Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Ruby wrote: ... These heat-helium correlations do not come from only one person. To > deny the correlation of heat-helium is essentially saying that not only is > Melvin Miles incompetent, but so are the researchers from the numerous > (16?) other studies confirming this effect as well. > Miles is one researcher whose work showed good evidence of a correlation of 4He generation with excess heat in a PdD system. There were other researchers who also produced evidence of a correlation of 4He with heat, and on an order compatible with a nuclear reaction of some kind. The 4He connection is only one of several lines of evidence that make an unambiguous case that there's something nuclear going on in the PdD system. It is incumbent upon anyone who would overthrow the years of research that have been done to establish a nuclear reaction to do the hard work of reading the actual papers. There's the chance I suppose that all of that work will have been for naught, but to show that this is the case, one has a lot of homework to do. With the NiH and NiD systems, we know a lot less. We're obviously all glued to our televisions and radios waiting to hear what's next. Personally, I find the bits and pieces that have leaked out here and there tantalizing evidence for a nuclear process of some kind. But what we have to work with is far from being rigorous science, so the engineers amongst us do what engineers love doing, which is to reverse engineer something on the basis of whatever information we have. And doing that effectively requires an open mind, a learning attitude, a willingness to entertain hypotheticals and a willingness to allow others the same latitude. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Paradox Effect, Haisch Rhueda and virtual particles wrt Casimir effect
Fran, You should use paragraph breaks. They would make your contributions easier to read. Eric On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > [image: http://www.byzipp.com/gamma.png] > > > > > > Sorry in advance, this is a work in progress initiated by a desire to > offer a more succinct argument regarding the relativistic theory of > Casimir effect. The gist of the concept is that mainstream has convinced > the world of how difficult it is to reach relativistic effects based on the > formula above where v^2 must be a significant portion of C^2. I have > followed Puthoff’s, Haisch and Rhueda’s papers regarding virtual particles > acting like raindrops thru our 3d plane where a speeding car is used as an > analogy to near C spacecraft where instead of accumulating vacuum pressure > the car accumulates raindrops as it accelerates thru the storm. I totally > agree that this is an energy intensive method to access relativistic > effects but disagree that physics can therefore discount this possibility > in lattice defects or geometries that initiate large Casimir, Hall or > London type forces. In fact I am positing that the above formula with a > quality coefficient proportional to ideal metals could be related directly > to the Casimir formula in the same way 2piFL was related to 1/2piFC to > derive resonant formula for electronics or solve for any of the other > variables you choose to algebraically isolate. I think that the breach in > isotropy of Casimir effect demonstrates a negative energy where instead of > increasing the intersection rate of windshield to the ambient “raindrops” > we instead make the Casimir cavity into an umbrella where the ambient is > reduced - no energy is required utilizing instead a quantum property of the > conductive metals and geometry. The breaches in isotropy even relative to > each other occur at the inverse cube of distance between geometries forming > a tapestry of wild fluctuations [as seen by the random motion of gas > particles between them] in the geometrical sweet spot where these quantum > forces can focus between 2-12nm. The closer together the regions, the > higher the force and the more rapidly the changes in focal points such that > even the smallest deviations from parallel boundaries produce large > variations in vacuum pressure for the randomly moving gas atoms between. > These forces are felt between nano powders or skeletal catalysts that form > mirrors/boundaries/plates and effect any gas atoms migrating between them. > The hydrogen atoms migrating thru these regions feel equivalent negative > acceleration in the same way we feel gravity but pushing them away from our > 3d plane instead of attracting us to it they seem to contract symmetrically > from our perspective instead of only in the direction of near C velocity we > are familiar with for the Paradox spacecraft. I made the previous > statement to underline that the hydrogen gas migrating thru this region is > in a negatively modified region where it perceives the outside world > equivalently accelerating away from it. I am convinced that condensed form > of hydrogen are actually relativistically contracted in the same manner as > an observer standing at the bottom a deep gravity well experiencing > equivalent acceleration at some fraction of C without spatial motion still > seem shrunken and time dilated to us outside his gravity well even without > spatial motion. We are used to the stationary perspective but the paradox > spacecraft would see the universe around it to seemingly expand > symmetrically time units becoming larger while spatial units get smaller. > The Casimir effect [umbrella] is just the opposite where space units get > larger - possibly allowing relativistic displacement to keep the Casimir > Lipschitz limit beyond the 2-12nm limit from our perspective while still > maintaining it from the perspective of the dimensionally displaced hydrogen > trapped between. Oh and yes I believe time units get smaller accounting for > anomalous decay rates of radioactive gases but by a method of segregation > where equal and opposite regions form tributaries that concentrate the > umbrella effect in the cavity while the surrounding outer regions are > slightly increased like the rain running off an umbrella would as a > necessary component since we cant get something for nothing and it is only > the random motion of gas and their natural affinity to seek openings of a > certain scale that we are exploiting – perhaps the claims of reduced decay > rates and cold anomalies are related to gases that have an affinity for > staying outside the umbrella under the “runoff” regions. > > Fran > >
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: I stand by my remarks about the inability of his 1500V-2500V supply to be > able to accelerate electrons or protons to 1.5-2.5 keV due to high pressure > scattering collisions in his high density plasma. > An analogy I use for the discharge experiments is that of dropping a penny on the floor and having a cannon ball fall from the ceiling below. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > > I remember that the SPAWAR experiments indicated He formed with the > correct 24... Mev energy of a D-D fusion reaction. > In the SPAWAR experiments I recall ~ 10-15 MeV alphas -- I might have missed a CR-39 paper that says the energy is more than this? I suspect that the 4He in the PdD experiments is perhaps not from d+d fusion. I'm very curious about a lithium-related reaction of some kind; e.g., 7Li(p,α)α. The Q value for this particular reaction is 16.84 MeV. If I recall correctly, Ed would strongly disagree. I believe Ed would say that 4He is found in PdD experiments in which there is no lithium. But I think such a statement would need to be closely examined. I vaguely recall that the value of 24 MeV per 4He that was derived for the helium experiments is subject to large error bars. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Has he looked for helium? That would be evidence for cold fusion. If he has > "not detected any" because he refused to look, that proves nothing. > I'm pretty sure Mills isn't using a PdD system. That is the only system of which I am aware that there's been a conclusion about 4He development. (One might also find evidence for 4He coming from TiD, WD, or something similar, if one goes through the archives; I'm not sure.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:A Stake in the Heart - a stunning revelation
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: In other words excess heat produces significantly more than the background > from diffusion, but much less than the atmospheric background. > For sure. It is not the absolute magnitude of the signal that matters (in this case 4He), it is the sensitivity of the measuring instrument. The way the sensitivity is determined is through calibration runs. Eric
Re: [Vo]:transmitted radiation for potential reactions in an NiH system
In the past, following the many statements compiled by Gary Wright of Rossi saying that they were seeing significant amounts of copper, I have argued in favor of a proton capture reaction in the NiH system. I argued this not out of a strong conviction that this was the case, but out of a desire to explore the idea. In the same spirit I'll now argue that Rossi and Focardi were not seeing copper as the main ash, and that it was either a byproduct not in proportion to the heat they were seeing at the time or, possibly, even a contaminant. This position isn't taken out of conviction but rather out of a desire to explore the consequences. With that in mind, some thoughts follow. > Why are the ash products all different between systems? What could explain > these differences? > My current working hypothesis is that there are two sources of transmutations. First, there is whatever is the main driver of the reaction and the source of heat. In the case of an NiH(D) system, I'm currently going with Ni(d,p)Ni reactions. For this to be the case, there would need to be stripping reactions in proportion to the heat that is produced. A second source of transmutations I'm taking to be due to impurities that are found in or that migrate to the site of the reaction. So in Iwamura's experiments that start with barium impurities, you see samarium in assays. If there are forces sufficient to press deuterium close enough to nickel lattice sites to cause a stripping reaction, they should be sufficient to act upon impurities in various ways as well. > DGT has no copper but lots of boron, beryllium, and lithium. > Do you have any additional details of the DGT assays? What did the nickel isotope ratios look like? > Rossi has iron and copper, Piantelli has a mix. > I suspect these were transmutations of the second kind, and that theoretical considerations led Rossi and Piantelli to prematurely conclude that such transmutations were the source of heat. > Mizuno has helium and copper. > I don't recall seeing references to helium or copper in connection with Mizuno (I do recall m=3 species, but that was in a set of slides). > It is safe to say that no two LENR systems have the same ash assay. Why? > This is a good question. Obviously no one, or few people, can say for sure. I'm guessing that transmutations of the second variety will be all over the map, depending on what the starting mix of impurities is. Eric
Re: [Vo]:transmitted radiation for potential reactions in an NiH system
I wrote: What is interesting for this particular model (photon transmission through > 1cm of nickel) is that reaction channels (0)-(3), which are the deuteron > capture reactions, are either not detected or barely detected (keep in mind > there was a layer of lead shielding the E-Cat at one point). > I said "deuteron capture," but I had in mind "deuteron stripping" or "neutron stripping," i.e., a deuteron is forced against a nickel lattice site by a force yet to be identified and the neutron is stripped off, sending the proton flying in the opposite direction with 5-10 MeV of energy. My assumption is that this would happen at or near the surface. In this context, one thought is that the fast protons might fly outward into the interstitial area, perhaps into a mass of protons brought together by the same force that caused the stripping, leading to the immediate thermalization of the energy of the fast proton, as happens when a bullet is shot into water. That will minimize knock-on fusions and spallations. In the aforementioned model for 1cm of nickel, there were 0.15 511 keV photons being picked up by the detector per second (~ 1.5 photons every ten seconds). I suspect this would be below the noise threshold of the detector and would not be considered a detection. Eric
Re: [Vo]:transmitted radiation for potential reactions in an NiH system
