qmeas-wc + Qcond-blind)/Ein it comes out higher than the real COP value because Qcond-blind is larger than the true (and not measurable) Qcond-wc, by probably a large amount. Intuition tells me that Qcond will be a fairly large part of the heat in all tests, so an error in the Qcond used in the COP calculation will create a similar, but slightly less error in the COP. Mills only demonstrated a COP of about 2. Because of this kind of error, the COP could easily have been closer to 1. This is an extremely difficult modified calorimeter to calibrate. Perhaps when Mills makes the arc source small enough to fit entirely in the calorimeter (except for some tiny capacitor charging wires), it will be possible to get an accurate measurement. Bob Higgins On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: > 2. I don't agree with your analysis of the Bomb Calorimetry. Larger > conductors if any should lessen the heat because its resistance to current > is lower. Furthermore, larger conductors have a larger and heavier thermal > mass and should therefore absorb heat and cause the temperature rise to be > lower. The heat output was estimated from the temperature rise. If there > is a large thermal mass like large conductors, it should cause a lower > temperature rise inside. If any, the modifications you object to would > "UNDER" estimate the output power. Besides, it matters not if there is a > large conductor. You claim that these larger conductor carried heat. > Yea??? heat f
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
First, the fact that the same output could be obtained with a 5J input is completely undocumented - it is just thrown out there and without presented demonstration or experimental data - the comment is worthless. Their calorimetry appears to be flawed. They have apparently modified the calorimeter to bring in huge current carrying conductors, and everyone knows that what carries current well also transports heat well. The heat carried by these conductors needed to be calibrated out of the reaction, but this was done in a way that did not account for the heat contained in the ejecta of the actual experiment. The result is an overestimation of the heat carried out by the conductors and subsequently an overestimation of the COP. I am not saying that his COP is less than 1. I think he may be realizing excess heat. I just don't believe his claim for high COP at all. And with low COP, you will not be able to convert to electricity with net gain. I think he has an advantage in that he has high enthalpy of his output, but the COP is low. The prospect of converting MW of light (even if the efficiency made sense) is pretty ridiculous. I built a 5.4 kW array for solar electric and it had 67 square meters of collection area. Do you really think he will be able to collect even 5 kW in a single square meter? 100kW would melt the PV cells due to inefficiency. It is about as [im]practical as his completely flawed plan to use MHD conversion. Note also the work of Santilli with similar high current experiments. His work was subsequently reproduced by Kadeisvili. Santilli showed that in high current discharge, LENR transmutation occurred at a reasonably high rate. The transmutation evidence was strong, indicating LENR was occurring in this high current discharge. Mills may actually get excess heat, but much of it may be coming from LENR. Mills does not want this to be the case, because heat produced via LENR would not be covered by his patents. So he doesn't look for the transmutation products in his result, or he doesn't publish that data. Mills may be correct about the fractional quantum states of hydrogen and they may be complicit in LENR. But he would lose a lot of his patent value if the heat were proved to actually be coming from LENR. Bob Higgins On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: > If I remember correctly, it is about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way on video 1. > A guy named Jim??? did the bomb calorimetry and he showed the output graph > of the temp rise which he calculated to be around 623+ J. Randy then > explain that the input power was around 200+ J because the fuel was > enclosed in an aluminum sphere shell so it takes energy to vaporize the > aluminum sphere shell also. He then explained that if the fuel is > detonated directly, that the input energy is 5J instead of 200+ J. They > then explained that in this particular single explosion, the COP was 4+. > >
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
I don't think I have ever seen this description of the plasma collision of d-d. I was reading about the nature of the strong force and trying to understand the plasma fusion branches when I developed this mental picture. I don't really understand what you mean by "strong Coulomb field in the background". In plasma fusion, I envision the Coulomb field primarily coming from repulsion from the two protons as they approach each other. In this case I envision the center of mass as being between the n and p, but the Coulombic repulsion is between the 2 protons which sets the ion in rotation to try and put the protons on the outside - away from the approaching collision. The speed of approach is so high that the ion has very little time to change its rotation, so it is probably only a small phase change and only a small effect in enhancing the d(d,p)t branch. I think of the strong force, as I said as being an effect that is extremely strong over only a fraction of a diameter of the nucleon. If you think of the nucleon being stuck on contact, but not in its final, minimal energy location within the nucleus, the acceleration on that nucleon is immense due to the extreme force applied by the strong force and light weight of the nucleon. This causes the nucleon to move extremely quickly to its final position, where it would need to stop with high acceleration as well. This makes me wonder about Bremsstrahlung in this case, only the transit time for the stuck nucleon from starting to final position may be much shorter than the period of an x-ray. Bob On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Bob Higgins > wrote: > > When you speak of the plasma fusion output channels, I like to think of it >> in a Bohr-sian way. Presuming plasma, you have isolated deuterium nuclei, >> with each nucleus spinning around random vectors. When a pair approaches >> with a trajectory alignment that the collision will result in fusion, the >> relative rotation between the nuclei is still random. >> > > After thinking about this more, I kind of like your description for the > three dd branches. Is it something you heard or read about somewhere, or > just what made sense to you? > > The strong force is like fly paper - it is so short range (fraction of a >> nucleon diameter), you have to essentially "touch" before sticking. So you >> end up with 3 possibilities of this close approach: 1) proton is closest >> and hits and sticks first, 2) neutron is closest and hits and sticks first, >> and 3) the proton and neutron hit just right so that they both hit at the >> same time and stick in an interlocking fashion. When 1) happens, a neutron >> is released and you get 3He. When 2 happens, a proton is released and you >> get tritium, and when 3) happens you get 4He and a gamma. >> > > Another possible interpretation of this is that in the d(d,p)t and > d(d,n)3He branches, the two d's do not fully tunnel into a compound > nucleus. Instead, the individual nucleons (p in one case, and n in the > other) tunnel across the potential barrier along the lines of the > Oppenheimer-Phillips process and are stripped off of the d that once held > them. Preceding the scattering, there may or may not be reorientation of > the d's to account for Coulomb repulsion from the proton in the oncoming d. > > This would predict that 1) and 2) would be fairly common and 3) would be >> very rare. However, because of the Coulomb field, as the deuterium nuclei >> approach each other, it would push the protons apart, making the neutrons >> more likely to face each other, but this only happens at the last minute. >> Because of this, 2) may be slightly more favored. >> > > A different prediction would be that the strong Coulomb field in the > background orients the d's so that the constituent p's are facing out away > along the gradient towards less charge. So the incident d's would look > like this: > > Coulomb field > + > > n n > | -> <- | > p p > > In this scenario, the two d's collide in parallel instead of oriented at > random or in tandem. > > Eric >
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
Of course the calorimeter can measure sunlight. Basically, if the light doesn't escape from the calorimeter, it was converted to heat and measured, probably quite accurately. The only question is whether the soft x-rays escaped. However, if Mills plans to capture these in silicon, then they would also have been measured by the calorimeter. To escape the calorimeter would require high energy x-rays and a lot of these would also have been measured to a lesser efficiency. Bob Higgins On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > Are you saying calorimeter measurements can measure sunlilght, UV and > soft X-Rays? I didn't think that was the case. > > > > Again, according to "the doctor" that's where most of the energy resides. >
Re: [Vo]:Re: Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
I am not responding as a LENR skeptic. I do not believe that CPO = 2 is the new COP=1. And, I do believe LENR is a real effect. However, a thermal COP is difficult to measure without equivocation, particularly in explosive events. I saw errors in the previous Mills calorimetry being done when only a COP~2 was being demonstrated. There was enough uncertainty for me to not be convinced that COP was even greater than 1. Peter's claim that only 5J is needed to ignite the fuel pellet is a not-publicly-demonstrated claim (did I miss that demonstration?), that cannot be taken as true until demonstrated. Basically the whole premise of the SunCell hinges on that key fact which has not been (publicly) demonstrated. If Mills believes it can be done in 5J based upon his private experiments, he should build the machine and show it producing lots of net energy. I am not closed minded and I will believe a credible demo when I see it reported. I won't believe speculation - but - cogent speculation does deserve to be investigated. LENR has been demonstrated at high currents. See the Santilli papers and Kadeisvili's replication of his transmutation work. Bob Higgins On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:53 AM, wrote: > Hello Bob > > To ignite a fuel aliquot only 5J is needed ( 5 V 10,000Amps 0.1 msec). > The seam welder > which produces the high current in the SunCell system needs about 200-300J > to ignite the sample bcs of inefficiencies. > So building a better powersystem will increase the excess energy and power > considerable. > > Peter >
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
That explanation is completely faulty. Did the visible spectrum escape the calorimeter? If not, it was all converted to heat and should have been measured. On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > How about this... > > The calorimeter only measures the heat (infrared portion of the emission > spectrum). The visible and EUV portion of the emissions spectrum carry the > majority of the reaction energy. > > There is the plasma blast energy that is lost which could be substantial. > The majority of the energy produced by this sort of reaction is the energy > carried by the electrons liberated by the plasma and also contributed by > the electric arc, It is a mistake of the first order to waste the energy > content of these electrons. > >
