Re: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the power input?

[Harry Veeder]

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The boiling point of nickel is not related to superfluidity. The
> polaritron condensate is where  superfluidity come from. Any condensate
> will be superfluidic in the volume that it covers.
>
>

 I know, but in the other post you said a superfluid can't boil (i.e.
produce bubbles) when heated. My point is ordinary fluids don't bubble
either until they reach their boiling point, so an absence of bubbles
doesn't prove a fluid is a superfluid.

Harry




>
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>> Axil,
>> This addresses an earlier post you made.
>> The boiling point of nickel is  about 2700 C and the melting is about
>> 1400 C. Ecat fuel never reaches temperatures close to the boiling point so
>> you don't need to suppose bubble formation is suppressed because
>> the fuel behaving a like a superfluid.
>>
>> harry
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> The heat distribution inside the cat is superfluidic.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 6:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If we’re talking about ON/OFF mag-fields making it inside the reactor,
>>>> and the presence of very small ferromagnetic particles, I could easily see
>>>> the particles becoming aligned with the field, and **equally spaced**
>>>> and perhaps even suspended(?)… we all know that geometry has something to
>>>> do with it! 
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> Man, all sorts of images are flooding in now… like, do NAEs within the
>>>> aligned/equally-spaced/suspended particles undergo the reaction, but then
>>>> one has to let them all fall to the floor to distribute the heat to reactor
>>>> walls?
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> -Mark Iverson
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2013 2:54 PM
>>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>>>
>>>> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the
>>>> power input?
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> I think we are getting somewhere in this investigation by looking at
>>>> the subtle and not so subtle effects of low frequency waves.
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> A search of the Dardik superwave information shows that many of the
>>>> carrier waves are low frequency. Some are very low. 
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> The classic example is the “rogue wave” in the Ocean which is not just
>>>> subhertz but a few per year.
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> And yes the trouble with “deconstructing Andre” is that he is fond of
>>>> mixing truth, half-truth, and intentional decoy information… sometimes in
>>>> the same sentence.
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> *From:* David Roberson 
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>> A steady state magnetic field will penetrate the stainless steel.  A
>>>> time changing one will be attenuated as eddy currents induced within the
>>>> metal generate a reverse field that counters the source field to an extent
>>>> that depends upon the rate of change of that field.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> The metal thickness is also crucial to the ultimate level of shielding.
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> Mark, as you say the changes in the PWM waveform that occur at a slow
>>>> rate will find their way inside.  I am not confident that this is a
>>>> mechanism that Rossi uses, but it might have some effect.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> It appears strange that Rossi does not wish to reveal the resistor
>>>> drive waveforms.  Perhaps he is using a moderate frequency drive signal for
>>>> some reason that we are unaware of, only he knows.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> One thing is obvious, he likes to keep us guessing.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From:

Re: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the power input?

[Harry Veeder]

Axil,
This addresses an earlier post you made.
The boiling point of nickel is  about 2700 C and the melting is about 1400
C. Ecat fuel never reaches temperatures close to the boiling point so you
don't need to suppose bubble formation is suppressed because
the fuel behaving a like a superfluid.

harry


On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The heat distribution inside the cat is superfluidic.
>
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 6:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
>
>> If we’re talking about ON/OFF mag-fields making it inside the reactor,
>> and the presence of very small ferromagnetic particles, I could easily see
>> the particles becoming aligned with the field, and **equally spaced**
>> and perhaps even suspended(?)… we all know that geometry has something to
>> do with it! 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Man, all sorts of images are flooding in now… like, do NAEs within the
>> aligned/equally-spaced/suspended particles undergo the reaction, but then
>> one has to let them all fall to the floor to distribute the heat to reactor
>> walls?
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> -Mark Iverson
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2013 2:54 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>
>> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the
>> power input?
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I think we are getting somewhere in this investigation by looking at the
>> subtle and not so subtle effects of low frequency waves.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> A search of the Dardik superwave information shows that many of the
>> carrier waves are low frequency. Some are very low. 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The classic example is the “rogue wave” in the Ocean which is not just
>> subhertz but a few per year.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> And yes the trouble with “deconstructing Andre” is that he is fond of
>> mixing truth, half-truth, and intentional decoy information… sometimes in
>> the same sentence.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* David Roberson 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> A steady state magnetic field will penetrate the stainless steel.  A time
>> changing one will be attenuated as eddy currents induced within the metal
>> generate a reverse field that counters the source field to an extent that
>> depends upon the rate of change of that field.
>>
>>  
>>
>> The metal thickness is also crucial to the ultimate level of shielding.**
>> **
>>
>>  
>>
>> Mark, as you say the changes in the PWM waveform that occur at a slow
>> rate will find their way inside.  I am not confident that this is a
>> mechanism that Rossi uses, but it might have some effect.
>>
>>  
>>
>> It appears strange that Rossi does not wish to reveal the resistor drive
>> waveforms.  Perhaps he is using a moderate frequency drive signal for some
>> reason that we are unaware of, only he knows.
>>
>>  
>>
>> One thing is obvious, he likes to keep us guessing.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Fri, May 24, 2013 5:18 pm
>> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the power
>> input?
>>
>> Mr. Lynn,
>>
>> You’re a bit too quick on the trigger…
>>
>>  
>>
>> Let me repeat myself, a **magnetic** field WILL penetrate most
>> austenitic stainless steels.
>>
>>  
>>
>> However, I know that a static mag-field is not the same as the magnetic
>> component of an oscillating EM field, so I called a colleague who worked
>> for Varian for 40 years, and who has a lot of magnetics expertise.  He said
>> that static, and possibly VLF, magnetic fields will penetrate nonmagnetic
>> stainless steels, but that the magnetic component of EM waves of any
>> significant frequency will probably not.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Another consideration, and I think this was mentioned in the Collective
>> two (or was it three) years ago right after Rossi’s first January
>> demonstration, is that when the electrical resistance heaters are energized
>> (with DC), they will generate a mag-fld around them.  This can probably be
>> considered a static mag-field, and will likely penetrate the non-magnetic
>> 310 stainless cylinder, so the internal core of the reactor may very well
>> feel this PWM-modulated field.
>>
>>  
>>
>> -Mark Iverson
>>
>>  
>>
>> *From:* Robert Lynn 
>> [mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com]
>>
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2013 10:57 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Why did Rossi prevent detailed measurement of the
>> power input?
>>
>>  
>>
>> To repeat myself, there will be no significant em field penetrating the
>> reactor.  So don't try to fool yourself that there is some special secret
>> about using em fields to instigate or promote the reaction, also Rossi has
>> claimed in past to have it running using gas heating.  Rossi's setup only
>> allows for heat to get in.  The skin depth of the 3mm thick SS vessel will
>> exclude all fields above pro

Re: [Vo]:Secret wiring hypothesis

[Harry Veeder]

If you want the Ecat tested in what you consider a trustworthy site,
Rossi will have to trust that his ecat will be returned.

Trust an integral part of life, and since science is done by the living
rather than the deceased, trust is also an integral part of science.

Harry


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>>  The same socket in the wall, or the very same plug in that socket? I
>> suppose one plug could be secretly wired and the all the others in the
>> building not. Rossi would have to worry that they might come in to the lab,
>> unplug it from where it is and plug it in somewhere else. I doubt they
>> would do that.
>>
>>
>
> The requirement for 3-phase input solves that problem. There was probably
> only one available 3-phase line in the room. Simple.
>
>
>
>>
>> People can go on playing these games of what if, maybe, suppose until the
>> cows come home.
>>
>
> Only because Rossi's protocol's allow them. It would be easy to exclude
> this kind of game by making ecats available to skeptics for testing on
> their own premises.
>
>
> The bottom line is not whether or not we can think of ways they may have
> cheated (they could have just made the whole thing up), but the fact that
> cheating is even possible.
>
>
> A properly claimed scientific claim should not require trust -- at least
> not for long. It has to be possible for anyone skilled in the art to check
> the claims. And these can't be checked.
>
>
>
>
>> For example, you might ask why did it worked normally after the second
>> run, during the six hour calibration? Perhaps Rossi was present when the
>> test ended, and secretly went and turned off the extra electricity.
>>
>
> Well, they conveniently used different power configurations for the
> calibration and the live runs, with continuous instead of cycled power. The
> switch between those modes could have involved some deception involving dc
> bias or double wires or something. The input power was calculated based on
> the peak power and the duty cycle.
>
>
>
>> This sort of thing is a fantasy like one of these cheesy paperback
>> thrillers for sale in the drugstore. To believe you have to up a scenario
>> that becomes more and more improbable.
>>
>
> Again, this only happens because the experiment can't be independently
> checked by anyone else. No one wants such a significant claim to depend on
> trust. And as improbable as these scenarios are, to skeptics, they are
> still orders of magnitude more plausible than an explanation involving
> nuclear reactions.
>
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:Phys.org article on test of Ecat

[Harry Veeder]

Tests find Rossi's E-Cat has an energy density at least 10 times higher
than any conventional energy source

 http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html

<>


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Harry Veeder]

Ed,

I think the structure of the coulomb barrier is open to intrinsic
modification, but the variables governing this possibility cannot be
uncovered by the tools and concepts of high energy physics. In most
situations the coulomb barrier behaves in a textbook fashion, but when
bathed in the right vibrations the barrier can be "tuned" to "soften". This
"softening" reduces the height of the barrier so that much less energy is
required for fusion, but it will also enable the gradual dissipation
of fusion
energy you have postulated.

Harry

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Harry, calculations are useless in this case because the mechanism is
> unknown to which the calculations can be applied. We know that the
> mechanism for fusion and transmutation must be the same, which means they
> both must occur in the same NAE. I can describe a process that fits this
> requirement, but not here.
>
> As a basic fact, the barrier can be either lowered by intervention of
> negative charge or overcome by sufficient energy. Regardless of which
> method is used, the energy resulting from transmutation must be dissipated
> gradually before the final isotope is formed. Otherwise, a strong gamma
> must be emitted to conserve momentum. In addition, the method used to get
> over the barrier will be more difficult than required for fusion, as you
> pointed out. So, something very unique is required. I find that use of
> extra energy from fusion is a more logical method than assembly of the
> required large negative charge.  Do you agree?
>
> Ed Storms
>
>
> On May 22, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> Ed,
>
> I am intrigued by your idea that the lack of gammas could be explained
> by fusion process which happens gradually rather than suddenly as is the
> case with hot fusion.
> However,   on the one hand you say the fusion of protons and deuterons
> supplies the energy necessary to over come coulomb repulsion between Ni
> nucleus and the fusion products, but on the other hand you do not say where
> the energy comes from to over come the coulomb repulsion that exists among
> protons and deuterons.
> While it is possible to reduce the energy required by placing an electron
> between protons and deuterons I doubt this will generate enough fusion
> reactions and energy if coulomb's law is correct. Or have you done
> calculations which show that it will?
>
> Harry
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> No Harry, the Coulomb barrier is the same in Hot and Cold fusion. The
>> difference is that it is overcome very rapidly during hot fusion and very
>> slowly during cold fusion. That is the only difference between the two
>> methods. This difference results in a different behavior.
>>
>> Yes, a theory should explain transmutation and mine does. However,
>> transmutation can only occur as a minor consequence of fusion. Fusion must
>> be taking place first, which provides the conditions and energy to get over
>> the huge Coulomb barrier associated with transmutation. As a result, the
>> heat results from the fusion reaction, while a little transmutation occurs
>> and contributes a very small amount of energy.  The two reactions must work
>> together because they both have to follow the same rules, according to my
>> approach
>>
>> Ed Storms
>> On May 22, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
>> You propose that the coulomb barrier is structured differently from how
>> it is normally portrayed in textbooks, and it is this difference that
>> permits the low temperature fusion of protons and deuterons and energy
>> production. Wouldn't the same difference help to explain how transmutations
>> can happen as well? It seems to me a good theory should be able
>> to explain both transmutations and energy production even if the nuclei
>> involved differ in each case.
>>
>> Harry
>> .
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, Harry this is one of the several reasons why transmutation cannot
>>> be the source  of energy. Four more remain.
>>>
>>> Ed Storms
>>> On May 21, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>>
>>> In an environment populated with Ni nuclei and H nuclei, the spontaneous
>>> fusion of a H nucleus with another H nucleus is favoured over spontaneous
>>> fusion with a Ni nucleus because the electrostatic force of repulsion is
>>> smaller between two H nucleus than it is between an H nucleus and an Ni
>>> nucleus.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:

[Harry Veeder]

In principle I side with Kevin, but in practice I agree with Mark.

Harry


On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Kevin/ALL:
>
> ** **
>
> Regardless of strict legal definitions, please, EVERYONE, refrain from
> posting entire articles; a LINK and an excerpt is best to avoid any
> problems.  Bill Beatty does NOT have the time to monitor/moderate; this
> forum is to a large degree, self-moderated.  It does not have the financial
> resources to hire attorneys to respond to an infringement complaint, which
> means if some entity wanted, it could probably shut it down quite easily…
> 
>
> ** **
>
> Shutting down this forum would be like closing the bar in the Dime Box
> Saloon… and you don’t want to do that!
>
> ;-)
>
> ** **
>
> -Mark Iverson
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:36 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
>
> ** **
>
> Mark:
>
>  
>
> I just checked the article I reposted here on Vortex and I was wrong, it
> did include pictures.  That was not my intent -- only the text.  For
> posting the pictures, I apologize.  Hopefully, Bill removes the article
> and this incident just goes off into the sunset.  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their
> money.  Only the text was reposted, not the pictures.   
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Comments by Bo Hoistad

[Harry Veeder]

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Akira Shirakawa
wrote:


> If you're referring to GoatGuy, he writes comments mainly on the
> NextBigFuture blog as far as I know.
> By the way, speaking of skeptic/negative views about the latest E-Cat
> report, here's a well argumented one (or better than average, at least)
> from a ScienceBlogs blogger:
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/**startswithabang/2013/05/21/**
> the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-**are-still-falling-for-it/
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.
>
>

>From the above link, this illustration purports to show how Levi et al have
been fooled:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2013/05/Power-Magic-1.jpeg

Won't the magic go away if both wires run through one ammeter?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Comments by Bo Hoistad

[Harry Veeder]

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

>
>
> On the register HolyFreakinGhost commented
>
> Posted Wednesday 22nd May 2013 03:03 GMT
> 
>
> ...
> Thirdly, using the Stefan-Boltzmann law on anything that isn't a blackbody
> isn't likely to convince me that you know what you're doing. I don't see
> anywhere where they take into account that for a real substance the power
> law is somewhat greater than 4 -- and that this has to be tested
> ...
>
> and
>
> Posted Wednesday 22nd May 2013 12:51 GMT
> 
>
> ...
> Did you miss the part where I found that they're modelling heat emission
> using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which is only valid for blackbodies, and
> that they didn't test whether or not this object is actually radiating as a
> blackbody (hint: it won't be), and that they would have to modify that law
> to T^(4+delta) with delta<~1? That's the point I stopped reading.
> ..
>
>

If the exponent should between 4 and 5 doesn't that just mean Levi et
al made another appropriate conservative estimate?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Harry Veeder]

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Andrew  wrote:

> One more question to be settled: Were those very proximate shipping
> containers inspected and found to be empty?
>
> Andrew
>
>




https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/15110_527605050624097_1103672604_n.jpg

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Harry Veeder]

Ed,

I am intrigued by your idea that the lack of gammas could be explained
by fusion process which happens gradually rather than suddenly as is the
case with hot fusion.
However,   on the one hand you say the fusion of protons and deuterons
supplies the energy necessary to over come coulomb repulsion between Ni
nucleus and the fusion products, but on the other hand you do not say where
the energy comes from to over come the coulomb repulsion that exists among
protons and deuterons.
While it is possible to reduce the energy required by placing an electron
between protons and deuterons I doubt this will generate enough fusion
reactions and energy if coulomb's law is correct. Or have you done
calculations which show that it will?