I've had a chance to revisit the earlier model of photon transmission from the E-Cat through various media and incorporate some new features. Now decay half-lives and detector efficiency are factored in. Here is what I'm seeing for 1cm of nickel: Photons from a total of 7e+14 transitions per second, escaping through 1cm of Nickel: transitionchannel escaping_photons 6150ADb_detected_photons 0 58Ni(d,p)59Ni bremsstrahlung 7.64e-258 2.96e-260 1 58Ni(d,p)59Ni β-β+ annihilation 3.91e+01 1.52e-01 2 61Ni(d,p)62Ni bremsstrahlung 2.65e-110 1.03e-112 3 64Ni(d,p)65Ni bremsstrahlung 0.00e+00 0.00e+00 4 58Ni(p,ɣ)59Cu gamma 9.37e+10 3.64e+08 5 60Ni(p,ɣ)61Cu β-β+ annihilation 4.30e+06 1.67e+04 6 60Ni(p,ɣ)61Cu gamma 5.63e+10 2.19e+08 7 61Ni(p,α)58Co β- deexcitation gamma 9.16e+09 3.56e+07 8 61Ni(p,α)58Co β-β+ annihilation 1.08e+04 4.21e+01 9 61Ni(p,ɣ)62Cu gamma 3.97e+09 1.54e+07 10 62Ni(p,ɣ)63Cu gamma 3.03e+10 1.18e+08 11 64Ni(p,ɣ)65Cu gamma 4.35e+09 1.69e+07 12 d(p,ɣ)3He gamma 2.39e+07 9.27e+04 What is interesting for this particular model (photon transmission through 1cm of nickel) is that reaction channels (0)-(3), which are the deuteron capture reactions, are either not detected or barely detected (keep in mind there was a layer of lead shielding the E-Cat at one point). The model is crude and is probably doing some things very wrong. But as a back-of-the-envelope calculation, I tentatively conclude the following: - Nickel deuteron capture reactions can potentially go undetected, even when 10^14 events are occurring (on the order of the number of 10 MeV fusion reactions that would be needed to account for 700 W excess power). - A model that attempts to stop gammas in flight somehow is in for difficulties (as we already knew), for they will readily pass through almost any metal wall or shielding that we've heard about in connection with the E-Cat. Something is making the gammas go away. This may or may not mean that channels 4-12 are being suppressed; if they are not being suppressed, an explanation for the near-100 percent efficient fractionation of the energy will be needed. - Reaction channel (1) will be a headache to deal with if it is occurring. (This arises from a beta+ decay with a long half life.) The "escaping_photons" column provides the number of photons that pass through 1cm of nickel in 1 second. The "6150ADb_detected_photons" are the number of photons that are picked up by a ~ 10cm diameter 6150AD-b scintillation detector held 20cm away from the reactor, as described in the Penon report [1, 2]. The code that was used to generate this and other models is available here: https://github.com/emwalker/lenrmc Other tables are here [3]. Bob (Higgins), I haven't yet incorporated the 2N reactions, but it would be nice to incorporate them somehow. Eric [1] http://pesn.com/2012/09/09/9602178_Rossi_Reports_Third-Party_Test_Results_from_Hot_Cat/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf [2] http://www.automess.de/Download/Prospekt_ADb_E.pdf [3] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzKtdce19-wyYUFNaS1vZktyYVU/edit?usp=sharing
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion X Prize
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: *Thinking Big Is The Easy Part: My Weekend Dreaming Up The Next XPrize* > > > http://www.fastcoexist.com/3030775/thinking-big-is-the-easy-part-my-weekend-dreaming-up-the-next- > xprize > On E-Cat World there is a post about the Forbidden Energy XPrize that was discussed sometime back: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/13/xprize-offers-20-million-for-forbidden-energy/ A video of the pitch to the audience at the "Visioneering" conference is included. The prize will pay 20 million to the winner if the conditions are met. I find it encouraging that this prize was put together. It suggests to me that there is some receptivity to cold fusion in the larger public beyond the people who follow the usual sites and lists. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
I wrote: Except for deexcitation gammas arising from inelastic collisions with > lattice sites, the fast proton will give rise to photons on the order of > less than ~ 20 keV. > One exception to this is when the proton collides with another species with sufficient energy to fuse. Then there may be gammas that need to be explained (or their absence explained). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Bob Cook wrote: How does a 6.-- Mev proton give up its energy without some gammas x-rays > showing up? > When a proton ~ 10 MeV travels through a metal, it will interact with electrons via the Coulomb interaction and, possibly, with lattice sites through elastic and inelastic collisions. At the scale we're talking about, the lattice sites themselves take up a very small amount of space, and a proton can travel quite far without encountering a nucleus. If it has an inelastic collision with a nucleus, there is the possibility of a gamma transition as the excited lattice site transitions back to the ground state. Most of the stopping of the proton will be through interactions with electrons. Each interaction will draw down only a small portion of the kinetic energy of the proton, e.g., 5-20 keV, which is a small fraction of the energy of the proton. I understand this range to be an approximate ceiling on the energy that is imparted to electrons in such a context. The electrons will create a continuum spectrum of bremsstrahlung. In addition, inner shell electrons will be excited and then relax, resulting in narrow peaks of photons with the energy of the transition (e.g., 8 keV for K-shell electrons in nickel). Except for deexcitation gammas arising from inelastic collisions with lattice sites, the fast proton will give rise to photons on the order of less than ~ 20 keV. X-rays of this energy are stopped by metal casing, and x-rays in the range of ~ 10 keV are stopped by 1cm of Pyrex. So it seems to me that you could have lots of fast protons inside a device without seeing any radiation outside of it. (Someone please correct me if I've misstated anything.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Bob Cook wrote: It is not to hard to imagine 2 D's or 2 H's inside a face centered cubic > metal matrix reacting at the same time with Ni or Pd nuclei of the same > cell they share. > Just an opinion, but I find it even more unlikely that d's or p's would arrange in a face centered cubic matrix than that there would be simultaneous deuteron capture. ... described by a wave function none of us can calculate. I get the sense as I read up on quantum mechanics that only a handful of toy wavefunctions can be solved analytically, and that even when you can solve for a system of wavefunctions numerically, this will only be useful in relatively simple systems. I get the distinct sense that QM is most useful for post hoc explanations. Perhaps this is a mistaken impression. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:23 AM, wrote: > > In that case, why not get specific, and check what would be produced if a > deuteron/neutron/proton were added to the starting material? > Yes, this is something I should do. There's enough data to make it a little bit of a project, so it will be some time before I can get around to it. Another possibility is that there's alpha capture going on as well, and perhaps even lithium capture. I kind of like this line of investigation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
I wrote: Yes -- I have no reason to disagree with this. I was addressing > specifically the multiples of 2 D and 3 D that some believe have been > identified in transmutations (i.e., Z=+4, Z=+6, Z=+8, but not Z=+2.). > Sorry -- that's supposed to be "M" (for mass number) rather than "Z" (for proton number). I.e., 2, 3 or 4 deuterons captured, but not a single one. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:49 PM, wrote: Bottom line: As far as nuclear reactions are concerned, I would expect D to > produce mostly 4He, and H to produce mostly transmutation reactions. > Yes -- I have no reason to disagree with this. I was addressing specifically the multiples of 2 D and 3 D that some believe have been identified in transmutations (i.e., Z=+4, Z=+6, Z=+8, but not Z=+2.). One thing that could be happening is that the when there is a capture of a single deuteron (assuming this is what is going on), the daughter is short-lived in the case of the specific isotopes under investigation, and either another capture will bring the nuclide up to a delta of Z=+4, or else the daughter will decay into something else. The reason I do not like simultaneous capture of 2 or 3 D at a single instant in time is that it seems to me much less likely. I still think Ed's reasoning is doubtful and that simultaneous capture is not the first thing I would assume. Eric
Re: [Vo]:predictive analysis of the coming Rossi- independent Report
Why can't free energy companies be like other companies? I feel that the amount of cloak and dagger and intrigue is overrepresented in this niche. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: it remind me the observation of Iwamura as noticed in the book of Ed > Storms, that transmutation seems to be the fusion with an even number of > deuteron (2-4-6), with preference to stable isotopes. > Ed draws the conclusion that the only way that these transmutations can occur is through the simultaneous capture of several deuterons in a single reaction. The reason he gives is that the species that would involve a single capture are not observed. I think this is doubtful reasoning. There could be other reasons that the species are not observed. I do not discount the possibility of simultaneous capture, but it is certainly not the first hypothesis I would investigate. I would start out assuming that there is pile-on -- i.e., first a deuteron is captured, then another, then another, etc., over a relatively short period of time. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
I wrote: About the beta-delayed gamma -- it's not clear that the 63Ni* gamma decay > is a beta-delayed gamma in this instance (see the decay in [1]). But as > you know beta-delayed gammas are a frequent occurrence. The half-life of > the beta decay in this case is 100 years, so if there is beta-delayed gamma > emission, the activity would be significant. > The excited state after a beta- decay would be in the daughter (63Cu) not the parent (63Ni). I don't see any evidence for a 63Cu* excited state. You are probably right. Embarrassing rookie error on my part. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
Hi Bob, Regarding the existence of the reaction, please see: https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/servlet/X4sSearch5?reacc=28-NI-62(D%2CP)28-NI-63%2C%2CDA https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/servlet/X4sSearch5?reacc=28-NI-62(D%2CP)28-NI-63%2CPAR%2CDA%2C%2CREL https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/servlet/X4sSearch5?reacc=28-NI-62(D%2CP)28-NI-63%2CPAR%2CDA The differential cross sections have been obtained, so I assume it is not a theoretical reaction. The mass excess is 5.1 MeV, so it is exothermic. High energy photons have been reported coming from at least one nickel+H2O system; Ed Storms mentions one electrolysis experiment in passing on p. 84 of his new book. (I'm not sure what the energies were in that case.) Note also that in the interview provided by Bob Higgins, Focardi mentioned that they were using lead shielding at one point to shield "gammas" (perhaps high energy x-rays). There would obviously be an incentive to be discrete about something like this if one's target segment is the consumer market. I assume the removal of a nickel isotope would be quite expensive. Perhaps it would be easier to go with a preparation with a single isotope enriched rather than attempt to select out a specific isotope. About the beta-delayed gamma -- it's not clear that the 63Ni* gamma decay is a beta-delayed gamma in this instance (see the decay in [1]). But as you know beta-delayed gammas are a frequent occurrence. The half-life of the beta decay in this case is 100 years, so if there is beta-delayed gamma emission, the activity would be significant. I'm not saying this is what is going on; just that it's a possibility. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_nickel On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > Eric-- > > I do not think the reaction of the d,p variety occurs. There are not > 87,000 Ev gammas reported, which would be evident as you suggest. I do not > think Ni-63 is involved in the production of Cu-63. Ni-62 removal would be > expensive for Rossi. > > Bob > > > - Original Message - > *From:* Eric Walker > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:56 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62 > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > > I wonder if the new Cu is Cu-63? Rossi may be implying that Ni-62 goes to >> Cu-63, both of which are stable isotopes. Spin coupling to get rid of the >> 6.22Mev of excess mass may be the answer--there are no gammas apparently. >> > > In a 62Ni(d,p)63Ni reaction, the 63Ni will beta- decay to 63Cu. The > proton will have ~ 5 MeV and will excite 11 keV electrons, which can easily > be shielded. There will be a delayed gamma emission after the beta- decay > of Q=87 keV, however, which will not be fully shielded even by 1cm of lead. > If there is vigorous deuteron stripping, there will be a lot of motivation > to remove 62Ni from the nickel. > > Eric > > >