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
If Mills' water detonations for the SunCell are so energetic that he has a rumored COP of 100, then why did the previous demonstration in a calorimeter (which would have captured all of the radiant energy) only show a COP of ~2? I even think this was in error (the calorimetry) for failure to adequately account for the ejecta in the control vs. actual experiment. Why is Mills suddenly able to claim a high COP? Bob Higgins On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > I certainly do not dispute the long list of prior BLP predictions that > failed to come to fruition. > > > > I think where I'm coming from is that, at least from my perception, it > looks to me as if Mills senses something much more substantial with the > SunCell technology working in tandem with the CIHT process. It appears to > me as if Mills is betting the farm on the success of the latest technology. > Make or break time. I grant you this is a subjective opinion. No more. No > less. > > > > In the meantime, I really would like to acquire a better confidence level > that the recycling process is not that difficult to do. That's one of the > reasons I have been repeatedly harping on this subject, looking for > different opinions and clarification from others. All we have to go on is > Mills claim that it is. At present I'm willing to give Mills the benefit of > the doubt... but only to a point. As the famous slogan went: "Trust, but > verify" You are not so sure giving Mills the benefit of the doubt is > warranted. I respect your doubt. > > > > So, here we are... until further developments. > > > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > svjart.orionworks.com > > zazzle.com/orionworks >
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
To Eric's discussion of downconversion ... When you speak of the plasma fusion output channels, I like to think of it in a Bohr-sian way. Presuming plasma, you have isolated deuterium nuclei, with each nucleus spinning around random vectors. When a pair approaches with a trajectory alignment that the collision will result in fusion, the relative rotation between the nuclei is still random. The strong force is like fly paper - it is so short range (fraction of a nucleon diameter), you have to essentially "touch" before sticking. So you end up with 3 possibilities of this close approach: 1) proton is closest and hits and sticks first, 2) neutron is closest and hits and sticks first, and 3) the proton and neutron hit just right so that they both hit at the same time and stick in an interlocking fashion. When 1) happens, a neutron is released and you get 3He. When 2 happens, a proton is released and you get tritium, and when 3) happens you get 4He and a gamma. This would predict that 1) and 2) would be fairly common and 3) would be very rare. However, because of the Coulomb field, as the deuterium nuclei approach each other, it would push the protons apart, making the neutrons more likely to face each other, but this only happens at the last minute. Because of this, 2) may be slightly more favored. I don't like to think of this plasma fusion as a black box wherein two nuclei collide and through some magic this set of statistical outcomes emerges. Once you start thinking about why these channels emerge, you can begin to think about why LENR leads to its own output channels. Downshifting reminds me of subharmonic conversion since I come from an EE background. You cannot get subharmonic conversion without coupling to a very strong nonlinearity. Even then, the output resonance must be harmonically matched to the input frequency for any kind of efficiency. When everything is tuned up perfectly, and with a very strong nonlinearity, you get fairly efficient conversion, but that may mean 20-40%. One of the things about Hagelstein's proposition that bothers me is that the excited nucleus does not want to stay excited for very long - it decays in an incredibly short time. Suppose you are de-exciting a dd* that wants to release 24 MeV of energy with a set of phonons at 10THz. The frequency difference is 24MeV=5.8e21Hz compared to 10THz=1E13Hz or a ratio of 5.8E8. If you are taking the energy away with a 5.8E8x lower frequency phonon, it seems like it would take 5.8E8x as long to extract the energy. Can an excited nucleus be coerced into waiting to burp that long? It seems like it would require extreme coupling between the excited nucleus and the lattice for that to happen - much more coupling than the exchange coupling of the electronic lattice can provide. Axil has been talking about interacting waves ... My EE training also tells me that waves are 2 ships that cross in the night and neither knows that the other is there and neither affects the other UNLESS there is the presence of a nonlinear medium that they both traverse simultaneously. I am not saying that the vacuum is perfectly linear, but by most of our experience in the macro world, the vacuum is nearly perfectly linear; otherwise radio would not work as we know it. As we get to nuclear scales, this may be different. Also note that solitons are solutions to a nonlinear equation - it seems that the nonlinearity must be present for solitons to propagate. If it is the case that the "wave" nature of elementary particles is more soliton-like, it may be indicating that the vacuum is not linear at the scales of elementary particles. Once the nonlinearity is invoked at that scale, there may be wave-to-wave coupling. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
I did not think I originated it, but I am convinced of it. This came up in particular for the proposed shielding effect by WL. It is a similar issue. Once the atom is excited with high energy to be released very quickly, it is difficult for pretty much any de-excitation mechanism to be 100% effective in reducing the energy to low level quanta. In the WL case, I doubt that such a mechanism could be even 50% effective from geometry alone. But you are correct that this argument may not apply in all such cases. I haven't seen a case yet where I believe that the downshifting mechanism or blocking mechanism could be 100% effective. That doesn't at all prove there isn't a scenario which could be 100% effective - I just can't see it. Bob On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > The problem is that after the high energy gamma is created, it is not > plausible that 100% of the quanta are downshifted - some will fail in this > post-fusion downshifting and be released as high energy. > > > Where dis this assumption come from? > >
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
The problem is that after the high energy gamma is created, it is not plausible that 100% of the quanta are downshifted - some will fail in this post-fusion downshifting and be released as high energy. Since 0% high energy quanta are seen experimentally, the high energy quanta must not get created during LENR. Storms has posited that most of the mass-energy must be removed in preparing the fusing atoms for fusion as part of the LENR process, such that there is no huge quanta to be released after fusion occurs. If the mass-energy is not removed, there is no LENR fusion. Thus, whenever LENR fusion occurs, there is no high energy quanta to be released in 100% of the cases. I think this is good logic. Bob On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > What parameter is limiting the downshift exactly? Ahern has speculated > that ferromagnetic collective modes, first explored by Ulam, are at play in > LENR. These systems tend to amplify the vibratory modes of a system and > then tend to localize energy in a coherent fashion -- seemingly in > violation of the second law (i.e. an open system phenomenon). This seems > compatible with Hagelstein. If this sort of self-organizing collective mode > is at play in LENR, what's to limit the downshifting/sharing effect across > the system? > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Eric Walker > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Jones Beene >> wrote: >> >> Hagelstein has never been able to find a physical model for his >>> contention, >>> not even one which is remotely close - and it is amazing that he has not >>> thrown in the towel on a losing battle. It simply does not happen in the >>> real world. >>> >> >> I agree with you on this one, Jones. Even a year ago I was persuaded >> that there must be some kind of high-energy gamma downconversion at play >> (or, as was suggested, possibly some upconversion). But I don't find this >> a promising lead anymore. I find even less likely the possibility that the >> downconversion would be mediated by phonons (although I'm not exactly sure >> what Hagelstein's position is on this subject). >> >> Eric >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
I believe Peter Hagelstein is excited about the Karabut result because he believes that Karabut demonstrates high energy x-ray photons being synthesized by a collective sum of much lower energy lattice phonons. If it is possible for this up-conversion to occur, then it lends credibility to his theory that the down-conversion of high energy photons to lattice phonons (fractionalization) can occur as he predicts with his theory. Bob H. On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: I think Hagelstein draws on Karabuts work as well, but the relevance to his > model is not readily apparent as Peter's work is hard to understand > sometimes (for a layman like me), maybe other theorists have as well but I > didn't understand how his observations were incorporated into their work. >
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \"The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\"
What I meant is that Rossi doesn't make is own starting (un-catalyzed) Ni particles, he buys them. The Ni powder he buys is produced by the manufacturer from precipitation of liquid nickel tetracarbonyl. The powder produced by this process is just pure Ni having a high external surface area in a 4-10 micron flower bud form. It is commonly referred to as "carbonyl nickel" because it was produced from that process. That Rossi just buys this pure "carbonyl Ni" powder is my assertion. Bob On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Bob Cook wrote: > Bob-- > > You said, “I don't believe Rossi uses the carbonyl process,…” > > I assume you mean Rossi DOES use the carbonyl process to make his nickel > particles. > > If you send a copy of your paper to Arnaud send me one also please > frobertc...@hotmail.com > > Bob Cook >
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \"The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\"