Harry

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> No Harry, the Coulomb barrier is the same in Hot and Cold fusion. The
> difference is that it is overcome very rapidly during hot fusion and very
> slowly during cold fusion. That is the only difference between the two
> methods. This difference results in a different behavior.
>
> Yes, a theory should explain transmutation and mine does. However,
> transmutation can only occur as a minor consequence of fusion. Fusion must
> be taking place first, which provides the conditions and energy to get over
> the huge Coulomb barrier associated with transmutation. As a result, the
> heat results from the fusion reaction, while a little transmutation occurs
> and contributes a very small amount of energy.  The two reactions must work
> together because they both have to follow the same rules, according to my
> approach
>
> Ed Storms
> On May 22, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> You propose that the coulomb barrier is structured differently from how it
> is normally portrayed in textbooks, and it is this difference that permits
> the low temperature fusion of protons and deuterons and energy
> production. Wouldn't the same difference help to explain how transmutations
> can happen as well? It seems to me a good theory should be able
> to explain both transmutations and energy production even if the nuclei
> involved differ in each case.
>
> Harry
> .
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Yes, Harry this is one of the several reasons why transmutation cannot be
>> the source  of energy. Four more remain.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>> On May 21, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
>> In an environment populated with Ni nuclei and H nuclei, the spontaneous
>> fusion of a H nucleus with another H nucleus is favoured over spontaneous
>> fusion with a Ni nucleus because the electrostatic force of repulsion is
>> smaller between two H nucleus than it is between an H nucleus and an Ni
>> nucleus.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Harry Veeder]

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Andrew  wrote:

> **
> The Abstract of the paper characterises this instrument as "a large
> bandwidth three-phase power analyzer". I'm not seeing that. However, it
> also says "The 116-hour experiment also included a calibration of the
> experimental set-up without the active charge present in the *E-CatHT .  *In
> this case, no extra heat was generated beyond the expected heat from the
> electric input." That implies that there's no problem with the input power
> measurement, does it not? The only way out is for someone to flip a magic
> switch between calibration and measurement runs, such that extra power was
> input during the measurement run; power that was invisible to this meter
> (HF or DC). That's too bizarre to contemplate. All it would take would be
> for one of the Italians to casually walk around the back of the big blue
> box and surreptitiously do that.  Of course, it's not an accusation, Terry
> :) - it's simply a possibility.
>
> p15 states: "the TRIAC power supply has been replaced by a control
> circuit having three-phase power input and single-phase output, mounted
> within a box, the contents of which were not available for inspection,
> inasmuch as they are part of the industrial trade secret." I find it hard
> to believe that simply viewing the contents of a box would be off limits.
> Perhaps it contained 100 Kg of batteries, which is roughly sufficient to
> produce 500 W for 116 hours. Look at the two huge blue boxes in Fig. 16.
> Why would they be off-limits? You can guess the nature of a proprietary
> waveform by looking into a box? This really stinks.
>
>

Two issues:

1) If batteries were inside the box, the box would get quite warm.

2) Did he use battery power to make the first test over heat in November?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Harry Veeder]

You propose that the coulomb barrier is structured differently from how it
is normally portrayed in textbooks, and it is this difference that permits
the low temperature fusion of protons and deuterons and energy
production. Wouldn't the same difference help to explain how transmutations
can happen as well? It seems to me a good theory should be able
to explain both transmutations and energy production even if the nuclei
involved differ in each case.

Harry
.
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Yes, Harry this is one of the several reasons why transmutation cannot be
> the source  of energy. Four more remain.
>
> Ed Storms
> On May 21, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> In an environment populated with Ni nuclei and H nuclei, the spontaneous
> fusion of a H nucleus with another H nucleus is favoured over spontaneous
> fusion with a Ni nucleus because the electrostatic force of repulsion is
> smaller between two H nucleus than it is between an H nucleus and an Ni
> nucleus.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Harry Veeder]

It would be really cool if the lasers are mounted on sharks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw

Harry


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:47 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> You definitely should drop any reference to powerful lasers.  Can you
> imagine the liability that Rossi would face when reflections or direct path
> radiation caused serious injuries?  This is far outside the realm of
> reality.
>
> The input questions are much more relevant, and I suspect that they can be
> set aside with the proper scrutiny.
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: Andrew 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 9:27 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>  Hey, I admit that's a bit far out. But lasers can be straightforwardly
> coerced into producing something that's not a spot, you know.
>
> If there's foul play, my money is on the input side, frankly.
>
> Andrew
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* David Roberson 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:18 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
>  And, of course, the reason that they misread the instruments was that
> they were all blinded by the high power IR.  Give me a break.
>
> Dave
>  -Original Message-
> From: Terry Blanton 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, May 21, 2013 6:52 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
>
> Mr. Gibbs, welcome to our world.
>
> Andrew, infrared lasers?  Really.
>
> Okay, somehow these scientists missed the hidden CO2 laser which would
> create spot heating of the test device.
>
> :-)
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved

[Harry Veeder]

In an environment populated with Ni nuclei and H nuclei, the spontaneous
fusion of a H nucleus with another H nucleus is favoured over spontaneous
fusion with a Ni nucleus because the electrostatic force of repulsion is
smaller between two H nucleus than it is between an H nucleus and an Ni
nucleus.

Harry


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:54 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:

> yes, I have doubts about Ni + p or Ni + 2p reactions.   most of these seem
> endothermic to me.
> I would be more inclined to think there some kind of p+p   like event.
> (OK Ed... p e p )
>
>
> Dennis
>
>
> --
> CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com
> From: stor...@ix.netcom.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:48:13 -0600
>
> Good point, Bob.  Simple arguments can show that the amount of energy
> claimed by Rossi can not result from the Ni+p=Cu reaction regardless of the
> isotope. Ironically, people will accept Rossi's claim that transmutation is
> the source of energy while questioning whether he makes any energy at all.
> Amazing!
>
> Ed Storms
> On May 21, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction.  Are
> we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the
> nuclear reaction that causes the heat?  Dr. Storms proposes that physical
> cracks in the lattice are the NAE and the money crop of the reaction does
> not have any Ni nuclei being consumed except as a possible side reaction.
>  If the NAE are cracks (plausible but far from certain), then would the
> 62Ni create a more desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni?  How would the
> isotope affect the crack as an NAE?  Wouldn't only valence/conduction band
> electron effects show up in the crack?  If so, how could an isotope in the
> lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack?
>
> At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that
> transmutation of Ni is endothermic.
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:
>
> Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component.  So
> I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them.
>
> D2
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Harry Veeder]

The original German title of Feyerabend's book is "Wider den Methodenzwang.
Skizzen einer anarchistischen Erkenntnistheorie."
The standard English translation is "Against Method. Outline Of An
Anarchist Theory of Knowledge"

I have been told by someone who speaks German that a better translation is
"Against the Dictates of Method. Outline Of An Anarchist theory
Of Knowledge"


Harry


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> **
> If there is an afterlife, Feyerabend might be laughing at anything that
> suggests 'method' !
>
> If I had the time and skills, I'd write a blog/book on what I call
> "Atheist Theology" - a deliberate oxymoron.
> If science is wholly based on reductionism and materialism, then it is
> functionally atheistic.
>
> But if that's the case, why not adopt the view that the Cosmos is a
> patchwork - and that it doesn't have to be consistent?  That it may rely on
> paradoxes?
>
> Theorists seem to enjoy spinning theories that are 'elegant', 'beautiful'
> - is this view justified - or useful? The subject seemed to be close to the
> heart of Einstein, who rejected a personal Deity, but still sought order
> and elegance.
>
> I'm interested in emergent phenomena - things that may not have any
> further explanation: ghosts, poltergeists, etc.  In regard to Cold Fusion (
> and much else), I'm blown away by the fanatical insistence on theory above
> all reality.
>
> To paraphrase a current slogan:  'it's here, it's queer, get used to it'
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem

[Harry Veeder]

I would shorten the title from
“Applying the Scientific Method to Understanding Anomalous Heat Effects:
Opportunities and Challenges.”

to
“Understanding Anomalous Heat Effects: Opportunities and Challenges.”

Harry


On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> Chris, some 4 years ago you wrote something about Paul Feyerabend.
> What would this philosopher say about the slogan of ICCF-18? I
> need your help for a blog paper. if you want to help please write me in
> private.
> Peter
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:
>
>> **
>> Gasp!  Why this Cold Fusion thing *is clearly some sort of conspiracy
>> !!!  *
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat report published -- Final Ragone Plot

[Harry Veeder]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:
>
>> > From: mix...@bigpond.com
>> > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:11:12 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat report published -- Final Ragone Plot
>> >
>> > In reply to  Alan Fletcher's message of Mon, 20 May 2013 13:20:06
>>
>> > I think the impact of this would be even greater on a linear rather
>> > than logarithmic plot. :)
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>>
>> http://xkcd.com/1162/   ?
>>
>>
> Hehe
>
> However, the size of the solar system is often represented by a linear
> model.
> eg. the sun is basket ball and the planet pluto is so many kilometers away.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>

some other ways to make comparisons

http://www.idigumining.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/FuelHospital2-600x333.jpg

http://www.idigumining.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/NickelBall.png

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat report published -- Final Ragone Plot

[Harry Veeder]

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> > From: mix...@bigpond.com
> > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:11:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat report published -- Final Ragone Plot
> >
> > In reply to  Alan Fletcher's message of Mon, 20 May 2013 13:20:06
>
> > I think the impact of this would be even greater on a linear rather
> > than logarithmic plot. :)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Robin van Spaandonk
>
>
> http://xkcd.com/1162/   ?
>
>
Hehe

However, the size of the solar system is often represented by a linear
model.
eg. the sun is basket ball and the planet pluto is so many kilometers away.

Harry

[Vo]:Rossi Vindicated? E-Cat Tested by Third Party Investigation

[Harry Veeder]

Rossi Vindicated? E-Cat Tested by Third Party Investigation

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Rossi-Vindicated-E-Cat-Tested-by-Third-Party-Investigation.html

Harry

Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released - Angels on a pin

[Harry Veeder]

Debunkers will say  water flow calorimetry conceals a trick.
Harry


On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:31 PM, David L Babcock wrote:

>  There might be a dozen reasons why NOT water flow calorimetry, but the
> big thing here is, why bother?
>
> They get a torrent of heat, *easily* shown by IR to be far, far more than
> any that accepted science can explain away, and you want that last decimal
> place?
>
> The question that was answered is, *is it real*?  The answer is binary,
> two-state, accuracy is not a factor.
>
> But I think what you are really saying is that somehow hot water trumps
> IR, in the gut perhaps.  It's not separated from common sense basement
> engineering by several exponential equations.  And I think you are right in
> this, at least for a portion of the (persuadable) critics.
>
> Ol' Bab
>
>
>
> On 5/20/2013 12:04 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>  But the main issue - why they did not perform water flow calorimetry?
> That is a major question that needs to be answered after all of these
> months. Instead of removing doubts, which they could have done with water
> flow - they merely added more doubts.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released

[Harry Veeder]

Or the sintering temperature promotes the reaction instead of destroying it.

Harry


On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

> Kudos to A. Rossi for this huge step forward in validation of his work!
>
> One thing in the report that I find incredible was the amount of fuel that
> was "measured" by cutting open the inner cylinder and dumping out the
> catalyst-fuel - supposedly only 0.6g.  This is a tiny amount of nickel
> powder.  Carbonyl Ni micro-powder has a bulk density of about 3.6g/cc.
>  Thus, the volume of powder that came out would have been only 0.17cc from
> a containing cylinder of 3cm x 33cm.  I don't think it is possible to
> adequately conduct that much heat from 0.17cc of loose powder - that much
> heat would have caused loose powder to melt if it were the source.
>  Instead, I suspect that the HotCat must have the catalyst-fuel powder
> coated/bonded on the inside surface of the cylinder like a thermally
> conductive paint.  Then, only what had come loose would have been measured
> when they cut the cylinder open.  Of course, this will make the Ragone
> estimate off by an order of magnitude, but the real number is likely still
> orders of magnitude more than that of chemical sources.
>
> Maybe what came out was a small amount of a metal hydride that was the
> source for the H2 in the cylinder.
>

[Vo]:Compact Reactor by Pharis E. Williams

[Harry Veeder]

Compact Reactor:
Pharis E. Williams

Abstract.   Weyl's Gauge Principle of 1929 has been used to establish
Weyl's Quantum Principle (WQP) that requires that the Weyl scale factor
should be unity. It has been shown that the WQP requires the following:
quantum mechanics must be used to determine system states; the
electrostatic potential must be non-singular and quantified; interactions
between particles with different electric charges (i.e. electron and
proton) do not obey Newton’s Third Law at sub-nuclear separations, and
nuclear particles may be much different than expected using the standard
model. The above WQP requirements lead to a potential fusion reactor
wherein deuterium nuclei are preferentially fused into helium nuclei.
Because the deuterium nuclei are preferentially fused into helium nuclei at
temperatures and energies lower than specified by the standard model there
is no harmful radiation as a byproduct of this fusion process. Therefore, a
reactor using this reaction does not need any shielding to contain such
radiation. The energy released from each reaction and the absence of
shielding makes the deuterium-plus-deuterium-to-helium (DDH) reactor very
compact when compared to other reactors, both fission and fusion types.
Moreover, the potential energy output per reactor weight and the absence of
harmful radiation makes the DDH reactor an ideal candidate for space power.
The logic is summarized by which the WQP requires the above conditions that
make the prediction of DDH possible. The details of the DDH reaction will
be presented along with the specifics of why the DDH reactor may be made to
cause two deuterium nuclei to preferentially fuse to a helium nucleus. The
presentation will also indicate the calculations needed to predict the
reactor temperature as a function of fuel loading, reactor size, and
desired output and will include the progress achieved to date.

http://www.physicsandbeyond.com/CompactReactor.html

pdf  format:
http://www.physicsandbeyond.com/pdf/Compact%20Reactor.pdf

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Ping

[Harry Veeder]

pong


On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Broken or disinterested?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)

[Harry Veeder]

Thanks for the reference, but I meant the sort of drag one experiences
when moving through a fluid at a constant velocity.
I found this link which gives a qualitative account of their theory of mass
http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/sciences.html
and they say because the Zero Point Field (ZPF) is Lorentz invariant it
does not create a drag at constant velocity.
Instead they say acceleration of charged matter through the ZPF creates a
kind of counterforce which we interpret as inertia.

All the efforts to explain the origin of inertia as an effect of some other
force or energy field look for theoretical justification to question the
validity
of the law of inertia. However, if we let experience be our guide we don't
need theoretical justification to question the law. For example, the law is
not respected
by the motion of a thrown pebble. The pebble demonstrates a capacity
for acceleration. Of course, the modern convention is to imagine the Earth
exerting a force because it is assumed a priori that the apple is
continuously obeying the law even while it is in free fall. ( General
relativity retains the doctrine of the continuity of natural law but
"bends" the law in order to account for the acceleration). Instead the
Earth can be viewed as providing a stimulus for the apple's acceleration
and the law of inertia comes into effect again when the apple hits the
ground.

Harry


On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:20 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Yes, it’s called inertia…
>
> Bernie Haisch and Alfonso Rueda derived it (F=ma), and published it in
> Physical Revue A in 1994.
>
> -mark****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 17, 2013 11:44 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)
>
> ** **
>
> Assuming the casimir force  is the best explanation of the observed force
> on the plates, wouldn't the vacuum energy produce a drag on all moving
> bodies? 
>
>  
>
> Harry
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> wrote:
>
> Ed:
> Two things...
>
> 1. I don't think Fran's explanation adequately explained the Casimir
> effect... (sorry Fran).
> Theory posits that the vacuum is made up of almost an infinite range of
> frequencies (some have proposed a cutoff frequency, probably approaching
> the
> Plank frequency).  Closely spaced, parallel conducting plates will ONLY
> exclude vacuum frequencies LARGER than the spacing between the plates.
>  This
> is what creates the unbalanced forces which want to push the plates
> together.  All vacuum frequencies are pushing on the outside surfaces of
> the
> plates, but a limited range of frequencies are between the plates, so
> forces
> pushing plates apart is less than outside forces pushing plates together.
> This effect only becomes significant for very small plate separation.
>
> 2. Empirical evidence for the Casimir effect is now fairly well
> established,
> and has been tested by several groups, including Steve Lamoreaux from your
> old stomping ground of Los Alamos.  It has also become a practical issue
> now
> that nanotechnology has reached the commercialization stage. The following
> is from the Wikipedia article:
> -
> One of the first experimental tests was conducted by Marcus Sparnaay at
> Philips in Eindhoven, in 1958, in a delicate and difficult experiment with
> parallel plates, obtaining results not in contradiction with the Casimir
> theory,[22][23] but with large experimental errors. Some of the
> experimental
> details as well as some background information on how Casimir, Polder and
> Sparnaay arrived at this point[24] are highlighted in a 2007 interview with
> Marcus Sparnaay.
>
> The Casimir effect was measured more accurately in 1997 by Steve K.
> Lamoreaux of Los Alamos National Laboratory,[25] and by Umar Mohideen and
> Anushree Roy of the University of California at Riverside.[26] In practice,
> rather than using two parallel plates, which would require phenomenally
> accurate alignment to ensure they were parallel, the experiments use one
> plate that is flat and another plate that is a part of a sphere with a
> large
> radius.
>
> In 2001, a group (Giacomo Bressi, Gianni Carugno, Roberto Onofrio and
> Giuseppe Ruoso) at the University of Padua (Italy) finally succeeded in
> measuring the Casimir force between parallel plates using
> microresonators.[27]
> ---
>
> -Mark
>

Re: [Vo]:'Slow' arcing electrons can gain relativistic mass

[Harry Veeder]

>From the standpoint of CoE every spontaneous emission is just a delayed
stimulated emission.
If it were possible transfer energy without doing work to produce a
spontaneous emission at a later time then entropy would decrease.

