Re: [Vo]:Superconductors up to 77 Celsius (170F, 350K)
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.superconductors.org/News.htm I am please to be the first to post that Superconductors.ORG reports high Tc has been advanced to 77 Celsius (170F, 350K) Who are Superconductors.ORG? It seems that they have made this discovery all on their own, or in their great haste to make their announcement, they did not have time to include any references. https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2ion=1espv=2ie=UTF-8q=77c%20superconductor Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENr debate on scienceforum.net
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83658-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-thread-hijack-split/ If serious people with good reference can participate Note the hijack in the original URL ( http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83658-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-thread-hijack-split/). This is well-intentioned trolling by a LENR advocate, and he gets his facts muddled. The others are right in being irritated by the huge message, the appeal to authority and the scienscy-sounding jargon, although they're not very pleasant in how they express objections. I don't think anyone advances serious consideration of LENR by posting huge messages to unsympathetic forums. (Think of how well something is received here when someone trolls.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it is fair to say that in quantum mechanics probabilities actually exist in the physical sense (assuming the theories are correct). This is the predominant interpretation of quantum mechanics, but one that is not universally accepted, even by mainstream physicists today [1]. Einstein had issues with it, and David Bohm offered up an alternative interpretation. Physicists *love* to get people to assent to the existence of overwhelming support for a pet idea (e.g., the Copenhagen interpretation). I'm guessing it makes their job of pushing a specific agenda easier. In reality, the evidentiary record is often inconclusive and does not fully constrain the different possibilities. The tactic at that point is to subtly or overtly discredit the people with the now-heterodox ideas, in this case Einstein and Bohm and others. Later in life both were thanked by the establishment for their contributions and then snickered at. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
Re: [Vo]:Low cost minimal Rossi-effect experiment
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The first big issue is the catalysts. ... the reaction with carbon monoxide creates tetra-carbonyl nickel, which is highly toxic. Copper is illegal because of the formation of dioxin. In light of these points about tetra-carbonyl nickel and dioxin, the hobbyist attempting to carry out an experiment involving a reaction between H and nickel adsorbed onto the surface of a catalytic converter should be careful about dealing with the offgas, especially if copper turns out to be a significant byproduct of the reaction. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Low cost minimal Rossi-effect experiment
I wrote: In light of these points about tetra-carbonyl nickel and dioxin, the hobbyist attempting to carry out an experiment involving a reaction between H and nickel adsorbed onto the surface of a catalytic converter should be careful about dealing with the offgas, especially if copper turns out to be a significant byproduct of the reaction. On second thought, these byproducts are probably not too much of a concern, as they probably require a hydrocarbon to form (e.g., gasoline). Eric
Re: [Vo]:An article more documented than usual on Cold Fusion early hisory
I wrote: My impression of the field is that it has become a little rarified, and its practitioners are tangled up in debates not unlike those of rabbinical scholars. To these debates I should also add those of Islamic theologians and medieval schoolmen (i.e., nothing specific to rabbinical scholars, per se). Eric
Re: [Vo]:An article more documented than usual on Cold Fusion early hisory
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Danny Ross Lunsford antimatte...@yahoo.com wrote: the people who ignored it or actively blocked it and suppressed its researchers are exposed for the charlatans they are. Their record will be empty string theory, vapid cosmology, multidimensional hallucinations, science fiction universes, and ignorant attacks on a new branch of science. I'm beginning to think what seems to have been a theoretical turn in the past few decades is partly what is responsible for the negative reception of the LENR research. Perhaps many physicists have lost their intuitive sense of what goes on in the physical world. There are whole subfields of physics that barely rely upon empirical evidence. Hypothetically speaking you might be able to connect string theory back to something that can be observed in the world, but even if this is true, it's so abstract that we've failed to do so yet. Presumably there are famous physicists who have devoted their careers to a subfield that has yet to give rise to observable predictions. One almost gets the sense that normal branches of physics (as opposed to theoretical physics) are second-class ones where scientists get their hands too dirty. Much of physics gives the sense of essentially being mathematics with additional fudge factor constants that you must include in your equations from time to time. My impression of the field is that it has become a little rarified, and its practitioners are tangled up in debates not unlike those of rabbinical scholars. Eric
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: be sure all the people will consider cold fusion as a black swan event, while it is predictable in principle since 1990, and more or less planned since 2010. I think the spread of cold fusion will be a black swan event, even if we've seen evidence for it for two decades. If it can be commercialized, and it doesn't cause cancer within a 2 km radius or beckon forth giant sea monsters, I think in its implications it will rank somewhere between the industrial revolution and the discovery of fire. It will turn the modern economy upside down. Eric
Re: [Vo]:An emerging diproton plus halo hypothesis
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: However, the MRI absorption and emission of energy may not be called EM radiation the way you are using the term. Nevertheless MRI does entail nuclear emission of low energy quanta IMHO I'm wading into a thread that I have no business wading into, because it is a very interesting one. Some additional thoughts to add: - Consider extremely low frequency (ELF) waves [1], which have wavelengths on the order of 5000 km. I don't think people know for sure what the mechanism for their emission is exactly, but presumably it is through the oscillation of electrons. - Electrons in an isolated atom (e.g., monoatomic hydrogen) excite and relax in quanta of energy. Because there is a conduction band in a metal, electrons in a metal excite and relax along a broadband spectrum, and presumably quantum considerations do not apply. - To my knowledge, in their excitations nuclei do not ever enter into a banded state comparable to that of electrons in the conduction band of a metal. So quantum considerations would seem to apply there. I think a point that has been made is that in a quantum emitter, the minimum delta between energy levels is perhaps what determines the maximum wavelength of the nuclear emitter. In this case it would seem to be the excitation profile of the emitter and not the geometry, per se, that is the determining factor. (All of this discussion is apart from the interesting point about precession of nuclei, e.g., in MRI.) I assume that the main thing going on with nuclei is the rearranging of nucleons into higher and lower energy levels, where the nucleus emits a high-pitched shriek when the nucleons snap into place in a lower energy level (this is the gamma that is emitted). Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: If we decide the report is fully credible and those graphs make historical highs, I think that's a good time to short. I'm less confident on getting the timing right for a breakout development than you. Even if we saw a spike of interest comparable to the one shown for the first Elforsk test, I very much doubt there will be more publicity following upon it than happened the last time. Even if the test results are stellar, I do not think they would cause a movement in the oil markets at this point. If I had to guess, there would need to be three or four credible, completely independent reproductions that were given high degree of visibility in the mainstream media before cold fusion is even sufficiently funded. And then only after the implications of the new technology became apparent to risk-averse pension managers would you start to see some kind of downward movement in oil stocks. Just my random, uninformed guess. Only indirectly relevant to this, there is word that Rossi has been seen in Sweden. This isn't necessarily a positive development, although it could be benign. What if the E-Cat became quiescent at some point, and he was there to try to kickstart it again? Eric
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Start shorting any of the alt energy plays. The challenge with short selling is when to start? Immediately? A few weeks or months after news of cold fusion is starting to spread? (Note that rumors already appear to be circulating, e.g., in connection with the X Prize.) A year or two after? If one starts a short sale too early, it will be the cause of much sadness. Eric
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: ***What rumors are those? Is this the same X prize popularity contest that I submitted was exactly the same as my FQXI essay about the LENR incentive prize? I had in mind this quote from a link you shared [1] two days ago: After participating in a dramatic voting system that involved 3-D printed poker chips and glowsticks, the winner was declared: The Forbidden Energy XPrize for generating energy from an entirely new source, like cold fusion or zero point energy. I probably inferred too much by thinking that there are rumors about cold fusion circulating among a wider audience, although it's hard to imagine the idea of generating energy from a new source arising spontaneously without further context. So maybe my inference was ok. Eric [1] http://www.fastcoexist.com/3030775/thinking-big-is-the-easy-part-my-weekend-dreaming-up-the-next-xprize
Re: [Vo]:BlackLight's Second Test of Automated Ignition System
What I don't get is how this footage would impress anyone. Perhaps my lack of appreciation is due to my lack of knowledge. No doubt if you're an expert at microcalorimetry and allied fields, you would know, on the basis of your extensive experience, merely from seeing and hearing this footage, that they are competent people and really have something and are not trying to play a confidence game. Eric On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vh88aVr6i8feature=youtu.be R. Mills is answering questions
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:52 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: (However if you include the Ni mass in the energy density calculation and assume 1 H/Ni, then you get about 21640 eV / H atom which is beginning to stretch the friendship a bit.) Do your calculations make assumptions about the proportion of the fuel used up by the E-Cat during the Elforsk test? Would this calculation be the same if only 1 percent or 0.1 percent of the fuel were used up over the course of the experiment? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Piantelli's recent EU patent