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
I wrote: In a 62Ni(d,p)63Ni reaction, the 63Ni will beta- decay to 63Cu. The proton > will have ~ 5 MeV and will excite 11 keV electrons, which can easily be > shielded. There will be a delayed gamma emission after the beta- decay of > Q=87 keV, however, which will not be fully shielded even by 1cm of lead. > If there is vigorous deuteron stripping, there will be a lot of motivation > to remove 62Ni from the nickel. > I said that with too much confidence. Let me preface it with "I think this is what will happen ..." Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Ni62
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Bob Cook wrote: I wonder if the new Cu is Cu-63? Rossi may be implying that Ni-62 goes to > Cu-63, both of which are stable isotopes. Spin coupling to get rid of the > 6.22Mev of excess mass may be the answer--there are no gammas apparently. > In a 62Ni(d,p)63Ni reaction, the 63Ni will beta- decay to 63Cu. The proton will have ~ 5 MeV and will excite 11 keV electrons, which can easily be shielded. There will be a delayed gamma emission after the beta- decay of Q=87 keV, however, which will not be fully shielded even by 1cm of lead. If there is vigorous deuteron stripping, there will be a lot of motivation to remove 62Ni from the nickel. Eric
Re: [Vo]:transmitted radiation for potential reactions in an NiH system
Hi Bob, Good comments. Replies inline. Just to mention it again, the model is no more than a back-of-the-envelope estimate. I'm guessing a rigorous treatment would do a lot of things differently. Eric On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Bob Cook wrote: The first reaction that produces Ni-59 will end up as Co-59 with no gammas > since the Ni-59 decay involves an electron capture and a hot beta +, which > will give thermal energy to the matrix ( about .52Mev) with a subsequent > beta+, beta- decay with its back-to-back .51 Mev gammas. The total energy > from the Ni-59 decay--half live 7.6x10^4 years-- is 1.073 Mev. > Although there are annihilation photons for the subsequent decay to 59Co, the half-life is on the order of tens of thousands of years. For that reason I guessed that the number of photons per second coming from such decays would be (relatively) small and went with the next highest-energy photon source I could identify, 15 keV electrons, for which I assumed as a safe upper bound that they could give rise to photons of equivalent energy through scattering. I think the number of 59Co decays per second will look like this: λ = ln(2) / 7.6e4 y = ln(2) / 2.3e12 s ΔN (decays in a second) = -λ N Δt = (-ln(2) / 2.3e12 s) * (1.37E+14) * 1 s = -41 decays I've plugged in the value for N=1.37E+14 from the model. I assume the negative result means there is a loss of 41 parent nuclei (59Ni) in the process. 41 annihilation photons per second is not trivial, but I'm guessing it's not that big a deal either. Ni-59 has a -3/2 spin and and Co-59 has a -7/2 spin. It seems that spin is > changed since the beta+ particle would only carry +or- 1/2 spin. I do not > understand how spin angular momentum is conserved in the Ni-59 decay > reaction, unless there are several neutrinos involved which could carry > away spin angular momentum. > I don't know enough about nuclear spin and spin selection rules at this point to comment on this detail. The beta+ decay was taken from [1]. You have not considered neutron capture reactions with the various > Ni isotopes. If the H reacts in the magnetic field in the Rossi device > with an electron to form a neutron as an intermediate virtual particle, > then Ni-58 would go to Ni-59 and hence to Co-59 as described above. > For this one time, I was hoping to go with something that stayed pretty close to normal physics. Note that a proton and a closely bound electron will not necessarily behave like a neutron at the time of a capture. I would expect the electron to fly off, carrying the energy of the gamma, along the lines that Robin has proposed elsewhere. (This contradicts what I wrote above about hydrinos leading to gammas.) Proton absorption reaction with Ni-60 would give Cu-61 with a 3.41 H half > life. ... Proton absorption reaction with Ni-58 gives Cu-59 which > decays with a half live if 82 s and produces a beta+ at 3.75 Mev and hot > gammas at 1.3 Mev. ... A proton reaction with Ni-62 would give Cu-63, > which is stable. > These reactions are all accounted for. Rossi would not want Ni-58, but Ni-62 and Ni-62 would seem to be ok. Ni-61 > would be undesirable also since it gives Cu-62 with the addition of a > proton, and Cu-62 decays with a hot gamma of 1.17 Mev. > My take is a bit different -- under the assumptions of the model, I think he would *not* want 62Ni. See the columns to the far right. A significant amount of shielding will be needed to prevent the 87 keV beta- deexcitation gammas from escaping (e.g., 2cm of lead). If one figures out a way to *remove* the 62Ni, however, the radiation gets better. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_copper
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Confirms IH/Chinese R&D Operation...
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 10:10 AM, H Veeder wrote: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/09/07/rossi-confirms-ihchinese-rd-operation/ > Just a note to anyone from JASON who may be eavesdropping [1]. If LENR goes bona fide live in the next few years, you may be rotated out for not anticipating this one. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)
Re: [Vo]:Humans Need Not Apply
On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 8:25 AM, H Veeder wrote: Btw, I don't think "rent seeking" is inherently bad. Everyone should be > entitled to collect rent rather than be forced into wage labor and a basic > income would give everybody a form of rental income. > I think "rent seeking" is economic-speak for predation. I've never seen it used in a positive context. I'm guessing economists would not consider normal "rent" bad at all; it's no doubt considered payment for a legitimate service provided the landlord. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: I posted drawings of these cross-sections. If you don't have them, I can > post them again. > Yes, please, if you could. Eric
[Vo]:transmitted radiation for potential reactions in an NiH system
I was curious what the numbers would look like for a range of possible reactions in an NiH system if the only two assumptions that were made were that nuclear reactions are the main show in NiH LENR and that somehow there is a way to overcome Coulomb repulsion. Although I suspect this is not the whole story, I wanted to see what would happen if we keep things somewhat simple. Here is what I found: - The Ni(d,p)Ni reactions are benign and can shielded against fairly easily. - Nearly all other obvious exothermic reactions (e.g., Ni(p,*), d(p,*)) lead to penetrating radiation, for which even 5cm of lead will not be sufficient. - The Ni(d,p)Ni reactions produce fast protons, which can potentially lead to secondary reactions of undesirable types. You can see the model here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ylFdUCZ65O7V06MAX1KGmYC4UaaVII4HU5vJ6BIHnPU/edit#gid=399187264 It is very crude and is surely wrong on some details. I had to estimate the cross sections in some cases, for example, and cross sections are pretty finicky. But even a set of back-of-the-envelope calculations can lead to insights. If the general trend of the model is correct, the numbers tell an interesting story. Perhaps the columns most of interest will be W, X, Y and Z, which estimate the number of escaping photons for each reaction for different thicknesses of various materials. If you find a mistake, let me know. Here are some possible implications of the model: - Proton capture in NiH leads to nasty byproducts, including gammas and electron-positron annihilation photons, and is to be avoided. - Anything that leads to proton capture, e.g., hydrinos being captured by nickel lattice sites, is similarly to be avoided. - If Rossi's E-Cat is powered by reactions of the Ni(d,p)Ni type, either there is something inherent in the geometry of the reaction that is avoiding proton-initiated secondary reactions or Rossi has found a way to avoid the secondary reactions. Again, I'm not sure the story is as simple as the starting assumptions suggest. For example, I'm interested the possibility that there's a mechanism that transfers the energy of a nuclear transition to sources of charge in the environment, thereby precluding the emission of gammas. If such a mechanism existed, the Ni(p,*) and d(p,G)3He reactions would not necessarily be harmful. Nonetheless it's quite interesting to me how under less generous assumptions a whole class of reactions (Ni(d,p)Ni) turns up as somewhat benign and all other classes turn up as quite dangerous. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
This is definitely an interesting argument. I'm agnostic at this point as to whether Rossi has used a radioactive catalyst in the past. I suspect he does not now, for the regulatory reasons you mention below. About the H2 pressure and the mean free path of monoatomic hydrogen -- I'm curious whether you've seen anything on the pressure in the E-Cat. I got the impression along the way, probably from reading unrelated experimental writeups, that the pressure need not be above ambient pressure, and that the main thing additional pressure would accomplish would be to make additional p (or d) available to the reaction sites. Eric On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: To be effective, an alpha/beta emitter would have to be highly radioactive > to produce enough particles to support a sizable amount of H for LENR > reactions. Additionally, at these high pressures, the mean free path of > monatomic H is very short, so the radioactive material would have to be > placed at the NAE. It would be much better if the reaction were catalytic > and positive feedback in formation of monatomic H. For example having a > catalyst split the H2, having the NAE fuse it producing low energy photons, > each of which photons dissociate multiple H2 molecules for the reaction. > > If a radioactive additive were hot enough to split enough H2 into > monatomic species for the entire reaction, it would pose a danger if the > contents were exposed, and of course, would be regulated by the nuclear > regulation agencies - which no one wants. > > I absolutely do not believe that Rossi's reaction relies on radioactive > additives. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have an effect on the reaction, I > just don't think Rossi uses any. >
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Thus a low work function metal hydride with good magnetic properties would > be ideal. > Note that an alpha or a beta emitter will also dissociate molecular hydrogen into monoatomic hydrogen (and potentially Rydberg hydrogen at that, which will migrate under a potential). (I like a material with a low work function because it could potentially be heat-activated, as seems to happen with the E-Cat.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Humans Need Not Apply
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:31 AM, H Veeder wrote: someone's video response > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggN8wCWSIx4 > 3.5 minutes of effusive excitement about a not-too-distant future where one does not need to work, followed by 1 minute of dwelling on the possible dystopian near-term future. And then, "I take back what I said earlier. I see this sort of future as exciting, but very, very scary." Eric
Re: [Vo]:Is a buffering tank a good idea?