The spontaneous creation of energy would also decrease entropy.

harry





On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:18 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> I was hoping to contrast stimulated 
> emissionvs spontaneous
> emission  with respect
> to entropy.
>
> Note I'm not here talking about concentrating energy in a material (the
> material as a whole goes to a lower energy state), but in a field: "photon
> created in this [stimulated emission -- JAB] manner has the same 
> phase
> , frequency , 
> polarization,
> and direction  of
> travel as the photons of the incident wave".  This has the surface
> appearance of spontaneous order.
>
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Understanding the word "spontaneous" is essential. This means that a
>> material,  to which no energy is applied, suddenly decides to get hot on
>> one side while getting cold on the other.  This would be an example of a
>> spontaneous concentration of energy. This simply does not happen.  Of
>> course, if energy is applied, this energy will be concentrated at the entry
>> point and will try to distribute itself uniformly in the material. In the
>> process, local reactions can take place that can use or produce energy.
>>  However, this is not a spontaneous process.
>>
>> The question with cold fusion is whether energy can spontaneously
>> concentrate in a region to a high enough level to initiate a nuclear
>> reaction. Or, for example, can enough energy concentrate in an electron to
>> allow a neutron to form if the energetic election met a proton?  Experience
>> and the Second Law of Thermodynamics say that such a process is impossible.
>>  Of course, if enough laser energy is applied, anything might happen.
>> However this level of energy is not applied in most experiments that
>> produce LENR.
>>
>> I hope this issue is now clearer, James.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>> On May 17, 2013, at 10:23 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> This may be a naive question, but does not stimulated emission
>> "concentrate" energy in some sense?  A material that is pumped to a higher
>> electron orbital has that energy spatially distributed and stimulated
>> emission causes it to "concentrate" in some sense.  Have there been any
>> successful models of the entropy of stimulated emission, or is that a
>> meaningless concept?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> You say this with certainty. Consequently, I assume you do not believe
>>> the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law says that all energy goes from a
>>> higher to a lower level.  You propose the reverse.  If this were true, the
>>> nano-particles would suddenly get hot for no apparent reason, which would
>>> be easy to detect. I know of no evidence to show that energy is
>>> spontaneously concentrated in nano-particles. Do you have such evidence?
>>>  Please do not use the laser studies because this is not a spontaneous
>>> effect. The effect results from energy being applied from a high level
>>> outside of the system.
>>>
>>> Ed Storms
>>>
>>> On May 15, 2013, at 8:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>> *1. Can energy be concentrated within a material by a spontaneous
>>> process?*
>>>
>>> A nano-particle(s) can concentrate EMF power to a level of *tens of
>>> terawatts/cm2*. This concentration is long lasting, that is, not pulsed.
>>>
>>> That is close to what the National ignition facility can do.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>>>
 Hi Ed,

 On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Edmund Storms 
 wrote:

 1. Can energy be concentrated within a material by a spontaneous
> process?
> 2. Can this local energy initiate a nuclear reaction?
> 3. Can application of energy from any outside source trigger LENR?
> 4. Does radiation emitted from the nuclear process fuel additional
> nuclear reactions?
> 5. Does energetic helium (alpha) result from LENR?
>

 I have no issue with item (1).  I'm just starting to pay more attention
 to the question of x-rays, that's all.  Unless we're talking about very
 strong x-rays, I don't think we can conclude much if anything their
 presence or absence, and particularly in connection with excess heat,
 without putting some kind of x-ray sensitive film in the system (like they
 did at BARC).

 Apart from the small side detail concerning x-rays, I am not disputing
 your analysis of the likelihood of accelerating electrons to the 

Re: [Vo]:Nickel Aluminum (NiAl)

[Harry Veeder]

Assuming the casimir force  is the best explanation of the observed force
on the plates, wouldn't the vacuum energy produce a drag on all moving
bodies?

Harry


On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Ed:
> Two things...
>
> 1. I don't think Fran's explanation adequately explained the Casimir
> effect... (sorry Fran).
> Theory posits that the vacuum is made up of almost an infinite range of
> frequencies (some have proposed a cutoff frequency, probably approaching
> the
> Plank frequency).  Closely spaced, parallel conducting plates will ONLY
> exclude vacuum frequencies LARGER than the spacing between the plates.
>  This
> is what creates the unbalanced forces which want to push the plates
> together.  All vacuum frequencies are pushing on the outside surfaces of
> the
> plates, but a limited range of frequencies are between the plates, so
> forces
> pushing plates apart is less than outside forces pushing plates together.
> This effect only becomes significant for very small plate separation.
>
> 2. Empirical evidence for the Casimir effect is now fairly well
> established,
> and has been tested by several groups, including Steve Lamoreaux from your
> old stomping ground of Los Alamos.  It has also become a practical issue
> now
> that nanotechnology has reached the commercialization stage. The following
> is from the Wikipedia article:
> -
> One of the first experimental tests was conducted by Marcus Sparnaay at
> Philips in Eindhoven, in 1958, in a delicate and difficult experiment with
> parallel plates, obtaining results not in contradiction with the Casimir
> theory,[22][23] but with large experimental errors. Some of the
> experimental
> details as well as some background information on how Casimir, Polder and
> Sparnaay arrived at this point[24] are highlighted in a 2007 interview with
> Marcus Sparnaay.
>
> The Casimir effect was measured more accurately in 1997 by Steve K.
> Lamoreaux of Los Alamos National Laboratory,[25] and by Umar Mohideen and
> Anushree Roy of the University of California at Riverside.[26] In practice,
> rather than using two parallel plates, which would require phenomenally
> accurate alignment to ensure they were parallel, the experiments use one
> plate that is flat and another plate that is a part of a sphere with a
> large
> radius.
>
> In 2001, a group (Giacomo Bressi, Gianni Carugno, Roberto Onofrio and
> Giuseppe Ruoso) at the University of Padua (Italy) finally succeeded in
> measuring the Casimir force between parallel plates using
> microresonators.[27]
> ---
>
> -Mark
>
>

[Vo]:From last year: Italian Government Slams Brakes on 'Piezonuclear' Fission

[Harry Veeder]

This story is almost year old and maybe others have already seen these
articles but until today I wasn't aware that Science and Nature wrote about
it.

Italian Government Slams Brakes on 'Piezonuclear' Fission
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/italian-government-slams-brakes-.html?ref=hp

Italian scientists win battle to halt controversial research
http://www.nature.com/news/italian-scientists-win-battle-to-halt-controversial-research-1.10823

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Crystals of Time

[Harry Veeder]

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>> Viewpoint: Crystals of Time
>>
>> Researchers propose how to realize time crystals, structures whose
>> lowest-energy states are periodic both in time and space.
>>
>> http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/116
>>
>> quote <> machine, but it is worth emphasizing one key difference: while time
>> crystals would indeed move periodically in an eternal loop, rotation occurs
>> in the ground state, with no work being carried out nor any usable energy
>> being extracted from the system. Finding time crystals would not amount to
>> a violation of well-established ruprinciples of thermodynamics. If they can
>> be created, time crystals may have intriguing applications, from precise
>> timekeeping to the simulation of ground states in quantum computing
>> schemes. But they may be much more than advanced devices. Could the
>> postulated cyclic evolution of the Universe be seen as a manifestation of
>> spontaneous symmetry breaking akin to that of a time crystal? If so, who is
>> the observer inducing—by a measurement—the breaking of the symmetry of
>> time?>> end quote
>>
>>
>> Comment: If the time crystal continues to "beat" at the same rate despite
>> being measured then it  violates the second law of thermodynamics.
>>
>>
>> Harry
>>
>
> Also, if a system can produce endless amounts of information but no useful
> energy, that should be enough to call it a perpetual motion machine!
> THE MEANING OF MOTION IS NOT REDUCEABLE TO ENERGY.
> harry
>
>
>
reducible
It seems google spell check does not underline spelling mistakes if you
type in caps.

harry

Re: [Vo]:Crystals of Time

[Harry Veeder]

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> Viewpoint: Crystals of Time
>
> Researchers propose how to realize time crystals, structures whose
> lowest-energy states are periodic both in time and space.
>
> http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/116
>
> quote < machine, but it is worth emphasizing one key difference: while time
> crystals would indeed move periodically in an eternal loop, rotation occurs
> in the ground state, with no work being carried out nor any usable energy
> being extracted from the system. Finding time crystals would not amount to
> a violation of well-established principles of thermodynamics. If they can
> be created, time crystals may have intriguing applications, from precise
> timekeeping to the simulation of ground states in quantum computing
> schemes. But they may be much more than advanced devices. Could the
> postulated cyclic evolution of the Universe be seen as a manifestation of
> spontaneous symmetry breaking akin to that of a time crystal? If so, who is
> the observer inducing—by a measurement—the breaking of the symmetry of
> time?>> end quote
>
>
> Comment: If the time crystal continues to "beat" at the same rate despite
> being measured then it  violates the second law of thermodynamics.
>
>
> Harry
>

Also, if a system can produce endless amounts of information but no useful
energy, that should be enough to call it a perpetual motion machine!
THE MEANING OF MOTION IS NOT REDUCEABLE TO ENERGY.
harry

[Vo]:Crystals of Time

[Harry Veeder]

Viewpoint: Crystals of Time

Researchers propose how to realize time crystals, structures whose
lowest-energy states are periodic both in time and space.

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/116

quote <> end quote


Comment: If the time crystal continues to "beat" at the same rate despite
being measured then it  violates the second law of thermodynamics.


Harry

[Vo]:Song: Keep An Open Mind

[Harry Veeder]

Keep An Open Mind

by Hampus Ericsson.

https://soundcloud.com/hampus-ericsson/keep-an-open-mind#play

The song is about what it is like to follow Rossi's work.
Good music and lyrics!

Harry

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

[Harry Veeder]

I would say a proper debunking of polywater requires more than detecting
the presence of contaminants.
The concentrations of the contaminants has to be large enough to bring
about the property changes.
Were the concentrations measured?
If the concentrations are too small then polywater could still be real from
the standpoint of homeopathy.

Harry


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> I wrote:
>
> A brand new type of measurement, or one made with an experimental new type
>> of instrument, may be open to question.
>>
>
> That was the situation with polywater. That is why it took a couple of
> years to determine it was caused by contamination. The results were very
> close the limits of sensitivity, unlike cold fusion.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Viscoelastic Silicone Rubber

[Harry Veeder]

Viscoelastic Silicone Rubber

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Q1VtAXeMn74&feature=endscreen

Published on Nov 6, 2012
A novel material developed by Louis A. Bloomfield, professor and associate
chair of the Physics Department in the University of Virginia's College of
Arts & Sciences, has unusual properties that allow it to behave differently
in the long and short terms.


Harry

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Harry Veeder]

Ed,
I suggested two analogies with the videos

1) alphas trigger the reaction like a spark triggering a fire.
As you point out this analogy is difficult to square with observations.


2) alphas are like smoke accompanying a fire. Depending on the
conditions there can be lots of smoke with little fire (heat), or lots
of fire (heat) with little smoke.

This analogy is consistent with observations.


harry
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Harry, random suggestions guided by no relationship to knowledge is not
> very useful. My guiding principle is that all aspects of CF are consistent
> with normal, well known, and accepted laws and rules of both physics and
> chemistry. Only one small part is missing, which needs to be identified.
>  Nevertheless, the role of this missing part can be clearly determined.
>  This missing part does not in any way relate to alpha emission. The
> interaction of an alpha with matter is well known and understood. It does
> not initiate a fusion reaction. If it could, all alpha emitters would
> occasionally produce CF in the presence of hydrogen, which has not been
> observed. Of course, someone will find a way to counter this conclusion,
> but to what end?  We must use some triage here. We need to consider ideas
> that are consistent with all that is known about materials and about how CF
> behaves?  Unless you can show some consistency with what is known and
> observed, the ideas are a waste of time. So, put your thinking cap back on.
>
> Ed  Storms
>
>
> On May 6, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire".
> Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced.
>
> starting a fire with hand drill
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA
>
> Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not
>> invite a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that cannot be
>> shown to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to sort through the
>> arguments and some common sense is applied, the effect will be impossible
>> to understand.  Naturally, I have considered the possibilities you suggest,
>> Axil, before I came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be
>> true.  Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the
>> observed behavior.  A reader will have to decide for themselves which
>> possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to debate such
>> details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter what arguments are
>> given, a counter argument can always be provided.
>>
>> I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you believe
>> and gave your reasons. That is all we can do.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>> On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> Ed Storms states:
>>
>> *“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission
>> at a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and
>> alpha emission are not related.”*
>>
>> This could be a false assumption as follows:
>>
>> When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy directly to
>> the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry enough energy to
>> penetrate the surface of the CR-39.
>>
>> In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at very
>> low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed.
>>
>> This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly to the
>> lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha particles and their
>> associated behavior and measurement problematic and unreliable.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear
>>> reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the reaction
>>> was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The only unknown
>>> is whether heat from a different reaction can occur.
>>>
>>> We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at
>>> a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha
>>> emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear reaction is the
>>> source of the heat. The question is: What is this source?
>>>
>>> When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is dete

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Harry Veeder]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>  The question stands. If the evidence is so compelling, why don't
>>> intelligent people accept it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why are some intelligent people racist?
>>
>>
> Has to do with self-interest, I think. But it is in nearly everyone's
> self-interest for cold fuison to be real. And in any case, my question was
> really why don't *all* intelligent people accept it.
>
>
>
All intelligent people do not have to accept it. However, if a minority of
the intelligentsia judge the evidence is compelling it does not give the
majority the right to portray the minority as stupid or delusional or as
practicing pathological science.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Harry Veeder]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>  Mainstream does not believe the evidence for cold fusion. Therefore, it
>> is not credible.
>> ***What a ridiculous line of reasoning.
>>
>
>
>
> It's what the words mean. Credible means believable. If something is not
> believed, then it is not credible.
>
>
> It can be credible to some and not others, but in the main, it is not
> credible.
>
>

And there you have itscience by consensus.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Harry Veeder]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:
.



>  But it's difficult to come up with a phenomenon on the scale of cold
> fusion that was rejected for decades and was later vindicated. There is, as
> described in Hagelstein's essay, Semmelweis, and to a lesser degree there
> is Ohm, but both of those go back 150 years, when progress was slower, and
> scientific thought was different. In any case, I'd be interested in a more
> recent example.
>


When blood transfusions were first tried (in 17th century?) some were a
success and some ended in deaths and nobody knew why. It wasn't explained
until the discovery of blood typing in the early 20th century. Until then
blood transfusions were prohibited, for good ethical reasons.



>
>
>
>
>
>
> But surely it doesn't say that mainstream thought *must* be wrong whenever
> a new idea is introduced, because that rapidly leads to a catch-22.
>
> So, can we predict whether mainstream thought is right based on previous
> phenomena? Well, scientists should obviously make their judgements based on
> the evidence. As for observers trying to decide what to bet on, the
> consensus of experts is surely the most likely approximation to the truth.
> What else is there? The consensus of plumbers? The consensus of your
> friends? The  consensus of true believers of the fringe view? Your own
> preference? Should we accept creationism, homeopathy, dowsing, telekinesis?
>


Why must a community comprised of intelligent people demonise certain
research interests?
Harry

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Harry Veeder]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's a reflection of what mainstream science thinks of cold fusion. It
>>> doesn't answer the question of why, if the proof is so obvious,
>>>
>>  ***Interesting little conditional you've inserted here.  The proof is
>> not obvious but the evidence is.  With so much evidence, with >14000
>> replications, the evidence is compelling.  This is far from a pathological
>> science.
>>
>
> There are a lot of claimed examples of excess heat. They are not
> replications, because many of the experiments are different, and the levels
> of claimed heat are all over the map.
>
>
> The question stands. If the evidence is so compelling, why don't
> intelligent people accept it?
>
>
>
>
>

Why are some intelligent people racist?