Arnaud, I don't believe Rossi uses the carbonyl process, I am referring to high external surface area Ni micro-particles produced through precipitation of pure Ni particles from nickel tetracarbonyl liquid. This is a common form of pure, high active external surface Ni powder used in battery applications for example. It is supplied by the nickel manufacturer as pure Ni powder having very distinctive flower-bud-like particles with a diameter in the 4-10 micron range. Nickel tetracarbonyl liquid is dangerously poison and NEVER used by the end user. The (poor) photograph in Rossi's patent and his specific statement that Raney Ni will not work led me to the conclusion that he is using carbonyl Ni powder. Also, Defkalion, his early partner, went straightaway to this carbonyl Ni powder as their starting point. I believe Rossi uses Fe2O3 nanopowder as his catalyst, and thermochemically processes the powder into the Ni particles. He creates the "tubercles" he describes using the thermochemical processing. According to Rossi, just adding the nanoparticles will not result in significant LENR. Addition of the nanoparticles and thermochemical processing together would support the formation of NAE as cracks as Ed Storms describes, and maybe even the magnetic traps as described by Yeong Kim. I wrote a paper about this processing. If you are interested, private email me and I will send you a copy. It was posted to Vortex before. Bob Higgins On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Arnaud Kodeck wrote: > Hello Bob, > > > > I agree with you that Rossi does NOT use nano sized Ni particles. He has > always said that he use micro sized Ni particles. But can you point > explicitly a sentence from Rossi saying he use the carbonyl process or is > it an assumption? I never haerd such claim by Rossi. > > > > It is clear that the Ni particles has a treatment to enhance the loading > of H inside the lattice (with Cu or/and La?). There are also nano sized > builds that create the SPP that trigger the reaction. The nano sized builds > need to survive high temperature. > > > > Arnaud >
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \"The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\"
Bob, This is a common misconception. Rossi does NOT use nano-Ni. Rossi uses Ni particles (from the carbonyl process) that have a high external area and particle diameter of 4-8 microns. Rossi adds a catalyst, that is believed to be a nanopowder, to the carbonyl Ni particles and then "grows" features on the Ni. Bob Higgins On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > Rossi claims that he uses nano-nickel particles. I have no idea what > the sintering and melting temperatures of those structures. We know that > carbon nano structures have very good high temperature properties. A Ni-H > nano structure may even be better at high temperatures. > > I would not give up on Ni even in the hot cat performance. Something > Rossi introduced say white hot conditions. Of course it may be a fake. I > think he has been honest with what he has said. He may withhold > information also, however. > > I learned much in reactor design due to early failures. The new designs > after failure generally allowed for higher temperature operations and > greater power output. I would bet Rossi is not beyond learning from his > failures. > > Bob > > > > Sent from Windows Mail > > *From:* Roarty, Francis X > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:51 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Axil, nice insight which also gives support to dynamic formation of > plasma in the Papp engine. I was also one of those who felt self > destruction would bring the reaction to a halt but the Rossi melt down does > point to the continued run away reaction even after the geometry has > melted. Like they say it gets worse before it gets better :_) > > Fran > > > > *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:44 AM > *To:* vortex-l > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: \"The Explanation > of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction\" > > > > One of the possibilities is that there are many types of nano-antennas > formed in the NiH system. When starting up the major carrier of the > reaction are the nanowires. But as the reactor heats up and its energy > output is increased, then the reaction sites may form in the spaces between > nano-particles. > > > > The lesson thought to use by the meltdown of Rossi's reactor when the > temperature of the reactor passes 2000C is that the permanent reaction > sites will melt and be destroyed by the high heat. > > > > However, the reaction still continues at an accelerated pace. In 10 > seconds, when control of the reactor is lost, the reactor goes from 1000C > to 2000C and produces a power output of a megawatt. > > > > During this meltdown process the reaction carrier must have shifted from > primarily the nanowire to completely nanoparticles. When the hydrogen > containment fails, the reaction carrier must be completely nanoparticles. > > > > The take away, there are many ways in which the LENR reaction can be > carried. At any given time, the situation will govern which mechanism will > denominate. > > > > *By the way, Ed Storms theory cannot support this dynamic variation is > reaction mechanisms. Ed never wanted to add NiH reactor meltdown to his > collection of experimental results.* > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Peter Gluck > wrote: > > The simplest answer to these question is YES. > > A bit longer one; > > - as you know, DGT works by making hydrogen more reactive > > and Ni more receptive, if you read their ICCF-17 paper you will see they > > are increasing the mobility of the surfaces of Ni crystals- we still have > to see > > what exactly can play the role of a nano-antenna, is there unity in > diversity > > or even greater diversity in diversity- details have to be discovered, > what i am convinced is- it is not about simple cracks, however the very > surace of cracks can be ACTIVE > > > > - yes, I think at LENR+ active sites are created very dynamically, we ahve > to learn the Know Why and how to accelearte in a controlled way the process > > (let me repeat I am using NAE in other sense- the NAEnvironment is the > > complete cell- F& P, or Piantelli etc , the entire E-cat or Hyperion) > > > > - i still don't know the details regarding the death, birth and activity > > of the active sites- it is a captivating story > > > > Whatever they are and however they work I also think as AXIL that > > nanoplasmonics and BEC play a decisive role. We have to study the complete > scenario. > > > > peter > > > > > > > > . > > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Izna
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
This is not a violation of thermodynamics, but a failure to identify the true starting total energy state which must include the fractional Rydberg states of the atoms if such states exist. Yeong Kim's paper describes his solution to the wave equation for sub-ground states and his solution says they don't exist at deep levels. Such analyses begin with assumptions and Yeong's could be wrong (or not). He presumed that the general solution would have to be continuous, but it is possible that the solution is discontinuous. I have not read what I consider to be the final word on the (non)existence of the f/R and DDL hydrogen states. If I recall correctly, in Ed's first book, he did not completely dismiss Mills' work. Bob On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > I seriously doubt that Ed Storms would permit the blatant violation of the > strictures of thermodynamics to embrace your scenario. > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Bob Higgins > wrote: > >> I completely disagree Axil, the Mizuno endothermic (or Ahern endothermic) >> observation is not at all catastrophic. >> >> You said: >> >> This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic >>> sacrilege of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and >>> inviolable laws of thermodynamics. >>> >> Once you have a coupled resonant structure, such as Ed's hydroton, and if >> you include the concept that within the hydroton could exist fractional >> Rydberg state H (like Mills), then you have a structure that can also >> absorb energy. Resonant structures make great receivers as well as >> transmitters. The resonant structure provides the evanescent coupling to >> the fractional state H atoms. These atoms can be elevated from their >> fractional state by evanescent coupling as well as being lowered in >> fractional state through the same evanescent coupling. Depending on the >> state of the system, it seems plausible that such resonant structures could >> absorb a significant amount of energy and elevate fractional state hydrogen >> atoms to a state closer to ground state. >> >> Bob Higgins >> > >
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
I completely disagree Axil, the Mizuno endothermic (or Ahern endothermic) observation is not at all catastrophic. You said: This contemplation of an endothermic mechanism is a catastrophic sacrilege > of epic proportions for Ed because it violates his beloved and inviolable > laws of thermodynamics. > Once you have a coupled resonant structure, such as Ed's hydroton, and if you include the concept that within the hydroton could exist fractional Rydberg state H (like Mills), then you have a structure that can also absorb energy. Resonant structures make great receivers as well as transmitters. The resonant structure provides the evanescent coupling to the fractional state H atoms. These atoms can be elevated from their fractional state by evanescent coupling as well as being lowered in fractional state through the same evanescent coupling. Depending on the state of the system, it seems plausible that such resonant structures could absorb a significant amount of energy and elevate fractional state hydrogen atoms to a state closer to ground state. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction"
Jones, I think you did not understand or agree with what I said previously in bullet 4). On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > From: Bob Higgins > Consider that the DDL state is regarded as being about 511 keV less than H in normal ground state. The mass energy difference between 2 ground state H atoms and a ground state D atom is 1.66 MeV… So, now the H#2 molecule may only be 1.66 - 2(.511) - (.1) = 538 keV different than the ground state D. > Agreed. This 538 keV is still too large to go unnoticed without a step-down process but it does bring to mind the other possibility which itself is the downshifting mechanism itself – especially if the this DDL state is, in essence – dark matter. Mills and others believe this to be true. What I previously explained in 4) was that when the H#2 fuses, one electron ends up becoming part of a neutron (inverse beta) and the other electron is still in a fractional DDL orbital. When the nucleus gives off its residual 538 keV, it does so by giving it to the electron in that degenerate orbital. It will take 511 keV of the 538 keV to elevate the electron back to the ground state, so at that point, there is only 27 keV left in electron kinetic energy (in my previous post I made a stupid mental subtraction error and came out with 22 keV, but in this example, it is 27 keV). Since it only takes about 16 eV to ionize the atom, the electron continues on its way with essentially 27 keV of energy and the deuterium ion is left. I am not sure how and when the kinetic energy will be divided between the deuterium nucleus and the electron [Would the two only divide the 27 keV?]. Even still, this is much closer to the 3.5 keV x-ray in the dark matter. Bob H.
