subject:"RE\: \[Vo\]\:Re\: CMNS\: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories"

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:56 PM,  mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
 In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:59:19 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
The standard model, I assume, is predicated on the conviction that QM
is correct and also necessary.
It is felt necessary because it explains the apparent stability of
matter which CM could not do.

 CM explains the stability of matter just fine, once you accept that the 
 electron
 ceases to radiate when it reaches the point that a further change in energy
 would require a concurrent change in angular momentum that is less than that
 required to form a photon. IOW a violation of the conservation of angular
 momentum, for the electron photon ensemble. IMO It is this which prevents the
 electron from permanently collapsing into the nucleus via photon emission.
 [snip]
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html


Classical EM theory says a charge undergoing acceleration should radiate energy.
A charge with angular momentum is experiencing an acceleration (in the
classical mechanical sense
of angular menumtum) so it should also lose angular momentum through a
process of radiation.
In classical physics the process of radiating energy is expected to be
continuous from infinite to zero,
which means there is no minimum energy state.

So your proposal of a minimum energy state is different from classical
physics but it is also different
from quantum physics because the process of radiation is continuous,
rather than discrete, above that the minimum.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-24 Thread pagnucco

Eric,

Great work. Thanks.

I was not aware that official data was imprecise.  Nice to know that.

If the thermal neutron generation is actually occurring, it seems there
should be a small amount of radioactive ash (maybe short-lived) after the
reaction is stopped.  I believe some of the sonofusion experiments report
this.  I do not know if these reports are reliable.

As far as build up of Ni59 -
Perhaps its cross section guarantees that it lasts only for a short time
in the reaction chain before converting to copper.

Also, in most experiments, the liquid of the Ni-nanoparticle emulsion may
have a significant impact.

Cheers,
Lou Pagnucco

Eric Walker wrote:
 On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:11 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 Then you should be able to follow the same procedure, but include all the
 natural isotopes, no?


 I've gone back and corrected the calculation to take into account the
 missing isotopes.  This time I obtained upper and lower bounds for the
 total cross section, from both Robin's Web site [1] and Lou's site [2],
 and
 I did the calculation using Robin's method along with a modified version
 of
 that method.

 Here are the estimated upper and lower bounds for the total neutron cross
 sections for nickel as it is found in its natural isotopic abundances.
 The
 combined cross sections are the weighted values of the cross sections for
 individual isotopes of nickel.

 UB Kaeri: 206 barns
 LB Kaeri: 45 barns
 UB NDS: 94 barns
 LB NDS: 29 barns

 On the basis of these cross sections, I calculated the upper and lower
 bounds for the transmitted fraction of an incident beam of neutrons at 1mm
 and 10mm, using Robin's approach as well as a modified version of Robin's
 approach relying upon the mean free path described in Wikipedia's article
 on the neutron capture cross section [3]. The two sets of calculations
 agreed to within two degrees of precision, which was nice to see.  Since
 they agreed, I'll just give the transmitted percentages using Robin's
 approach:

 UB, 1mm: 76.6 percent
 LB, 1mm: 15.2 percent
 UB, 10mm: 7 percent
 LB, 10mm: small

 For 1W of power being generated by way of neutron capture, assuming around
 10 MeV per capture, there would be about 624 billion neutrons generated
 per
 second.  The number of neutrons per second that would be transmitted
 through 1mm and 10mm of inactive nickel shielding would be:

 UB, 1mm: 478 billion
 LB, 1mm: 94 billion
 UB, 10mm: 43 billion
 LB, 10mm: 4000

 This assumes that there are no neutrons being generated in the nickel
 shielding surrounding the active core, an assumption that runs counter to
 conjecture that LENR (in Pd/D) is a surface effect.

 An interesting thing that I discovered as I was looking into this was that
 Robin's Web site and Lou's Web site disagree significantly on what happens
 to the total cross sections when the energies are small.  In general,
 Robin's Web site gave values that were well below the maximums, at around
 10E-4 MeV, while Lou's site gave values that were highest at the very
 lowest energies, around 10E-10 MeV.  I'm not sure what was going on there.
  Just to be safe, the above calculations make use of both the cross
 sections at the lowest energies as well as the maximum values for the
 cross
 sections.