[Vo]:Halo Neutron

[Harry Veeder]

Atomic Nucleus with Halo: For the First Time, Scientists Measure the Size
of a One-Neutron Halo with Lasers

Atomic nucleus of beryllium is three times as large as normal due to halo /
Publication in Physical Review Letters

http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/13031.php

16.02.2009
Atomic nuclei are normally compact structures defined by a sharp border.
About twenty-five years ago, it was discovered at the University of
California in Berkeley that there are exceptions to this picture: Certain
exotic atomic nuclei contain particles that shear off from the central core
and create a cloud, which surrounds the central core like a
'heiligenschein' or halo. An example of such a halo occurs in beryllium-11,
a specific isotope of the metal beryllium. Here, the halo is made up of a
single neutron. For the first time ever, scientists at the Institute of
Nuclear Chemistry of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in cooperation
with colleagues from other institutes have succeeded in precisely measuring
this one-neutron halo by means of a laser, and in evaluating the dimensions
of the cloud. By studying neutron halos, scientists hope to gain further
understanding of the forces within the atomic nucleus that bind atoms
together, taking into account the fact that the degree of displacement of
halo neutrons from the atomic nuclear core is incompatible with the
concepts of classical nuclear physics.

"We intuitively imagine the atomic nucleus as a compact sphere consisting
of positively charged protons and uncharged neutrons," explains Dr.
Wilfried Nörtershäuser of the Institute of Nuclear Chemistry. "In fact, we
have known since the 1980s that atomic nuclei of certain neutron-rich
isotopes of the lightest elements - lithium, helium and beryllium -
completely contradict this conception." These isotopes consist of a compact
nuclear core and a cloud made of diluted nuclear material - called
'heiligenschein' or 'halo'. A halo consists mostly of neutrons that are
very weakly bound to the nuclear core, "normally with only one-tenth of the
usual binding energy of a neutron inside the core," explains Nörtershäuser.

The discovery of these exotic atomic nuclei created a new area of research,
which Nörtershäuser as the head of a young investigators group funded by
the German Helmholtz Association has pursued since 2005 at the University
in Mainz and at the GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research in
Darmstadt. Measuring halo nuclei is extremely difficult, since they can
only be artificially created in minute amounts. In addition, these
synthesized nuclei decay within seconds, mostly even in milliseconds.

Nörtershäuser’s team has now succeeded for the first time in measuring the
nuclear charge radius in beryllium-11. This nucleus consists of a dense
core with 4 protons and 6 neutrons and a single weakly bound neutron that
forms the halo. In order to accomplish this ultra-precise laser
spectroscopic measurement, the scientists used a method developed 30 years
ago at the University of Mainz, but combined it now for the first time with
the most modern techniques for precise laser frequency measurement, i.e.,
by employing an optical frequency comb. This combination alone was not
sufficient, though. Only by further expanding the method using an
additional laser system it was possible to achieve the right level of
precision. The technique was then applied to beryllium isotopes at the
Isotope Separator On Line (ISOLDE) facility for radioactive ion beams at
the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva. The
professional journal Physical Review Letters published this work in its
latest February 13 issue.

The measurements revealed that the average distance between the halo
neutrons and the dense core of the nucleus is 7 femtometers. Thus, the halo
neutron is about three times as far from the dense core as is the outermost
proton, since the core itself has a radius of only 2.5 femtometers. "This
is an impressive direct demonstration of the halo character of this
isotope. It is interesting that the halo neutron is thus much farther from
the other nucleons than would be permissible according to the effective
range of strong nuclear forces in the classical model," explains
Nörtershäuser. The strong interaction that holds atoms together can only
extend to a distance of between 2 to 3 femtometers. The riddle as to how
the halo neutron can exist at such a great distance from the core nucleus
can only be resolved by means of the principles of quantum mechanics: In
this model, the neutron must be characterized in terms of a so-called wave
function. Because of the low binding energy, the wave function only falls
off very slowly with increasing distance from the core. Thus, it is highly
likely that the neutron can expand into classically forbidden distances,
thereby inducing the expansive 'heiligenschein'.

This work was supported by the Helmholtz Association, the GSI Darmstadt and
the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

[Vo]:Ancient Astronaut Found On Spanish Cathedral?

[Harry Veeder]

Ancient Astronaut Found On Spanish Cathedral?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4N8URW0eZA

text below youtube video:

*Published on Mar 6, 2013 *

Very impressive carving that seems to depict an Astronaut holding a tether
of some kind. The carving is part of a decorative mosaic of motifs, that
decorate the Ieronimus Cathedral in Spain.

De-bunkers have claimed that this is merely the work of a mischievous
builder who worked on the restoration of the cathedral back in 1992, but
some local sources reject that theory claiming, the people who have lived
here for generations all know about the hombre de las estrellas, (Man Of
Stars) Our grandfathers and grandmothers all talked about him, its common
knowledge.

Could this be proof of Time Travel, Alien visitation or something else? As
always you decide.

[Vo]:‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological)

[Harry Veeder]

‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct
(nor is it pathological)

Henry H. Bauer*

Abstract: ‘Pathological’ science implies scientific misconduct: it should
not happen and the scientists concerned ought to know better. However,
there are no clear and generally agreed definitions of pathological science
or of scientific misconduct. The canonical exemplars of pathological
science in chemistry (N-rays, polywater) as well as the recent case of cold
fusion in electrochemistry involved research practices not clearly
distinguishable from those in (revolutionary) science. The concept of
‘pathological science’ was put forth nearly half a century ago in a seminar
and lacks justification in contemporary understanding of science studies
(history, philosophy, and sociology of science). It is time to abandon the
phrase.


http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/8-1/bauer.htm

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Harry Veeder]

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
>> plate tectonics evidence where overwhelming much before they were
>> accepted.
>> there was explanation for the moving mechanisme decades before.
>>
>>
>>
> Maybe much before they were universally accepted. Support grew with the
> evidence, as might be expected. Cold fusion has stagnated at essential
> rejection for 24 years.
>
>

Obviously the controversy isn't over. I meant it is comparable to the time
when plate tectonics was considered fringe science.  It took about 45
years  from the time continental drift was first proposed in 1912 to its
acceptance.
However, the concept is really much older  and was first proposed in 1596.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift
According to Wikipedia it seems the concept of continental drift
wasn't firmly rejected until the mid 19 th century due to certain findings
and the influence of James Dana, a prominent geologist of the time.



Harry


Harry



Harry

Re: [Vo]:Was polywater all just a mistake?

[Harry Veeder]

Generally the density of liquid water tends to increase with decreasing
temperature.
However water density is a maximum at a temperature of +4 degree C
and a pressure of 1 Bar so that the density decreases slightly as the
temperature approaches O degree C.  At higher pressures the maximum density
shifts towards O degree C.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fluid-density-temperature-pressure-d_309.html


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Amazin' stuff, water:
>
> http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/strange.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:'Nocebo Effect' - Expectation Of Negative Effects Can Increase Likelihood Of Experiencing Symptoms

[Harry Veeder]

I wonder who funded this test.
If no testing was done with real wifi signals, it only proves that the
associated symptoms can have psychological triggers.

Harry


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/260185.php
>

Re: [Vo]:The natural magic of a non-Newtonian fluid

[Harry Veeder]

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> It acts like a solid when punched...
>
> Cornstarch & Water - Explained by Physicists
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGfynrsdaV0
>
>
> and will fracture and shatter when it is hit with enough force.
>
> SHOOTING Non-Newtonian Fluid
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THJpMeAaKzE
>
>
> What does this have to do with fusion?
> Imagine two non-Newtonian drops colliding.
> It is easier for them to merge if they collide slowly rather than quickly.
> Also if the surface of the drops is undulating then the ease with
> which they merge will also depend on the relative velocity of the
> contacting surfaces.
>
> Harry
>

which is a function of the frequency of the undulations.

Harry

[Vo]:The natural magic of a non-Newtonian fluid

[Harry Veeder]

It acts like a solid when punched...

Cornstarch & Water - Explained by Physicists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGfynrsdaV0


and will fracture and shatter when it is hit with enough force.

SHOOTING Non-Newtonian Fluid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THJpMeAaKzE


What does this have to do with fusion?
Imagine two non-Newtonian drops colliding.
It is easier for them to merge if they collide slowly rather than quickly.
Also if the surface of the drops is undulating then the ease with
which they merge will also depend on the relative velocity of the
contacting surfaces.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Harry Veeder]

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> Plate tectonics were accepted when the evidence became overwhelming,
> particularly the fossil and seismologic evidence. Yes, it took a a long
> time, because geology yields its secrets greedily, but it had nothing to do
> with attrition.
>
>
The same is true for cold fusion.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Spinning nickel for warm regards

[Harry Veeder]

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> I may give it better than a passing chance, even if it is only 51%. That
> could change quickly if there were more dots to connect. Here is one more
> dot - at the 10th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded
> Metals, last year in Siena, Italy - a professor or two with connections to
> Kurchatov and the Russian paper cited earlier were there. Could mean
> nothing
> - Russians like to get out of Moscow in April, as Spring comes late.
> However, they have been notably silent on what they are doing during those
> long winters, if it involves LENR.
>
> A few other factoids. The preferred gaseous nickel compound for use in a
> centrifuge cascade appears to be nickel tetrafluorophosphine, Ni(PF3)4,
> called tetrakis.  The Russians can enrich to 80%. The cost can only be
> guesstimated, but would be favorable based on the sunk cost of having lots
> of unused time on a billion-buck centrifuge array - which quite a few
> Countries, like the USA do have available... IOW Ni-62 could be factor of
> 1000 less than what you pay at a chem. supply house. It could be about a
> tenth the cost per gram of 235U enrichment. Nickel tetrafluorophosphine is
> known as "tetrakis" nickel since in geometry and polyhedron notation,
> tetrakis is used to describe a certain solid shape, which this molecule
> presents. Palladium also has a tetrakis form. Has a certain Dune
> reminiscence, no ?
>
> OTOH, we can't put much faith in coincidence or Conference attendance.
> "Spice" is a bit less alluring when you realize that it is basically
> sandworm guano.
>


Is it just a coincidence that flourine is used to process the nickel and
Passerini said
in a coded message on his blog that fluorine would make a better
electrolyte in the
SPAWAR experiments?
I posted Passerini coded message on april 22:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg79083.html

Harry

[Vo]:Intrinsic Charges and the Strong Force

[Harry Veeder]

This paper was just published. I found it while doing a google search for
time-dependent strong force. This search was motivated by my model of the
nucleus as a non-Newtonian fluid. The properties of such fluid vary
with the rate of change of an applied force. The paper doesn't use the
term non-Newtonian fluid (or the equivalent term memory fluid or
viscoelastic fluid) but it does mention time dependent states.


http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2013/PP-34-06.PDF

Intrinsic Charges and the Strong Force

Bo Lehnert

According to a revised quantum electrodynamic theory, there are models of
leptons
such as the electron which possess both a net integrated electric charge
and a much
larger intrinsic charge of both polarities. From estimates based on such
models, the
corresponding Coulomb force due to the intrinsic charges then becomes two
orders of
magnitude larger than that due to the conventional net charge. This
intrinsic charge
force can also have the features of a short-range interaction. If these
results would
generally hold true, the intrinsic charge force could either interact with
a strong force of
different origin and character, or could possibly become identical with the
strong force.


It was published in the on-line journal _Progress in Physics_ which was
setup in 2005.
http://www.ptep-online.com/

The journal's guiding principles are worth a read.
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/rights.html

Harry

Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love

[Harry Veeder]

The alpha particles could be a precursor of the "new fire".
Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced.

starting a fire with hand drill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA

Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the "new fire"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs

Harry



On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not invite
> a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that cannot be shown
> to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to sort through the
> arguments and some common sense is applied, the effect will be impossible
> to understand.  Naturally, I have considered the possibilities you suggest,
> Axil, before I came to my conclusions. Of course what you propose might be
> true.  Nevertheless, I reached my conclusion by considering all of the
> observed behavior.  A reader will have to decide for themselves which
> possibility they want to accept because it is impossible to debate such
> details here and reach an agreed conclusion. No matter what arguments are
> given, a counter argument can always be provided.
>
> I stated what I believe and gave the reasons. You stated what you believe
> and gave your reasons. That is all we can do.
>
> Ed Storms
> On May 6, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Ed Storms states:
>
> *“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at
> a comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha
> emission are not related.”*
>
> This could be a false assumption as follows:
>
> When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear energy directly to
> the lattice is in place, alpha particles do not carry enough energy to
> penetrate the surface of the CR-39.
>
> In this situation, the alpha particle drifts out of the nucleus at very
> low energies rather than being fired off out at high speed.
>
> This thermalization mechanism of nuclear energy from LENR directly to the
> lattice makes deductions about the behavior of alpha particles and their
> associated behavior and measurement problematic and unreliable.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear
>> reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the reaction
>> was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The only unknown
>> is whether heat from a different reaction can occur.
>>
>> We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a
>> comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha
>> emission are not related. Therefore, some other nuclear reaction is the
>> source of the heat. The question is: What is this source?
>>
>> When a large amount of heat are produced, helium is detected. This helium
>> does not come from alpha emission, as the above logic demonstrates.
>>  Therefore, it must result from a different nuclear reaction. The question
>> is: What is this reaction? That is the question my and other theories are
>> trying to answer.  If you want to answer the question of where the alpha
>> comes from, you need to start a different discussion because this emission
>> is clearly not related to CF.
>>
>> And NO, helium can not be produced by a reaction that sometimes makes
>> alpha and sometimes releases He without kinetic energy. Such a reaction is
>> too improbable to be seriously considered.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 6, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> Eric Walker  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to
>>> conclude we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about the
>>> alpha particle flux when there is excess heat.
>>>
>>
>> I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments. We do
>> not know whether there was heat.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Neutron, Proton and Positron

[Harry Veeder]

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/3/2013 11:07 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>>
>>> > What I am saying is that neutrons and protons conform to the quark
>>> models (u,u,d) and (u,u,d) when they are probed at high energies. At lower
>>> energies they are different.
>>>
>>> What is your model for them at low energies?
>>>
>>> - Joe
>>>
>>>
>> Consider a non-Newtonian fluid.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYSlK4f94p0
>>
>> The resistance of the liquid increases with the velocity impact.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid
>>
>> I wrote about this couple of years on vortex, but back then I made the
>> mistake of trying to apply it to the EM forces between charged particles.
>> I should have applied it to the nuclear force.
>>
>>
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
> more examples
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU7iuJ98fRQ
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp1wUodQgqQ
>
> Now imagine a non-Newtonian drop floating on the spacestation subject to
> external impacts and vibrations and you can see how
> quarks can arise within a nucleus in a high energy environment.
>
> Harry
>
>

A more "scientific" presentation of a non-Newtonian fluid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCHPo3EA7oE

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Neutron, Proton and Positron

[Harry Veeder]

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/2013 11:07 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
>> > What I am saying is that neutrons and protons conform to the quark
>> models (u,u,d) and (u,u,d) when they are probed at high energies. At lower
>> energies they are different.
>>
>> What is your model for them at low energies?
>>
>> - Joe
>>
>>
> Consider a non-Newtonian fluid.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYSlK4f94p0
>
> The resistance of the liquid increases with the velocity impact.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid
>
> I wrote about this couple of years on vortex, but back then I made the
> mistake of trying to apply it to the EM forces between charged particles.
> I should have applied it to the nuclear force.
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
more examples

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU7iuJ98fRQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp1wUodQgqQ

Now imagine a non-Newtonian drop floating on the spacestation subject to
external impacts and vibrations and you can see how
quarks can arise within a nucleus in a high energy environment.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Neutron, Proton and Positron

[Harry Veeder]

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:

> On 5/3/2013 11:07 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> > What I am saying is that neutrons and protons conform to the quark
> models (u,u,d) and (u,u,d) when they are probed at high energies. At lower
> energies they are different.
>
> What is your model for them at low energies?
>
> - Joe
>
>
Consider a non-Newtonian fluid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYSlK4f94p0

The resistance of the liquid increases with the velocity impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid

I wrote about this couple of years on vortex, but back then I made the
mistake of trying to apply it to the EM forces between charged particles.
I should have applied it to the nuclear force.



Harry

Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping

[Harry Veeder]

The local production of energy does not necessarily have to result in a
local production of heat.