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 4:09 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I think my main takeaway from Piantelli's patents is that he's seeing sufficient fast protons (e.g., in his cloud chamber) to put up the cost of a patent application to capitalize on them. I would be surprised if they are the primary channel. If they are fast, then clearly they are carrying energy. Most of that energy will end up in the electron population. Only a tiny fraction will be used to produce new fusion reactions. Makes sense. I was only noting that Piantelli seems to be seeing fast protons. If you're right, he's no doubt mistaken that he can make use of them by putting up a slab of secondary material with thorium, boron, etc., to react with them. Perhaps so, something along the lines of a stripping reaction. Even so, the protons are probably carrying the energy of that reaction. I was thinking of the Oppenheimer-Phillips process. The reason I suspect the fast protons are not the primary channel is that I suppose there would be a lot more detectable bremsstrahlung if there were enough of them. Perhaps this is mistaken, or perhaps Piantelli's reaction is pretty low-energy, and there aren't that many fast protons in the big scheme of things, even if they're impressive to look at in a cloud chamber. I also wonder how much energy output Piantelli is seeing in comparison to Rossi. Pure guess:- not much. :) My guess, too. - If there are broadband emissions, the immediate source of the emissions is no doubt from electronic activity and not the nuclei. Do you consider bremsstrahlung to be electronic or nuclear? I would have thought of them as electronic activity stimulated by a passing fast particle, and so electronic (although the fast particle's energy is nuclear), but maybe it's better to think of them as nuclear. Putting these two together, I'm inclined towards a nuclear source for the energy that is somehow passing through the electronic layer. In Piantelli's case, I know of no evidence that he's seeing MeVs worth of energy; Doesn't a 6.7 MeV proton count? I think it's pretty strong evidence that some form of nuclear reaction occurred. For sure. I guess my question has to do with the main activity -- in Piantelli's case, are the protons the majority of what's going on, or is there something else that predominates? I doubt the patent gives enough information to know much about this. If the protons are just a side channel, it's difficult to know what the average energy per reactant is. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I do not think you could detect this, even with the best mass spectrometer and a tightly sealed cell. Helium is ubiquitous and after strenuous efforts to remove it, the background would probably be far higher than the amount produced in this reaction. Just curious -- are your comments in the context of detecting helium in an NiH experiment, or in general? Early on there was a debate on helium production in PdD, and some important researchers (Miles, McKubre, etc.) have weighed in on the question positively. In my own reading I got the impression somewhere along the way, though, that it will be difficult at best to obtain an unequivocal helium signal in any experiment, for the reasons you mention. Eric
[Vo]:Piantelli's recent EU patent
I just read through Piantelli's recent EU patent: http://www.google.com/patents/EP2368252B1?cl=en It was an interesting read. The publication date on the patent is January 16, 2013, and it was given priority on November 24, 2008. I don't know whether you'd refer to it as Piantelli's 2008 EU patent or his 2013 EU patent. This patent is important for several reasons. First, Piantelli was one of the first researchers to start looking primarily at the NiH system, in contrast to the PdD system, which has received a lot of attention, as well as other systems, such as TiD, WD, etc. Piantelli collaborated with Sergio Focardi, and later on Focardi was to work with Andrea Rossi in support of the development of Rossi's devices. So there's a direct family line from Piantelli leading to the E-Cat. Sometimes one hears the accusation that Rossi was able through his association with Focardi to steal Piantelli's trade secrets, something I have no opinion on. Another reason the patent is important is that it is one of the few LENR patents to be granted. Most of the US patent applications of which I am aware, for example, have been held up or rejected. The patent outlines a device and covers a range of possible parameters, and it puts forward a theory for how the device works. In Piantelli's apparatus, there is an active core that consists of a metal tube filled with hydrogen and a transition metal substrate (preferably nickel). There are various ways of preparing the substrate, including sputtering, evaporation and condensation, etc.; various ways of introducing hydrogen; various ways of kicking off the reaction; and various ways of bringing a reaction to a controlled stop. In other words, the patent appears to be broad and, to my mind, could conceivably cover many gas-phase LENR systems, NiH or otherwise. I wonder whether Arata's experiments would count as prior art. An interesting detail of the patent is that several isotopes of nickel are mentioned as being advantageous -- 58Ni, 60Ni, 61Ni, 62Ni and 64Ni. These are all stable or observationally stable isotopes of nickel (which makes sense, since these are readily available in nature). Judging from discussions here and articles that David French has written, there is one detail about this patent that stands out as a flaw -- Piantelli goes into a theory of how he believes the reaction to work, one that strikes me as being hopeful rather than promising. Piantelli's patent says that you need clusters of substrate atoms of below a certain number of atoms, and that with clusters of that size there will be an interaction that takes place between valence electrons and hydrogen atoms adsorbed onto the clusters. The hydrogen atoms will become H- ions, at which point they will replace orbiting electrons around the substrate atoms. Because the H- ions are much more massive than electrons, they will approach much closer to the nucleus than the electrons that have been replaced. At this point coulomb repulsion will kick in, ejecting from the atom a bare proton from what was originally the H- ion, which will then go on to react with other substrate atoms, causing transmutations and other effects. There is a detail in the middle of the description that was unclear -- the patent seems to be saying that there is an energy release through mass defect *before* the proton is ejected, as though the electrons in the H- ion are somehow being consumed. I'm not sure what Piantelli has in mind, here. The legal events at the bottom of application show that it has been challenged on at least two occasions, first by Leonardo Corp. and then by E.F.A. S.R.L. (presumably Energia da Fonti Alternative S.r.l.). We already know about Leonardo Corp., which is one of Rossi's companies, and I believe Mats Lewan describes Energia da Fonti Alternative as being associated with Rossi as well. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Piantelli's recent EU patent
I wrote: There is a detail in the middle of the description that was unclear -- the patent seems to be saying that there is an energy release through mass defect *before* the proton is ejected, as though the electrons in the H- ion are somehow being consumed. I'm not sure what Piantelli has in mind, here. I have just read through a US patent application filed in April 2012 by Piantelli and published in April 2014, which goes into more detail: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140098917 In this patent application Piantelli seeks to get more energy out of his earlier invention by surrounding the active primary material with a secondary material that has a high proton-capture cross section. The fast protons emitted by the active core react with such materials as lithium, boron, thorium 232, uranium 236, and others, to amplify the energy released by the active core. The application is encumbered by Piantelli's theory of H- ion orbital capture by the substrate atoms. Here is where the application resolves the question raised above: there are two interactions that Piantelli believes to be taking place in the active core. First, there is the expulsion of a proton from the substrate atom after the H- ion is captured. Inexplicably, the proton emitted in this event is believed to have 6.7 MeV of energy. This is hard to understand, because it's not clear why 6.7 MeV wouldn't be needed to draw the proton in that close in the first place and where that amount of extra energy is coming from. Second, there is an occasional proton capture by the nucleus following upon the proposed orbital capture of the H- ion and the release of the usual amount of energy for a nickel proton-capture reaction, along the lines of Rossi's early explanation. Piantelli's H- orbital capture theory aside, what is clear is that he believes that a significant amount of fast protons are being emitted by his active core, and the point of the invention is to make use of their energy by having them react with the secondary material (lithium, boron, thorium, etc.). A number of reactions with the protons and nickel and with the protons and the secondary material are enumerated. These are the proton-capture reactions mentioned in connection with the nickel atoms in the primary material: - 1H + 58Ni → 59Cu + 3.417 MeV - 1H + 60Ni → 61Cu + 4.796 MeV - 1H + 61Ni → 62Cu + 5.866 MeV - 1H + 62Ni → 63Cu + 6.122 MeV - 1H + 64Ni → 65Cu + 7.453 MeV Another indication that Piantelli believes there to be a significant number of fast protons is that the application mentions using lead as a shield to protect from harmful radiation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Piantelli's recent EU patent