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction"
Jones and Bob, Jones, you said that: I agree that the BEC is a fiction at elevated temperature, I don't think Yeong Kim proposes a classical cold temperature BEC as the source of his fusion. He told me that the condensates he has postulated form in magnetic traps in the material. So, at elevated temperature, the atoms are coupled by the magnetic field that is trapping them. I cannot say that I understand the rigor of the trap that he proposes, or what it would take to make such a trap. However, I believe Rossi's nano-catalyst is nano-metric iron alloyed into the Ni particles. Such alloys can have extremely high permeability and in nanoscale Ni-Fe spots, who knows what kind of magnetic (trapping) properties could be found. I am not willing to rule out such magnetically trapped condensates as a possibility. Also, I am not sure the DDL H (H#) combining to D is that far off in energy. Consider that the DDL state is regarded as being about 511 keV less than H in normal ground state. The mass energy difference between 2 ground state H atoms and a ground state D atom is 1.66 MeV (if I calculated correctly). Now suppose we had this scenario: 1) H2 molecule within a resonant coupled string, coupling energy out of the H2 by evanescent coupling (perhaps within a crack) 2) Each of the atoms decrease in energy simultaneously and fractionally until reaching the DDL in each atom while still a molecule 3) The actual energy of each of the H atoms would have decreased by more than 2 x (511 keV) because of the Gibbs energy loss in the formation of the H#2 molecule. In fact, when the H atoms are in the DDL state, the Gibbs energy forming the H#2 molecule may be very large (guess 100 keV). So, now the H#2 molecule may only be 1.66 - 2(.511) - (.1) = 538 keV different than the ground state D. Also, the H# is regarded as 50x smaller than a muonic H atom - and more much more likely to enter another nucleus. 4) Suppose now that the H#2 fuses to D. There would be 538 keV for the nucleus to release. However, remember that the electron is in tight DDL orbit and it will take 511 keV to get that electron back to the ground state. So, if the H#2 fuses and transfers its energy to the electron, most of it will go into getting the electron back to the ground state, and then the left over would be a high kinetic energy electron (22 keV in this example) that did NOT come from the nucleus, but as ionization energy of the left over electron after the fusion. 5) When this electron is captured it gives up its 22 keV of energy along with some minor Bremsstrahlung low energy x-rays. However, the total energy given off before fusion and after will be the 1.66 MeV with much of that going into the formation of the H#2 and only a little given off when the fusion occurs. 6) Sometimes a single H# or an H#2 gets ejected and becomes the strange radiation capable of activating materials external to the test apparatus that has been reported by Storms. As you say, if deuterium enrichment is found in analysis of Rossi's 6-month test (don't know if they will be allowed to test for this), then it would be a very insightful report. I could easily have bungled this proposition. Please set me straight. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction"
Jones, You are positing that Ni-H fusion must be something completely different than a Pd-D fusion due to the fact that a hydrogen nucleus (proton) is a fermion and a deuterium nucleus (proton + neutron) is a boson. > Integer spin particles, Bosons, are not subject to the Pauli exclusion > principle and have a far easier time fusing in condensed matter, at high > probability due to tunneling - especially since they have inherent coulomb > screening from the neutron. Deuterons are Bosons. And even if Ed does not > like tunneling, it is the only reason that his theory has a leg to stand > on. LENR in the hydroton scenario is possible with Bosons and impossible > with Fermions. It is as simple as that. > > > That could be at least partly true and I would like to ask for some discussion. Isn't a neutral hydrogen atom (proton + electron) a boson? We have discussed on Vortex the concept that the energy from the hydrogen isotope must be released *before* fusion can occur (Ed's proposal). This is necessary to prevent (in advance) the high energy photon released after the LENR fusion occurs. If we do not reject summarily the Mills concept of inverse Rydberg states for the hydrogen atom (even if it turns out he doesn't have it quite right), then the advance energy being taken out of the atoms to be fused could be taken out by successive reduction in orbital size during the resonance process, with corresponding emitted lower energy photons. The result of resonance could be highly shrunken neutral hydrogen atoms which are still bosons. Ejected shrunken hydrogen would likely pass through most materials like a neutron, but if captured, could cause a fusion-fission in outside materials (activating them) - this could be the unusual radiation that Ed Storms documented. You could be right that bosons will fuse easier, but that doesn't rule out hydrogen - but may instead point to the possibility that the shrunken inverse Rydberg states may exist in some form for hydrogen. If such states exist, then something like the hydroton would be an excellent way to move hydrogen in and out of those states because the close resonant coupling of the structure provides a strong evanescent coupling to the atom; evanescent coupling purported to be required for that transition by Mills. Your observation that the deuterium nucleus is a boson already means that the neutral atom is not. Here is a complete guess - maybe deuterium cannot enter a shrunken fractional Rydberg state because its neutral atom is not a boson. Deuterium could be a catalyst then in the hydroton, allowing the resonance and hydroton to continue shrinking the hydrogen while not itself shrinking. I would like to hear your comments. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
In Mills' previous public demonstration of detonation of wet particles, he showed calorimetry being done. I pointed out at the time that the calorimetry appeared to be flawed because he failed to account for the difference in ejecta in the actual and baseline cases. He showed by calorimetry, a COP of about 2 at the time (though, with proper accounting of ejecta, the result would have been less). His claim was that this excess energy was high enthalpy and would be converted at near 100% efficiency to electricity using a MHD converter. I pointed out many flaws in the design of his MHD and that it would be unlikely to work at even 1% conversion efficiency. Note that the calorimetry showed in the demo would have included all of the radiative outputs of the reaction (at least up to about 10 keV), and even then he only got a best case COP of 2 (and it was probably less). The radiative portion of the output in the range of reasonable solar cell efficiency is unlikely to be more than about 25% of the total energy his reaction produced. If the solar cells were to collect 100% of this and have 30% conversion efficiency, the COP would be 0.15. More likely, the COP would be less than 0.1, pretty much a non-starter from the beginning. What is the motivation to do this experiment? Unless Mills can demonstrate a much higher COP to optical photons, this will never be gainful. Bob Higgins On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Haynie > wrote: > > http://pesn.com/2014/07/12/9602517_Landmark-Interview_ >> with_Randell-Mills_Blacklight-Power/ > > > From the PESN article above: > > Randell said that the engineering firms they are consulting with say that >> there are no engineering obstacles to marry the Blacklight system with >> photovoltaics, but that all systems are Go. All the different engineering >> problems are covered, including light angle, emission from electrodes, heat >> dissipation and transfer, and material handling. "This thing is meant to >> be", is their assessment. They are extraordinarily optimistic this will >> roll out quickly. It wont' take decades or even years. "Every major issue >> has broken in our favor," said Randell. > > > It seems, then, that a major redesign of their system is once more > underway. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Edmund Storms's new book
I just received my copy of Ed's new book and I am reading it now. Too early to review, but it is hard to stop reading. On Jul 14, 2014 8:10 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" wrote: > The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: / /An Examination of the > Relationship between Observation and Explanation/ by Edmund Storms > > See http://lenrexplained.com/ > ***So why is this book being greeted by indifference & yawning by > Vorticians? > >
Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5
Dennis did not explicitly say that an H & D mix was required, but I believe that his theory and his own experiments have led him to mostly use a 50:50 mix in his present experiments. He showed me a Ni based experiment that he had setup, which he turned on while I was visiting. Before I left, his instrumentation was saying that the experiment had a COP of 2. The H-D mix is not my suggestion or assertion - it is what Dennis is using. Dennis has far more experience than I and he is consistently getting positive results from Ni which he treats with his own special recipe (undisclosed). He also showed me his antique car modified with an electric motor, which he hopes to drive into town and back one day under LENR derived charge. On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Thanks, Bob – Do you know if he gets excess heat from H as well as D? > > > > You seem to be suggesting that the most heat (most desirable mix) comes > from a mix of H and D, is that correct? > > >
Re: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5
I have moved west, and Dennis Cravens is just a couple miles away. I visited him recently. In his lab he still has long term tests operating with his spheres (of course, along with other experiments in progress). He said that he charged a HydroStik and then froze it at dry ice temperature. At this temp, the hydride is not releasing any hydrogen and he cut the hydrostik open and added its contents to the sphere. Dennis produces his own hydrogen using a PEM generator and frequently works with an H2/D2 mix that he produces by filling his PEM generator with the desired mix of light and heavy water.