 It interesting to note that the combined cross section can be expected to
 go way up as 58Ni transmutes to 59Ni, which normally exists in trace
 amounts but would build up over time, as 59Ni has an extremely large
 neutron capture cross section.  Note that nickel would become dangerously
 radioactive over time as it was activated under this kind of neutron flux.

 Eric


 [1] http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/
 [2] http://www-nds.iaea.org/ngatlas2/
 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_cross_section

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-24 Thread Eric Walker

Lou,

I wish it was great work.  Unfortunately, there was an important flaw once
again.  From Robin's Web site I obtained the total cross sections, and from
your Web site I obtained the neutron capture cross sections. It is the
total cross section, only one component of which is the neutron capture
cross section, that should be used in the attenuation calculation.  As a
result, I was to a certain extent comparing apples to oranges. The primary
outcome is that the data that were presented are harder to interpret than
they should have been, but I think they still give a useful
order-of-magnitude estimate.

This same error also appears to have been behind my conclusion, below, that
your and Robin's Web sites give different maximum values for the cross
sections.  What seems to be going on is that there are resonances that
cause the total cross section to go way up in the KeV range, but the
absorption cross section, from both your site and Robin's, remains smaller
in that energy region than in the low energy region of around 1E-3 to 1E-5
eV. So once one avoids confusing a graph of the total cross section with
that of the absorption cross section, the two sites appear to agree fairly
closely.

Eric


On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:40 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 Eric,

 Great work. Thanks.

 I was not aware that official data was imprecise.  Nice to know that.

 If the thermal neutron generation is actually occurring, it seems there
 should be a small amount of radioactive ash (maybe short-lived) after the
 reaction is stopped.  I believe some of the sonofusion experiments report
 this.  I do not know if these reports are reliable.

 As far as build up of Ni59 -
 Perhaps its cross section guarantees that it lasts only for a short time
 in the reaction chain before converting to copper.

 Also, in most experiments, the liquid of the Ni-nanoparticle emulsion may
 have a significant impact.

 Cheers,
 Lou Pagnucco

 Eric Walker wrote:
  On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:11 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
 
  Then you should be able to follow the same procedure, but include all the
  natural isotopes, no?
 
 
  I've gone back and corrected the calculation to take into account the
  missing isotopes.  This time I obtained upper and lower bounds for the
  total cross section, from both Robin's Web site [1] and Lou's site [2],
  and
  I did the calculation using Robin's method along with a modified version
  of
  that method.
 
  Here are the estimated upper and lower bounds for the total neutron cross
  sections for nickel as it is found in its natural isotopic abundances.
  The
  combined cross sections are the weighted values of the cross sections for
  individual isotopes of nickel.
 
  UB Kaeri: 206 barns
  LB Kaeri: 45 barns
  UB NDS: 94 barns
  LB NDS: 29 barns
 
  On the basis of these cross sections, I calculated the upper and lower
  bounds for the transmitted fraction of an incident beam of neutrons at
 1mm
  and 10mm, using Robin's approach as well as a modified version of Robin's
  approach relying upon the mean free path described in Wikipedia's article
  on the neutron capture cross section [3]. The two sets of calculations
  agreed to within two degrees of precision, which was nice to see.  Since
  they agreed, I'll just give the transmitted percentages using Robin's
  approach:
 
  UB, 1mm: 76.6 percent
  LB, 1mm: 15.2 percent
  UB, 10mm: 7 percent
  LB, 10mm: small
 
  For 1W of power being generated by way of neutron capture, assuming
 around
  10 MeV per capture, there would be about 624 billion neutrons generated
  per
  second.  The number of neutrons per second that would be transmitted
  through 1mm and 10mm of inactive nickel shielding would be:
 
  UB, 1mm: 478 billion
  LB, 1mm: 94 billion
  UB, 10mm: 43 billion
  LB, 10mm: 4000
 
  This assumes that there are no neutrons being generated in the nickel
  shielding surrounding the active core, an assumption that runs counter to
  conjecture that LENR (in Pd/D) is a surface effect.
 