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 4:01 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: This is a waste of time. The fast protons lose most of their energy ionizing surrounding atoms. Only one in thousands will undergo a further nuclear reaction. Thus the original reaction must be seen as the primary energy generating mechanism (assuming that there is anything to this at all). I think my main takeaway from Piantelli's patents is that he's seeing sufficient fast protons (e.g., in his cloud chamber) to put up the cost of a patent application to capitalize on them. I would be surprised if they are the primary channel. Mizuno's NiD experiments and the increase in species of m=1 are suggestive here; perhaps Piantelli is seeing activity from the deuterium fraction of the hydrogen he's feeding into his device. I also wonder how much energy output Piantelli is seeing in comparison to Rossi. This would mean that both fast protons and fast electrons would be produced, but almost no gammas compared to what one might normally expect (the electrons will produce some bremsstrahlung but this will only be about 1% of the amount of gammas that would have been produced, and furthermore the bremsstrahlung energy spectrum is more spread out than a gamma spectrum would have been, so some it won't make it through the shielding. The principles I'd relate to these points are something like: - If there are MeVs worth of energy per reactant, the energy most likely comes from the nuclei and not the electronic layer. - If there are broadband emissions, the immediate source of the emissions is no doubt from electronic activity and not the nuclei. Putting these two together, I'm inclined towards a nuclear source for the energy that is somehow passing through the electronic layer. In Piantelli's case, I know of no evidence that he's seeing MeVs worth of energy; it would be a stretch to assume that he's seeing the same levels of energy as Rossi, but not totally unreasonable. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If we must choose between the two major non-nuclear hypothetical sources for power density in LENR – some version of the Dirac sea (ZPE) seems to beat out electron shrinkage by a country mile ... I rather like the imagery of something coming out of the Dirac sea, which reminds me of the sci-fi stories and movies of my youth. As far as my acquaintance with the corpus of modern scientific literature goes, anything that is based on virtual particles becoming real particles sounds a lot to my mind like *ex nihilo aliquid fit*. There's always an energy balance problem to be dealt with or explained away. I guess the needed energy could come from dark energy or dark matter. Physicists leave themselves open to speculation on the possibility of that stuff being converted into real matter and energy by taking the dark forms seriously in the first place. I have no strong opinion on the question, although at first glance they give the impression of being a Rube Goldberg-like consequence that is needed to save some broken prior assumptions. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:52 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I assume that by 10E7 you actually mean 1E7 , i.e. 10 million ;). Yes -- it would be nice for my argument if it were 10E7, but really it's 1E7. :) (However if you include the Ni mass in the energy density calculation and assume 1 H/Ni, then you get about 21640 eV / H atom which is beginning to stretch the friendship a bit.) To get a number comparable to the number used in the calculation of the Elforsk team, I think one would have to include some nickel. :) If this is true, I think that means that both you and I suspect that it's beginning to stretch things, and we might want to look for something other than f/H in this particular instance. :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:52 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: (Still not impossible, as the maximum energy you can get from Hydrinos is 137^2 x 13.6 eV ~= 255 keV (actually precisely half an electron mass) from each Hydrogen atom.) This is to full redundancy? I think there's an effect that is believed to decrease the likelihood of shrinkage in direct proportion with increasingly redundancy, such that even level 1/4 is hard to get to? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Interview with the CEO of Defkalion
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In procurement of systems, it is the buyer's responsibility to do due diligence: This argument seems to be a different one than one in which DGT is held to be basically sound but misunderstood. In this line of reasoning, it would seem that DGT are free to do whatever they like, including squirly business practices that approach fraud, and it is up to potential investors to make sure they know what they're getting into. This does not seem like a promising approach to exonerating DGT. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: In consideration of the recent posting regarding converting light into mass, the upper limit of energy density is set by the speed of light at 2.5 x 10^13 Wh/kg. Although the scientists have not actually converted photons to electrons and positrons, a controlled reverse process can be conceived which could achieve the upper limit. Such process would not necessarily involve any nucleus. To get the power seen in the 2013 E-Cat test, I assume the amount of pair production and resulting 511 keV annihilation photons from such a process would make a fantastic x-ray CRT and would be lethal to anyone nearby if not adequately shielded. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: For instance, relativistic electron pumping via Dirac mechanics would not be nuclear. Is this a Dirac sea mechanism? Aside from a nuclear source, we have as possibilities f/H shrinkage, something coming out of the Dirac sea, and pure pair production from light. I'm inclined to invoke Occam, but I guess that's not so persuasive here. ;) Will f/H shrinkage provide a specific energy of 10E7 Wh/kg? When I think of f/H, the thought ~100 eV comes to my mind. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Since many observers seem wedded to a fusion scenario, despite the lack of any relevant indicia of a nuclear reaction, this insight from Cyril may be limited to those on the fringe of the fringe. There is at least one relevant indicium that NiH is a nuclear process: http://b-i.forbesimg.com/markgibbs/files/2013/05/130520_ragone_04.png Eric
Re: [Vo]:Cyril Smith Paper may have relevance to LENR
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If you think about that logically for a while, you will probably realize that your conclusion is false for reasons related to the incompleteness of the chart. Far from the conclusion that the location on the Ragone chart suggests that the process involved in NiH is probably nuclear in origin is false, it seems to me that it's quite reasonable, and perhaps the most reasonable. What the chart shows us is that there are few if any known chemical processes as far to the right as the red pentagram (and none shown that have as much peak power). In this context one might draw the following conclusions: 1. There is a chemical reaction that has the same peak power and specific energy, and we just don't know about it, or it hasn't been included. 2. The process in NiH is somehow nuclear, and a lot of nuclear mass is being converted into energy. 3. There is something driving the NiH reaction that is neither nuclear nor chemical (e.g., dark matter). 4. The measurements in the March 2013 E-Cat test were in gross error. I am quite comfortable with (2). Option (1) strikes me as lacking credibility. Option (3) is possible, but it doesn't stand out as being the first hypothesis one would want to adopt. If you are inclined towards (4), I would like to know what the flaws in the test might be. If I have missed an option, please point it out. Eric
Re: [Vo]:An emerging diproton plus halo hypothesis
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Instead, the diproton plus halo explanation sees EUV coming from electrogravitational collapse of transient halo neutrons into a diproton core. Is gravity integral to this halo neutron explanation? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: They were the ones who insisted that Gamberale set up the system that way. When he tried to install additional equipment to confirm the flow rate, they ordered it removed without discussion. They stopped him from doing common sense tests that would have revealed the flow meter was not working. With all confidence, you repeat Gamberale's assertion that Defkalion prevented Gamberale from doing common sense tests, as though it were established fact. What is the basis for your confidence? It is not Xanthoulis. He acknowledged that there was a problem with the flow meter. He did not acknowledge that Defkalion prevented Gamberale from doing common sense tests. You are casting doubt on your objectivity. You are beginning to sound like Krivit. You want to take a short-cut to get to a conclusion that you believe to be true. The conclusion about Defkalion that you want to get to is probably spot-on. But, at least from the information that has been made public, all we have are assertions from parties directly involved concerning Defkalion preventing Gamberale from making accurate measurements. This detail is likely to be true, but has not been established to be true. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 4:10 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I agree, however I think the claim was that they do lose a significant portion of their own mass, though I'm not at all clear on how that is supposed to happen. This is how I understand Ed's theory. The mass-energy that is converted to low energy photons is from the nucleons themselves, as they slowly fuse into either 4He or D. The process is supposed to occur gradually, somehow. The image I had was of the nucleons slowly sliding together along a single dimension and yielding mass as they go in the form of photons. (This obviously sets aside the usual considerations about the strong force and coulomb repulsion.) I don't think Ed was necessarily claiming that the method of energy loss was through conversion of electron mass. In fact I didn't notice any explanation at all. I don't recall a specific explanation for this particular step, either, except that Ed believes the behavior of the nuclei within the hydroton to be a completely different from that in normal fusion, made possible by the unique context of the nuclear-active environment. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Europe (DE) was a joint venture
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It Defkalion did not prevent these tests, I think it is up to them to publish a statement explaining why the tests were not done until after ICCF18. Let them tell their version of the story. If they do not respond, I will assume Gamberale is telling the truth. Yes, this is very reasonable. If they remain quiet, it becomes harder and harder over time to escape the conclusion that they were hoping to manipulate the outcome of the test by keeping Gamberale from taking good measurements. If DGT prevented the tests they are frauds. If they prevented simple, common sense measurements, this is a hard conclusion to avoid. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Nuclear isomer