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Is such a concept in the toolbox of the professionals that perform > calorimetry? Are there any pitfalls in this idea? Is this idea an > improvement over the demo procedures that have been done for the Ni/H > reactors up to now? I'm no one to give advice on calorimetry. But I recall discussions here and elsewhere mentioning two approaches that sound vaguely related to this: - Sparging the steam into a barrel of water and measuring the delta T of the water. - Using a heat exchanger to heat a working fluid and measuring the flow-rate and delta T of the working fluid. I mention these approaches not as advice, but in the hopes that someone can expand upon or correct them. (Perhaps a metering pump would not be needed in the case of sparging into a barrel of water.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Jones Beene wrote: You still have not shown that Rossi ever reported gamma radiation in an > operating E-Cat ! Please – put up or shut up. > Please read the interview. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Jones Beene wrote: You must be joking right? > > > > Only a fool makes a gamma measurement outside the lead. > Not true, even a little. There are very good reasons for taking gamma measurements outside of lead, the primary one being to ensure that the device can operate safely around humans. Please read the Bianchini report. He is very clear about how the readings > were taken: UNDER THE LEAD I read it. I will repeat -- it is no reply to say that Rossi did not report in later descriptions, if he and predecessors have reported them on earlier occasions. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > The material from 2004 is irrelevant wrt Rossi > Most obviously not. > no radiation was observed at levels greater than natural radiation > background. No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual > from the process. > Because of the lead shielding, no doubt. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: Well, supper's done and I found the reference I was looking for ... > >- "A radio interview with Sergio Focardi, the father of 'Ni-H Cold >Fusion'"; Radio Citta del Capo - Bologna - Italy. > > Excellent sources, Bob. I enjoyed reading all of them. Hopefully they will put to rest once and for all the question of whether Rossi and Focardi have or have not seen gammas. It is obviously not a response to reply that they haven't reported gammas in recent descriptions. In a different connection, there was this interesting tidbit from the interview concerning the catalyst used in the E-Cat: And the purpose of this secret compound is, I believe, to facilitate the > formation of atomic hydrogen instead of molecular hydrogen, because > hydrogen typically settles down in molecules, but if one has a molecule, it > can not penetrate into the nucleus. So I think the additive is used to this > purpose: it forms atomic hydrogen, which penetrates into the nucleus. This is yet another hint strengthening my suspicion that the catalyst is a material with a low work function. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Axil Axil wrote: http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2010/MQSS10/Talks/Littlewood_Michigan_PBL.pdf > Following are the rough specs of the polaritons described in these slides: - Temperatures on the range of 0 - 16 K. - Photon energies (of the photons in the excitons) on the order of meV to eV (if I have read this detail correctly). - Sizes of the excitons on the order of 7 nm. - All of this taking place within semiconductors. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Axil Axil wrote: This is not correct. > > A polariton has a mass the is 10^-11 that of an electron. Because of this > almost zero polariton mass, a polariton condensate are almost always > produced at any temperature. > Could you point us to something credible that says that a BEC can form at anything above a very low temperature? Also, something on the proposed relationship between species mass and BEC formation would be helpful. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Axil Axil wrote: All these electron combining with proton theories violate the conservation > of leptons. These reactions are forbidden. > Not if a neutrino is involved. (Not that I'm at all persuaded by the proposed p-e-p reaction.) Mesons in your approach produce muons, which are leptons. This seems tangential to the matter of conservation of leptons. How does this avoid the issue? Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
Three additional points to add: * I'm still waiting for a careful writeup of Mizuno's latest NiH/NiD work. What we've seen are some slides. It seems premature at this point to draw too many conclusions. * We know relatively little about nickel systems compared to palladium systems. I assume that many of the PdD findings will carry over to nickel, and that some will not. I suspect, for instance, that helium will not. * With regard to power levels (and integrated energy) seen in experiments, it is always nice to see high power levels, in view of the potential for practical applications. But in terms of what is needed to draw conclusions about the nature of the process, all that is needed is power levels well above the measurement errors of the instruments being used. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jones Beene wrote: My only excuse will be to say that if nuclear fusion ... is proved then it > will consist of two simultaneous miracles. Yes -- agreed. > Yet in November, if Mizuno backtracks and sez… oops... we had a bad meter > earlier - and there really was helium, then mea culpa. > I don't think we need to detect helium to have "fusion" (in a manner of speaking) -- we could have a nucleon capture of some kind as well, leading to spallation and so on. Helium is relevant to PdD systems (and possibly NiD systems, I suppose). Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Jones Beene wrote: The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is > lack of fusion. I'm sooo tempted to collect statements from you along these lines for future gloating. ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Hydrogen will most likely will preferably assume a metastable state in > which a one dimensional crystalline form of Rydberg matter is surrounded > by a cloud of many electrons in orbit around a long string like core of > many protons. > Sounds vaguely like a hydroton. ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
I wrote: Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all of > the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full solid > angle, this will add up to 511 keV. > Looking at the 2013 paper again, that is just one of two possibilities. One possibility is that the DDL gives off a 511 keV emission (explaining the signal in the cosmic background) and the other is that the DDL emissions sum up over a solid angle (not explaining the signal, presumably) [1]. He does something similar with the capture cross section of DDL hydrogen -- it might or might not be all that high (p. 6). Eric [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf, p. 5
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Another interesting possibility has come up (within the hour, actually) – > which can be called “meta-states” of dark matter. These are accumulated > meta-states in the sense that the 511 keV line comes not from a decay of > any particle ... Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all of the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full solid angle, this will add up to 511 keV. Eric
[Vo]:how to filter out users in Gmail
Just a note to some of the newer Vorts who may be wondering how moderation works in Vortex. Vortex is moderated, but only very lightly. The list relies heavily upon the self-discipline of members to keep a courteous tone and to moderate the amount of their own contributions. Ideally the tone of the list would be that of academics at a Starbucks during the personal time of a conference -- polite, letting the conversation go where it will, not necessarily hewing to the rigor of the conference but at the same time avoiding issues that are contentious. This is just an ideal, and it is not always observed. Sometimes weeks or months can go by where a user or two will have their way with the forum, posting a string of flamebait and personal attacks and trying to wrench discussions in the direction of their own choosing. This strategy is obviously not an effective one for winning people to one's point of view. Almost invariably such people get tired of posting to Vortex, and those that don't will eventually be cleaned up by Bill Beaty when he gets around to it (it can take a while). In the meantime such individuals must be suffered. The best strategy to keep the signal to noise ratio high and to avoid getting caught up in arguments during such periods is filter out the emails of the problematic individuals. In Gmail, this can be done by setting up a filter. There are different options, and one is to have emails from certain email addresses automatically marked as "read," so that they do not grab your attention. If enough people do this, the people imposing on the list may get the hint and either moderate their participation or go away on their own. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Humans Need Not Apply
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Some good quotes: after the Model T, people did not say: "There will be new > jobs for horses we can't imagine!" There is not a rule that says, "better > technology makes more better jobs for horses." > Pleasantly apocalyptic. I like this one: "This is an economic revolution. You may think we've been here before, but we haven't. This time is different." Eric
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
You're just going to reply to anything I say. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > So... you think the topic is totally benign here on Vortex. I think it > isn't. Go ahead and post the topic and we shall see.If one side thinks > it's magic water lilies, and the other side thinks it's pixie dust, then do > the forum rules apply to both sides? No sneering, that kind of thing? Or > do the forum rules only apply to the unfavoured side. > > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Eric Walker > wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Kevin O'Malley >> wrote: >> >> The topic of aliens is totally benign, >>> ***I have not found that topic to be benign. >>> >> >> I'm not talking about in discussions about aliens in general, I'm talking >> about discussions about them in the context of Vortex. I've seen exactly >> zero flamewars about aliens. For whatever reason (people have been >> sprinkled with pixie dust, they've eaten magic water lilies, they've been >> bathed in biophotons), such threads don't seem to be contentious and >> polarizing. >> >> Eric >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: The topic of aliens is totally benign, > ***I have not found that topic to be benign. > I'm not talking about in discussions about aliens in general, I'm talking about discussions about them in the context of Vortex. I've seen exactly zero flamewars about aliens. For whatever reason (people have been sprinkled with pixie dust, they've eaten magic water lilies, they've been bathed in biophotons), such threads don't seem to be contentious and polarizing. Eric
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: ***Then why do some Vorts say that the discussion is not for Vortex, even > when the thread title is obviously [OT Off Topic]? > Just my personal view on this one. There are some off-topic discussions that are benign and others that lead to flamewars because they're polarizing and contentious. The topic of aliens is totally benign, and global warming mostly benign (if a little polarizing). Biblical exegesis, the truth or falsehood of Islam, etc., are polarizing and contentious and lead to flamewars. There's nothing in the fabric of the universe that calls these topics out as being wrong topics for discussion. It's seeing what has happened to Vortex in the past when people (doggedly) insist on pursuing them. Vortex turns into American Gladiators. If someone not only doesn't care whether their participation turns Vortex into American Gladiators, but they actually seek it out, they should look for another forum that is more amenable to their purposes. I would feel this way even if they espoused views very similar to my own. This is what I'm personally hoping we can avoid: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.mail-archive.com%2Fvortex-l%40eskimo.com%20Jojo%20Abd%20Islam Endless flamewar. Weeks of it. No end in sight. Signal to noise ratio exactly 0. No apologies afterwards. No regrets for having turned Vortex into a platform for pursuing one's evangelical agenda. Every indication of doing it again if given the opportunity. I can understand the sentiment when someone wants to talk about evolution > theory on a thread that's titled "SunCell Replication" but not when the > thread title is "evolutionists are idiots", or somesuch thing. > This is a question for James. I note that James did not provoke a flamewar nor, I would assume, did he intend to provoke one. He was just expressing frustration. Eric