For example see this article posted by pagnucco a few days ago.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/apr/22/spin-waves-carry-energy-from-cold-to-hot


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  This could be absurdly false - and could kill any remaining credibility
> that Rossi has. 
>
> ** **
>
> I will defer to anyone who does this kind heat transfer calculation on a
> regular basis but it looks absurd to me now based on the one basic simple
> issue – heat transfer limitations.
>
> ** **
>
> With only 20 grams of active material, I’m pretty sure that it can be
> shown that it is physically impossible to transfer that much heat to the
> rest of the reactor before the nickel or any other known metal turns into a
> gas. 
>
> ** **
>
> The boiling point of nickel is 2,900+ …  think about the implications !
> what this all “boils down to” is can 20 grams of nickel transfer that much
> heat – roughly 14+ kWhr for several hundred hours?
>
> 
>
> Forget the energy implications – as a straight-up heat transfer issue,
> this looks to be beyond physical reality… Of course – Rossi could say that
> the nickel boils inside the reactor at 10,000 degrees, but is that logical?
> 
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
>
> ** **
>
> I wrote:
>
>  
>
>   That's the small incandescent gadget in the foreground. Right? Much
> smaller than a 1 MW reactor, shown behind it.
>
>  ** **
>
> Here is Rossi's description of the incandescent gadget:
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/final-update-corrected-again-pordenone-hot-cat-report/
> 
>
> ** **
>
> - Jed
>
> ** **
>

Re: [Vo]:Neutron, Proton and Positron

[Harry Veeder]

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Joseph S. Barrera III <
jbarr...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:

> On 5/3/2013 2:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Are you guys positing that a proton is (u, u, d) and a neutron is (u, u,
>> d, e+) but only until you probe it at high energies at which point it
>> suddenly looks like (u, d, d)?
>>
>> Wouldn't it make more sense if the neutron were always (u, d, d)?
>>
>> - Joe
>>
>>

What I am saying is that neutrons and protons conform to the quark
models (u,u,d) and (u,u,d) when they are probed at high energies. At lower
energies they are different.

harry



Harry

Re: [Vo]:Neutron, Proton and Positron

[Harry Veeder]

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:

> On 5/3/2013 1:00 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>> The positron resides inside the neutron. There is no reason for the
>> positron to leave the neutron as long it is has no association with
>> other particles.
>>
>
> The positron will be subject to EM forces that the neutron is not.
> The neutron will be subject to residual strong forces that the positron is
> not.
> If there is no force keeping them together, they will over time drift
> apart.
> It's not like the neutron has "walls" that can keep the positron in.
>
> Quarks stay inside a nucleon not because there are "walls"  but because of
> the strong force (which gets stronger as the quarks move further away from
> each other).
>
> - Joe
>
>

Since I am not working within the standard model the strong force and the
weak force are not present. Instead one could imagine a novel force between
the positron and the neutron.
   * represents a positron

(( ))represents a neutron

((*))   represents a proton

 If a positron is appropriately stimulated to leave a neutron this
creates a hole in the neutron. The hole would tend to attract
other positrons already located inside neutrons. Viewed from the outside
this results in a cold fusion between a neutron and proton.
(The acceleration that results from attraction warms the environment).  In
hot fusion, tremendous force must be used to bring two protons together,
and they won't stay together as long the positrons remain. The energy
required to get a positron to leave a neutron is less than the energy
required to force two protons together.

It is also known that a free neutron decays into a electron and a proton
and a neutrino. Does this mean a (()) is comprised of an actual proton and
an actual electron? Not necessarily. It might be sufficient to say the (())
has the potential to transform into a proton and electron. The reason I say
this is because it is difficult to imagine how a positron and an electron
could survive in such close proximity without annihilating each other.

Harry





Harry

Re: [Vo]:Neutron, Proton and Positron

[Harry Veeder]

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:

> On 5/3/2013 11:03 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>> In recent years I began to feel that high energy physics experiments
>> might be places where the properties of sub-atomic particles are *forged
>> rather than discovered. With the positron-in-neutron I can now point to a
>> specific experiment to illustrate this feeling.
>>
>
> But what would keep the positron bound to the neutron? Neither
> electromagnetic nor strong forces would apply. The neutron is electrically
> neutral and the positron is unaffected by the strong force.
>
> - Joe
>
>
The positron resides inside the neutron. There is no reason for the
positron to leave the neutron as long it is has no association with other
particles.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Simple phenomenon

[Harry Veeder]

This video is significant on symbolic level.

Hammer, sword and anvil.

The hammer is the steel ball held in hand.
The sword is the magnet.
The anvil is the other balls.

Harry


On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Earlier discussion here?
>
> ** **
>
> … guess I missed it.
>
> ** **
>
> Did anyone bring up “shock demagnetization”?
>
> ** **
>
> It is not a well-known effect, but it could be part of what is going on
> here. An instant demagnetization in the first magnet is followed by a field
> collapse in the end magnet which adds to the mechanical shock wave.
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* David Roberson 
>
> ** **
>
> This demonstration follows an earlier discussion where we determined that
> magnetic potential energy is released as the first sphere comes into
> contact with the magnet attached to the second one.  This additional energy
> is imparted upon the exiting sphere.  I am confident that the conservation
> of momentum would also be shown if detailed motion of all the parts is
> considered. 
>
> ** **
>
> Dave
>
> 
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jones Beene 
>
> Not easy to explain, but seems to violate conservation of momentum
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIsGfMrZHbg
>
> ** **
>
> from an old BYU prof. who you may remember.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Neutron, Proton and Positron

[Harry Veeder]

That is one possible interpretation. Another possible interpretation is
that a proton under bombardment assumes properties which are consistent
with the standard model of a proton, but in a cool environment the proton
is more like a positron and a neutron.

In recent years I began to feel that high energy physics experiments might
be places where the properties of sub-atomic particles are *forged rather
than discovered. With the positron-in-neutron I can now point to a specific
experiment to illustrate this feeling.

*forge
/fôrj/
Verb
1.Make or shape (a metal object) by heating it in a fire or furnace and
beating or hammering it.
2.Move forward gradually or steadily.

Noun
A blacksmith's workshop; a smithy.




On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:

> On 5/2/2013 10:16 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
> >  This evening -- while thinking outside the confines of the standard
> model -- I imagined proton is a neutron with a positron.
>
> Well, first of all, you need a neutrino in there as well, otherwise the
> spins won't add up.
>
> But we do know better than we did in 1933. The deep inelastic scattering
> experiments done in 1968 at SLAC show three points of deflection, with
> fractional charges. There were no leptons (electrons or positrons) in
> evidence -- those have integral charge.
>
> - Joe
>
>

[Vo]:Neutron, Proton and Positron

[Harry Veeder]

 This evening -- while thinking outside the confines of the standard model
-- I imagined proton is a neutron with a positron. Then I googled "positron
inside neutron" to see if the concept had be considered previously. I found
this letter to the editor of Nature from 1933 where it is proposed by N.
Thon. You can read this bit without paying:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v131/n3320/abs/131878c0.html
*"The neutron is usually looked upon as an aggregate of a proton and an
electron. If it were so, there ought to be a strong tendency for hydrogen
atoms to be converted spontaneously into neutrons, and the number of
neutrons present in the universe should be much higher than it is assumed
to be. I suggest that the proton be considered as an aggregate of a neutron
and a positron. The neutron would be looked upon as an elementary material
corpuscle without electric charges altogether. The proton would be able to
dissociate into a neutron and a positron."*
* *

If you click the download button you get to read a little bit more:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v131/n3320/pdf/131878c0.pdf
*"The very small number of neutrons and positrons met with in the universe
would then be easily explained by the fact that the dissociation of protons
requires a large quantity of energy and is by no means spontaneous."*
**
I haven't read the full article so I don't know if the following refinement
is contained in it. I propose a distinction between isolated protons and
proton pairs. An isolated proton has a very large energy of dissociation
but when protons are in pairs one is "willing" to spontaneously dissociate.

This conception of the proton appears consistent with what is known about
the formation of a deuteron from diproton:

diproton ---> deuteron + positron + neutrino.


Futhermore, let us propose that the dissociation of one proton within a
proton association may happen with some regularity even when the protons
are not tightly bound by nuclear forces.
In other words a loosely associated proton pair can transform into a
loosely associated proton and neutron couple through the emission of a
positron. Subsequently proton and neutron couple come together to form a
deuteron. This is cold fusion.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Simple phenomenon

[Harry Veeder]

Jones,
I don't think magnetic shock theory is required to explain the evident
gain in momentum.
The ball is likely travelling faster when it impacts the cradle with
the magnet then when hits the cradle without the magnet.
Although the ball is released from the same height in both cases, in
the former case it is accelerated by gravity and magnetism,
whereas in the later case it is only accelerated by gravity.

Harry

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> From: Terry Blanton
>
>
>
> Not easy to explain, but seems to violate conservation of momentum
>
> Why?  You have the acceleration of gravity + the acceleration of the
> magnetic field acting on the first ball.
>
>
>
> Note that, on the return of the exiting ball, the first ball does not have
> the energy to leave the magnet.
>
>
>
> Yes, like the linear magnetic accelerator - there is no violation of CoE,
> but there is a large increase in momentum of the last ball at the expense of
> “something”. That particular dynamic effect could be useful in its own way
> in alternative energy, even when lossy. It looks like this exact point was a
> bit too subtle to come through in that particular video.
>
>
>
> The transfer of energy, in both cases (cradle and/or accelerator) is related
> to the magnetic field; and as Terry says, in Newton’s cradle there is an
> acceleration of the first ball as it nears the magnet. Is there more than
> that – such as with a transient collapse of the magnetic field, due to shock
> ? Not sure, but it is possible.
>
>
>
> That is where I was going with the video. That – and the Steven Jones’ saga.
>
>
>
> One of the messages in alternative energy can be summarized as “deriving
> energy from chaos”. The fascinating thing about “order” such as the
> alignment of magnetic fields, is that when the order is destroyed, even in
> any transient way – energy must be released. Sometimes this dynamic
> consequence is hidden, and when it is robust - it surprising in the sense
> that extra energy seems to arise from nowhere, such as in recalescence or
> phase change.
>
>
>
> When this kind of “disorder” such as field-collapse occurs, the effects can
> actually be put to use, even if it is a destructive use. 50 years ago there
> was “General” interest in this very thing - large current impulses deriving
> from small “pops” which collapsed a magnetic field.
>
>
>
> http://jap.aip.org/resource/1/japiau/v29/i3/p500_s1?isAuthorized=no
>
>
>
> This was also the time frame when “exploding wires” were popular for showing
> hot fusion of deuterium. The fusion was real, but the system is far from
> breakeven. However, some “planners” have other objectives in such devices,
> which do not involve breakeven.
>
>
>
> It does not take a genius to connect the dots …. Using the voice-over of
> Inspector Clouseau:
>
> Ah Oui… petite bombe -> field collapse in inductor -> massive amperage surge
> in surrounding “loaded wires” -> grande bombe …
>
>
>
> Say… Do you have a license for that minkey?
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Simple phenomenon

[Harry Veeder]

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>> Not easy to explain, but seems to violate conservation of momentum
>>
>
> Why?  You have the acceleration of gravity + the acceleration of the
> magnetic field acting on the first ball.
>
> Note that, on the return of the exiting ball, the first ball does not have
> the energy to leave the magnet.
>

 Why does that magnet have to leave the magnet for a violation?

Harry

[Vo]:cavitation theory of matter

[Harry Veeder]

Nice video explaining a cavitation theory of matter
where matter is a hole in the fabric of space.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeJhuZK-Bow

Harry

Re: [Vo]:More on a KGS "virtual neutron" and Ni-62

[Harry Veeder]

Also remind us how this process generates heat.

Harry

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Arnaud,
>
> Yes - that is why I tried to make it clear that a VN or virtual neutron
> reaction is not the same as a beta decay (following a real neutron
> absorption, which has a half-life). The analogy is being used to assess the
> net energy available.
>
> It is hard to make this kind of distinction crystal clear in a forum post,
> since the VN reaction can mean different things to different observers and
> formerly was tied to an interpretation of CQM theory.
>
> Robin has promoted this particular mechanism for some time, based on the
> Mills hydrino at deep redundancy - being a good VN candidate. There are
> other candidates including KGS (as a replacement for DDL).
>
> The mechanics of a VN exchange go something like this.
>
> A proton with a very tightly bound electron looks like a neutron to a
> Nickel-62 nucleus. It is effectively neutral but with a negative near-field
> which is a bonus for the reaction.
>
> When this VN nears the larger nucleus however, the bond to the electron is
> broken, but since the electron has effectively shielded the charge of the
> proton, for long enough for the strong force of the Ni to see it, we have a
> different kind of reaction than if it were a real neutron. Thus the Ni-62
> takes the proton only, and the electron is expelled as if it was an
> instantaneous beta decay.
>
> There is no half life with a VN reaction. It is instantaneous and looks like
> a proton absorption.
>
> Never mind that there are not many "believers" in this reaction ... at least
> not yet.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:evidence of dineutrons

[Harry Veeder]

If a diproton can spontaneously change into a deuteron by emission of
a positron and neutrino, then perhaps the deuteron can be _stimulated_
to change into a dineutron. The dineutron breaks up and viola a supply
of neutrons...


harry

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> Protons and neutrons attract each other by passing their EMF charges back
> and forth between them.
>
> In the nucleus, it looks to me like the charge is passed around between
> nuclear particles on a regular round robin basis.  If a nuclear particle
> does not get its charge fix in time so that its charge can be refreshed
> through a charge change, it is pushed out of the nucleus.
>
> In a proton rich nucleus, the mesons will eventually fail to service the
> charge changing needs of all its constituent protons. The mesons have a
> short life and in that short time they can only do so much. A neglected
> proton will not get a negative charge change from the mesons to turn the
> proton into a neutron and eventually a neglected proton pair will be pushed
> out of the atom.
>
> On the other hand, in a neutron rich nucleus, the mesons will eventually
> fail to service the charge changing needs of all its constituent neutrons.
> The mesons can only do so much. A neutron will not get a positive charge
> from the mesons to turn the neutron into a proton and eventually a neglected
> neutron pair will be pushed out of the atom.
>
> If the total positive charge in the nucleus is screened to some degree, some
> number of protons will be expelled from the nucleus until the nucleus is
> smaller and has a close balance of protons and neutrons based on the charge
> capacity that the nucleus has remaining.
>
> Being exceptionally stable, elements that have magic numbers of protons and
> neutrons will resist charge screening.
>
> One event that is likely: a proton pair having been expelled from the
> nucleus will pair up and become an alpha particle with one pair adjusting
> their charges by absorbing some electrons to become a neutron pair. This
> neutron pair will find another proton pair and thus form an alpha particle.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
>>
>> Focus: Nuclei Emit Paired-up Neutrons
>>
>> Published March 9, 2012  |  Physics 5, 30 (2012)  |  DOI:
>> 10.1103/Physics.5.30
>>
>> A neutron-rich nucleus can emit a neutron pair as a single unit as a
>> product of nuclear decay.
>>
>> A neutron-only nucleus is considered physically impossible, but
>> researchers have now seen a short-lived neutron pairing as a product
>> of nuclear decay. The so-called dineutron had been indirectly observed
>> inside neutron-rich nuclei, but the new experimental evidence reported
>> in Physical Review Letters confirms that pairs of neutrons can exist
>> outside the nucleus, albeit for a very short time. Further dineutron
>> research could provide insight into the nuclear physics of neutron
>> stars and supernovae.
>>
>> The forces holding together the protons and neutrons in a nucleus are
>> not completely understood. Exotic forms of matter, such as dineutrons
>> and diprotons, offer researchers the chance to push their models to
>> extremes and see how well they hold up. Both dineutrons and diprotons
>> are nearly stable, so researchers have searched for brief appearances
>> of these particle pairs in nuclear reactions for several decades. Most
>> of these searches have looked for diprotons because neutron-rich
>> nuclei are harder to make, and neutrons are harder to detect. The
>> results have been ambiguous, in part because the electric charge on
>> the proton complicates the data analysis...
>>
>> http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/30
>>
>>
>> http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i10/e102501
>>
>

[Vo]:evidence of dineutrons

[Harry Veeder]

Focus: Nuclei Emit Paired-up Neutrons

Published March 9, 2012  |  Physics 5, 30 (2012)  |  DOI: 10.1103/Physics.5.30

A neutron-rich nucleus can emit a neutron pair as a single unit as a
product of nuclear decay.

A neutron-only nucleus is considered physically impossible, but
researchers have now seen a short-lived neutron pairing as a product
of nuclear decay. The so-called dineutron had been indirectly observed
inside neutron-rich nuclei, but the new experimental evidence reported
in Physical Review Letters confirms that pairs of neutrons can exist
outside the nucleus, albeit for a very short time. Further dineutron
research could provide insight into the nuclear physics of neutron
stars and supernovae.

The forces holding together the protons and neutrons in a nucleus are
not completely understood. Exotic forms of matter, such as dineutrons
and diprotons, offer researchers the chance to push their models to
extremes and see how well they hold up. Both dineutrons and diprotons
are nearly stable, so researchers have searched for brief appearances
of these particle pairs in nuclear reactions for several decades. Most
of these searches have looked for diprotons because neutron-rich
nuclei are harder to make, and neutrons are harder to detect. The
results have been ambiguous, in part because the electric charge on
the proton complicates the data analysis...