  An interesting thing that I discovered as I was looking into this was
 that
  Robin's Web site and Lou's Web site disagree significantly on what
 happens
  to the total cross sections when the energies are small.  In general,
  Robin's Web site gave values that were well below the maximums, at around
  10E-4 MeV, while Lou's site gave values that were highest at the very
  lowest energies, around 10E-10 MeV.  I'm not sure what was going on
 there.
   Just to be safe, the above calculations make use of both the cross
  sections at the lowest energies as well as the maximum values for the
  cross
  sections.
 
  It interesting to note that the combined cross section can be expected to
  go way up as 58Ni transmutes to 59Ni, which normally exists in trace
  amounts but would build up over time, as 59Ni has an extremely large
  neutron capture cross section.  Note that nickel would become dangerously
  radioactive over time as it was activated under this kind of neutron

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
 Harry,

 An electron would not spiral into the nucleus if it is a continuous charge
 instead of a point source.   Think of it as a steady DC current which
 generates a magnetic field that does not radiate energy like an accelerated
 charge.  This model is likely not correct, but it would achieve what you are
 discussing.

 Dave

All current flows in a loop so acceleration must occur in some zones
in the loop.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-24 Thread David Roberson

Harry, it is certainly true that the current flows in a loop.  The important 
issue is that each tiny portion of the loop radiates a signal as it 
accelerates, but that the integration of all of the individual signals balance 
out and results in no net radiation.   A circular loop of current will thus 
demonstrate a near field which is the magnetic moment of the loop, but does not 
generate a far field of radiation.  The near field component of the signal does 
not result in energy loss with time.


The motion of a single point charge does result in a far field radiation 
pattern since it accelerates along the circular path and does not have a 
balancing mechanism.  The trick is in the balance.


For the above reasons there would be no energy loss as a result of the current 
flow if it consisted of a continuous charge distribution orbiting a nucleus.  
That is not true for a point charge following the same path.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Mar 24, 2013 10:28 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other 
theories


On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
 Harry,

 An electron would not spiral into the nucleus if it is a continuous charge
 instead of a point source.   Think of it as a steady DC current which
 generates a magnetic field that does not radiate energy like an accelerated
 charge.  This model is likely not correct, but it would achieve what you are
 discussing.

 Dave

All current flows in a loop so acceleration must occur in some zones
in the loop.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-24 Thread Axil Axil

The elimination of the far field radiation pattern in plexciton radiation
by the Fano resonant interference is what makes the hot spot in
Nanophotonics so energetic, up to a 500,000,000 enhancement factor without
optimization.

Cheers:   Axil

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Harry, it is certainly true that the current flows in a loop.  The
 important issue is that each tiny portion of the loop radiates a signal as
 it accelerates, but that the integration of all of the individual signals
 balance out and results in no net radiation.   A circular loop of current
 will thus demonstrate a near field which is the magnetic moment of the
 loop, but does not generate a far field of radiation.  The near field
 component of the signal does not result in energy loss with time.

  The motion of a single point charge does result in a far field radiation
 pattern since it accelerates along the circular path and does not have a
 balancing mechanism.  The trick is in the balance.

  For the above reasons there would be no energy loss as a result of the
 current flow if it consisted of a continuous charge distribution orbiting a
 nucleus.  That is not true for a point charge following the same path.

  Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Mar 24, 2013 10:28 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other
 theories

  On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
  Harry,
 
  An electron would not spiral into the nucleus if it is a continuous charge
  instead of a point source.   Think of it as a steady DC current which
  generates a magnetic field that does not radiate energy like an accelerated
  charge.  This model is likely not correct, but it would achieve what you are
  discussing.
 
  Dave

 All current flows in a loop so acceleration must occur in some zones
 in the loop.

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:35 PM,  mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
 In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:52:31 -0700:
 Hi,
 [snip]
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder

According to Robin reduced-mass neutrons can form spontaneously, but
rarely, when an electron is captured by a nucleus. Would it be possible to
exchange the seven miracles for one miracle of a reduced-mass neutron from a
free electron and free proton/deuteron?

Unfortunately, it is not that simple and may still involve three or four
miracles; at least when the target nucleus is stable and does not decay by
EC. Hydrogen and deuterium are stable and cannot decay by EC. Nickel is not
known to undergo EC either. The electron capture alone would be one miracle,
but it would not be enough.