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: The point is, there is NO ONE on this planet that I know who doesn't > possess a personal collection of faults for which they are trying to find a > better way of juggling in a more elegant way. The issue is not whether people have faults. It's whether a civilized discussion is at all possible. In the final analysis, the actual topics that are being discussed are not that relevant in the present context. It's the hijacking of the conversation in a direction that people have expressed displeasure with and find distracting, and it's the expressing of one's views in a way that is sure to provoke reprisals. Don't impose on people. Don't be discourteous. If people express displeasure with where the conversation is being taken, let the topic die. Obviously do not intentionally lay down flamebait in a series of posts that you know will provoke a heated reaction. All of this should be apparent, and none of it should really need to be said. Eric
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: It's a slow time. If something interesting occurs, I'm sure people will > stop asking me questions and I will stop responding. > > You should not begrudge a few off-topic discussions. It helps while the > time away. Besides, I am not starting these threads. > I will take your cavalier response as an indication that you don't care about whether you're being a burden on other people on this list and will be in touch with Bill Beaty shortly. He may or may not remove you once again. That will be his decision. Eric (For those of you who missed the backstory, Jojo was previously on this list under the alias "Jojo Jaro," and was removed sometime back along with Abd Lomax. Abd Lomax was a valuable contributor to this forum and got caught up in an extended altercation with Jojo centering on religion. The thread on religion lasted many weeks. During that time Jojo demonstrated that he had no regard for the other list members, who repeatedly asked him to get back on topic and moderate his participation and tone. Jojo has since sneaked back onto Vortex with a different email address and alias, but it seems he has not learned from the previous incident, even the lesson of keeping a low profile.)
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: PS. Most of my responses are answers to queries. Carbon Dating is > science (supposedly) and Darwinian Evolution is science (as Jed would > claim) so what off topic flame are you referring to. Responses to > religious questions to me have been few and far between. > Jojo, you're one of the main drivers behind the off topic threads of late. You should take the temperature in the room. People are starting to find your participation a burden. This may or may not matter to you. Eric
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: If you embed the electrodes reasonably well into the water, you may be able > to avoid most of the error for the heat that goes into the electrodes. > Asking as someone who knows little about electronics, what are the hazards of submerging the electrodes of a spot welder and then turning it on? Eric
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Roberson wrote: Lets put an end to this discussion since it is obvious that we will not > come to a resolution that is acceptable to both of us. Everyone is > entitled to their beliefs and that is good for science in the long run. > I actually don't think our positions are that far part. We're just debating some secondary details. As I've said on two previous occasions, I don't think anyone should get a free check, climate scientists or anyone else. I'm just urging humility. Eric
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:36 PM, David Roberson wrote: Eric, I have seen graphs of the predicted global temperatures from several > different models and they all show a rapid increase during the questionable > period. Not one of them indicate that a pause was conceivable. The second statement -- "Not one of them indicate that a pause was conceivable" -- this is a hard proposition to evaluate. There are no doubt many hundreds or thousands of climate models that have been proposed over the years. To evaluate whether none of them predicted the absence of a rapid increase, ultimately you will need to have intimate knowledge of statements made in the following publications (and probably others) over a period of decades: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html You will need to be conversant with units that are very different than ones in other fields and will have to have a solid working knowledge of the relevant physics, chemistry and biology. If you have not personally made the effort to keep on top of the specific models proposed in these journals and the highly technical statements that have been made and debated ad infinitum, you will need to place trust in someone else to do this homework for you. You will be a babe in the woods and will need to call upon someone to get you out of the bind of knowing little about climate science, like all of the rest of us non-specialists. To get yourself out of this bind, you can choose the BBC, or the evening news, or infographics published on a Web site. Some will choose to put their trust in inveterate climate skeptics whose funding is murky and agenda unclear (this is a little like going to Huizenga or Taubes for information about LENR). Back of the envelope arguments about the inherent difficulty of predicting things with such a chaotic system are helpful for getting a zeroth order approximation, but they take us little further than that. You appear to want to defer to the experts a bit too much Eric. It is no doubt true that I have been guilty of putting too much trust in experts at times. I am grateful, though, to be far more skeptical than you or others here in this particular instance. I do not trust the BBC or the New York Times or Fox News to provide more than vague sense of where things are. Ultimately I will only put trust in people who have invested the time and effort to really understand everything that is being said and demonstrated a clear knowledge of the minutiae, whether they are climate scientists or investigative journalists. I am grateful that my position could not be easier to defend in this instance. Eric
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:52 PM, David Roberson wrote: Since the pause was 100% not predicted and instead should have been a more > rapid rise, how much more in error could they be? How confident are you of this assertion? > How on earth could you or anybody else believe that they will be correct > in their predictions over a 100 year period with this sort of track > record? Are you confident that they now have all the correct variables > under control? Dave, I think you misunderstand my position. It's not that climate scientists should be given a free pass. It's also not that they haven't had a hard time predicting near- and medium-term trends in climate change; I wouldn't be surprised if they have had difficulties in this regard. I'm saying something more subtle than that: 1. I believe it would take a lot of reading of actual journal papers and following of specific models to even be able to begin to evaluate the success of the field. What if there are some climate scientists working quietly off in a corner that are doing a very good job of accurately characterizing things up to now within certain ranges? That kind of detail would be all too easy to miss if one's only source of information about the field is the evening news. 2. I strongly suspect that no climate skeptics here have made such an effort. 3. Because there are surely some smart people in the field (as there are in any field), I would be wary of betting *against* some accumulation of real knowledge in the field. I'm sure there are people from Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, U. of Georgia, etc., that study climate science. Perhaps the only statements the careful ones can make about long-term climate change are vague ones that do not tell us much about specific temperatures. I wouldn't know, because I haven't followed the journals and the specific models (per point 1, above). So no free pass is needed. Just more than a little wariness to pass judgment on a field I haven't followed closely, given the great amount of effort I've had to spend just to start to get up to speed on a different field in the last couple of years (physics). Eric
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: I'm not all that interested in passing judgement on "the integrity of the > majority of climate scientists". I'm interested in seeing if there's real > science behind this constantly-changing thesis. My conclusion at this time > is: NO. What is there has been driven more by politics than science. > Climate Corporation is a startup in San Francisco, not far from where I work, that use climate models to price insurance policies for farmers that want to insure their crops. You should definitely warn these guys that they're in for a huge loss, because there's no science behind what they're doing: https://www.climate.com/ Alternatively, if you think you can time things right, you should take out a short position on Monsanto, their parent company, for their blockheadedness in acquiring them. Eric
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Chris Zell wrote: This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's lottery > numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create predictive > graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and frankly, > that's where the problem seems to be. > Given your acquaintance with the field and familiarity with its complete failure to predict anything, I am confident that you and others will be able to draw to our attention to a persistent pattern of failed predictions that demonstrate, beyond a handful of high-profile news-makers, a chronic record of a science-that-is-not-a-science. I'm sure you can help us to better understand the poor state of the field by characterizing the error of climate science with some specificity -- for example, "no climate model has had a record of predicting the three-year moving average temperature to better than 60 percent (10 percent above random) when run over a period of more than 10 years" (this is an example that I pulled out of thin air). To demonstrate the failure of a field, obviously we will not be able to do very much with a handful of prominent failures. We must show that the all of the work of the field, taken together, is as good as rolling dice for helping us to understand long term climate change. I would be very interested in some quantification of the failure of climate science. Eric
Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Jack Cole wrote: > I can give that a try. What would you expect to see and how will we know > if UV is emitted? > Be careful about fumes. I recall reading that chlorine can form some pretty nasty compounds under the right conditions. Eric
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Eric, you don't seem to understand what the IPCC is. They are eXACTLY as > called out -- REPRESENTATIVE of the anthropomorphic climate change thesis. > For the sake of argument, let's assume that it was not just selected members of the IPPC, but the entire committee, that are corrupt. What would you have us conclude about the integrity of the majority of climate scientists as a result? Perhaps there are some climate scientists here. For the climate scientists out there -- are you corrupt? If so, why have you not learned virtue and integrity from the engineers on this list? What is keeping you from leading an upright life? Eric