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 7:57 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If your description of the process is accurate then one must assume that the nucleons become attracted and bound to each other as the fusion progresses. Personally, I do not set much store in Ed's theory. I'm no nuclear physicist. But it seems to me that in any context except perhaps a quark plasma the strong interaction and coulomb repulsion will continue to apply. Coulomb repulsion means that when you try to push two nuclei together, they'll bounce apart, like magnets with the same pole facing each other. The strong force means that if you somehow overcome this repulsion and push them close enough together, they'll snap together with great force. But Ed wants the process to be gradual rather than violent. There's also the problem of the weak interaction. Two protons will not stay together long, so you need to have an inverse beta decay if protons are the starting point. But inverse beta decay normally happens very infrequently, so for Ed's process to work, either you have to find a way to speed the weak interaction up, or to say that the weak interaction doesn't apply. All of this combines to make the nuclear-active environment very unique indeed. Perhaps the extreme magnetic field that many are speculating about is able to confine the nucleons and one or more electrons in such a manner that this can occur in 1 dimension. I'm not sure what other forces are thought to be at play, but I think that Ed believes the cracks in his theory to be responsible or partly responsible for confining the precursors to a single dimension. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Then are we now adding the condition that the temperature needs to be above 800C in order to determine that Rossi is real??? I was addressing the question of whether a Stirling engine would be necessary or useful; I was saying it shouldn't be needed if temperatures can be made to reach as high as those seen in the Elforsk test. The Elforsk test gives me, personally speaking, sufficient information to believe that Rossi is probably for real. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: ***Does that mean you think it's a 51% probability that Rossi is real? I don't know if I can quantify the feeling with so much precision. I'm on the fence about the underlying premises of prediction markets. Perhaps a feeling that there is an 80+% chance that he's got something, with a healthy allowance for the possibility of a negative surprise in the future. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I called Alexander Xanthoulis and asked for a comment. He didn’t dispute the result of the report but pointed out that the calorimetric set-up at the Milan demo was not made by Defkalion but by Mose. Gamberale confirmed this but explained that the set-up was made according to strict instructions from Defkalion, and that when Mose added some component, such as another independent flow meter or another method for measuring thermal heat output, these additional components were immediately removed by Defkalion personnel without discussions. If they are not swindlers . . . then for some reason they are trying to make themselves look like swindlers, when they do things like this. As has been mentioned, we don't know much about Gamberale. I recall that his conclusion about the flow meter was validated by others you know. But I haven't heard about validation of all of his statements, especially the ones concerning his being made to do this or that. We have two different accounts that conflict in spirit, one in which Xanthoulis says that Gamberale decided how to do the measurements, and one in which Gamberale says that Defkalion decided how to do the measurements. To be sure, even with what has been substantiated, the situation is an embarrassing one for Defkalion. But I am not persuaded one way or the other that Gamberale's account is not an exaggerated or misleading one in some details. It would be nice to know more about him or to have third-party verification of some of the other things he's saying. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: From many experts in engine I've heard that stirling engine are not a realistic solution... If the temperature of a device approaches 8-900 C, as seen in the Elforsk test, a simple steam engine should be adequate. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Blockbuster Big Bang Result May Fizzle, Rumor Suggests
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:57 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2014/05/blockbuster-big-bang-result-may-fizzle-rumor-suggests From the article: Part of the problem is that the Planck team has not made the raw foreground data available, he says. Instead, BICEP researchers had to do the best they could with a PDF file of that map that the Planck team presented at a conference. Moreover, Pryke says, conversations with members of the Planck team leave it uncertain exactly what is in the key plot. It is unclear what that plot shows, he says. Just to clarify -- it seems a critical piece of the reasoning that led to the conclusion that the traces of gravity waves from the very first instant of the universe's assumed inflation was based on the subtracting of an image in a PDF file whose underlying data were not made available to the reporting team and whose purport is not fully known by some of the members of the team that produced the original graphic. Or something like that. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Kudos to Jed
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: We have to be careful. Without regard to DGT, specifically, I think there is a recurring lesson here. In the LENR and free energy fields, more than any other fields I have followed, there is a certain type of amped-up businessman who belongs in a late-night infomercial but instead makes wacky claims somewhere on the Internet. Whether you would call what they're doing fraud or not probably depends in part upon the mindset and intention of the people, if any, who have given them money. In this context it is something of a miracle that Rossi's work has stood out as likely being genuine and have not simply blended into the background. The LENR researchers, too, on the whole, do not fit this pattern, although some of them are obviously credulous. A few of them do appear to be infomercial salesmen as well. Even when people seem credible and genuine, it is good to follow up and ask for some data to support what they're saying. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Nickel and Palladium prices
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: if deuterium works well with nickel electrodes, as Mizuno indicates - then why would anyone want to pay hundreds of times more for palladium? Perhaps for the tritium. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Decreasing the probability to 35% based on shattering news of the Defkalion demo being completely worthless. I hesitate to say it, but It almost sounds like fraud is being implied. http://animpossibleinvention.com/2014/05/12/defkalion-demo-proven-not-to-be-reliable/ At the time of the demo, few here were impressed with it, if I recall. I do not know why you would have increased your probability figure in connection with the demo, such that the recent evidence to come to light would take something back away from it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Vector Potential Wave Radio
Stewart, I have glanced at your web site. I have not taken a close look at your research, but I would not be surprised if you ended up being onto something about doppler radar being a source of hypoxia, oxygen free radicals and the death of nearby animal and plant life. You also have a theory of dark matter, and a hunch that dark matter is indirectly responsible for the conclusions concerning doppler radar that you arrive at in your informal research. On the connection to dark matter, I personally have no opinion. I am skeptical, however, that your research is sufficient to establish any kind of linkage between the effects of doppler radar and dark matter, however. In light of this doubt, I think you might be able to get your investigation into doppler radar out to a wider audience if you did not combine it with the question of dark matter. Adding dark matter into the mix asks too much of people in their suspension of disbelief for them to be able to give much credibility to your doppler radar hunch, even if both hunches ended up being true. Eric On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:55 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Radar/Call SignMHTModel ASR-9Max Pulsed Power (Watts)1,300,000Gain (dBi)34Frequency (MHz)2,800RPM12.5Max Power Density (W/m2) @ 10 km 10.39Pulse Duration(uSec)1.00Pulse Repition Factor (Hz)1,000Range Est. (Miles)60 Latitude42.937248 Longitude-71.437286FIPS33011CountyHillsboroughStateNH
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. I have heard from someone who has done business with Brillouin in the past that one should be wary of the claims they make. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
I wrote: I have heard from someone who has done business with Brillouin in the past that one should be wary of the claims they make. I should add that I do not know the person well and cannot vouch for the accuracy of the claim of having done business with Brillouin, so take this detail for what it is worth. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A different use for your brain
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:05 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Proessor Roger Bowley unlocks his car from various distances, using waves from his key, brain and a big bottle of water. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Uqf71muwWc Nice. Professor Bowley: The only way to find [about something] out is to do the dammed experiment. Disprove your prejudices. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Of course, helium is not hydrogen, but still, it does indicate there is trapped gas. For palladium and deuterium, where we know 4He is produced, 4He is immobile in bulk palladium, while deuterium will escape over time. The 4He gets stuck in a way that H or D does not, as I remember. An implication is that to measure the full amount of 4He that has been produced in a PdD system, it is advisable to melt down a cathode to get at the 4He trapped in the bulk. One reason people have suspected that PdD cold fusion is due to a surface or near surface reaction is that 4He is found near the surface and with decreasing probability further into the used cathode, where a clean sample does not show such a pattern (I think). But I believe the deuterium itself will gradually escape from palladium over time, like air leaking from a balloon. The dynamic with hydrogen and nickel is probably different with regard to this detail at least, as nickel, unalloyed, does not appear to readily absorb hydrogen in the way that unalloyed palladium does. I assume that loading is something that is only indirectly related to PdD cold fusion, and the actual mechanism simply depends upon a ready supply of deuterium, something that is accomplished in NiH system by having an additional source of hydrogen that releases it over time, e.g., when it is heated. But this is just speculation on my part. Eric
Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If Ed is right and the reaction occurs only at the surface, then there would be rapid exchange with hydrogen in the water. What I do not understand about that hypothesis is: Why is high loading important, in that case? Another possibility about the role of high loading -- it's useful in PdD cold fusion because it results in a prolonged release of hydrogen to the surface. Palladium interacts with hydrogen/deuterium differently than nickel does with hydrogen. In particular, hydrogen and deuterium are more soluble in palladium than nickel, if I remember correctly. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2001/0040434.html I assume you are familiar with Lawrence Nelson's patents in regard to screened electrons. Here is a copy of the patent with less moving images: http://www.google.com/patents/US20010040434 From glancing over the patent, I understand that Nelson is claiming to have an overunity device and that the mechanism somehow relates to thermionic emission. Did anyone catch Nelson's own understanding of how thermionic emission leads to overunity gain? Does he put the mechanism in the chemical bucket, the nuclear bucket, or another bucket? Or does he leave an explanation out of the patent? (I didn't see one, but I didn't read the patent too closely.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:56 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: One observation that appears valid is that electrons certainly occur in pairs around nuclei. This is an interesting thought. But note that the electrons in shells around a nucleus are probably not in pairs due to some kind of mutual attraction; they're strongly attracted to the positively charged protons in the nucleus and settle into pairs because with opposite spins they don't cancel each other out. Or so my understanding would lead me to believe. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Oxygen to hydrogen?