Re: [Vo]:Optics, magnetics & spinplasmonics
Just to add 2 more cents to the thread: - The high relative permeability of mu-metal only exists for low frequencies. By the time you get to 1MHz, the permeability of mu-metal has fallen an order of magnitude and it keeps declining at that rate. Don't think that mu-metal has extraordinary magnetic properties at optical frequencies by virtue of its initial low frequency relative permeability. - As I recall, Tom Claytor's report regarding mu-metal was that in his system it had the greatest rate of tritium production (which is what I believe he was optimizing for). This did not mean that mu-metal had the greatest LENR rate of the materials he tried. Bob Higgins On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Just when it looked like things were becoming clearer in LENR theory, they > seem to have become more complicated. Ockham fails again – no surprise > really, since “parsimony” always fails miserably when QM enters the > picture. > > SPP was the “catch-phrase” of the day for understanding LENR, due to the > influence of NASA and Larsen, but a similar effect called spinplasmonics > (SP) fits many experimental circumstances better than does SPP. This is > because SP happens in a metal, without need of a dielectric, and has a > magnetic component. Here is a mainstream paper that touches on the SP > phenomenon but does not mention LENR. > http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/112/10/10.1063/1.4765028 > > There was a time when the two, SPP and SP, were considered to be part of > the > same general phenomenon, but on closer differentiation - if a choice needs > to be made, the merits of each should be considered relative to precise > details in any experiment. Yet both effects can be active in the same > experiment, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. In short, if the > active > region is conductive and ferromagnetic (or strongly paramagnetic) with no > dielectric, then spinplasmonics fits better. When the active region has a > metal-dielectric interface and is indifferent to magnetism, then SPP fits > better. > > Is this being unnecessarily pedantic? Only if one wants to marginalize, > rather than emphasize, the role of magnetism. If magnetism is highly > important, then one more detail about a Mu metal connection (following > Claytor’s revelation at MIT). > > When photon upconversion was first discovered by François Auzel, he thought > there was net gain. Of course, his peers cautioned him about publishing > such > “nonsense” as overunity. His patent has been expired for decades > (http://patents.justia.com/inventor/francois-f-auzel) and never was > commercially important. An example is the upconversion of infrared light > into visible light, which would be important for either SPP or > spinplasmonics which ostensibly need optical photons. Here is the big > surprise. Nickel may be important for upconversion of photons – more so > than > any other physical property. The prime materials for photon upconversion > are > luminescent ions Ni2+ and Mo3+ both of which elements are found in Mu > metal. > Surface ionization makes them active. > > That may not be coincidental, since optics and magnetics may be intimately > entwined in Mu metals, which are a starting point for LENR ….Which then are > activated by spinplasmonics….Which then create a continuing supply of DDL > (deep Dirac layer) dense hydrogen….Which then disrupts the Dirac “sea” > ….Which then yield binding energy photons of 6.8 eV….Which then thermalize > into heat, finally providing thermal gain. > > And yes, Ockham fails again and “parsimony” always looks like a silly > rule-of-thumb when QM enters the picture. > > Jones > >
Re: [Vo]:Vortex-l LENR Patent Application- Motorola
I worked with Marc Chason for many years at Motorola. He is a former Argonne Nat'l Labs researcher before coming to Motorola and has a strong material science background. We worked together on HTC superconductor applications at Motorola. Marc is now a consultant (his own company) and is closely associated with Widom & Larsen. I have a great deal of respect for his creativity and ingenuity. Bob Higgins On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > This patent is a huge surprise. Not only is the technique obvious, many > other filings which relate to LENR have been denied for even mentioning the > subject. > > There are numerous “equal protection” issues here. The USPTO is in disarray > on this subject. > > > From: Bob Cook > > Metal hydrides are examples of materials that carry H > and/or > D and are not bottles of gas. Such carriers of H and D are hardly new and > and probably already the state of the art. > > Bob > - Original Message - > From: Ron Kita <mailto:chiralex.k...@gmail.com> > > Greetings Vortex-L, > > Seems like that inventor Marc Chason is from Motorola: > > > http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fn > > etahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=lenr&OS=lenr > &RS=lenr > > Ad astra, > Ron Kita, Chiralex > Doylestown PA >
Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia
I think it is much more likely that Rossi's reaction is positive feedback when operating, is chaotic in nature (discontinuous), and requires a temperature threshold for the reaction to work. First, positive feedback - when the temperature is higher the reaction rate is higher, causing the temperature to go higher. The gain is infinite. Second, chaotic: the reaction may go to completion in an NAE and then stop altogether. This causes reduced heat and the temperature drops. At an uncertain random time another NAE or set of NAE may begin operation producing heat. Third, temperature threshold: Below a certain temperature threshold, the reaction rate falls rapidly to none. Due to the chaotic nature of the rate, the temperature can briefly fall below this threshold and if energy is not input from the control, then the reaction stops altogether. Rossi maintains his reactor at the threshold of thermal runaway. At this threshold, the reaction is stopping at random, gets a heat input from his control to cross the temperature threshold, and the reaction starts at other NAE. If it ever gets too hot (too little heat was taken out), the reaction runs away and melts down. I think if Rossi had a large thermal mass kept slightly above the threshold, he would be able to control the system solely by throttling the heat being withdrawn from the large thermal mass. Doing this he would be able to reach large COPs since the throttling control of the heat exchanger requires much less power than directly heating his eCat (which for the HotCat has a fairly constant thermal heat withdrawal rate near the operating temperature). In effect, the large heat sink would average over the chaotic drops and rises in temperature. Bob On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > This may be of interest to Dave - in modeling Rossi's thermodynamics > > > https://www.thermalfluidscentral.org/journals/index.php/Heat_Mass_Transfer/a > rticle/view/69/145 > There is a conceptual roadblock with understanding the E-Cat related to the > subject of thermal gain - contrasted with the need for continuing thermal > input. > > In simple terms, the argument is this: if there is real thermal gain in the > reaction (P-out > P-in) then why is continuing input of energy required? > Why > not simple recycle some of the gain, especially if the gain is strong such > as if it was at COP=6 ? > > There are several partial answers to this question. One of them involves > keeping positive feedback to a far lower level than optimum (for net gain) > to avoid the possibility of runaway. Another is based on models of thermal > inertial. Another is based on the fact that the real COP of Ni-H in general > may be limited to a lower number than most of us hope is possible. > > A third answer, or really a clarification of thermal inertial would be seen > in Fig 2 on page 4 of the above cited article, where two models are seen > side by side. If we also add a requirement for a threshold thermal plateau > for the Rossi reaction to happen, which includes a narrow plateau (more > like > a ridge) where negative feedback turns to positive, then we can see that > the > second model makes it important to maintain an outside input, since there > is > no inherent smoothness in the curve, and once a peak has been reached the > downslope can be abrupt . > > Which is another way of saying that thermal inertia is not a smooth curve > at > an important scale, and thus natural conductivity and heat transfer > characteristics may not be adequate to maintain a positive feedback > plateau, > at least not without an outside source of heat. > > This may not be a clear verbalization of the thermodynamics, and perhaps > someone can word it more clearly - but it explains the need for the > "goldilocks" or 3-bear mode of reaction control for E-Cat. (not too hot and > not too cold) > > >
Re: [Vo]:The "real" chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
Well, yes, it is semantics. What you are describing is not chemical energy at all. Chemical energy specifically deals with the shared electron binding energy in formation of compounds with other atoms. What you are describing is the possible ability of monatomic H, D, or T to access and tap the zero point energy. This would not be chemical, but would fall into the category of ZPE. Such possibilities may exist (only postulated to exist), but they should not be classified as "chemical". If Mills is correct in his hydrino postulate, then that may be yet another energy category - call it "atomic" instead of nuclear or chemical. It does involve the electron, but not in formation of compounds with other atoms, so it is not chemical. Since the hydrino formation does not involve the nucleus, it is not nuclear. I don't think I ever mentioned "nuclear" in my previous post. Bob On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > These experiments are generally run with a small fixed charge of H2, which > puts strict limits on the available energy from H2 burning or chemical > energy in general. > > > > Hi Bob, > > > > Actually no. The fixed charge of H2 puts a limit only on available nuclear > energy, but not on a contribution from positronium (vacuum energy which is > essentially vast, according to Dirac). > > > > You can complain that “semantics” should not allow this type of gain to be > called chemical energy – but clearly it is not nuclear energy, therefore > “chemical” is closer than nuclear - if those are the only two choices, > since the kinetics are chemical and nowhere close to nuclear. > > > > Conclusion: a long term test with COP = 2.5 produced by chemical means > would require a chemical output that is hundreds or thousands of times > greater than what could produced according to today's chemical enthalpy of > H. > > > > Not exactly true. A sequential “chemical” gain (from Ps) would require > only slight net gain (3.4 eV) which does not result in a permanent change > of the hydrogen, to insure reuse… IOW a gain which keeps protons in play > for the next iteration. > > > > So, arguing that the COP of 2.4 could be explained with a mistake in H > enthalpy of a factor of 2.4 is off the mark by a huge factor (100's to 10's > of thousands) and the statement is wholly specious. > > > > Not at all. In fact you have clarified your error in the underlying > assumption- to one which assumes that anything not chemical is nuclear, > which is wrong – since in fact this excess energy is in the range of > chemical (>10 eV) but it is sequential, iterative and continuing over time. > There is no mistake in H enthalpy, only a mistake in the assumption that > there is but a single iteration per active atom. > > > > Jones Beene wrote: > > > Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only > returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if > the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the > range > of COP >2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be > illustrated > schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif > >