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 6:38 PM, David Roberson wrote: You also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order > yields coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial > chosen. Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data > over a restricted range. The problem shows up once you use those > different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future > points. > > We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I > am speaking of. ... > I think the bad fit to the data you identify could just as likely be an underfit than an overfit; i.e., they have adequately modeled the first-order phenomenon (an increase in temperature) but failed to take into account one or more second-order cyclical trends. Eric
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM, David Roberson wrote: Eric, I suppose the difference between your beliefs and mine amounts to my > expectation that the climate change scientists should be held to a high > standard as is required of most other endeavors. You apparently are > willing to give them a free pass since you have a gut feeling that they are > right to some degree. > I don't think anyone is arguing for giving climate scientists a free pass for anything they want to do, anymore than we would argue here for giving physicists a free pass to endlessly pour money into ITER or the National Ignition Facility; certainly not me. I'm arguing for humility before expertise gradually developed in understanding a wicked problem. We can question policy and funding decisions that are based on uncertain conclusions. But stepping in and saying that we (the general public) are in as good a position to weigh the data as capable climate scientists is to lose a sense of the proportion in the face of the amount of time and effort that must be expended to discern signal from noise in a complex domain. Without such humility, we are prone to a little bit of unintentional hubris. It is similar to making the following statements as members of the general public: - What you electrical engineers are saying about instantaneous power is bunk. I know that if the sine and the cosine fluctuate too rapidly, they'll jam together like the keys on a typewriter and throw the power out of hoc. - Making a practical quantum computer is not as hard as you guys make it out to be, for I have built one out of an erector set and rubber bands and know something about the basic principles involved. - Moore's law is not at all insurmountable. The electrical engineers are simply failing to see that if you add in some refrigeration lines, the temperature will be sufficiently decreased to allow a continued exponential increase in circuit density. This is simple thermodynamics. This is probably what we sound like to people who have studied climate science when we interject with our analyses without having spent years of our lives trying to understand the nuances of the problem. One hesitates to do something similar in the context of LENR, and only does so because almost no one who has the proper qualifications is willing to undergo the stigma that will attach to anyone in physics who publicly examines LENR. The overfitting of a model to a set of data is a generally known risk, and ways of avoiding it are taught in undergraduate courses. If we do not give climate scientists the benefit of the doubt on this one, we will be proceeding from an assumption that they're incompetent. In trying to understand what climate scientists are doing, I would draw an analogy to using our knowledge of radioactive decay half-lives to understand how much of a radionuclide will exist after a certain amount of time. Because the process is a stochastic one, the knowledge of the half-life is close to useless in predicting whether an individual nucleus will decay at a certain time. But over a period of time, the half-life will allow one to calculate the amount of the original radionuclide remaining to within a high degree of precision. I doubt that this ability was something that was acquired overnight. It probably took a few years of trial and error to empirically tease out the exponential decay relation. But even when they were working with less than reliable models, I'm guessing they were able to discern the general trend. Another analogy to what climate scientists are trying to do is to that of a mechanical engineer attempting to predict the temperature of an engine that has been running for a certain period of time. It is probably difficult to predict the temperature at a specific thermocouple at an instance in time beyond a certain broad range. But I'm guessing that it's not too hard to anticipate the average temperature across the thermocouples after one has become familiar with the operating characteristics of the engine in question. Climate scientists are doing something similar, but at a stage when the laws of thermodynamics were less well understood. Nonetheless general trends can be discerned. I would not at all be surprised if the relevant time ranges for useful predictions in climate change models were on the order of decades. Each system being modeled has its own range of times within which statements are relevant. In some nuclear decays, the time range for some decays is on the order of 10^-8 - 10^-20 seconds. I would be surprised, in fact, if climate scientists were able to bring model predictions to within less than tens of years, given the great amount of latency involved for changes to show up in the system. As for climate scientists adjusting their models periodically in the face of new facts, I am reminded of a quote attributed to Keynes, who was responding to a similar complaint: "When my
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:15 AM, David Roberson wrote: This is exactly why so many question the science. A good scientist should > remain skeptical under these conditions and clearly the science is not > settled as some seem to believe. > One doesn't need a fully worked out science to feel grave concern for the world we're leaving our grandchildren. All that is needed is to pay attention to the few things we do know, and to have a reasonable sense that these things could feed back into a dynamic system with unwanted consequences. We know, for instance, that CO2 has increased dramatically over the last few hundred years: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/5koomey.png We know as well that CH4 has similarly increased: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200409_methane/core2.gif Perhaps some will be willing to question the attribution of these spikes to human activity. Personally, I would feel a little dirty trying to do so. What does CO2 do to the climate? Does it cause global temperatures to increase? (Include, here, as well, any other number of industrial byproducts that obviously go back to humans.) The scientists studying the topic generally think so. The temperature does not seem to increase monotonically. It clearly cannot increase without periodic behavior. But the average of the temperature appears to increase over a long enough window. This is what the people who have devoted years of their life studying the topic are trying to tell us. Will there be some huge compensating event that will shift the climate in an opposite gear? Perhaps. I know that the tundra in the arctic regions is thawing, and that there is a lot of methane that will be release as a consequence, which suggests that the opposite will occur -- that there's a risk that change towards higher temperatures could be shifted into a higher gear. It's a risk, in the sense that it is something whose consequences are not fully clear should it come to pass. But saying it's a "risk" isn't the same as saying it's a negligible risk. We can attack the climate scientists as being overconfident and their work as guesswork. In some ways their predicament is similar to that of physics at the turn of the last century. The physicists got some things wrong. But they got a lot of things right as well; enough to build a nuclear bomb and thermonuclear weapons. They did the messy, hard work of sorting through some very difficult-to-interpret data, and using what they learned they pulled these things out of thin air. They foresaw these technological developments years before they were actually created. Climate scientists are working with a similarly messy set of data and are trying to make educated estimates about where things are going. They will no doubt get some important things wrong. But I'm putting my bet on them getting the most important stuff right. Calling out some of the people involved in climate science who have fudged numbers as representative of all of them feels a bit disingenuous to me. Because some were guilty of doing this does not impugn the entire lot. There's no reason to assume that the majority of climate scientists are acting with anything but integrity, just as there's no reason to assume that the majority of electrical engineers are acting with anything but integrity. (The same cannot be said, unfortunately, for politicians.) We feel free to question a lot of physics in this forum in light of their rejection of LENR experimental, as well as some obvious excesses by physicists who have ventured into some pretty shaky territory with their off-the-wall thought experiments. The physicists who argue vocally against LENR are not behaving as scientists, but rather as politicians. This much is obvious to us and eventually will be to the general public, so we go to town with them. But anyone who has read a few experimental papers from a physics journal in the last few years will come away with the impression that those who focus on what they know, as surely the majority of physicists do, could not be on more solid ground. My sense is that the majority of climate scientists are on similarly solid ground. Their consensus view is that human activity is leading to changes in the climate, and that some of these changes could make life more difficult, not necessarily for us, but for people several generations out, and they have concrete, well-researched data to back up these conclusions. Count me as one who is listening attentively to what they have to say. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf) - > I think it is a fascinating fit to this thread. If someone else already > cited this, I apologize for the duplication. > I had a moment to read this paper. Va'vra identifies his DDL hydrogen with dark matter. He suggests, for example, going down into the Gran Sasso lab to better detect the signals which he proposes should add up to 511 keV (when measured across a full solid angle). I get the impression he understands the DDL hydrogen to be passing *through* the earth, as one would expect of dark matter. This move raises a challenge to be addressed. A DDL hydrogen atom is baryonic matter and can reasonably be expected to approach the behavior of a neutron. I would expect the significant amount of DDL hydrogen dark matter passing through the earth to be equivalent to a high neutron flux, causing all kinds of capture events. Va'vra mentions in passing that maybe such capture events would be unlikely because of a small dipole moment. But I think this is just a way to have things both ways. Even if we suppose that the DDL hydrogen-capture cross section is smaller than that for a neutron, one presumes it would still be nontrivial. (Mills's theory must also address this challenge.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Phys.org- Splitting Water- Nickel at 1.5 volts
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Not sure IF this is news: > http://phys.org/news/2014-08-scientists-splitter-ordinary-aaa-battery.html > This is an interesting article. It suggests nickel oxide has a relatively low work function. I assume the water splitting occurs from electrons that are emitted as current passes through the nickel material. Presumably the nickel oxide has a low work function and only a small current is needed to cause the electrons to be emitted. The article also mentions that the nickel catalyst degrades faster than catalysts that contain precious metals such as platinum. Eric
Re: [Vo]:global warming?