 The Ni doesn't need to undergo electron capture. The point was that a proton 
 and
 an electron could be absorbed concurrently by the Ni, combining to form a new
 neutron in the Ni.
 This is not impossible, and doesn't even violate the standard model.
 It also means that there would be no *free* neutrons created. Hence the lack 
 of

Actually, my intention was to explain how free neutrons could be
created, but I guess
this is not necessary. I will just focus on my argument that a proton
and electron can collide instead
forming a stable atom. The collision results in a proton and electron
sticking together. This joint particle
 is roughly the size of a proton so it remembles a neutron from the
perspective of the columb barrier of
another nucleus.


 The only question is, would the electron be kept by the new nucleus, resulting
 in neutron creation, and a heavier isotope of the original nucleus, or would 
 it
 be ejected resulting in a nucleus of the next element in the periodic table?
 (If past experience is any guide, then likely sometimes one, sometimes the
 other).

 e.g. H + 58Ni - 59Ni or H + 58Ni - 59Cu


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

Dave,
I did not know that. So, for example, a uniformly charged circular
ring spinning like a wheel will not radiate?
Will it radiate if it is rotating about its diameter?

Harry

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
 Harry, it is certainly true that the current flows in a loop.  The important
 issue is that each tiny portion of the loop radiates a signal as it
 accelerates, but that the integration of all of the individual signals
 balance out and results in no net radiation.   A circular loop of current
 will thus demonstrate a near field which is the magnetic moment of the loop,
 but does not generate a far field of radiation.  The near field component of
 the signal does not result in energy loss with time.

 The motion of a single point charge does result in a far field radiation
 pattern since it accelerates along the circular path and does not have a
 balancing mechanism.  The trick is in the balance.

 For the above reasons there would be no energy loss as a result of the
 current flow if it consisted of a continuous charge distribution orbiting a
 nucleus.  That is not true for a point charge following the same path.

 Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Mar 24, 2013 10:28 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other
 theories

 On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
 Harry,

 An electron would not spiral into the nucleus if it is a continuous charge
 instead of a point source.   Think of it as a steady DC current which
 generates a magnetic field that does not radiate energy like an
 accelerated
 charge.  This model is likely not correct, but it would achieve what you
 are
 discussing.

 Dave

 All current flows in a loop so acceleration must occur in some zones
 in the loop.

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

The planet Saturn comes to mind!
The proton is the planet and the electrons are the rings.
Harry

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
 Dave,
 I did not know that. So, for example, a uniformly charged circular
 ring spinning like a wheel will not radiate?
 Will it radiate if it is rotating about its diameter?

 Harry

 On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
 Harry, it is certainly true that the current flows in a loop.  The important
 issue is that each tiny portion of the loop radiates a signal as it
 accelerates, but that the integration of all of the individual signals
 balance out and results in no net radiation.   A circular loop of current
 will thus demonstrate a near field which is the magnetic moment of the loop,
 but does not generate a far field of radiation.  The near field component of
 the signal does not result in energy loss with time.

 The motion of a single point charge does result in a far field radiation
 pattern since it accelerates along the circular path and does not have a
 balancing mechanism.  The trick is in the balance.

 For the above reasons there would be no energy loss as a result of the
 current flow if it consisted of a continuous charge distribution orbiting a
 nucleus.  That is not true for a point charge following the same path.

 Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sun, Mar 24, 2013 10:28 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other
 theories

 On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
 Harry,

 An electron would not spiral into the nucleus if it is a continuous charge
 instead of a point source.   Think of it as a steady DC current which
 generates a magnetic field that does not radiate energy like an
 accelerated
 charge.  This model is likely not correct, but it would achieve what you
 are
 discussing.

 Dave

 All current flows in a loop so acceleration must occur in some zones
 in the loop.

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:56:51 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Actually, my intention was to explain how free neutrons could be
created, but I guess
this is not necessary. I will just focus on my argument that a proton
and electron can collide instead
forming a stable atom. The collision results in a proton and electron
sticking together. This joint particle
 is roughly the size of a proton so it remembles a neutron from the
perspective of the columb barrier of
another nucleus.

[snip]
Yes, this is the essence of Horace's theory.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:26:56 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
For the above reasons there would be no energy loss as a result of the current 
flow if it consisted of a continuous charge distribution orbiting a nucleus.  
That is not true for a point charge following the same path.