Re: [Vo]:The "real" chemical energy of nascent hydrogen
While it is an interesting hypothesis that the real nascent energy of pre-split monatomic H is greater than previously ascribed by a factor of 2-3, this has nothing to do with the eCat's COP of 2.5. The eCat input is not burning H2, it is primarily electric. When the eCat is run for a long time and an overall COP of 2.5 (to pick an example) is achieved, that COP is from the (heat energy out)/(electrical energy in). For a COP of 2.5, there is 1.5x the input ELECTRICAL energy as excess heat out. If this goes on for a long time, the excess heat out can be hundreds or thousands of times the energy available from any chemical source which could be hypothetically contained inside the reactor. It is from this that the Ragone plot is taken. These experiments are generally run with a small fixed charge of H2, which puts strict limits on the available energy from H2 burning or chemical energy in general. Conclusion: a long term test with COP = 2.5 produced by chemical means would require a chemical output that is hundreds or thousands of times greater than what could produced according to today's chemical enthalpy of H. So, arguing that the COP of 2.4 could be explained with a mistake in H enthalpy of a factor of 2.4 is off the mark by a huge factor (100's to 10's of thousands) and the statement is wholly specious. Bob Higgins On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Just to be clear, one can state with certainty that burning hydrogen only > returns ~one third more energy than is expended to split the gases - so if > the gases are made monatomic, then the net gain for the reaction is in the > range of COP >2.4 over combustion - and that is chemical gain. This can be > illustrated schematically but if the image does not appear, the URL is: > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/imgmol/beng2.gif > > >
Re: [Vo]:Rossi long term test
As an engineer, I would love to take on that product challenge. I am moving to a "cold climate" area. Cold climate heat pumps still only produce a COP of about 2-3 and have a lot of control to keep the exchanger from becoming frozen (frequent defrost cycles). It is a split unit that still needs an outside unit and inside unit with plumbing between. Yet these heat pumps are still the lowest cost heat means, unless you chop your own wood and burn it in a wood stove. The heat pumps are cheaper than pellet wood heating. I can imagine a home/industrial heater for these climes where a COP=2.5 would be a highly competitive product for heating. It could be as easy to install as putting it on the floor and plugging it into the wall with no outside plumbing or ventilation required, just a thermostat. This winter, the cost LPG skyrocketed due to shortage of supply. Farmers were hit with early winter temperatures and used the gas to heat their silos to dry their corn. Even as the LPG costs come down, a 2.5 COP LENR heater would be 1/3 the cost of LPG heating. There are a lot of industrial applications where high temperature heating is required and no heat pumps apply today - ovens in particular for everything from soldering, ceramic firing, concrete calcining, aluminum making, wood kiln drying, etc - all within the temperatures of the HotCat. And they use huge amounts of heat to the point that their bottom line depends on the cost of heat. Once there is a business/product at COP=2.5, I don't think high COP is that far behind. Long operation at COP=2.5 proves LENR is real and depending on the duration could prove it is nuclear or at least a real but unknown highly desirable phenomenon. Investment will spring up everywhere. On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > If it is 2.5 instead of 4, then we will not be looking at moving to > commercialization on a rapid pace. > > >
Re: [Vo]:Is Mizuno poining at Ryberg matter or not?
Mills may not ever see fusion in his devices - even if his theory is correct, and even if he is creating hydrinos. His means of extracting the energy to get hydrinos probably never takes them to the lowest level (1/137). Even though he calculates such a level is possible, he never gets that deep. So with his 1/4 hydrinos, he may never see any significant fusion occur because they aren't yet small enough. I am suggesting that the LENR structures may be capable of ratcheting down the hydrino to a much lower level - maybe as far as 1/137. Once it get there, it stays there, and then when an adjacent H in the linear hydroton oscillator gets ratcheted down to 1/137, they fuse. Maybe sometimes the H*2 (or an H*D* or an D*2 or a H*T* or an D*T* or a T*2) molecule (perhaps one less likely to fuse) pops off and enters a Ni atom to cause a transmutation. I am just adding the hydrino states terminology onto what Dr. Storms has already proposed for his hydroton LENR theory. What he has described seems to be hydrino states as the hydroton whittles the energy out of the H - but he doesn't uses the term hydrino. I believe that Dr. Storms does not dismiss the possibility of hydrino states. I look forward to reading his full theory when he publishes it. Bob On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: > > One way to successively remove the energy in such a hydroton configuration >> may be the progressive conversion to an ever more fractional state, and >> when Mills' minimum size of 1/137 is reached, fusion occurs. >> > > I think you noted elsewhere that Mills's claim does not involve fusion. > Some people on this list speculate that fusion might occur, however, due > to the decrease in the size of the hydrino. I believe this is handled > probabilistically -- the smaller the hydrino, the likelier fusion is to > occur. (I personally see little promise in Mills's theory, although I am > not in a position to write it off.) > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Is Mizuno poining at Ryberg matter or not?
Again, I am strictly an amateur at theoretical solid state physics; I cannot attest to having an "understanding". Since the energy reduction for the Millsian inverse Rydberg states is quantized, even though it cannot radiate, the extraction mechanism must be capable of withdrawing some large quanta - in the 50eV range (>10x most chemical reactions). This is why you don't see ordinary chemical processes creating inverse Rydberg states. While all of the mechanisms you describe sound like possible evanescent couplings, I guess you have to ask yourself, which ones could possibly extract a 50eV quantum from the hydrogen and then where would it go? I think this is where Dr. Storms' linear hydroton structure would come into play. The hydroton could absorb the 50eV into its macro vibrational mode until some radiation mechanism dissipated it. Just to be fair, such quanta could also be extracted in something like Dr. Kim's magnetically trapped condensate of hydrogen atoms if the condensate absorbed the energy as a whole and divided the 50eV amongst the condensate atoms. Once divided, it is not clear how the condensate would rid itself of this energy, but many avenues are possible. The scenario of successive ratcheting down the energy of the hydron BEFORE it fuses is highly desirable because it answers the question of why there isn't a strong gamma emission leaking out when fusion occurs - the energy is withdrawn in small chunks BEFORE the fusion can happen and fusion can only happen with the very low energy hydron. Mills response to this, I would think, would be yes, but no fusion happens at the end. You just get the energy out from ratcheting the hydron into a hydrino. Bob On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Bob Cook wrote: > Bob-- > > What is your understanding of the energy transfer mechanism involved in > the evanescent coupling (non-radiative) phenomena? > > The ones we know about are vibrational lattice damping, spin coupling, > spin orbit force coupling, electro-weak force coupling, gravitational > coupling and maybe others unknown. Some of these may be controlled more or > less by the local magnetic field which change the parameters of allowed > transitions as exist in a quantum system with its quantum energy states, > whatever they may be at any instant particular instant in time. > > Bob > > - Original Message - > *From:* Bob Higgins > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 08, 2014 5:56 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is Mizuno poining at Ryberg matter or not? > > Keep in mind that "Rydberg matter" does not normally describe "shrunken" > hydrogen. Shrunken hydrogen has its electron in a reduced orbital at an > energy state below the normally accepted ground state. This has been > variously described as "inverse Rydberg" and "fractional Rydberg" or > "hydrino" (Mills) states that are all below ground level. Mills describes > multiple fractional states below ground level. There is an older reference > to a Deep Dirac Level or DDL that is also a shrunken hydrogen. > > Most normal hydrogen states, including the normal (non-fractional) Rydberg > states are entered and departed via emission/absorbtion of a photon of the > correct energy level. Transitions to fractional Rydberg states (below > normal ground level) can only achieved by evanescent coupling > (non-radiative) to the atom according to Mills. Incontrovertible evidence > for the fractional states has never been provided, though Mills makes a > pretty good case. It may turn out that LENR could prove the existence of > these fractional states. > > I will leave it to the more skilled theorists to say whether the shrunken > states (fractional Rydberg) of hydrogen are implicated in LENR - but to me, > the possibility does seem compelling. In Dr. Storms' theory, when his > hydroton is formed in the NAE (crack), he describes the hydroton as > removing the energy in the hydrogen atom before it fuses such that there is > little energy remaining to be released when the fusion occurs. One way to > successively remove the energy in such a hydroton configuration may be the > progressive conversion to an ever more fractional state, and when Mills' > minimum size of 1/137 is reached, fusion occurs. The hydroton > configuration could provide the evanescent coupling needed to take the H to > fractional levels. > > Bob Higgins > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Teslaalset wrote: > >> Recent positive responses to Mizuno's work present recently at MIT >> by Yoshino made me look at his work presented at ICCF >> 18<http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf>last year. >> In section 1.1 of this presentation Mizuno hints in my view at R
Re: [Vo]:Is Mizuno poining at Ryberg matter or not?
