RE: [Vo]:Oil Price.com features Brillouin CF Reactor
The photoelectric effect won’t work, Eric - unless you include this as a premise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_theory_of_light … which is an interesting solution in a way. That is probably what you had in mind. The next best short answer is the known physics of electron capture cannot work with a proton on earth at all … ever … at least not in any kind of symmetry, since the neutrino (with its extra mass + spin balancing), should be captured - not emitted, in order to balance the more important parts of the equation. If you have to invent some kind of a heavy electron first – then you propose two miracles instead of one. ‘Conservation of miracles’ at work… The curious part is that the W-L proponents must realize that there is a huge neutrino flux which could be tapped into for this purpose, but they do not go there as a general rule. Never mind the solar variety is the wrong kind, as a general rule, since we have the kludge of neutrino “flavor oscillation”, but catch-22 can it be stretched to cover antiparticles? Another miracle required. The neutrino has always been a place-marker at best, just this side of fiction. Even today it still means: check back in a few years and see if we can provide real data. The superluminal saga is a case-in-point. Jones From: Eric Walker pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Hasn't someone here rebutted the physics of e-c capture? The rebuttals I've seen involve the p + e- - n + v reaction that is usually understood to occur between an inner shell electron and a proton in a nucleus, or of the heavy electrons that Widom and Larsen propose. An important assumption is that neutrons are not coming about through some other pathway involving electrons. I'm personally rooting for a photoelectric effect in which gammas or X-rays take part (although I have no basis for rooting for one theory over another). One obstacle to any e-c capture explanation appears to be the great mass of the W- boson; I have no opinion here. I suspect we're not being creative enough yet, though, and that as soon as we are willing to suspend disbelief at the possibility of neutron capture as a starting point, clever people can come up with a whole range of interesting and falsifiable hypotheses. Regarding the experiments, there are numerous reports of helium, tritium, low-level gammas and isotope shifts; there are even reports of very low levels of neutrons, which I'm not inclined to dismiss, although people who know much more about these things suspect that they're in error. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Oil Price.com features Brillouin CF Reactor
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The photoelectric effect won’t work, Eric - unless you include this as a premise ** ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_theory_of_light ** ** … which is an interesting solution in a way. That is probably what you had in mind. Here's something along the lines of what I had in mind. I've no doubt failed to come up with anything reasonable in this instance. But it's just one possibility; creative people can no doubt come up with N factorial other possibilities, and some of them will have more basis than just free association. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23640/what-interactions-would-take-place-between-a-free-proton-and-a-dipolariton The question got three up-votes, which doesn't always happen, so at least there's some interest in the general topic. (Please don't everyone go and post super pro-cold fusion comments.) Eric
RE: [Vo]:Oil Price.com features Brillouin CF Reactor
Well, the short answer is instantaneous. The Brillo boys are using a variant of W-L theory, which to the thinking of many of us has more holes than Dunkin’ – since neutrons activate everything in the surroundings … but with a curious twist. That twist makes it fully falsifiable - and if it proves accurate, then it is NOT “freshly minted neutrons” which is the key, so much as the instant jump to “freshly minted deuterium” and beyond to instant helium. IOW to his everlasting credit, Godes has a theory portends to be completely falsifiable – since he has said this reaction involves the synthesis of neutrons, but which progresses immediately to deuterium, then to helium as if was a single reaction. He gives every indication of having detected helium, but no, he has NOT ever come out and said it directly AFAIK. He is way out on a limb with this, BUT if he can show actual helium from the reaction - and with only protium at the start – then all of us will have to say that he probably got it right … and at a time when W-L could not close the deal… so he will deserve all the credit, despite the similarity. From: David Roberson Why would all of the freshly minted neutrons collect with protons only and not any of the other nearby nuclei? Is it possible that Brillouin is using a truly different path for energy production in their device as compared to Rossi and DGT? Dave attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Oil Price.com features Brillouin CF Reactor