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/30


http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i10/e102501

Re: [Vo]:evidence of diprotons

[Harry Veeder]

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>
>
> A diproton is something to think about.  It gives rise to or is indirectly
> related to the following novice questions:
>
> In 3He, which is stable, electrostatic repulsion is felt between two
> nucleons, and the strong interaction is felt equally between all nucleons.
> In deuterium, which is stable, there is no electrostatic repulsion, and the
> strong interaction is felt equally between both nucleons.  In a diproton,
> which is unstable, there is electrostatic repulsion, and presumably the
> strong interaction is in affect to the same extent as between the nucleons
> in a deuterium atom.  Is the lack of stability of the diproton due to a
> slight imbalance between electrostatic repulsion and the residual strong
> force, or is it due to the combination of valence quarks between the two
> nucleons not being quite right?


I have been thinking about the same issue and the answer depends on
whether one looks
inward or outward for the cause of the diproton's "instability". The
standard model approach imagines instability as resulting from a
hypothetical internal mechanism. However, it is also possible to treat
instability as a function of context. For example in the a relatively
hot environment like the sun, we can imagine a diproton quickly
breaking apart but enduring much longer in a relatively cold
environment.
>From the context we can surmise the diproton bond has the quality of
being strong and fragile at the same time. The bond is strong enough
to resist the mutual repulsion of the protons, but it also fragile
enough to be susceptible to external shocks.



 Harry

Re: [Vo]:evidence of diprotons

[Harry Veeder]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
> Possible laboratory evidence of diprotons
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diproton#Helium-2_.28diproton.29
>
> It is interesting that one of the experiments mentioned in the above
> link used fluorine and a recent post on Passerini's blog suggests
> SPAWAR would have got better results with fluorine  instead of
> chlorine.
>
> Harry
>

After doing some more googling and browsing on the internet it seems
opinions vary on the existence of diprotons  (a helium nucleus with
just two protons). Hans Bethe seminal 1938 paper on stellar
nuclueosynethesis http://hepd.pnpi.spb.ru/ofve/nni/PhysRev55434.pdf
doesn't mention diprotons, but over the years there seems to be
growing interest in diprotons at the theoretical level. This has to be
important in the study LENR/CF too. If diprotons were made in the
experiment discussed below, then perhaps diprotons are made in D-Pd
and H-Ni systems too.

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2008/split/865-2.html


New Form of Artificial Radioactivity

The basic structure of matter has been known for almost a century, and
yet scientists keep learning new things by persistently poking and
ripping apart atoms. An atom consists of a relatively heavy part at
the core, the nucleus, and a lighter part, a fleet of electrons,
orbiting the nucleus. The electron part determines all the important
chemical, electrical, and optical properties of the atom, but the
nucleus is important too. It contains most of the atom’s mass and
energy, and the reactions among nuclei are responsible for powering
the sun.

Nature often plays tricks. Usually hydrogen atoms have a nucleus with
a lone proton, but sometimes that nucleus can possess a neutron in
addition. This version, or isotope, of hydrogen is called H-2 since it
has two nuclear units. Still another version of hydrogen, H-3, has a
nucleus consisting of one proton and two neutrons. Similarly, the main
form of helium, He-4, has four nuclear particles, but can also get by
with only three: the He-3 isotope consists of two protons and one
neutron. All the other elements also have numerous isotopes, some of
which are stable, which means they can persist for millions of years,
and some are unstable, which means that they break apart after a
certain typical period called a half-life.

Radioactivity is the process by which unstable nuclei transform into
more stable nuclei. “Radio” refers not to the kind of radio waves we
get from a station but to the castoffs---either in the form of
particles or electromagnetic waves---radiated by the parent nucleus.
Historically the main forms of radioactivity were identified as alpha,
beta, and gamma rays (these being the first three letters of the Greek
alphabet). An alpha ray or alpha particle is none other than a He-4
nucleus. Beta rays are now known to be electrons. And gamma rays are
really just high-energy waves, even more potent than x rays.

The new kind of radioactivity, discovered in an experiment conducted
recently at the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, a nuclear
laboratory in Italy, consists of nuclear fragments made of two
protons. You can think of this as a new isotope of helium. He-2, as it
would be called, is highly unstable and very quickly flies apart.
Making the unexpected new nuclear species took some ingenuity. First a
beam of neon-20 ions was crashed into a foil of beryllium. In this
collision some of the neon nuclei suffered a slight robbery: losing
two neutons they ended up as neon18 nuclei. Next, these same flying
nuclei encountered a foil of lead. This second collision had the
effect of exciting the Ne-18 nucleus into a highly unstable condition.
The remedy for this instability was for the Ne-18 nucleus to slough
off a fragment. There are several ways of doing this. Among the decay
options, the Italian physicists found, was a rare,
never-before-demonstrated process in which the Ne-18 nucleus turned
itself into an oxygen-16 nucleus, plus that He-2 fragment.

According to one of the researchers, Giovanni Raciti at the LNS-INFN
lab (rac...@lns.infn.it), the two-proton decay mode was predicted
about 50 years ago. A few experiments conducted before this showed
ambiguous evidence: two protons emerged from the decay but one
couldn’t tell that the protons had not been thrown out one at a time
or both at the same time randomly from the whole Ne-18 or from a
single lump.The new experiment definitely shows that the two protons
come out together from the breakup of a He-2 cluster (see figure at
http://www.aip.org/png/2008/302.htm). The new form of helium isn’t
good for anything practical since it doesn’t survive even for a
billionth of a second. Raciti believes, however, that the observation
of this slender isotope of helium will us understand how are built
very unstable nuclei with a number of protons exceeding the one of
neutrons and, conversely, how heavy nuclei---the cores of the heavier
atoms here on ear

Re: [Vo]:Ban the killer robots before it's too late

[Harry Veeder]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_robotics

Lists Asimov's three laws and other principles for regulating robot behaviour.

Harry

[Vo]:evidence of diprotons

[Harry Veeder]

Possible laboratory evidence of diprotons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diproton#Helium-2_.28diproton.29

It is interesting that one of the experiments mentioned in the above
link used fluorine and a recent post on Passerini's blog suggests
SPAWAR would have got better results with fluorine  instead of
chlorine.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Ban the killer robots before it's too late

[Harry Veeder]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> a.ashfield  wrote:

>
>>
>> The real problem would be if they were put under the control of a computer
>> program, like in the Terminator.
>
>
> It seems unlikely to me that we will be able to make such a program anytime
> in the next 100 years.
>
> - Jed
>


Noel Sharkey's point is we should not wait until it becomes possible.
We should ban KILLER robots now.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Curious "irony"

[Harry Veeder]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Harry
>
>> In stars deuterons formation begins with the fusion of two protons
> into a diproton.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction
>
>> Since the diproton is very unstable it usually fissions soon after by
> emitting a positron and a neutrino.
>
>
> This is not accurate. The diproton fissions back into two protons the vast
> majority of the time. The Wiki article is not well-worded on this point but
> later on it corrects the misunderstanding. It is only the rare occasion
> where the positron is emitted - otherwise the Sun would burn up its fuel too
> quickly.
>

yes

> In RPF, Reversible Proton Fusion - the two protons which are immediately
> split from nascent He-2 are technically not the original two protons which
> fused, since there has been color charge alteration in the quarks during the
> brief instant when they were fused.

I am interested in "rookie" protons which haven't formed anything
beyond a diproton
or a deuteron.


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Curious "irony"

[Harry Veeder]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:07 AM,   wrote:
> In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:07:24 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>Actually The neutron has mass slightly larger than that of a proton:
>>939.565378 MeV compared to 938.272046 MeV. Consequently, a deuteron has
>>slightly more mass than a diproton.
>>
>>That is one of the many reasons why the reaction on the Sun, the one that
>>results in a deuteron is extraordinarily rare. It is basically endothermic.
>>
>
> The mass of two protons is 2.014552933 amu.
> The mass of a deuteron is  2.01355362  amu.
>
> Note that the deuteron is actually lighter than the two protons. IOW this
> reaction is exothermic.
> It is this mass difference that is responsible for deuterium being bound.
>
> Bound nucleons weigh less than free particles, and the amount by which they
> weigh less varies with the nucleus they are in.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>


My argument that a diproton is more massive than a deuteron was based
on adding mass from doing work to overcome electrostatic repulsion.
I forgot that the strong force reduces the mass of the particles, but
on balance the mass of a diproton should still be greater than a
deuteron.
Do you agree?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Curious "irony"

[Harry Veeder]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
>> In RPF, Reversible Proton Fusion - the two protons which are immediately
>> split from nascent He-2 are technically not the original two protons which
>> fused, since there has been color charge alteration in the quarks during the
>> brief instant when they were fused.
>>
>>> However, occasionally one of the protons transforms into a neutron by
>> emitting a beta and a neutrino before fission occurs. This results in a
>> stable deuteron. If this is correct, then a deuteron is stable because it is
>> in a lower energy state than the diproton.
>>
>> Actually The neutron has mass slightly larger than that of a proton:
>> 939.565378 MeV compared to 938.272046 MeV. Consequently, a deuteron has
>> slightly more mass than a diproton.
>>
>> That is one of the many reasons why the reaction on the Sun, the one that
>> results in a deuteron is extraordinarily rare. It is basically endothermic.
>>
>>
>


Jones,

You are consider the combined mass of two isolated protons.
However, the mass of a diproton is greater than this and it is greater
than the mass of one deuteron.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Curious "irony"

[Harry Veeder]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Harry
>
>> In stars deuterons formation begins with the fusion of two protons
> into a diproton.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction
>
>> Since the diproton is very unstable it usually fissions soon after by
> emitting a positron and a neutrino.
>
>
> This is not accurate. The diproton fissions back into two protons the vast
> majority of the time. The Wiki article is not well-worded on this point but
> later on it corrects the misunderstanding. It is only the rare occasion
> where the positron is emitted - otherwise the Sun would burn up its fuel too
> quickly.
>

Yes.
I caught my mistake and made another post correcting it.


> In RPF, Reversible Proton Fusion - the two protons which are immediately
> split from nascent He-2 are technically not the original two protons which
> fused, since there has been color charge alteration in the quarks during the
> brief instant when they were fused.
>
>> However, occasionally one of the protons transforms into a neutron by
> emitting a beta and a neutrino before fission occurs. This results in a
> stable deuteron. If this is correct, then a deuteron is stable because it is
> in a lower energy state than the diproton.
>
> Actually The neutron has mass slightly larger than that of a proton:
> 939.565378 MeV compared to 938.272046 MeV. Consequently, a deuteron has
> slightly more mass than a diproton.
>
> That is one of the many reasons why the reaction on the Sun, the one that
> results in a deuteron is extraordinarily rare. It is basically endothermic.
>
>

There something weird here. Usually a system is considered stable when
it is in lower energy state.
Mass can't be equivalent energy when used as measure of stability.


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Curious "irony"

[Harry Veeder]

>
> In stars deuterons formation begins with the fusion of two protons
> into a diproton.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction
>
> Since the diproton is very unstable it usually fissions soon after by
> emitting a positron and a neutrino.


Darn, I forgot to correct that.
It should say deuteron formation begins with the fusion of two protons
and the emission
of positron and neutrino. Since the diproton is very unstable it
usually fissions soon after.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Curious "irony"

[Harry Veeder]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:45 PM,   wrote:
> In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:28:00 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>If a neutron can be made decay while in a deuteron then it seems to me
>>the warming of the lattice is best explained
>>by the motion arising from the mutual repulsion of the protons.
>>Thermalization of gammas is not necessary.
>>
> When a deuteron is formed from a neutron and a proton, mass is converted into
> energy (2.2 MeV). It is this loss of energy that prevents a neutron already 
> in a
> deuteron from decaying. Decay only happens when it results in the release of
> energy, and the neutron bound in D has already lost too much for it to decay.
> Regards,


In stars deuterons formation begins with the fusion of two protons
into a diproton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction

Since the diproton is very unstable it usually fissions soon after by
emitting a positron and a neutrino.
However, occasionally one of the protons transforms into a neutron by
emitting a beta and a neutrino
before fission occurs. This results in a stable deuteron.

If this is correct, then a deuteron is stable because it is in a lower
energy state than the diproton.
(Remember a diproton has been pushed together under high pressures and
temperatures so it contains more potential energy than two isolated
protons or an isolated an proton and a isolated neutron.)
Therefore a deuteron will return to the same level of instability as a
diproton if it absorbs enough energy again.

The energy profile of the deuteron and proton can be characterised by
using the visual aid of mountain with depression at the top. The
potential energy of a diproton corresponds with two protons resting on
opposite sides of the depression. The potential energy of the deuteron
corresponds to a proton and neutron resting in the depression.


Harry

[Vo]:Ban the killer robots before it's too late

[Harry Veeder]

"We just shouldn't grant machines the decision about who lives or dies"
Noel Sharkey, Chairman of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/03/opinion/killer-robots-new-arms-race/

http://icrac.net/

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Curious "irony"

[Harry Veeder]

Jones,
Rossi may be playing games with his patents and the particular isotope
may be inconsequential but your post has made me rethink the role of
the binding energy of the lattice nuclei.

Theoreticians have tended to fall into two camps.
Camp 1) Excess energy comes from the loaded nuclei so the binding
energy of the lattice nuclei is incidental.
Camp 2) Excess energy comes the lattice nuclei so the binding energy
of the loaded nuclei is incidental. In fact camp 2 is only interested
in hydrogen which has no binding energy. ;-)

I am proposing that the binding energy of the loaded nuclei and the
lattice nuclei are both relevant but the role of binding energy of the
lattice nuclei is different from that
imagined by camp 2.

Harry

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Harry,
>
> If Rossi were the least bit credible, Ni-62 as an active ingredient would be
> worth digging into deeper.
>
> Most likely, this application itself is an elaborate tactic to keep
> competitors at bay while another "real" patent application remains
> unpublished. It seems very unlikely to me that Ni-62 is special for gain,
> and that is why I was trying to add some humor into the mix.
>
> The patent application is so poorly drafted that it must be an embarrassment
> to whoever produced it - and it cannot have been intended to protect
> anything of value... so the bottom line is this: if Rossi is as clever as
> some think him to be, then we are pretty much falling into his snare by
> giving this document credibility- when surely it deserves none.
>
> Having said that - there does seem to be an inexpensive way to enrich nickel
> in the heavier isotopes up to perhaps 5 times natural ratios, but it's not
> worth mentioning.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Harry Veeder
>
> To use a chemical analogy Ni62 is "inert". It is not prone to change
> through fusion or fission. Perhaps this is the ideal context for getting
> other nuclei to change.
>
>
>> Naïve metaphorical approach to Rossi's claim. Imagine a number of strong
>> springs subject to compressive loads. The strongest spring gives the
> fastest
>> return to normal geometry following compression, but it is always less
> than
>> a full 100% return.
>>
>> What is the limiting factor on how close to 100% return of energy is
>> available? Whatever that factor consists of, arguably makes the spring
> more
>> subject to catastrophic failure.
>>
>> This kind of 5th year logic explains why it is true that in Nature - the
>> nucleus with the highest binding strength is found in such low enrichment.
>> By all rights Ni-62 should represent more than 3.6 percent of all nickel
>> atoms since it has what appears to be the highest bonding strength. But
>> there are other factors involved.
>>
>> Anyway - most ductile metals, like nickel, are tough because the atoms are
>> forced together by a "sea of electrons", not to be confused with the sea
> of
>> Dirac. OTOH maybe the two should be confused. The negative charge
>> agglomeration (glue) is subject to self-limiting Coulomb forces. At the
>> limit of electron cohesive strength, we may also find a coupling to
> nuclear
>> stability - and we may also find the beginning of the next plateau of
>> "friability" (to continue the metaphor).
>>
>> Thus Ni-62 having reached the pinnacle of nuclear strength among all
>> elements, could be in a slot where it can fail catastrophically in a way
>> that is triggered by electron collapse, which forces an adjacent proton to
>> merge with into new nucleus. Oops, we must first make that "proton" become
>> bosonic - which is the DDL atom (deep Dirac layer), so as to appear
> bosonic.
>>
>>
>> Roger and out, wave function collapse, the new magic - no problemo .
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg72566.html
>>
>> _
>>
>> If Rossi's invention works - and for the reason supplied
> in
>> the application, and if one wanted to apply standard logic to "why" the
>> isotope with the highest binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides
> is
>> responsible, then perhaps one could pose the argument that: the one with
> the
>> most - has the most to spare...
>>
>> To continue with a little more punagement, one could opine
>> this kind of logic makes it Marx...
>>
>> ... but is it Karl or Groucho?
>>
>> Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable
>> form Karl

Re: [Vo]:Curious "irony"

[Harry Veeder]

To use a chemical analogy Ni62 is "inert". It is not prone to change
through fusion or fission.
Perhaps this is the ideal context for getting other nuclei to change.