Keep in mind that "Rydberg matter" does not normally describe "shrunken" hydrogen. Shrunken hydrogen has its electron in a reduced orbital at an energy state below the normally accepted ground state. This has been variously described as "inverse Rydberg" and "fractional Rydberg" or "hydrino" (Mills) states that are all below ground level. Mills describes multiple fractional states below ground level. There is an older reference to a Deep Dirac Level or DDL that is also a shrunken hydrogen. Most normal hydrogen states, including the normal (non-fractional) Rydberg states are entered and departed via emission/absorbtion of a photon of the correct energy level. Transitions to fractional Rydberg states (below normal ground level) can only achieved by evanescent coupling (non-radiative) to the atom according to Mills. Incontrovertible evidence for the fractional states has never been provided, though Mills makes a pretty good case. It may turn out that LENR could prove the existence of these fractional states. I will leave it to the more skilled theorists to say whether the shrunken states (fractional Rydberg) of hydrogen are implicated in LENR - but to me, the possibility does seem compelling. In Dr. Storms' theory, when his hydroton is formed in the NAE (crack), he describes the hydroton as removing the energy in the hydrogen atom before it fuses such that there is little energy remaining to be released when the fusion occurs. One way to successively remove the energy in such a hydroton configuration may be the progressive conversion to an ever more fractional state, and when Mills' minimum size of 1/137 is reached, fusion occurs. The hydroton configuration could provide the evanescent coupling needed to take the H to fractional levels. Bob Higgins On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Teslaalset wrote: > Recent positive responses to Mizuno's work present recently at MIT > by Yoshino made me look at his work presented at ICCF > 18<http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf>last year. > In section 1.1 of this presentation Mizuno hints in my view at Rydberg > matter but does not actually mention Rydberg. > Bullet #4 and #5 indicates he thinks some involved atoms schrink in size > and in bullet #10 he indicates that alkali and alkaline-earth elements show > identical effects. > > Looking to general description of Rydberg atoms, it is indicated that > Rydberg atoms are extremely large with loosely bound valence electrons. > > Any opinions on these observations/assumptions? > > > >
Re: [Vo]:US Examiner Addresses Andrea Rossi US Patent Application
Jones, I believe this is wrong on a couple of counts. First, there is no "non-publication rule", there is the "publication rule" which says that 18 months after the priority date (usually the date of application), the patent application is published by the USPTO. Once filed, there is nothing to prevent the applicant from publishing. Second, Rossi's Italian patent only grants him patent rights in Italy. He has a priority date for that invention from the date of filing in Italy, but no patent rights in another country unless a patent is also granted in the other country. So, he basically has no patent protection in the US, or the rest of the world, just Italy. Everyone thinks that they could make better business decisions than Rossi - the reality is that it is much more complicated than most realize. As I said in a previous post, protecting a business with a single patent, even a good one, is an unlikely prospect. Rossi does not know enough about how his reaction works to be able to write a patent with sufficiently broad claims to block a wide range of work-arounds - no one knows enough today. Aside from that, there is the rule that the application must be filed within 1 year of the first public disclosure or offer for sale. This meant that Rossi was under the gun to file his patent - whatever he could muster. To make matters worse, the US would publish his application 18 months after filing (to protect against "submarine" patents) whether the patent office was going to issue his patent or not. In fact, the publication would likely occur before first office action on the patent. If Rossi had truly disclosed everything in his application which is needed to make LENR work (required to get the patent), he ran the risk that the patent would be rejected and his secret would be published and become part of prior art - what a catch-22! Also, the USPTO has a reputation of blanket rejection of "cold fusion" class patents, so the likelihood of realizing a useful patent was near nil. Still, investors don't really want to invest in a product that doesn't have some form of IP protection. The more they will consider investing the more IP protection they will require. Otherwise, they pay to develop the product and someone else (perhaps in China) will copy it and make all of the profit from the market. For most products this is true, but there is so much money to be made in LENR that this may not be AS true if Rossi can get out ahead in making product. The normal way to make a business of something like this is to resist the urge to talk about your invention except to investors under non-disclosure agreement. Get your IP filed (as many applications as you can with good advice of patent attorney) and proceed to seek investment to make your product. Rossi's mistake, if he made one, was to talk about his invention. What we don't see is the other forces at play. LENR has clear military potential. Patent applications that have military potential frequently get suppressed as secret - look what happened to the patent for the laser. We don't see the forces that Rossi was against. Perhaps his public disclosures were to help circumvent military suppression - we will not know unless he tells us. I give Rossi credit for navigation as far as he has come in such difficult waters. He still holds his secret (but with a tenuous grasp). Bob Higgins On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > > > > Well, he did not understand how his device operated, first-off, and > secondly there was already a ton of prior art, including Piantelli and > Mills. Plus, some would say that much of his business experience has been > skirting the Law, where he did not fare well. > > > > The curious thing is that Rossi has managed to have the same patent > granted in Italy. That would probably be of some value for much of Europe. > As French says, the most likely scenario is that there are presently one or > more filings which are in progress at USPTO and subject to the 18 months > non-publication rule. > > > > The PCT - aka the World International Patent System - WIPO > > (www.wipo.int/pct/en/) ... has been signed by the US and most other > countries. This creates an International problem for anyone wanting to > willfully infringe since Rossi has a granted patent in Italy. > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:US Examiner Addresses Andrea Rossi US Patent Application
Having a long history with corporate business protection with IP, a couple of points strike me that I think are getting missed: - Big business is only protected with a PORTFOLIO of patents - not just a single patent. - The bigger the business, the more manpower that can be applied to working around patents; so the bigger the business (in $), the larger the PORTFOLIO of patents must be. - A large PORTFOLIO becomes a high scary wall for any serious company to attempt to overcome. If Industrial Heat wants to protect their interests, they need to file ~50 applications this year to begin a portfolio to protect their investment. (And basically lock down until that is done.) I believe that Rossi's material is un-protect-able at this point due to the lack of validity of his current application (making it now part of prior art), and due to all of the published prior art on LENR materials in the intervening years. Any new (improved) patent written on the material would have a priority date of the new application date - with everything up until then being prior art. Another problem with any new material patent would be that Rossi has already sold units more than 1 year ago (I think) and you only have 1 year in the US to file an application after the first offer for sale. Once the secret comes out, there will be more understanding of how LENR works, and many work-arounds will emerge to have LENR without violating any material patent that could be written *with today's understanding of LENR*. The real opportunity is writing patents on the multitude of apparatus that will use LENR, that will provide a means of throttling the reaction, that will make it more durable, or will make it safer. It is really, really hard to build a company on a trade secret. - Bob Higgins On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Terry Blanton wrote: > > WD40 never filed a patent so that no one would know their secret >> ingredients. >> > > So, it is a trade secret. That works for a product with a limited market. > If WD40 were worth hundreds of billions, other companies would do a > chemical analysis of it, and then reverse engineer it. Cold fusion has > gigantic market potential, so it will be reverse engineered no matter how > difficult that may be. A trade secret would not work for it. > > - Jed >
Re: [Vo]: Cheap hydrogen claim
If true, that is one heck of a claim - they would be claiming an over-unity COP of 443 (44300%). I checked the math. 2797 SCF of H2 - IS - equivalent to 221.5 kWH. What I think is probably wrong is the 500W input - it must be a typo. They must mean 500kW input. This would put their COP to be 44.3% which is still good and is not an over-unity claim. On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:44 AM, a.ashfield wrote: > Solar Hydrogen Trends claim: > > Input 500 watts produces 2,797 cu.ft. H2 per hour, equivalent to 221.5 > KWhr at a cost of $1.80 > > http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/ >
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
I can tell you from first hand experience that SEM analysis is MUCH harder than it sounds. I have had access to a good, but not great SEM for analysis of my powders. Features at the nanoscale simply were not resolve-able with that SEM. Perhaps with the world's finest SEM, you might be able to get a picture of a nanosite and be able to resolve some useful information from it, BUT, the smaller you look, the smaller the area you get to search. It is not like you know just where the LENR was taking place unless something obvious happens at a macro-scale and then by that time the NAE is not functional anymore. You may have to do XRF imaging to look for spots where spurious transmutations may have taken place and then search inside this. This kind of work will require a top notch SEM and operator to find a needle in the haystack. New instruments may need to be created to find and analyze the NAE. All of it comes back to $$ and time - but nothing like what has been spent on hot fusion research. In the mean time, there is always luck and intuition that we can hope for. In the worst case, we wait and buy one of Rossi's products and take it apart! On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > James Bowery wrote: > > >> They need an SEM and other expensive toys to do an analysis of the metal >>> before and after. Without that they are flying blind. >>> >> >> Before and after _what_? >> > > Before and after the cold fusion test. To see what changes occurred in the > metal, and to correlate these changes with excess heat production. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Extraordinarily disappointing report