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long run. Maybe the 'Brillo boys' have not run their device for a long enough period to generate detectable products. If they are following this discussion perhaps one of them would respond to your pertinent question about the detection of helium. That would help to clarify the data. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Apr 24, 2012 4:39 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Oil Price.com features Brillouin CF Reactor Well, the short answer is instantaneous. The Brillo boys are using a variant f W-L theory, which to the thinking of many of us has more holes than unkin’ – since neutrons activate everything in the surroundings … but with curious twist. That twist makes it fully falsifiable - and if it proves ccurate, then it is NOT “freshly minted neutrons” which is the key, so much s the instant jump to “freshly minted deuterium” and beyond to instant elium. IOW to his everlasting credit, Godes has a theory portends to be completely alsifiable – since he has said this reaction involves the synthesis of eutrons, but which progresses immediately to deuterium, then to helium as f was a single reaction. He gives every indication of having detected elium, but no, he has NOT ever come out and said it directly AFAIK. He is way out on a limb with this, BUT if he can show actual helium from the eaction - and with only protium at the start – then all of us will have to ay that he probably got it right … and at a time when W-L could not close he deal… so he will deserve all the credit, despite the similarity. From: David Roberson Why would all of the freshly minted neutrons collect with rotons only and not any of the other nearby nuclei? Is it possible that Brillouin is using a truly different ath for energy production in their device as compared to Rossi and DGT? Dave
RE: [Vo]:Oil Price.com features Brillouin CF Reactor
How does the initiating step differ from the electron-capture proposed in W-L papers? Hasn't someone here rebutted the physics of e-c capture? Not freshly minted? Jones Beene wrote: Well, the short answer is instantaneous. The Brillo boys are using a variant of W-L theory, which to the thinking of many of us has more holes than Dunkinâ â since neutrons activate everything in the surroundings ⦠but with a curious twist. That twist makes it fully falsifiable - and if it proves accurate, then it is NOT âfreshly minted neutronsâ which is the key, so much as the instant jump to âfreshly minted deuteriumâ and beyond to instant helium. [...]
Re: [Vo]:Oil Price.com features Brillouin CF Reactor
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:39:12 -0700: Hi, Note that enhanced electron capture is also a characteristic of Hydrino capture or Horace's theory. The difference being that with these theories the electron capture happens either concurrent with or after the proton capture, not before. 4 H atoms trapped in a Takahashi tetrahedron may also spontaneously convert to Helium nucleus. Rather than Helium, I would think that D may be a stronger indicator that neutron formation is occurring. Neutron formation from H is strongly endothermic, whereas Hydrino formation is exothermic, making the latter far more likely IMHO. Well, the short answer is instantaneous. The Brillo boys are using a variant of W-L theory, which to the thinking of many of us has more holes than Dunkin since neutrons activate everything in the surroundings but with a curious twist. That twist makes it fully falsifiable - and if it proves accurate, then it is NOT freshly minted neutrons which is the key, so much as the instant jump to freshly minted deuterium and beyond to instant helium. IOW to his everlasting credit, Godes has a theory portends to be completely falsifiable since he has said this reaction involves the synthesis of neutrons, but which progresses immediately to deuterium, then to helium as if was a single reaction. He gives every indication of having detected helium, but no, he has NOT ever come out and said it directly AFAIK. He is way out on a limb with this, BUT if he can show actual helium from the reaction - and with only protium at the start then all of us will have to say that he probably got it right and at a time when W-L could not close the deal so he will deserve all the credit, despite the similarity. From: David Roberson Why would all of the freshly minted neutrons collect with protons only and not any of the other nearby nuclei? Is it possible that Brillouin is using a truly different path for energy production in their device as compared to Rossi and DGT? Dave Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Oil Price.com features Brillouin CF Reactor
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:18 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Hasn't someone here rebutted the physics of e-c capture? The rebuttals I've seen involve the p + e- - n + v reaction that is usually understood to occur between an inner shell electron and a proton in a nucleus, or of the heavy electrons that Widom and Larsen propose. An important assumption is that neutrons are not coming about through some other pathway involving electrons. I'm personally rooting for a photoelectric effect in which gammas or X-rays take part (although I have no basis for rooting for one theory over another). One obstacle to any e-c capture explanation appears to be the great mass of the W- boson; I have no opinion here. I suspect we're not being creative enough yet, though, and that as soon as we are willing to suspend disbelief at the possibility of neutron capture as a starting point, clever people can come up with a whole range of interesting and falsifiable hypotheses. Regarding the experiments, there are numerous reports of helium, tritium, low-level gammas and isotope shifts; there are even reports of very low levels of neutrons, which I'm not inclined to dismiss, although people who know much more about these things suspect that they're in error. Eric