For orbits below the ground state it is even true of point particles, because
the change of angular momentum is less than h_bar. IOW it can't form a photon.
(At least in my  model ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sun, 24 Mar 2013 12:39:44 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
Lou,

I wish it was great work.  Unfortunately, there was an important flaw once
again.  From Robin's Web site I obtained the total cross sections, and from
your Web site I obtained the neutron capture cross sections. It is the
total cross section, only one component of which is the neutron capture
cross section, that should be used in the attenuation calculation.  

...maybe, however neutrons that bounce around without being absorbed, still
contribute to the total. IOW if you are trying to calculate how many escape from
the material, then only the neutrons that are actually absorbed/captured won't
make it. The rest are free to continue trying to get out.

...however, that having been said, the path that the bouncing neutrons follow
would be longer because of a random-walk. Since the path is longer, their
chances of being captured increases...but maybe this is already included in the
concept of cross-section?

BTW I also think you should be using the thermal cross-section, i.e. the
cross-section at the temperature of the experiment. That should be at an energy
of roughly 0.025 eV, which is a commonly used value, for just that reason.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:13:10 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Classical EM theory says a charge undergoing acceleration should radiate 
energy.
A charge with angular momentum is experiencing an acceleration (in the
classical mechanical sense
of angular menumtum) so it should also lose angular momentum through a
process of radiation.
In classical physics the process of radiating energy is expected to be
continuous from infinite to zero,
which means there is no minimum energy state.

This is true, when there are no other factors involved. However in atoms, the
electron is restricted to occupying resonant states. It is the resonances that
are responsible for the quantization.


So your proposal of a minimum energy state is different from classical
physics but it is also different
from quantum physics because the process of radiation is continuous,
rather than discrete, above that the minimum.

Not quite. Above the ground state, the electron is still restricted to resonant
states, and hence photon emission is also quantized.
(Only resonant states are even momentarily stable.)
Not only is it quantized, but restricted to transitions in which the total
angular momentum changes by h_bar, which is the angular momentum of the photon.
It is this latter restriction which gives rise to the selection rules of QM.
(Not all possible transitions are allowed.) 
Forbidden transitions have very weak spectral lines, and IMO can only occur at
all when the electron can also exchange angular momentum with something else
during photon emission. The exchange with  something else allows the total
angular momentum imparted to the new photon to be precisely h_bar.

My model differs from QM in that I propose that below the ground state, the
electron spin becomes less than that commonly accepted as the intrinsic spin
of the electron.
(take my use of the word spin with a grain of salt.)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

This is provides a summary of eight distinct failed models of the
hydrogen atom which the preceded the Bohr model.
http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/05/27/the-gallery-of-failed-atomic-models-1903-1913/

As I have argued recently, I think the key to explaining cold fusion
phenomena depends on a flawed model of the atom.
The advantage of a failed model is that it describes atomic
arrangements which are _not stable_. Only unstable arrangements can
produce
the observed anomalies. The atomic model provided Quantum mechancis
and the standard model is meant to be _stable_.
It will never yield the observed anomalies, because it was only
intended to produce and reproduce stable matter over time.
However, there is more to life and to matter than the reproduction of
an existing order.

Here is a link by the same blogger on acceleration without radiation:
http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/04/19/invisibility-physics-acceleration-without-radiation-part-i/

He concludes by saying:
Ehrenfest’s prescription made plausible the possibility of a stable
atom consisting of orbiting or accelerating electrons. Alas for his
paper, by 1913 Bohr had proposed his model of the hydrogen atom which
could explain the atom’s unusual emission properties. As time
progressed, scientists came to realize that ‘loopholes’ in classical
physics were inadequate to explain the observed behaviors on the
atomic level, and that a new theory was needed to account for all the
new and strange observations: quantum mechanics. Ehrenfest’s
prescription seems to have been mostly forgotten in the quantum hubbub
which ensued.

While Ehrenfest's approach can explain a stable hydrogen atom, it is
not clear from this if it can explain the spectrum of the hydrogen
atom.
Anyway, to reiterate we do not need atomic models which are
consistently stable.

harry

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
The planet Saturn comes to mind!
The proton is the planet and the electrons are the rings.
Harry

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Dave,
I did not know that. So, for example, a uniformly charged circular
ring spinning like a wheel will not radiate?
Will it radiate if it is rotating about its diameter?