I thought it was an interesting report, but I think a fundamental issue may be getting missed in the calorimetry of the BLP experiment. As I understand it, the calorimeter was modified to have the large copper electrodes that supply the very high spot welder current placed into the test chamber. These conductors will allow a lot of heat to flow out that will not get registered by the calorimeter because the whole apparatus is not in an enclosed box. To address this outflow of heat, null/blind experiments were run for calibration using spot welding of metals. However, as the author of the report points out, the nature of the energy release for the experiments with water was different - louder pop and light. This means that there was radiation (at least visible light) and probably ejecta from the actual experiment compared to the null blind. The blind experiments would have had more of their heat conducted out through the copper electrodes and the experiments with light and ejecta would deposit more of the heat to the calorimeter bomb shell. Even if the energy release were the same in the two cases, the calorimeter would show more heat in the case where there was light and ejecta and water vapor. Is this enough to make up for a factor of 2 difference in the measured heat? It is hard to say without having a better model for the apparatus, and the report does not provide any indication this this detailed level of modeling was done. Despite this, a factor of 2 should be discern-able after modeling if real. Bob Higgins On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GlumacReport2.pdf > > A tenth of a degree or less rise in temperature in the calorimeter. > Everything extrapolated from that. LOL. > > >
Re: [Vo]:Too much solar PV electricity in Hawii
This is largely a problem with grid-tie solar inversion and the fact that solar generation only happens during the day. As long as the utility company has less PV inverted than the difference between their daytime and nighttime loads, it is better for them to have the PV generation. Once the PV generation exceeds the nighttime load, the PV begins to cause more throttling need at the power generation station. It is the difference in the two loads that must be supplied by sources such as coal, oil, and gas because nuclear can supply the constant need portion of the power. Then the worst case is the PV generation becomes greater than the daytime demand of the system. To continue to buffer this daytime PV generation excess would mean the utility has to perform power storage which requires new capital. The article points out that when the power generated exceeds the load drawn, the voltage will go up which will cause the anti-islanding feature of the grid-tie inverters to trip, turning off PV power generation at that site - the voltage will not go out of control. However, if the grid-tie inverter anti-islanding trips, the inverter is OFF and the user is getting no benefit from his power generation - not even to reduce his home load. This problem can be solved by adding storage at home. LENR distributed power generation would be different because it is around the clock generation. This provides much less headache for the power company - at least until so much power is generated they no longer have a viable business. Bob On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Hawaii has the most expensive electricity in the U.S. Now they have too > much PV electricity. The power company says it is overwhelming the > distribution network. See: > > > http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/02/the-interconnection-nightmare-in-hawaii-and-why-it-matters-to-the-u-s-residential-pv-industry > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
I believe you are underestimating the value of a small and efficient LENR device. I spoke with Mitchell about this on the bus at ICCF-18. I believe small is beautiful and I have a perfect application. Today 2-way public safety radios use lithium batteries that only work to about -10C, but the radio electronics are qualified to -40C. It is entirely plausible to use a NANOR as an efficient way to keep the portable lithium battery warm when the ambient temperature is below -5C. If he can make the NANORs repeatably and operate them in optimum COP with a small uC, that could well be the first LENR device to make it to market. Having a shipping product inside another product is a sure track to a device patent. This could be the finger removed from the dike. Bob Higgins On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > Swartz is credible! However, such a small effect is not a credible support > for investment in a working devoice. I did not make this clear. I hope it > is clear now. If Swartz supplies devices that survive testing, this would > be useful to basic research but not to a development study. My point is > that we need emphasis placed on basic research. > > Ed Storms > >
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
I thought the justifications for these mechanical over-unity machines came from some kind of non-conservation during JERK (the derivative of acceleration) and the machines were designed to produce jerk. Does anyone else remember the justification based on non-conservation during jerk? Perhaps during jerk, angular momentum can be exchanged with linear momentum or something. I don't remember the argument. Bob On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote: > As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on this, > whatever system you come up with, when you actually go through the maths it > comes up with the same answer, and that is that you cannot extract energy > from the rotation of the earth without reference to some external body. > You can come up with complicated systems that makes the maths more > difficult (our gyroscopes on railway tracks travelling between the pole and > the equator was particularly 'interesting' to analyse. I'm not sure that > 15 years later my brain is still up to it, that why I get my son to do it), > and that is what may have happened with the RAR machine. Its complexity > hides a mistake in the analysis of the forces and moments which made it > appear that it was possible to extract energy from the earths magnetic > field. >
Re: [Vo]:More Magnetic Coupling Thoughts
This thought is sort of absurd. The magnetic field only increases with inverse square law when you are well OUTSIDE all of the sources and they can be considered an equivalent far point source. Just like the Earth's gravity doesn't become infinite as you approach the Earth's center of mass. As you start approaching the sources, or are surrounded by them, the field will depend on the inverse square to each of the sources. It becomes a distributed source calculation. Bob Higgins On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > There is no limit on the strength of a magnetic field. > > > > From the inverse square law, how strong can a magnetic field be at one > nanometer on the walls of a nano-cavity, when it is detected at 18cm to be > 1.6 tesla? It is at least atomic level (10^5 tesla) or on the high end > about 10^12 to 10^16 tesla. > > >
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Hi Eric, I have made progress and have constructed a new reactor optimized to allow low energy photons to escape. These would be unmistakable signatures of LENR without having to be so optimized to show excess heat to the extent it proves a nuclear source. I have seen transient heat bursts and I want to correlate these with emitted photons. Unfortunately, I am on a temporary hold to get myself and my little lab moved across the US to NM. Bob On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: > > Rossi has stated that he starts with 10 micron sized particles (since >> identified as a nickel powder produced from the carbonyl process), adds a >> catalyst (widely believed to be a nanopowder of some kind), and processes >> the mix "in a way that leads to amplified tubercles on the surface". >> > > Thanks for the helpful clarification. I didn't realize that. The main > reference I have found is Hank Mills's PESN article [1]. I'm curious where > Mills got this information. > > It sounds like you have made a lot of progress on getting an NiH reactor > set up. Have you seen anything interesting? > > Eric > > > [1] > http://pesn.com/2012/01/02/9601998_Defkalion_Claims_No_Problem_with_Revealing_Cold_Fusion_Catalyst/ > >
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
I am not going to try to quote who and what from this thread regarding fractionating gammas (too long of a story line now). What I have come to believe and what I initially missed, and what I think many Vorts may be missing in this, is that the LENR reaction and the fractionating are not two separate processes. Jones (et al) are correct that if there is a fractionating mechanism that is an independent effect, it could not be 100% efficient and some high energy photons would escape as a marker of this inefficiency. The important possibility to realize is that the fractionating and the LENR are both part of the SAME mechanism. There can be no leaks because without the fractionating mechanism operating, there would not be any LENR. On each pair of hydrons, the fractionating mechanism is required to allow the nuclear reaction to occur. This guarantees no leakage, except for secondary effects. So in this scenario, 100% efficient fractionating is possible. Bob Higgins
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
I believe that some fractionation must be taking place, but not to phonons. Phonons are contra-indicated by the experimental evidence. Phonons dissipate rapidly to heat with a decay constant that is based on the acoustic velocity. This means that the temperature will be extremely high near the nanoscale NAE, making it much higher temperature than the bulk of the reactor. It suggests that before any useful total heat is realized for the system, the NAE would burn itself out - melt, evaporate, etc. On the other hand, if the output from the NAE was fractionated to lower energy photons, then the decay constant would be based on the speed of light in the material and the deposition to heat would be spread much farther away from the NAE, allowing heat transport out of the NAE without overheating the NAE structure. The micro-explosions that have been reported are on a micron-scale, not on a nano-scale; nanoscale would be expected with phonons. The whole device "melt-downs" that have been reported can only happen if the NAE is not that much hotter than the bulk of the device. Photons would spread the heat away from the NAE in such a way that the meltdowns and micron-size explosions could occur. Keep in mind that Dr. Hagelstein has PRESUMED coupling to phonons in the formulation of his mathematical experiment. The formulation is not the completely general case with the best solution popping out. The general formulation is too complex to solve today, so simplifying presumptions must be made, and then the solutions are evaluated for consistency with experiment. The simplified formulation just makes it solve-able, not easy to solve. So, in this sense, Dr. Hagelstein is constructing mathematical experiments (the simplifications) and is testing the solutions to see if they match all of the experimental data. If he guesses right in his simplification (didn't leave out something important in his formulation), and finds a match to all of the experimental data, then he has a good theory. It is all based on the same original physics which cannot be solved in purely general form for the complex condensed matter environment. We may not know enough about the NAE to be able to simulate it today because we don't know what simplifications are appropriate. Bob On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > Bob--Bob Cook here > > Your comments are revealing. I believe quantum systems that are big > enough to handle the energy fractionation that Hagelstein identifies in his > lectures are a requirement for any solid state nuclear reaction. A thermal > conductor to get the heat out is also necessary. These two objectives are > probably at the heart of Rossi's design. > > Of course the Kim BEC theory may occur at discrete locations in the Ni > creating new quantum systems during the reactor operation. However > maintaining such nice locations for months of operation for the BEC's to > form is questionable. > > Bob > > >>