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Steve High diamondweb...@gmail.com wrote: Wouldn't that be a rather endothermic procedure? If you could get a process going that efficiently splits oxygen nuclei into protons (and neutrons), Robin's calculations suggest the device would make a fantastic freezer. Better have large source of power to drive the thing. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Ever-vigilant Wikipedia editors
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I'll be darned. They have a page for Mizuno, and one for the ICCF conferences too. The ICCF page was there years ago but someone deleted it. It is back. The ICCF page was put up for deletion a year or so ago. I voted against deletion when I found out about it. The vote was a close one. There are people there with strong opinions about what is science and what is not. These opinions obscure their objectivity with regard to questions about what is noteworthy. I pointed out that the conference is relevant to and would be known by anyone with more than a passing interest in cold fusion, even if cold fusion proved to be bunk. I vaguely recall someone coming back with a self-satisfied reply. Over time I've come to learn that a person's ability to come back with a quick retort has little to do with their level of objectivity or understanding of a matter. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:29 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanations for the CMB. Another thought -- we assume that because conservation of energy is borne out experimentally on the local scale that it also applies to the cosmic scale. But I see no reason other than tradition to assume that the observable universe is a closed system or that energy is not somehow seeping into it via some orthogonal pathway. (I doubt any of that would have a direct connection to LENR, though.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:World of Warcraft Macros
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: That is a stupid thing for a politician to say. Most elections are close. That means half the voters are Democrats. A politician should never insult voters. The method of some politicians and radio show hosts is to fire up the base. This often involves speaking to their misconceptions, pandering to their prejudices, and, in the US, talking straight. I imagine it can make the difference in a tight race by bringing out just few more voters to the polls. It is not a winning strategy in the long term when the demographic tide is against you, but political operators are generally focused on the next election. The real failing is a culture in which people are so easily manipulable. That is probably due to a lack of a good education. Eric
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC iRobot Ava 500 virtual presence robot
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Someday there will be a meeting at which everyone attending is embodied by one of these things. People will wonder why they did not simply make it a fully electronic. My guess is that these things will never be widespread for use in offices. There is a simpler version of one of these at my work: http://www.funkyspacemonkey.com/double-by-double-robotics-wheels-for-your-ipad-video There is an office in Toronto, and some of the people there were piloting the thing around the main office, in San Francisco. The face of the person operating the device appears in the screen at the top (which is simple iPad). It is uncanny how much the robot makes it seem like the person is actually there, in the office. We also make a lot of use of videoconferencing, which has a similar effect. The robot in the link above is clever, but don't try to play a prank on the operator by lifting it up while it's moving. The operator will not know what has caused the loss of control and will continue to apply power, and the wheel will spin even faster. When you set it back on the ground the wheel will suddenly gain traction, and the top will flip down against any sharp edge nearby. We have cracked at least one iPad screen that way. Eric
[Vo]:Gmail continuing to mark some Vortex messages as spam
Just a heads up that Gmail continues to move some Vortex messages to the spam folder. If you use Gmail, an easy way to find them is to go to the spam folder and search for Vortex. Nearly everything in the results will be legitimate Vortex mail. I suspect the filter they're using to send messages to the spam folder is the degree to which pseudoscience is promoted. If you wish to avoid the hassle of people looking for your message in the spam folder, you should discuss only orthodox science. Eric
Re: [Vo]:[OT] But not entirely: Book: CAPITAL in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas Piketty
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 7:05 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: A book recommendation: http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1398126885sr=1-1keywords=capital+in+the+twenty-first+century I am thinking of hunkering down and reading this book at some point. Doing that is probably something one would need to commit to in this case, in the same way that one would need to set aside many weeks to read Weber's *Economy and Society*. A nice summary of Piketty's argument that I've read elsewhere is something like: increasing inequality in income is intrinsic to capitalism and is not an incidental, unrelated effect. The word increasing is important -- Piketty seems to be saying that with un- or under-regulated capitalism, not only do you get inequality in income (to be expected), but ever more inequality over time as well. In other words, rentiers take hold and gradually increase the scope of what they control at everyone else's expense, and this process is intrinsic to raw capitalism. Btw, here is the explanation I read for why eight or so Vortex messages ended up in the spam folder: *Why is this message in Spam?* We've found that lots of messages from eskimo.com are spam. Learn morehttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=1366858ctx=mailexpand=5 So it seems that eskimo.com might have been blacklisted. Eric
Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: … and given the recent Mizuno results – where a former proponent of helium is now (effectively) recanting - we may be seeing a major change in outlook. I did not read that into Mizuno's recent slides. I doubt he is recanting any helium results he has reported in the past, effectively or in actuality. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Blood Moon rising
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ... this bone-headed RD that Dutch virologists have been doing (also reported recently): http://www.vox.com/2014/4/12/5605950/why-did-scientists-just-make-bird-flu-m ore-contagious One concern I have is about what bath salts do to the brains of the users [1]. The users exhibit zombie-like behavior, and when they are less delirious, they can become violent and extremely difficult to restrain. If some naive researchers developed a contagious biological agent that had a similar effect on the brain as bath salts, we would have a genuine zombie problem. Eric [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2354744/Teen-high-bath-salts-crashes-car-exhibits-Zombie-like-behavior-psychotic-episode.html
Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I hope this short description of how I model the ECAT operation helps to clarify the process. If you have additional questions please feel free to ask. When you were modeling the thermodynamics of the reaction, did you use a stochastic model for the reaction itself? If so, did you look at the effect of different variances in the temperature excursions? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Lewan describes Rossi's many failed tests
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is why I do not trust Rossi's evaluations of his own work. I only trust independent verification. Fortunately, there have been some good independent verification test, by Ampenergo, Elforsk, and others. According to Mats Lewan, Ampenergo was a company formed by Craig Cassarino and others around the time that testing was being done on the E-Cat. Ampenergo was later to become Rossi's US partner, with rights to the sale of E-Cats in north and south America (p. 119). Cassarino had had previously done business with Rossi. The connection was deep -- somewhere during 1995 or 1996, Rossi had been hired on as technical developer for Bio Development Corporation, where Cassarino was vice president (p. 52). Rossi, Cassarino and Charles Norwood later formed Leonardo Technologies, Inc. (LTI), to explore the commercialization of Rossi's thermoelectric generators with the Department of Energy (p. 53). LTI, of course, is a major player in connection with the E-Cat. In my mind, this makes any Ampenergo test essentially an internal test, and not an independent one. Ampenergo gives the appearance of being another one of the many corporations that Rossi has started up for reasons known only to him. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: What’s good for the goose is also good for the gander. ... you may also be at risk of being an another tool of Defkalian’s maskirovka. Where do you get these idioms and turns of phrase? If there is a good Web site out there, please point me to it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Lewan book
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: This is not true. That's what I can say. And why are you calling Peter Gluck and Yianni's son a nobody? I don't think anyone would call Peter a nobody. I'm curious -- what is the name of Yianni's son? Is it Aris Chatzichristos? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi long term test
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It is located in a Country that is not Italy and is not USA. Maybe China? I am reading Mats Lewan's book right now and am about a third of the way through it. It is well worth reading for the backstory, although I sometimes wonder whether Lewan too readily repeats uncritically the information that has been given to him, as has been said in connection with Isaacson's book about Steve Jobs. Following are companies that Rossi has started or purchased at the point where I am in my reading: - Petroldragon - Omar - Leonardo Corporation - Leonardo Technologies Inc. (different from Leonardo Corp.) - Eon - Energia da Fonti Alternative (EFA) So far the story has been quite an adventure, including a description of a stay for over a year in an Italian jail, where Rossi was in a cell with five other inmates. At one point a secret factory is set up in Florida, which partly manufactures E-Cats and for which there is another blue-collar business that serves as a cover. Sometimes LTI handles a transaction, and sometimes Leonardo Corp. does. Rossi (as you know) starts a Web site called the Journal of Nuclear Physics, which purports to be a peer reviewed journal. I am now convinced that Rossi is exactly as colorful as he gives the impression of being. I am reminded of John Nash. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan book : An Impossible Invention
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ahern seems to believe magnetic effects are at the heart of LENR phenomena. Each experimentalist and theorist has a pet theory about what is going on. What is important is whether one is able to subjugate one's personal hunches to a more objective and systematic pursuit of what is going on. He does not think nuclear reactions are involved. This should be a warning sign that Dr. Ahern might not be seeing much of interest. What seems clear is that some researchers get very pronounced results. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Is Mizuno poining at Ryberg matter or not?