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:50 PM, CB Sites wrote: Jed is write in my opinion between the deniers of global warming and the > skeptic of cold fusion, in some aspects. > For anyone who may be new to the list, global warming is one of several topics that perennially pop up during lulls. The most vocal during these periods are people who reject the science behind anthropogenic global warming. Nonetheless, there are many here, myself included, who believe it to be a very real long-term threat. The discussions seem only to be able to generate heat and no light. People are settled in their opinions. It is a topic that is as polarized as the debate about cigarettes and cancer a generation ago, and one suspects for similar reasons. The argument eventually dies down and people find something else to argue about. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Axil Axil wrote: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5699.pdf > The paper you cite talks about the changing masses of ⍴ and A mesons under strong magnetic fields. It does not talk about meson condensation. It does mention some interesting points, however: - "It is known that cosmic space objects called magnetars or neutron stars possess magnetic field in their cores equal to ∼ 1 MeV. [sic]" - "The values of magnetic fields in non-central heavy-ion collisions can reach up to ... ~ 290 MeV^2" Another paper indicates that in the cores of neutron stars [2], where the magnetic field is ~ 10^15 Tesla, ⍴- mesons *might* condense (the ⍴ meson is only slightly heavier than the π- meson, which is what we need for muons). We have a number of degrees of freedom to pin down to get any closer to our meson condensation: - What is the strength of the local magnetic field in a small volume in DGT's reactor? Is it in the twilight zone? Is it actually pretty small? - What is the effect of an extreme magnetic field on the condensation of π mesons? Does it enhance it? Does it inhibit it? I get the sense it could go either way. - How does the environment in a small volume in DGT's reactor compare to that in the core of a neutron star? Is it as extreme? Is it perhaps less extreme? I'm going to guess that we don't even have a prima facie case to become interested in the possibility of meson condensation at this point. Eric [1] http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf (see p. 3). [2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.0139.pdf (see the second half of p. 4).
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:45 AM, David Roberson wrote: I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large > number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as > we close in on those individual sources. > If we accept at face value Kim's repeating of DGT's claim of 0.6 - 1.6 Tesla (in this regard I suspect he's simply taking DGT's data on faith, as a good-natured theorist), I would also assume that it is the result of a vector sum of a large number of small magnetic moments. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:18 AM, David Roberson wrote: An interesting case to speculate upon would be that the observed field is > due to the combination of a very large multitude of individual active areas > that are battling for supremacy. The fact that such a large net field is > seen would indicate that each of the smaller elements might have truly > enormous local fields as suggested by Axil. A relevant question here is whether the enormous local fields are strong enough to summon forth muons from the internal structure of the nucleons (~ 140 MeV per muon worth). My working assumption is that they are not. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Axil Axil wrote: You have the word and reputation of Dr Kim, as good a researcher as exists > in the field of LENR experimentation. When there is an explosion, how do > you know the size of the reaction at time zero? > Perhaps you're referring to these slides? [1] (I was unable to find the Kim-Hadjichristos paper.) Yes, that brings the 0.6-1.6 Tesla DGT claim out of the realm of hearsay and into the realm of slideware (which is about as good as one can expect in this field). Eric [1] https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36783/TheoreticalAnalysisReactionMechanisms.pdf?sequence=1
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Axil Axil wrote: There is an uncertainty of 200 microns in the origin of the bosenova > because that reaction could occur anywhere inside the nickel foam. I will answer my own question. There's little reason to think that a 1 Tesla field was localized to within a few nanometers. Even more -- we don't have (much) reason to believe that there was a 1 Tesla field. Maybe there was; maybe there wasn't. It's hearsay at this point. I will postulate a first rule in getting to the heart of a matter -- obtain reliable data. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Axil Axil wrote: DGT says that about 1 tesla is produced at 20 CMs in their reactor. > Yes, DGT was rumored to have said something along those lines. > If the source of that field is localized to a few nanometers, that means > that by the inverse square law or the cube law if you like, the power at a > few nanometers is 20,000,000 to the second or third power tesla. Now that > is a strong magnetic field. > Assuming DGT saw 1 Tesla, is there reason to think it was localized to a few nanometers? Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Axil Axil wrote: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/08/fundamental-causation-mechanisms-of-lenr.html > > What is the issues with this line of thinking as a source of muons? > I am out of my element in this topic, but I will offer some feedback nonetheless. First, I'm infinitely skeptical that any kind of fusion will occur with virtual mesons, some of which decay to muons with "mostly" virtual energy. For anything interesting to happen, I'm assuming you will need real mesons and real muons. I understand that mesons can lead to nuclear reactions on their own. But for the sake of thinking things through, we can ask how many muons would be needed for 1 Watt power production (if only muons were catalyzing nuclear reactions). Consider that a typical nickel proton capture reaction will yield ~ 5 MeV. That means 1 Joule * s^-1 = 6.24e12 MeV * s^-1 = 1.25e12 proton captures * s^-1. Using your number, a muon can catalyze 150 reactions. Assuming this is the right order of magnitude not only for d+t muon catalyzed fusion but also for proton capture in nickel, I think over time that would average out to around 1.25e12 captures * s^-1 / (150 captures * muon^-1) = 8.32e9 muons per second which would need to be produced by the magnetic field. The muons will come about as a result of pion decays, for which we will need 8.32e9 negative pions per second. The energy needed to produce a negative pion is ~ 140 MeV. Your challenge, then, would seem to be to work out how strong a magnetic field is needed to generate 8.32e9 pions per second along the Boltzmann tail (assuming a Boltzmann distribution). Even if the energy needed for the pion production is found in the long tail, I'm guessing the average energy of the distribution will still be considerable at this rate of production. I'm also skeptical that human beings have ever even created a magnetic field that is strong enough to simply will negative pions from out of the vasty deep. (If anyone spots a mistake in any of these calculations, please call it out.) Note that a negative muon reacts with a proton to create a neutral pion and a neutron. Note also that a proton capture in nickel is likely to cause short-lived radioisotopes and energetic states in the daughter nuclei which will need to decay somehow. This is likely to happen through beta and beta plus decay, and there's likely to be annihilation photons. So if this is what is going on it would seem to be inconsistent with your assumption early in the article about radioactive byproducts: "The fact that no radioactive isotopes are found in the ash of the cold fusion reaction is unequivocal proof ...". Eric
Re: [Vo]:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Axil Axil wrote: He also says that a home unit will require some sort of statistical control > approach. Developing these statistics has not been developed yet. > > He still has control problems. > If we now have self-driving cars, I do not think the problem of gaining control over the temperature of the E-Cat is an insurmountable one, or perhaps even a highly challenging one. It might be simply that suitable expertise has not yet been brought to bear on the problem. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Axil Axil wrote: f/h and ddl may be a mistaken observation for muonionic atoms. > I kind of like the idea of f/H being a misidentification of muonic atoms. I would put that in category (1), because it's definitely not f/H, and it results in nuclear reactions. The challenge of this line of approach is to explain the muons. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
I wrote: ... There are many different ways to categorize possible explanations, but > for the moment I'll put them in four categories: > >1. Explanations involving fusion of some kind without the catalysis of >stable shrunken hydrogen (a.k.a. f/H, hydrinos, DDL hydrogen, etc.). ... > > I was hoping to set up a disjoint partition over the set of all possible explanations. There was one group of explanations that, depending on how you define things, might as a consequence end up in (3), the bucket for everything that is not fusion or involves f/H or is experimental error, but which I intended to go into (1), the fusion bucket. I would like to place in category (1) nucleon transfer reactions and neutron and proton capture reactions. Depending on what definition of *fusion* you go by, such reactions might be considered something else, although in more common usage we usually think of them as fusion. When Rossi hints that no fusion is involved [1], I suspect he is using a more selective definition of the term, but my idea was to include such reactions nonetheless in category (1) (the category I'm predicting will be borne out in time). Eric [1] http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/12/what-the-rossi-effect-is-not/
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: Another possibility is that there is no such thing as a field. > What would we do without fields? If there is no such thing, what replaces them? Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection--
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Bob Cook wrote: It occurred to me that the formation of a pair of DDL deuterium atoms may > lead to the He with small releases of energy as the D molecule forms just > before the fusion occurs. As we wait for the TIP report (or TIP2 report, as it's sometimes being called), we've been going back and forth and throwing around some of the ideas we think might explain what's going on in LENR and Rossi's device. There are many different ways to categorize possible explanations, but for the moment I'll put them in four categories: 1. Explanations involving fusion of some kind without the catalysis of stable shrunken hydrogen (a.k.a. f/H, hydrinos, DDL hydrogen, etc.). 2. Explanations involving stable shrunken hydrogen in some way (with or without leading to fusion). 3. Explanations involving nanomagnetism, the mass of the proton, the Higgs boson, etc., without fusion or the catalysis of stable shrunken hydrogen; i.e., anything not in (1), (2) or (4). 4. Artifact and experimental error. I've purposely organized these categories around "stable" shrunken hydrogen. For the immediate purpose, if an explanation involves a stable form of f/H, DDL, etc., it goes into (2), no matter what else it entails (e.g., the mass of a proton). I've added (4) just to cover all the possibilities. By "stable" I mean hydrogen in a state that is not evanescent, e.g., as seen in Horace Heffner's deflation fusion. I don't bet, but it's kind of fun to go on record predicting something that will eventually (hopefully) either be seen to be wrong or right. Here I'd like to go on the record with an unambiguous prediction that the general consensus will eventually settle on explanations in category (1), to the effective exclusion of (2), (3) and (4). Unfortunately, I don't have as clear a sense of a timeline. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: Va'vra paper