harry



On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Naïve metaphorical approach to Rossi's claim. Imagine a number of strong
> springs subject to compressive loads. The strongest spring gives the fastest
> return to normal geometry following compression, but it is always less than
> a full 100% return.
>
> What is the limiting factor on how close to 100% return of energy is
> available? Whatever that factor consists of, arguably makes the spring more
> subject to catastrophic failure.
>
> This kind of 5th year logic explains why it is true that in Nature - the
> nucleus with the highest binding strength is found in such low enrichment.
> By all rights Ni-62 should represent more than 3.6 percent of all nickel
> atoms since it has what appears to be the highest bonding strength. But
> there are other factors involved.
>
> Anyway - most ductile metals, like nickel, are tough because the atoms are
> forced together by a "sea of electrons", not to be confused with the sea of
> Dirac. OTOH maybe the two should be confused. The negative charge
> agglomeration (glue) is subject to self-limiting Coulomb forces. At the
> limit of electron cohesive strength, we may also find a coupling to nuclear
> stability - and we may also find the beginning of the next plateau of
> "friability" (to continue the metaphor).
>
> Thus Ni-62 having reached the pinnacle of nuclear strength among all
> elements, could be in a slot where it can fail catastrophically in a way
> that is triggered by electron collapse, which forces an adjacent proton to
> merge with into new nucleus. Oops, we must first make that "proton" become
> bosonic - which is the DDL atom (deep Dirac layer), so as to appear bosonic.
>
>
> Roger and out, wave function collapse, the new magic - no problemo .
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg72566.html
>
> _
>
> If Rossi's invention works - and for the reason supplied in
> the application, and if one wanted to apply standard logic to "why" the
> isotope with the highest binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides is
> responsible, then perhaps one could pose the argument that: the one with the
> most - has the most to spare...
>
> To continue with a little more punagement, one could opine
> this kind of logic makes it Marx...
>
> ... but is it Karl or Groucho?
>
> Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable
> form Karl Marx
> A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch
> a child of five Groucho Marx
>
> _
>
> On April 15th, an update has been made to
> the Rossi patent application at the European Patent Office - which was
> mentioned previously here.
>
>
> https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?documentId=EUIP5C400118284&nu
> mber=EP08873805&lng=en&npl=false
>
> As you can see, Nickel-62 is featured in
> Claim One as the active species for the reaction, essentially making this
> patent very specific.
>
> The curious factoid ... or "irony" is that
> Ni-62 (NOT an iron isotope) - is a singularity in a way, being the isotope
> with the highest binding energy per nucleon of all known nuclides (~8.8 MeV
> per) and yet here it is being identified as active for the anomalous energy
> Rossi claims to have found with hydrogen.
>
> Jones
>
> On the one hand, if there is true gain in
> this device primarily due to properties of this isotope - being a
> singularity could be an important clue. OTOH it is most surprising that the
> physical property for which it derives its uniqueness - is the opposite of
> what one logically expects in the situation.
>

Re: [Vo]:Curious "irony"

[Harry Veeder]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Harry Veeder
>
> *   Here is an idea related to the natural propensity for a diproton to
> fission which you have previously mentionedSuppose a neutron within a
> deuteron is converted into proton. The subsequent motion of the protons due
> to mutual repulsion would heat the lattice.
>
> HARRY, when a neutron decays there is a lot more energy than you may
> suspect. Free neutrons are unstable with a half life of about 650-1000
> seconds but the neutron in deuterium is assumed to be stable. If the neutron
> could be made to decay, the energy yield should be averaging close to 1.3
> MeV so you do not have to worry about the mutual repulsion of protons. Their
> energy would be insignificant by comparison.

according to Wikipedia free neutrons can decay in two ways

1) n → p  +  e−  +  neutrino

2) n → p  +  e−  +  neutrino +  gamma

In first case it is not clear how or if the energy of the decay
products can thermalized.
In the second case a Hagelstein process is required to thermalize the gammas.



> However, it is hard to see a neutron decay happening with any regularity,
> and the cross-section for gamma capture would be extraordinarily low.
> However, we have talked before about NMR techniques - which could
> conceivably decouple the neutron and thereby allow it to decay naturally as
> a free neutron.
>

> This is arguably possible because the electron of the deuteron supplies a
> local field of about 12 T. if memory serves, and the NRM frequencies of the
> proton and deuteron are very different in that field - so it might be
> possible to do some kind of resonant splitting - to free the neutron. The
> frequencies needed are not extreme, below microwave actually.
>
> Jones

If a neutron can be made decay while in a deuteron then it seems to me
the warming of the lattice is best explained
by the motion arising from the mutual repulsion of the protons.
Thermalization of gammas is not necessary.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Curious "irony"

[Harry Veeder]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> On April 15th, an update has been made to the Rossi patent application at
> the European Patent Office - which was mentioned previously here.
>
> https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?documentId=EUIP5C400118284&nu
> mber=EP08873805&lng=en&npl=false
>
> As you can see, Nickel-62 is featured in Claim One as the active species for
> the reaction, essentially making this patent very specific.
>
> The curious factoid ... or "irony" is that Ni-62 (NOT an iron isotope) - is
> a singularity in a way, being the isotope with the highest binding energy
> per nucleon of all known nuclides (~8.8 MeV per) and yet here it is being
> identified as active for the anomalous energy Rossi claims to have found
> with hydrogen.
>
> Jones
>
> On the one hand, if there is true gain in this device primarily due to
> properties of this isotope - being a singularity could be an important clue.
> OTOH it is most surprising that the physical property for which it derives
> its uniqueness - is the opposite of what one logically expects in the
> situation.
>

Jones,


Here is an idea related to the natural propensity for a diproton to
fission which you have previously mentioned.

Suppose a neutron within a deuteron is converted into proton.
The subsequent motion of the protons due to mutual repulsion would
heat the lattice.

The lattice does this by somehow collectively focus a gamma level of
energy into the deuteron. This part would be endothermic.
This represents an inversion of Haglestein's problem, where the
release of gamma level energy is distributed over the lattice.


Deuterium is present in Ni and Pd systems but the nature of a Ni-D
system is such that a much lower ratio of D to H is optimal. Too much
deuterium
in a Ni system quenches the reaction as has been observed.

Harry





Harry

[Vo]:Coded message on Passerini's Blog

[Harry Veeder]

A coded post on Passerini's blog appears to say fluorine is better
than chlorine when doing CF with electrolytic cells.

http://22passi.blogspot.ca/2013/04/a-tutti-i-ricercatori-lenrfusione.html

<>


It has been suggested elsewhere that PD  means PdF4.



Harry

Re: [Vo]:Is the Evidence for Psychokinesis really just a publication bias?

[Harry Veeder]

Here is his follow up paper in response to comments on his first paper.

In the eye of the beholder: Reply to Wilson and Shadish (2006) and Radin,
Nelson, Dobyns, and Houtkooper (2006)

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.132.3260%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=4A5zUZziBYSHrAG2yYDQAQ&usg=AFQjCNHVr_Ut_wtQ-bM1l0iHK41RiFx7Vw&sig2=ktIphdn09PUmhbVyrJ6-1A

Abstract

Our meta-analysis, which demonstrated (i) a small, but highly
significant overall effect, (ii) a
small study effect, and (iii) extreme heterogeneity, has provoked
widely differing responses.
After considering our respondents’ concerns about the possible effects
of psychological
moderator variables, the potential for missing data, and the
difficulties inherent in any metaanalytic
data, we reaffirm our view that publication bias is the most
parsimonious model to
account for all three findings. However, until compulsory registration
of trials occurs, it
cannot be proven that the effect is in fact attributable to
publication bias and it remains up to
the individual reader to decide how our results are best and most
parsimoniously interpreted.



On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:02 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
> I find it intriguing that they didn't cite Radin's paper:
>
> http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/bi/articles/rngma.pdf
>
> that explicitly addresses publication bias aka the "file drawer problem" in
> meta analysis -- and that was despite referencing several of Radin's other
> papers both before and after.
>




>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
>>
>>
>> This paper uses a meta analysis of all the evidence and concludes that any
>> evidence for psychokinesis can be explained as publication bias. Should the
>> conclusion be taken seriously?
>> Similar arguments have been used to prove that PF effect is not real, i.e
>> include all the failed attempts to reproduce  the PF effect and on balance
>> the PF effect vanishes!
>> Harry
>>
>> Examining Psychokinesis: The Interaction of Human Intention With
>> Random Number Generators—A Meta-Analysis
>>
>>
>> Se´ance-room and other large-scale psychokinetic phenomena have fascinated
>> humankind for decades.
>> Experimental research has reduced these phenomena to attempts to influence
>> (a) the fall of dice and, later,
>> (b) the output of random number generators (RNGs). The meta-analysis
>> combined 380 studies that
>> assessed whether RNG output correlated with human intention and found a
>> significant but very small
>> overall effect size. The study effect sizes were strongly and inversely
>> related to sample size and were
>> extremely heterogeneous. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the small
>> effect size, the relation
>> between sample size and effect size, and the extreme effect size
>> heterogeneity found could in principle
>> be a result of publication bias.
>>
>> http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/includes/MetaPK06.pdf
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Placebo effect probably does not exist

[Harry Veeder]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
> Harry Veeder  wrote:
>
>>>
>>> That is, an effect in which a prognosis improves because the patients think 
>>> they are being treated when they are actually taking by fake medicine 
>>> (something with no efficacy). One hypothesis is that people respond well 
>>> because they think the doctor cares for them or is concerned about their 
>>> well-being.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Another theory is that if the patient believes the pill is effective, it 
>> will be effective.
>
>
> That is what I meant. That's the same thing. The tests where they give the 
> patient nothing prove that is not the case.
>
>
>>>
>>> success. The placebo and the treatment have no effect on the outcome.
>>>
>>
>> what was the malady?
>
>
> I do not recall. I think there have been several studies. Ethically, I think 
> they are limited to non-threatening diseases that have no effective 
> treatment. I guess that would be things like back pain.
>
>
>>
>> Maybe this disproves the theory that belief in a pill can be effective, but 
>> there are all sorts of mind states that do contribute to well being.
>
>
> I doubt that. If voluntary, controllable mind states could contribute to well 
> being, I think that would be readily apparent, and we would all use mind 
> states to ameliorate disease. I have read other studies that show that the 
> patient's attitude and degree of optimism or pessimism has no impact on 
> outcome of serious diseases such as cancer.
>

I agree that power of positive thinking is over rated, but there is
plenty of evidence that chronic stress, fear and anxiety affect
peoples well being. e.g. stress interferes with the immune response.

>
> It is widely believed that the patient should "fight" cancer, or that a brave 
> or positive attitude will increase the likelihood of survival. The studies I 
> saw tested this hypothesis. The researchers assumed the prognosis would be 
> improved with a positive outlook but they found no evidence for that. The 
> results were a surprise and a disappointment to the researchers, which makes 
> me think the results were real. It increases credibility. The is not the 
> result of wishful thinking.
>


Maybe so, but there is more to cognition than the insipid concept of
positive thinking.


>
> The placebo studies involved a pill, but also a kind word from a doctor or 
> nurse. The hypothesis was it was the latter which had the effect. The control 
> was no pill and a simple statement from the doctor along the lines of: "Go 
> home and call us if doesn't go away in a week." I suppose even that would be 
> reassuring. I would think, "it can't be serious if they are sending me home 
> empty-handed."



How culture influences aging.
Neuuropsychologist Mario Martinez looks at the influence cultural
contexts have on health, illness and aging.

http://ww3.tvo.org/video/188928/mario-martinez-how-culture-influences-aging

Harry

Re: [Vo]:"NASA's cold fusion folly"

[Harry Veeder]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Here is a typical attack on cold fusion. This is not newsworthy. I just
> wanted to point out that things like this are still widely published. As
> usual, the author has not done his homework.
>

http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=238052780327676025

>
>

 Last paragraph:
,
the scientists who performed the study of gas in fluorescent bulbs were
motivated by the knowledge that some mercury isotopes are absorbed in the
glass of the bulbs more readily than others. The isotope ratio inside isn't
changing because of nuclear reactions, but instead by soaking into the
glass at different rates.>>

He has that wrong. They were not motivated by the knowledge that They
were motivated by the hypothesis that ...
What they found is consistent with their hypothesis, but it is also
consistent with LENR.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Placebo effect probably does not exist

[Harry Veeder]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
>
>> The null hypothesis upon which to base the control experiment:  Even
>> though a placebo effect may be present and in fact much larger . . .
>>
>
> This is drifting off topic, so let me rename the header.
>
> I do not think the placebo effect exists. I read several papers years ago
> about this. I do not have time to go into the details but anyway, it was a
> mistake many decades old. Sloppy statistics and untested assumptions led
> people to think there is a placebo effect --
>
> That is, an effect in which a prognosis improves because the patients
> think they are being treated when they are actually taking by fake medicine
> (something with no efficacy). One hypothesis is that people respond well
> because they think the doctor cares for them or is concerned about their
> well-being.
>
>

Another theory is that if the patient believes the pill is effective, it
will be effective.


> This was tested in recent decades by dividing patients into two groups.
> One group is given a placebo and treated with kindness. The other is
> dismissed and sent home with nothing. The two groups recover at the same
> rate, with the same percent reporting success. The placebo and the
> treatment have no effect on the outcome.
>
>
what was the malady?



> It is a fact that people often get better on their own. Nature cures many
> diseases. This fact clouded the issue and made doctors think that a placebo
> was curing people almost as well as some drugs. Or if not that well, it was
> curing them in significant numbers. They were comparing a drug that was
> supposedly effective against a control group of people who got a fake drug.
> What they should have done instead of this -- or in addition to this --
> would be to compare the drug against a control group of people who get
> nothing. No fake drug, no sympathy. They would see that many of them also
> get better.
>
>
>
>

Maybe this disproves the theory that belief in a pill can be effective, but
there are all sorts of mind states that do contribute to well being.

Harry

[Vo]:Is the Evidence for Psychokinesis really just a publication bias?

[Harry Veeder]

This paper uses a meta analysis of all the evidence and concludes that any
evidence for psychokinesis can be explained as publication bias. Should the
conclusion be taken seriously?
Similar arguments have been used to prove that PF effect is not real,
i.e include all the failed attempts to reproduce  the PF effect and on
balance the PF effect vanishes!
Harry

Examining Psychokinesis: The Interaction of Human Intention With
Random Number Generators—A Meta-Analysis


Se´ance-room and other large-scale psychokinetic phenomena have fascinated
humankind for decades.
Experimental research has reduced these phenomena to attempts to influence
(a) the fall of dice and, later,
(b) the output of random number generators (RNGs). The meta-analysis
combined 380 studies that
assessed whether RNG output correlated with human intention and found a
significant but very small
overall effect size. The study effect sizes were strongly and inversely
related to sample size and were
extremely heterogeneous. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the small
effect size, the relation
between sample size and effect size, and the extreme effect size
heterogeneity found could in principle
be a result of publication bias.

http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/includes/MetaPK06.pdf

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?

[Harry Veeder]

I think you should also do a version where "passive" images are printed
paper and kept in sealed envelopes.
A video image is an "active" image in the sense that it requires an
electrical power source to be present. As a result a video image might
channel or focus EM fields and radiation in such a way that they may become
sensible by a hand.