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: What is your understanding of the energy transfer mechanism involved in the evanescent coupling (non-radiative) phenomena? I have heard that Mills's claim is that it is Forster resonance energy transfer (FRET) [1]. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6rster_resonance_energy_transfer
Re: [Vo]:Is Mizuno poining at Ryberg matter or not?
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: 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]:Erdos CTL - a Communist success story? with implications for Rossi?
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: China looks at this technology as a great success of State sponsorship, where an efficient enterprise is doing something that no capitalist in the USA has accomplished and is making both a huge profit and saving the economy billions by reduced reliance on OPEC oil. Over the next 40 years, China will save the capitalists from themselves, by offering genuine competition to their regulatory capturing, crony version of capitalism. China will do as was done in Singapore and develop a well-oiled, heavily socially engineered machine that is both efficient and slightly repugnant to Western sensibilities. Where US defense contractors will require 1 billion dollars to produce a new military system, the Chinese defense establishment will do something a little pared down and less ostentatious, but still quite effective, with 20 million dollars. As this happens, we will all collectively come to disdain prevailing superstition about efficient markets and start to look for more practical ways of allocating capital for large endeavors. (It's the big efforts that seem to pose a challenge for the US version of capitalism; I get the sense that commodity markets are already fairly efficient.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:US Examiner Addresses Andrea Rossi US Patent Application
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: But they did have patents! But Rossi doesn't have anything. His ecat secret will be cracked within days or just a few weeks, given the importance of the invention, the greatest since the domestication of wheat and rice So, he doesn't have anything. He's naked, he won't profit without a patent. This makes sense to me. I suspect Rossi has given up on cashing in big at this point and is now happy to have made a significant amount (presumably) on the recent sale to Industrial Heat and, in the future, through a share of whatever they take in. It is now in Industrial Heat's hands to try to obtain a profit from the situation, assuming this is their goal. I suppose the way they can do that at this point is by getting a line of quality products to market. There will obviously be tough competition once enough people get over the initial disbelief. Eric
Re: [Vo]:US Examiner Addresses Andrea Rossi US Patent Application
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The Rossi opera – soapy or riveting, will not end until the technology is shown to be a complete bust, since it does not exist out there alone. Both riveting and weighed down with some longueurs. When the news comes in, more entertaining than a novel. Perhaps a show that could only be possible since the Internet came along. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno slides coming
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There would be a net decrease in gas quantity under any scenario in which D2 reacts with nickel – never wound an increase be expected, even small - much less a ~2:1 increase in gas quantity. Amazing. I think the lead that you and Axil are pursuing on the possibility of some way of splitting the deuterons in a special near-field magnetic field in the environment provided by nickel cavities is a thought-provoking one, and I'll be interested to see where the thought experiment goes. For the moment, I figure we each of us gets to egregiously ignore at least one major claim or implication of any item of news until one has lost enthusiasm for what one gets in return (in doing this, I'm just formalizing the existing practice on this list). The claim I will egregiously ignore for the moment as either being artifact or something that is different from what we currently understand it to be is the idea that there were twice as many gas molecules after the experiment had run than at the time it had started. (Because I'm *egregiously* ignoring the detail, I make no claims as to the plausibility that something is wrong with it.) What this gets me in return: - The p+Ni lead appears to align with the thoughts of the experimenters themselves, who included graphs of the neutron capture cross sections for nickel in their slides. - The p+Ni lead takes on a similar shape to earlier speculations about proton capture in the NiH system and to 4He generation in the PdD system (e.g., involving electric arcs between insulated grains). - The authors mention that if you calculate the amount of energy that would be expected of reactions generating between 3-4 MeV each, you would get less energy than they observed. This is a detail you have to egregiously ignore to put forward a reaction that produces on the order of 400 keV apiece. (Another detail *I'm* egregiously ignoring at the moment is the expected Bremsstrahlung radiation from fast protons; I'm starting to wonder whether whatever is going on can diffuse even kinetic energy into the electronic structure.) But, again, I like where you're going with the deuteron splitting and the neutron either decaying over a period of minutes, or instantaneously changing to a proton due to the weird way the process unfolds. Can we agree on this -- your argument will not be expected to predict beta+ or beta- decay signatures in any significant amount, whereas mine will? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno slides coming
I wrote: - The p+Ni lead appears to align with the thoughts of the experimenters themselves, who included graphs of the neutron capture cross sections for nickel in their slides. I wrote p+Ni, but I meant d+Ni. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno slides coming
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I wrote p+Ni, but I meant d+Ni. The d+Ni reaction would have to be the Oppenheimer-Phillips version, to be statistically relevant. Here is a blip on Passell’s O-P theroy. I have not found it as a separate file. http://coldfusionnow.org/iccf-18-day-5-presentations-and-awards/ Yes! Yesterday I borrowed (stole) the OP idea from you. (I didn't know that I also borrowed it from Thomas Passel, although he seems to be looking at palladium.) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg92381.html I just discovered that you wrote concerning the OP angle back in 2010 (and Abd Lomax replied): https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com In answer to Abd Lomax's question about how to accelerate the deuteron, I'm venturing that this would be done by way of an electric arc between two insulated nickel grains. Although one expects a fast proton as a result, I think we have to posit something that short-circuits the resulting kinetic energy in order to avoid a situation where there is a Chernobyl's worth of Bremsstrahlung coming out of the system. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno slides coming
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I just discovered that you wrote concerning the OP angle back in 2010 (and Abd Lomax replied): https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com That second link above, where Jones and Abd Lomax discuss the Oppenheimer-Phillips process in the context of d+Ni, was a little too general. The link was supposed to be: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg39383.html Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno slides coming
I wrote: The claim I will egregiously ignore for the moment as either being artifact or something that is different from what we currently understand it to be is the idea that there were twice as many gas molecules after the experiment had run than at the time it had started. I think I found a way out of this difficulty. There might be a straightforward way to explain the increase in the number of gas molecules after the runs by Yoshida et al. If we're seeing neutron capture after a deuteron has been forced to approach a nickel lattice site, with a corresponding expelling of a 5-7 MeV proton, we can expect there to be a lot of spallation. Here is an image of what I have in mind: http://i.imgur.com/cATIdcT.png The idea is that the current from an arc between two grains is causing great downward pressure on deuteron ions, forcing them into a recess in one of the grains. (They're ionized because they're in the midst of an electric arc.) That pressure forces a deuteron at the bottom of the recess to approach close to one of the lattice sites. At some point the Oppenheimer-Phillips process takes over and strips the neutron from the deuteron, yielding a high-energy proton. While the lattice site barely moves, the proton flies with great force into the ions above it. As happens when a bullet is fired into water or sand, the momentum of the proton is quickly dampened. In the process you can expect a spallation, in which some of the other deuterons are broken apart into protons and neutrons. The neutrons will have a half-life of 14 minutes and will decay into protons. Outside of the electric arc the protons will combine to form some multiple of H2 molecules of the original number of D2/DH molecules that were fed into the system. Since the high-energy proton is colliding primarily with other ionized protons and deuterons, I'm guessing there will be little high-energy Bremsstrahlung from collisions with lattice site electrons. Presumably all of this happens before a dislocation occurs at the bottom of the recess and relieves some of the pressure. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno slides coming
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There is no indication that any atom larger in mass than deuterium had been generated. See the yellow arrow for species of mass 3 on pp. 38, 39, 41 and 42 of the slides (according to Chrome): http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/YoshinoHreplicable.pdf At first the m=3 species go up. Only after some time do they go down. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno slides coming