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: Per Mr. Beene's request I have posted this on my google drive: > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBWjJXaWdjWTlTWGc/edit?usp=sharing Va'vra was ahead of his time. To quote one of the last slides: "This is conventionally explained as a pinch effect [i.e., an effect due to an accelerating voltage]. However, our calculation indicates that the maximum pinch voltage is less than 100 Volts." The problem would seem to be a simple one, then. He may have introduced an error in his calculation of the voltage. Eric
Re: [Vo]:JANAP 128..Kudos...the Axil Enigma
The signal to noise ratio has taken a nosedive. I'm sure this is just a momentary thing, and the key individuals driving the noise will quickly come to their senses. I'm going to take the liberty of mixing lots of metaphors. Imagine we're in a room at someone's home and it's at a party. The people in this room are Vortex. In other rooms there are other things going on. We're having an interesting conversation. The libations flow freely, and then people start getting a little tipsy. A conversation gets a little heated. One or two people maybe don't know when to let go of something. They surely have good intentions. But they're getting a little loud. Now imagine in the kitchen one room over there is a sleeping Buddha, who owns the house and is throwing the party. Not only is he serving as the goodly host of the party, but, like Shiva, in previous ages he has also laid waste to civilizations and exiled the profligate, the wicked and the ones who lack self-restraint. Let's let him continue in his deep sleep, for the consequences of his waking are a little unpredictable. Let's carry on our conversation at a more moderate pitch, respecting the general inclinations of the people in the room, even if we feel we've been provoked. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection
I wrote: On occasion I've looked for the Piantelli anecdote, which I read somewhere, > but I haven't succeeded yet in tracking it down. > Apparently I didn't look too far. There are several references to his using a cloud chamber. Here is a brief description from Steven Krivit (search for "cloud chamber") [1]. If someone knows of a more complete description, I'd be grateful for a reference; I recall a story outlining someone's visit to Piantelli that I read several years ago. For the curious, here is a video of a cloud chamber at work, where you can see alpha and beta decays from normal background radiation, as well as alpha decays from Americium and then Radon [2]. Eric [1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efgy1bV2aQo
Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: The problem is the noise. Noise affects the FWHM of the system and > normally getting this noise low enough so that the FWHM is smaller than > 1keV (to get some resolution of low keV photons) requires cooling the > sensor to liquid nitrogen temperatures. > I imagine the noise obscuring the lower energy signals is stochastic. I wonder whether a filter could be developed to do a fourier analysis and then partially subtract out predominant frequencies seen during calibration runs. Perhaps something like that could be effective enough to avoid the need for liquid nitrogen cooling. > I am also considering construction of a thermoelectric cloud chamber for > charged particle evaluation of the LENR powder ash (a la Piantelli). > That would be pretty cool. On occasion I've looked for the Piantelli anecdote, which I read somewhere, but I haven't succeeded yet in tracking it down. Eric
Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL
I feel like Vortex would not be Vortex without the occasional religious digression. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:42 PM, wrote: A metal is an environment where lots of charged bodies are closely packed > together. I don't think an electron in such an environment can be truly > seen as > free. I.e. perhaps electrons in the conduction band actually migrate from > one > atom to the next, rather than wandering around freely? > One interesting thing about a metal is the lack of discrete energy levels. Once the number of atoms grows large, the different levels blend into one another. This is kind of suggestive of a relaxing of Fermi statistics. Eric
Re: [Vo]:"Andy the Grump" is now in BLP's crosshairs
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: * BLP is feeling embolden by the recent June and July SunCell > demonstrations. While many skeptics continue to express a number of > legitimate doubts... apparently BLP has none. I respect your optimism, Steven. But I draw a diametrically opposite conclusion from this action. It's one that to my mind suggests weakness and vulnerability. It reinforces my concerns about them. Eric
[Vo]:TechCrunch: Y Combinator And Mithril Invest In Helion, A Nuclear Fusion Startup
See: http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/14/y-combinator-and-mithril-invest-in-helion-a-nuclear-fusion-startup/ Some points to mention: - Three years for them to get things going is considered a long time (cf. BLP). - They do not appear to be using d+t, and instead are using just deuterium (if I've understood this detail). - They're aiming to build a rather small device that will compete with things like diesel generators. (I'm guessing they won't achieve break-even in three years' time.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Bob Cook wrote: As you can tell from my questions and comments I have a hard time > understanding how an electron can become in effect heavier in an atom > because of its circulation around a point with no evidence about the > stability of the point itself. These are all good questions. I don't know the answer to them. I was just noting the (normal-physics) case of a muon (207 times heavier than an electron) in orbit around a heavy nucleus (Pb), where the mass of the muon pulls it in significantly, and the radius of the nucleus is somewhat large in comparison to that of much lighter nuclei. In a nucleus there is a "skin" depth in which the nuclear density has not yet reached its full value. It is in this region that I imagine the muon 1s wavefunction residing, although I am not sure of this. The main insight is that there doesn't appear to be a magic boundary where the nucleus keeps bound leptons (electrons and muons) out. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene wrote: However, this deep [f/H] orbital is only a few Fermi in distance from the > nucleus. The electron is relativistic and heavy when it gets there. > It's interesting to note that the nuclear radius is not all that special with regard to the orbits of electrons and muons. In the case of Pb, the 1s orbit of a muon is inside the nuclear radius. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote: BTW – it has been mentioned here before, that one way to overcome some of > the objections to f/H is to view the reduced ground state as transitory, > with a short but nontrivial lifetime, and with inherent asymmetry between > the “shrinkage” and the “reexpansion”. > This reminds me of Horace Heffner's deflation fusion (via Robin) [1]. Eric [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg76268.html
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:05 PM, wrote: However neither exist when an electron is freed from an atom, hence free > electrons have no spin, and thus spin is not an intrinsic property of the > electron. Prove me wrong! (please!) ;) > If we say that the s quantum number (aka "intrinsic spin") is contingent, then we will probably need either to decouple fermi statistics from this value, or to suggest that fermi statistics are similarly contingent. Note that some electrons in a metal are not strongly bound to a nucleus but still obey fermi statistics. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: Further, if the orbital electron gives up all spin momentum, it might not > be freed but cease to exist entirely! > Then we have a charge conservation problem on our hands. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:48 PM, wrote: Why wouldn't the extra energy be lost again when the electron eventually > returns > to a higher orbital? (Since it would have to escape the strong force > again.) > Electrons don't feel the strong force. (Although are affected by Coulomb attraction.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 1:47 PM, wrote: The whole thing boils down to the stucture of the electron and photon. If > the electron/photon are is described as a point particles > no classical explanation can be given for the quantum entanglement. > Photons and electrons are described not as point particles, but as phenomena subject to wave/particle duality. In some ways they behave like waves (e.g., they can undergo interference), and in other ways they behave like particles. In order to overthrow a reigning paradigm, it is important not to accidentally set up a straw-man. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wave powered design
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: I am worried about the impending LENR technologies, especially the suncell. > Personally, I would not lose much sleep over the SunCell. I am hopeful, even optimistic, however, about the possibility of a functioning LENR system being made available on the market for purchase in the next few years. If such a system appears, it will cause great disruption across those parts of the energy market that lend themselves to its operating characteristics. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The magic inside the box
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Axil Axil wrote: A real muon may hang around for so long that it may produce a fusion > explosion. > Yes -- if this thought experiment in any way models reality, perhaps you could obtain a critical density of muons and then have a problem on your hands (until the hydrogen runs out). Eric
Re: [Vo]:The magic inside the box
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Once the energy level of the magnetic field get up 140 MeV( the mass of the > Meson) the meson is no longer virtual and will not decay. > > Less than 140 MeV, based on the energy/time uncertainty principle, the > decay time of the virtual meson is proportional to the kinetic energy > content of the mesons pass. > What I'm hinting at is that it might be a little hard to apply an external magnetic field to increase the ground state of a proton by ~ 140 MeV. :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:The magic inside the box
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > In a very strong magnetic field, the virtual meson jumps out of the > confinement box very often because the floor of the box is raised very > high. Many mesons are produced that eventually decay to muons that catalyze > hydrogen fusion. > This is kind of a cool idea. What is the formula you're using to derive the increase in energy of the ground state of the proton by the application of a magnetic field, such that there will be a non-negligible probability that pions will be created? Once you have a muon, how do you deal with the beta, gamma and electron-positron annihilation radiation that come from a resulting fusion between a proton and a lattice site? Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Piantelli needs to lay out how all the conservation laws are maintained in > his reaction. > It would also be nice if someone knowledgeable about hydrinos can explain how an electron (spin=+/- 1/2) becomes a photon (spin=0) at the most redundant level. Does CQM do away with intrinsic angular momentum? Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Regarding one of Dave’s questions yesterday regarding spin interactions, it > has been my thought that orbital spin momentum can be changed into > intrinsic spin angular momentum without any violation of spin conservation. If you change the intrinsic spin of a particle, it becomes a different particle. E.g., an electron has a spin of +/- 1/2. If that spin is somehow changed to 3/2 or to 1 or 2 or something, you no longer have an electron and instead have something else. Also, if orbital angular momentum and intrinsic angular momentum can go back and forth like this, I presume there has to be a corresponding change in spin (intrinsic angular momentum) in another particle involved in a scattering? Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Axil Axil wrote: ... the proton which will then constitute a normal proton again with 3 > quarks. > My recollection is that there are three "valence quarks" which contribute to the charge and spin of the proton, together with a multitude of "sea quarks" that do not contribute (perhaps because they're paired up). Eric