Harry


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

>
> You do a double blind trial by automating the process and covering the
> screen.
>
> Program a computer to randomly display one of your images or a blank
> screen every minute of so. The computer will keep a record of what was
> displayed during each time interval.
> During the interval test subjects will report  if they sensed anything.
>
> You can then look for correlations in the data.
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:07 PM, John Berry wrote:
>
>> First off, thank you for at least considering this.
>>
>> Yes I a bit frustrated that no one new has reported even trying these
>> images, but I did not mean to show any disrespect.
>>
>> There is an issue I didn't really want to get to yet, but I think it must
>> be considered if we are going to get into the area of blind tests.
>>
>> You are likely aware of the small but positive results that tiny steel
>> balls falling one side or another in a contraption showed an influence of
>> the mind on the results.
>> You may or may not be aware that certain experiments with subatomic
>> particles and SQUID's show a very strong influence of the mind.
>>
>> There is of course other 'fringe' evidence of various non-physical
>> energies being effected by the mind, additionally there is a field called
>> energy psychology where energy structured with emotions is released.
>>
>> Rupert Shaldrake's research, links between identical twins and mother and
>> her children are sometime inexplicable without some degree of thoughts
>> being things.
>>
>> Indeed the placebo effect can not only be more effective than many
>> treatments, it is becoming more effective than it used to be, about double!
>>
>> So the problem is that devices that manipulate the aether act to increase
>> the energy available to the Placebo effect (available to the mind).
>>
>> Now you see why I didn't want to get into this, I am already asking you
>> to feel a something I can only poorly define which most people can
>> experience but in different ways, and now I have to add the additional
>> detail, your beliefs and thoughts can effect the aetheric energy to a
>> degree.
>>
>> That doesn't mean a placebo controlled test can't work, but it does make
>> for a possibility of some confusing results.
>>
>> I know it is real, I feel it as a physical sensation on my palms and
>> sometimes other places on my body and it is very very strong and real.
>> But I know you can't take it on faith.
>>
>> You could just humor me.
>> Or you could try to feel it yourself, hopefully enough to be convinced of
>> it.
>>
>> Of course you could ignore it as being too far out.
>>
>> But consider that the rules of scientific evidence may actually stop us
>> from  recognizing a part of reality.
>>
>> My interest does not lie in how this interacts with the mind, or various
>> other distractions.
>> My interest does lie in creating physical effects.
>>
>> Physics has been ignoring a rather significant (albeit seldom reliable or
>> clear) portion of reality, and this does open up the possibility of
>> understanding these areas for those interested, just not my prime area of
>> interest.
>>
>> I am not sure how to run a blind test well when the aether can be
>> effected by thoughts. It might be possible but real consideration would
>> have to be given.
>>
>>
>>  John
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:10 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>>> You know, John, if I were an amazing Randi type, aside from the fact
>>> that I wouldn't be caught dead posting to vortex-l, I would propose my own
>>> control experiment rather than asking you what you considered to be an
>>> acceptable control experiment.
>>>
>>> If I were the Amazing Randi, my control experiment would be something
>>> like show a bunch of people random images and ask them if they "felt
>>> anything".  I would then proceed to lead a monkey beat upon you satisfying
>>> the egos of a bunch of "skeptics" that they had the strength of numbers on
>>> their side.
>>>
>>> So how about showing me the respect that I showed you by asking you what
>>> YOU would consider to be an acceptable control experiment?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?

[Harry Veeder]

You do a double blind trial by automating the process and covering the
screen.

Program a computer to randomly display one of your images or a blank
screen every minute of so. The computer will keep a record of what was
displayed during each time interval.
During the interval test subjects will report  if they sensed anything.

You can then look for correlations in the data.

Harry


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:07 PM, John Berry  wrote:

> First off, thank you for at least considering this.
>
> Yes I a bit frustrated that no one new has reported even trying these
> images, but I did not mean to show any disrespect.
>
> There is an issue I didn't really want to get to yet, but I think it must
> be considered if we are going to get into the area of blind tests.
>
> You are likely aware of the small but positive results that tiny steel
> balls falling one side or another in a contraption showed an influence of
> the mind on the results.
> You may or may not be aware that certain experiments with subatomic
> particles and SQUID's show a very strong influence of the mind.
>
> There is of course other 'fringe' evidence of various non-physical
> energies being effected by the mind, additionally there is a field called
> energy psychology where energy structured with emotions is released.
>
> Rupert Shaldrake's research, links between identical twins and mother and
> her children are sometime inexplicable without some degree of thoughts
> being things.
>
> Indeed the placebo effect can not only be more effective than many
> treatments, it is becoming more effective than it used to be, about double!
>
> So the problem is that devices that manipulate the aether act to increase
> the energy available to the Placebo effect (available to the mind).
>
> Now you see why I didn't want to get into this, I am already asking you to
> feel a something I can only poorly define which most people can experience
> but in different ways, and now I have to add the additional detail, your
> beliefs and thoughts can effect the aetheric energy to a degree.
>
> That doesn't mean a placebo controlled test can't work, but it does make
> for a possibility of some confusing results.
>
> I know it is real, I feel it as a physical sensation on my palms and
> sometimes other places on my body and it is very very strong and real.
> But I know you can't take it on faith.
>
> You could just humor me.
> Or you could try to feel it yourself, hopefully enough to be convinced of
> it.
>
> Of course you could ignore it as being too far out.
>
> But consider that the rules of scientific evidence may actually stop us
> from  recognizing a part of reality.
>
> My interest does not lie in how this interacts with the mind, or various
> other distractions.
> My interest does lie in creating physical effects.
>
> Physics has been ignoring a rather significant (albeit seldom reliable or
> clear) portion of reality, and this does open up the possibility of
> understanding these areas for those interested, just not my prime area of
> interest.
>
> I am not sure how to run a blind test well when the aether can be effected
> by thoughts. It might be possible but real consideration would have to be
> given.
>
>
>  John
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:10 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> You know, John, if I were an amazing Randi type, aside from the fact that
>> I wouldn't be caught dead posting to vortex-l, I would propose my own
>> control experiment rather than asking you what you considered to be an
>> acceptable control experiment.
>>
>> If I were the Amazing Randi, my control experiment would be something
>> like show a bunch of people random images and ask them if they "felt
>> anything".  I would then proceed to lead a monkey beat upon you satisfying
>> the egos of a bunch of "skeptics" that they had the strength of numbers on
>> their side.
>>
>> So how about showing me the respect that I showed you by asking you what
>> YOU would consider to be an acceptable control experiment?
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?

[Harry Veeder]

Thanks for positing this.
It is about drawing the world into existence.

Newton drew a clock-work universe into existence using geometry and the
tools of a mechanical draftsmen.
"...geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that
part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the
art of measuring." --from the preface to Principia


Today, we don't have to confine ourselves to mechanical practices when
drawing geometry so we can draw different worlds into existence.



Harry






On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:56 AM, John Berry  wrote:

> And a 3rd  image to try to feel, this contains recent development with
> some previous ones.
> http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png
>
> All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't
> feel anything.
>
> Again, best in a dark room (but not required).
>
> Feel for any sensations.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, John Berry wrote:
>
>> A worthwhile improvement for both images:
>>
>> http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png
>>
>> http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry wrote:
>>
>>> I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been this
>>> one:
>>> http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates

[Harry Veeder]

Rossi might have tried a ready made nickel-copper heat exchanger as his
reactor, because they have lots of surface area for
the absorption of hydrogen.

Harry


On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> If Rossi needs a copper tube to generate heat  someone should try using an
> alloy of copper and nickel
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupronickel
>
> Come to think of it Celani is already doing this because his wire is made
> of constantan which contains copper and nickel.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantan
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/04/updates-to-rossis-european-patent-application/
>>
>> links to
>>
>>
>> https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP08873805&lng=en&tab=doclist
>>
>> Main comments on e-catworld (quick read) :
>>
>> In his newest version of claims, the fact that the reactor tube needs to
>> be copper has now made it up to claim 1, and in his letter this is pointed
>> out as being an essential factor.
>>
>> and a letter saying it's rejected because CF isn't mainstream science :
>>
>>
>> https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?documentId=EUIP1SP64903FI4&number=EP08873805&lng=en&npl=false
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates

[Harry Veeder]

If Rossi needs a copper tube to generate heat  someone should try using an
alloy of copper and nickel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupronickel

Come to think of it Celani is already doing this because his wire is made
of constantan which contains copper and nickel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantan

Harry




On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/04/updates-to-rossis-european-patent-application/
>
> links to
>
>
> https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP08873805&lng=en&tab=doclist
>
> Main comments on e-catworld (quick read) :
>
> In his newest version of claims, the fact that the reactor tube needs to
> be copper has now made it up to claim 1, and in his letter this is pointed
> out as being an essential factor.
>
> and a letter saying it's rejected because CF isn't mainstream science :
>
>
> https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?documentId=EUIP1SP64903FI4&number=EP08873805&lng=en&npl=false
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Congrats

[Harry Veeder]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM,  wrote:

> Here is the link:
>
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8419919.html
>
>
> Title:
> System and method for generating particles
> Document Type and Number:  United States Patent 8419919
>
> Abstract:
> A method may include the steps of supplying current to the electrodes of
> an electrochemical cell according to a first charging profile, wherein the
> electrochemical cell has an anode, cathode, and electrolytic solution;
> maintaining a generally constant current between the electrodes; exposing
> the cell to an external field either during or after the termination of
> the deposition of deuterium absorbing metal on the cathode; and supplying
> current to the electrodes according to a second charging profile during
> the exposure of the cell to the external field. The electrolytic solution
> may include a metallic salt including palladium, and a supporting
> electrolyte, each dissolved in heavy water. The cathode may comprise a
> second metal that does not substantially absorb deuterium, such as gold.
> The external field may be a magnetic field.
>
> Inventors:
> Boss, Pamela A. (San Diego, CA, US)
> Gordon, Frank E. (San Diego, CA, US)
> Szpak, Stanislaw (Poway, CA, US)
> Forsley, Lawrence Parker Galloway (San Diego, CA, US)
> Application Number:  11/859499
> Publication Date:  04/16/2013
> Filing Date:  09/21/2007
>
>
> DJ Cravens wrote:
> > Congratulations to Boss, Forsley, et al. in getting a patent through the
> > PTO.  8,419,919
>
>
>
Great.
This section from the patent gives the uninitiated reader an idea of the
possible uses of the invention:


BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The embodiment of the invention relate generally to the field of
electrochemistry.
Generated particles may be captured by other nuclei to create new elements,
to remediate nuclear waste, to treat cancerous tumors, or to create
strategic materials. Previous efforts to create a reproducible and
corresponding system to generate particles during electrolysis of palladium
in heavy water have been unsuccessful.
Therefore, a need currently exists for a reproducible method and
corresponding system that can generate particles.


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Harry Veeder]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:51 AM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:56:56 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >CoE would still apply in this case
> >the total energy before = total energy after
> >energy the substance  = energy of substance + energy of escaping
> neutrinos.
> >
> >A cooling substance that violated CoE wouldn't be producing enough
> >particles or radiation to balance the equation.
> >
> >Harry
>
> It would just produce less as it cooled down, until it ended up at absolute
> zero, or at a temperature where the energy lost through neutrino production
> matched the heat leaking in through the container.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>
Yes, it is a problem in non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
The rate of particle emission should be commensurate with the rate of
cooling according to CoE.

Interestingly, if the rate of cooling is greater than what would be
expected based on the rate of particle emission that would imply energy is
being _destroyed_.

On the other hand, if the rate of cooling is less than what would be
expected based on the rate of particle emission that would mean energy is
being _created_.

I am glad you brought this up, because it shows that energy production or
creation does not always have to be associated with a rise in temperature.

harrry

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Harry Veeder]

CoE would still apply in this case
the total energy before = total energy after
energy the substance  = energy of substance + energy of escaping neutrinos.

A cooling substance that violated CoE wouldn't be producing enough
particles or radiation to balance the equation.

Harry


On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:25 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Sat, 13 Apr 2013 15:32:54 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Don't forget that there are two ways to violate of CoE. Either by the
> >creation of energy or by the destruction energy.
> >Harry
> >
> That opens an interesting possibility. Suppose that heat could be
> converted into
> neutrino/anti-neutrino pairs, which then escaped. No thermal balance,
> hence the
> substance would "spontaneously" cool down.
> One can broaden the concept to include various types of conversion other
> than
> into neutrinos.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Harry Veeder]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:01 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 7:41 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> If you are referring to my statement about the magnet and steel, I am not
>> confusing them.  The force being applied to the steel is attempting to make
>> it come into contact with the magnet.  Energy is being released by the
>> magnet as it draws the metal closer since it is having to work against my
>> resistance to that motion.  It would be possible to measure the amount of
>> energy by attaching a force measuring scale to the steel part and slowly
>> allowing it to come into contact with the magnet.  You would be able to
>> integrate the force times distance curve and obtain the energy.
>>
>>
> >Does the magnet do work (use energy) when you are holding the steel at a
> fixed distance from the magnet?
>
>  No, if the steel is held steady then no work is being done by
> definition.  Work equals the integral of force times distance moved.  Work
> was done when the steel was moved from far away to the fixed position.
>
>

You did work removing the steel.




> >When you let go of the steel and the steel accelerates towards the
> magnet, is the magnet  doing work on the steel's inertia?
>
>  The magnet is doing work on the steel as it accelerates toward it.
>  Magnetic potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy in this
> case.  This is much like work being done on a mass that is moved within a
> gravitational field.  The same equations apply which is work(energy) equals
> the integral of the force times the distance moved.  This assumes that the
> force has a component that is along the path the steel follows in space.  A
> force that is always applied at right angles to the motion does no work
> upon the object.  This would be similar to the motion of a charged particle
> traveling within a static magnetic field.  No work is done in that case.
>
>


This is correct, but for  300+ the natural forces have been seen as natural
because they are not suppose to need a supply of energy to do work (unlike
animals and people). So in this view the magnet does work on the steel but
it does not need energy to perform that work. This all goes back to the
Cartesian notion that God set the universe in motion and only God can
destroy or create motion.   In fact the CoE was advanced by James Joules in
 the middle of 19th century to further enshrine the inviolability of the
natural forces. Without the doctrine of CoE reasonable people could still
entertain the possibility that momentum can vanish from friction.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Harry Veeder]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:01 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

>
>>If that is true, then it follows that the Earth is doing work on
>
>  I think that the remainder of your sentence was cut off here Harry.
>


By analogy with your steel/magnet analysis the Earth is doing work on a
falling apple and during that process the Earth's gravity is getting a
little weaker.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Harry Veeder]

 If that is true, then it follows that the Earth is doing work on

Harry


On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 7:41 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> If you are referring to my statement about the magnet and steel, I am not
> confusing them.  The force being applied to the steel is attempting to make
> it come into contact with the magnet.  Energy is being released by the
> magnet as it draws the metal closer since it is having to work against my
> resistance to that motion.  It would be possible to measure the amount of
> energy by attaching a force measuring scale to the steel part and slowly
> allowing it to come into contact with the magnet.  You would be able to
> integrate the force times distance curve and obtain the energy.
>
>
Does the magnet do work (use energy) when you are holding the steel at a
fixed distance from the magnet?

When you let go of the steel and the steel accelerates towards the
magnet, is the magnet  doing work on the steel's inertia?



Harry




> Any technique that resulted in allowing the relative position of the
> magnet to the steel to be reduced could in principle release a portion of
> that energy.  And, more pieces of steel could be introduced to the magnet
> in like fashion where each one resulted in more energy release.
>  Eventually, the field would no longer exit the pile of metal and further
> energy could not be easily extracted.  The total amount of energy available
> escapes my calculation.  The fact that steel is being used in the
> extraction process might multiply the amount of energy that can be obtained
> as compared to that which is stored in the original field pattern.  I am
> not confident in the later possibility and perhaps someone else might know
> the answer.
>
>  Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Terry Blanton 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Apr 14, 2013 7:04 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down
>
>  Don't confuse force with energy.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down

[Harry Veeder]

Don't forget that there are two ways to violate of CoE. Either by the
creation of energy or by the destruction energy.
Harry


On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 2:54 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> At least Sterling is having fun!  There have been so many failed attempts
> at infinite energy magnetic motors that it would be an incredible surprise
> to see one that actually works.  I remain skeptical in this field but would
> love to find out that I am wrong.
>
>  All I ask is for someone to show me a source of energy that is being
> depleted as work is being done by a motor and I will listen.  If the source
> of energy is simple as by some form of recharging from the power mains,
> then perhaps a new battery exists that might be revolutionary.  That would
> be great.  If someone figures out how to take energy out of the environment
> by cooling the local air, maybe he is on to something although the present
> laws of thermodynamics might disagree with his technique.  At least the
> source is virtually unlimited.
>
>  All of the magmos that I have seen suffer from the need to recharge
> often if much power is delivered to a load since the energy stored within
> magnetic fields appears too limited to be of much practical use.  This
> situation would be immediately modified if it is possible to extract the
> energy form the earth's field at a reasonable rate and I leave that door
> open a tiny bit so maybe one day someone will find a way in.  I advise that
> you not hold your breath until that occurs.
>
>  Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Vorl Bek 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 2:13 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Yildiz motor in Geneva -- ran 5.5 hours then broke down
>
>  On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 10:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
> Analog Fan  wrote:
>
> > How could anyone be surprised that there is negativity towards
> > Sterling's capers?
> >
> > As you pointed out, this is exactly the same as countless free
> > energy scams Sterling has been involved with. It's not science
> > or journalism - it's more akin to uncritical fandom for free
> > energy.
> >
> > As this point, Sterling is an increasingly depressing example
> > of the perils of magical thinking, which is unfortunately
> > so common. His continual boosterism has crossed the line from an
> > interest to a pathological obsession. As Sterling's personal
> > finances teeter closer to bankruptcy (he posts them on the site),
> > he appears to be willing to do and say anything to promote the
> > illusion of free energy just around the corner.
>
> It wasn't hard to see more or less how it would turn out, but I
> originally looked at the Yildiz saga as entertainment. At this
> point, though, it is more sad than anything else.
>
> Sterling abandoned the demo for today and went to France to see the
> 'Kapagen Villa', another overunity scam of some kind.
>
>
>