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 8:55 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Going from D to H should be endothermic. Exciting slides. I do not have the wherewithal to assess their calorimetry, so I will assume it is accurate. Here are some exothermic reactions involving generation of H from D: - d + 60Ni → 61Ni + p + Q (6.1 MeV) - d + 61Ni → 62Ni + p + Q (8.9 MeV) - d + 62Ni → 63Ni + p + Q (5.1 MeV) - d + 64Ni → 65Ni + p + Q (7.9 MeV) Note that in the authors' back-of-the-envelope calculations using two d+d branches, yielding 4.03 MeV and 3.27 MeV respectively, they came to an expected energy output that was lower than the one they think they observed. So the higher Qs of the above reactions fit that picture nicely. Their slides on the neutron capture cross sections of nickel suggest that they are also looking at thinking about the d+Ni reactions. Regarding the radiation measurements they have not yet reported on -- I will call out a guess that they will report evidence of beta+ and beta- decay. The treated nickel is interesting looking. I assume this is what the nickel looks like prior to a reaction. Note that there is greater occasion for electrically insulated grains after the treatment than before the treatment. Note that the NiD system is quite different than the oft-studied PdD system. I vaguely recall sometime back that proton and deuteron capture are not favorable in palladium, whereas proton capture is favorable in nickel. What is interesting in the above scenario is that we are looking at the possibility not of proton capture but of neutron capture. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno slides coming
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 8:20 PM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: I se you was quicker with neutron capture. But the should look for He4 in the Ni metall. Good idea. 4He does not migrate in palladium, so it may not migrate in nickel either. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno slides coming
I wrote: What is interesting in the above scenario is that we are looking at the possibility not of proton capture but of neutron capture. The Oppenheimer-Phillips process (mentioned by Jones) becomes quite interesting in the context of a d+Ni reaction. Given the very strong repulsion of the proton in the deuteron and the protons in the Ni, I assume the deuterons would be pressed into the nickel lattice sites with the neutron facing the nickel atom rather than the proton. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno slides coming
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You may have missed one huge detail. Did not the gas quantity in the reactor actually increase significantly after 30 days compared to initial conditions ? Yes. Interesting detail. I hope they give out more information. If D2 gas reacts with nickel, not only do you get radioactive ash, which is not mentioned I think they're holding off on reporting their radiation measurements until later (there was a slide towards the end that hinted at this). but surely would have been mentioned if it was there, but also a drop in pressure and in the quantity of gas - as hot protons are captured in the metal and neutrons are absorbed. I would have thought that the protons would migrate out and recombine to form H2. But I don't think that would account for a twofold increase. Unless H2 takes up a larger volume than D2/DH/H2? I'm not sure what's going on with this detail. (Note that in early MFMP experiments, there was a weird relationship between pressure and their XP curves, suggesting some kind of artifact, so conceivably there could be something similar going on here.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 9:31 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Why carry the jet fuel along if you can make sufficient power to keep the air craft in the sky for an indefinite amount of time using LENR? Do you see an advantage to their approach? It is interesting to consider the following -- get LENR going in nickel and ramp the reaction up to a high temperature. Now blow hydrogen and oxygen over it. Perhaps the resulting hydrogen torch will provide some thrust. In addition, some of the hydrogen might go to feed back into the LENR reaction, and perhaps you'll also get thrust from the resulting H2O vapor. Eric
Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: Eric, on the little info I could find in public domain, I understand that ß+ decay happens within the nucleus. Are you saying that there are quite some exceptions? Perhaps Robin or Bob can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the way beta-plus decay works is that the unstable nucleus emits a positron during the transition to the daughter. The positron does something of a random walk around the (extra-nuclear) environment until it encounters an electron, at which point you get the annihilation and resulting 511 keV photon pair (each going off in opposite directions). Eric
Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Until they get to real low energies they mostly move in a straight line. Thus even shielding will not destroy the coincident events that detectors will record. Interesting; I didn't realize that. Somewhere I got the impression that the remission of a photon after a scattering with an electron would be in a random direction. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Stimulate embrittlement--ideas for production
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: Celani holds a patent application that combines oxidation and adding a silicate layer to significantly speed up absorption of Hydrogen. His process also includes rapid cooling, creating small grain sizes during re-crystallisation. I think silicates also have a high dielectric strength. I assume this would facilitate the occurrence of electric arcs between grain boundaries. Eric
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ...not to mention the validation of Rossi - who may have already witnessed the higher power and higher COP, but we cannot be sure of Rossi - whereas this looks solid and professional. I'm glad to see that Mizuno might be hot on the trail of the kilowatt producers. Eric
Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: 1. The ß+ decay energy of Cu(x) Ni(x) + e+ + ve (2 -4 MeV) of each decay step in the chain, causing the Ni/Cu powder to heat up. I think the electron-positron annihilation photons from the radioactive decay of certain isotopes of nickel would escape the system. Since the mean free path of these photons is long, they would be unlikely to thermalize, unless some sort of 100 percent efficiency gamma thermalization mechanism is at play. (Only handfuls of gammas are typically seen.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:HHO welding is LENR
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: In the case of HHO ... I'm not convinced that there even is an HHO distinct from H2O, although I do get a guilty pleasure out of following some of the accounts of what it is supposed to be able to do. Eric
[Vo]:evidence for several oceans' worth of water in the earth's interior
See: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26553115 There has been a question among geologists about whether hydrogen is an essential element in the earth's makeup, or whether it was brought in from elsewhere (e.g., from comets). The new finding suggests that hydrogen has been here from early on. I find it interesting that there is evidence for large amounts of water (and hydrogen) deep within the earth, together with a lot of nickel and iron. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ni-62 and Ni64 are not a big constituents of natural Ni--Ni-58 is the largest at about 68.3%. However, they both provide about 4.5% of the natural Ni isotopes. Both Ni-62 and Ni-64 would transmute to stable Cu -63 and Cu-65 upon absorption of a proton. There may be no gammas emitted. On the other hand transmutation of Ni-58 to Cu-59 would likely involve gammas (maybe as high as 1.3 Mev associated with Cu-59 decay to Ni-59 which itself is radioactive with no direct gamma emission, only positron emission with its subsequent annililation with an electron producing the .51 Mev back to back gammas. I'm wondering about three things that might mitigate the detection of penetrating radiation. First would be successful enrichment to 62Ni and 64Ni to a high degree. Second would be the possibility that 62Ni and 64Ni are special and participate in the reaction in a way that other isotopes of nickel do not (recall that this was a topic of discussion for many weeks at one point). Third is the possibility that in recent cases where there was a vigorous NiH reaction and someone there to detect radiation (e.g., the recent Elforsk test), perhaps the detector was not configured to detect at levels that would have been relevant. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Newly published US20140034116A1 patent application regarding LENR
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: A key question is how easy it is to enrich Ni. This should be easy to answer. Note in my comment I suggested that particular organic Ni compounds may be selectively sensitive to tuned laser based on the isotope they contain and hence selective dissociation or other chemical reaction to accomplish separation. This is far from anything I have experience with or know about, although I can envision how it might work. Do you remember when the topic was discussed before. I would like to review that thread. Unfortunately it wasn't a single thread that I can point you to. The detail related to one of Rossi's patent applications and to a counterclaim made by Defkalion, as well as a similar but distinct claim made by Defkalion in relation to different isotopes of nickel. In Rossi's application, I do not recall the specific isotopes, although I suspect they were 62Ni and 64Ni. The key point of the discussion was that some isotopes might be more reactive than others. Eric
Re: Replications. Formerly [Vo]:LENR a gateway into the theory of everything.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Ironically. the longer people wait to bring serious funding into the effort, the more basic ideas will become public knowledge and unavailable for patent protection. Eventually, only the lawyers and China will make money. And the people providing a service by manufacturing high-quality modules and selling them. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:24 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, if the photons were to be emitted in random directions by the excited He4, then little kinetic energy would be imparted upon the nucleus.I suspect this is what you are referring to. Perhaps; I'm not sure. I had in mind something like this: an excited [dd]* or [pNi]* state is like a capacitor that will discharge. In a vacuum it will discharge either by emitting a gamma, which takes a while, or by breaking apart, which happens more quickly. But at the surface of or within a few layers of a metal like nickel, there is an environment rich in electrostatic charge, provided by the electrons and the lattice sites (sometimes called ion cores, since they're positively charged). If the [pNi]* excited state discharges like a capacitor within this environment with all of the electrostatic charge, I'm assuming there will be electromagnetic coupling between the excited state and the electrostatic sources, in the sense that they will form a system and interact. There will be a strong repulsive force given off by the [pNi]* state as it decays to whatever it decays to (for example, 63Cu), and this repulsive force will push away the nearby electrons and ion cores. The more it pushes away the electrons, the more you'll get a bath of photons. The more it pushes away the ion cores, the more kinetic energy will be imparted to the daughter of the decay. This is because electrons are nearly massless, and so receive the majority of the impulse, while the ion cores have a mass nearly equal to the daughter, and so push back on the resulting daughter much more than the electrons. I am not yet sure how the electromagnetic interaction relates to spin coupling, although I think Bob sees something in this. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Bob, you fail to take into account the known and well documented bonding energy that can exist in a chemical system. This bonding is limited to no more than about 10 eV ... Is this the energy required for a dislocation? Wouldn't it be higher? Eric
Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:54 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Only by changing the thought experiment and incorporating that signal can an observer in the rest frame declare the events to be non-synchronous in his frame. This is an interesting thought experiment. I'm curious how the people at physics.stackexchange.com would reply to it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Eric Walker * This is yet another reason, one of many - why consideration of all the evidence, giving no preference to Pd-D, points to many different routes to gain in LENR. Sure… My working assumption is that both NiH and PdD (as well as W, Ti, etc.) involve fusion in some way. Both are without gammas This working assumption (of a known fusion reaction) is not justifiable by facts, logic or common sense. Sure. That's you're opinion. You're entitled to an opinion. When we come across an anomaly whose possible explanation is equivocal (i.e., we don't have enough data to say one way or the other), we have the option of adopting a working assumption vis-a-vis that anomaly. By working assumption I'm thinking of a placeholder of some kind to stand in for whatever the explanation ends up being when we have sufficient experimental data to remove the ambiguity in the data. Working assumptions are something we can throw away later when more evidence comes to light. In this sense they're not a blind assumptions, implicitly adopted. They're adopted consciously and tentatively. In this case I'm working from these details: - Skillful experimentalists have observed in the PdD system a correlation between 4He levels and excess heat that strongly suggests that there is d+d fusion going on, somehow. - The Elforsk team saw what they believe to be heat above and beyond what can be produced by a chemical reaction in Rossi's NiH system. - Other experimentalists looking at the NiH system have also seen what they believe to be heat above what can be produced by a chemical reaction. Now here are my working assumptions: - There's only two ways to get energy out of a system above a chemical reaction, and that's through fission or fusion. There is no other supra-chemical means of getting energy out of a system. - There's no reason to go for two different sets of explanations to explain an excess heat anomaly when the evidence is equivocal on what's going on. My own bias is towards one explanation, so I go with my bias. - There is a mechanism that has not yet been carefully characterized in which fusion can proceed without penetrating radiation. From these observations and working assumptions taken together I infer, consciously, aware of the implications, that what's going on in the NiH system is some kind of fusion. A conclusion I am quite happy with for the moment given my working assumptions and starting point. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: If you want to believe it is settled science as many do, you are welcome to do so. But I question it because no one is able to answer some very important questions such as how a photon can be explained to be C unless we are closing in distance toward it and then the only answers I get seem to be based on faith, in Einstein and scientific impartiality. Which IMO you are not doing very well on. When faced with a corner case in a system as subtle as special relativity, one has different options. If one has a sense of one's limits, one might conclude that the corner case is out in a region that extends beyond one's current understanding of the system. At this point, a competent person will either devote the time to understand the system in sufficient detail to get at the heart of the corner case, or one will delegate to other competent people and adopt what they explain as a working assumption. I do not intend right now to undertake a detailed study of special relativity, so I am instead happy to delegate to other competent people. Here is where trust becomes important -- only delegate to people you trust, or you will be given bad information upon which to base your working assumptions. On a scale of 1-5, I give the people at physics.stackexchange.com a 4 in terms of the confidence I have in their ability to understand the corner cases in special relativity that have been discussed up to now. By contrast, I give anyone who appears to be struggling with the basics of logical reasoning, such as starting from a well-known hypothesis, a 1 -- I would not trust them to be able to effectively sort out the corner case. I am happy with the people I have chosen to delegate out to on the matter of special relativity. This is not faith-based reasoning. It's a step that any person who has a sense of one's limits would do. The main reason I do not delegate out to the physics.stackexchange.compeople on the matter of cold fusion is that I detect a bias in their approach to the manner that has clouded their judgment and prevented them from adequately looking at the experimental evidence for cold fusion. Given the bias I perceive in their approach, I am practically forced to look into the matter myself, which I am happy to try to do. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No, it’s not opinion when 100% of the available proof is on your side. That's a pretty strong assessment of the merits of your position. :) It is fact that LENR is not and cannot be a known fusion reaction, since it is fact that no known nuclear fusion reaction is gamma free. QED. ... By definition, cold fusion cannot be the same known reaction as deuterium fusion to helium, which was known prior to 1989 - if it is gammaless – unless and until it can be shown that there is a real physical mechanism for not only for suppressing gammas, but for suppressing 100% of them without exception. Does either of these statements contradict anything I've said or assumed? I hope my outlining of my assumptions demonstrates that I do not have the typical fusion branches in mind. I have the general notion of two nucleons combining to create a larger nucleon with less mass and a release of energy. The branches would need to be different. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I have had a similar notion relative to the Pd-D system. Specifically two D come together to form a virtual excited He particle with high spin energy that fractionates its high spin energy to electrons and other coupled particles to attain the desired low energy associated with the stable He particle. Only many low energy photons are involved. to balance the lower mass of the He compared to the starting material. Yes -- this is the system I'm rooting for right now as well in the context of PdD. This system is not too dissimilar from what I gather is Hagelstein's system, where the excited [dd]* resonance binds (indirectly) with the phonon modes, but instead of phonon modes, in this system the [dd]* is binding with sources of electrostatic charge (electrons and ion cores). One question I have is why Hagelstein has not explored this avenue. I will hazard a guess that it is because he wants an oscillator and coherent feedback, and this system does not oscillate and just dumps energy instead in one big transfer. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I think there is a large number of particles involved in the fractionation of energy resulting from LENR. Otherwise the structure would be damaged so as not to produce LENR anymore. I like this line of approach. It reminds me of what Bob Higgins recently discussed [1]. Eric [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg89992.html
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: When alpha particles pass through material, a series of nuclear reactions can occur that emit radiation. In addition, bremsstrahlung radiation is emitted as the alpha slows down. Hagelstrin describes these processes in the papers I attached previously. I suggest you read them. If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion cores), the 4He daughter would have no or almost no energy. There would be the bath of photons from the fractionation, the nearly stationary 4He daughter, and no Bremsstrahlung from collisions by a fast particle. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Christopher H. Cooper
I wrote: If an alpha is born from a [dd]* resonance in which the mass energy is fractionated among a large number of sinks (e.g., nearby electrons and ion cores), the 4He daughter would have no or almost no energy. This was stated incorrectly. To the extent that there is binding between the [dd]* state and one or more nearby ion cores, I assume the daughter 4He would be imparted kinetic energy in corresponding measure. So if this system is anywhere near what is really going on, we have a parameter that we can play with and adjust to match the actual kinetic energies that are seen (not very much). The more there is interaction with the electronic structure, and the less there is interaction with the ion cores, the less kinetic energy imparted to the daughter 4He. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:35 AM, D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.comwrote: No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. You are no doubt correct about all of the nonsense going over this list about relativity being wrong. I suspect that there is someone, somewhere out there, who can argue persuasively for looking at some corners of relativity that have not been sufficiently probed. Such a person is probably not on this list. There is one soul who has bet the farm on relativity being wrong, who has all confidence in his understanding of the matter and who intends to teach us about our ignorance. There are one or two others who have been entertaining some of the thought experiments as an interesting exercise. The universe is in order, for this is a list for discussing the way-out and improbable with an open mind. There's no one to tell these folks that they should hew to the orthodox and put away the fantasies about relativity being wrong. It's a little unsettling, but you just have to get used to a low signal-to-noise ratio and keep an eye out for the interesting gems of insight that are occasionally mentioned. Anyone who would be put off by the current discussion of relativity would be unlikely to be influenced by something more profound that might also be discussed at some point. They would just unsubscribe in disgust, as happens from time to time. Eric