Harry

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Harry, it is certainly true that the current flows in a loop. The important
issue is that each tiny portion of the loop radiates a signal as it
accelerates, but that the integration of all of the individual signals
balance out and results in no net radiation. A circular loop of current
will thus demonstrate a near field which is the magnetic moment of the loop,
but does not generate a far field of radiation. The near field component of
the signal does not result in energy loss with time.

The motion of a single point charge does result in a far field radiation
pattern since it accelerates along the circular path and does not have a
balancing mechanism. The trick is in the balance.

For the above reasons there would be no energy loss as a result of the
current flow if it consisted of a continuous charge distribution orbiting a
nucleus. That is not true for a point charge following the same path.

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-23 Thread Harry Veeder

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 -Original Message-
 From: Harry Veeder

 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml

 Harry - let's count the number of miracles required for this to happen:

 quote
 Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen propose that, in condensed matter,
 local breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation occurs in
 homogeneous, many-body, collectively oscillating patches of protons,
 deuterons, or tritons found on surfaces of fully loaded metallic
 hydrides; Born-Oppenheimer breakdown enables a degree of
 electromagnetic coupling of surface proton/deuteron/triton
 oscillations with those of nearby surface plasmon polariton (SPP)
 electrons.

 Miracle 1 - SPPs couple with photons of light to become activated. There is
 little or no light in electrolysis LENR experiments - but some light exists
 in plasma glow or Mills reactions. If W-L want to cover electrolysis, then
 they should demonstrate the reality of light photons, which are absent.
 Blackbody radiation is not sufficient.

 Such coupling between collective oscillations creates local
 nuclear-strength electric fields in the vicinity of the patches.

 Miracle 2 - Nuclear strength is MeV. There is no evidence of MeV fields or
 even keV fields. These would be easy to document if they were present.
 Nuclear-strength electric fields produce x-ray radiation which is largely
 absent.

 SPP electrons bathed in such high fields increase their effective
 mass, thus becoming heavy electrons.

 Miracle 3 -Heavy electrons can apparently form near absolute zero, and then
 rarely - but there is no evidence of them forming at all at elevated
 temperature.

 Widom and Larsen propose that heavy SPP electrons can react directly with
 protons, deuterons, or tritons located in surface patches through an inverse
 beta decay process that results in simultaneous collective production of
 neutrons

 Miracle 4 - There is no known EC reaction with hydrogen - that is an absurd
 invention which is completely without precedent.

 Widom and Larsen propose two, or three neutrons, respectively, and a
 neutrino... Collectively produced neutrons are created ultra-cold;

 Miracle 5 - neutrinos are rarely captured in matter. This is even more
 outrageous than miracle 4.

 Widom and Larsen propose that such neutrons they have ultra-low momentum
 and extremely large quantum mechanical wavelengths and absorption
 cross-sections compared to typical neutrons at thermal energies.

 Miracle 6 - There is no evidence of this kind of neutron in all of physics -
 and ultracold neutrons, which are well-known, are not similar to the W-L
 concoction; but they should be if this proposal were to be taken seriously.

 Finally, Widom and Larsen propose that heavy SPP patch electrons are
 uniquely able to immediately convert almost any locally produced or incident
 gamma radiation directly into infrared heat energy, thus
 providing a form of built-in gamma shielding for LENR nuclear reactions.

 Miracle 7 - This is completely beyond belief. There is no evidence of
 gammas being converted to infrared in all of physics.

 Many observers who have followed LENR from the beginning are rightfully left
 in a state of what can only be called disgust at the shameless hucksterism
 (and attempted alteration) of established physics on display here.

 Heck ... one or two miracles should be enough for any theory, no?


According to Robin reduced-mass neutrons can form spontaneously, but
rarely, when an electron
is captured by a nucleus.Would it be possible to exchange the seven
miracles for one miracle of a reduced-mass neutron
from a free electron and free proton/deuteron?

Harry

RE: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder 

According to Robin reduced-mass neutrons can form spontaneously, but
rarely, when an electron is captured by a nucleus. Would it be possible to
exchange the seven miracles for one miracle of a reduced-mass neutron from a
free electron and free proton/deuteron?

Unfortunately, it is not that simple and may still involve three or four
miracles; at least when the target nucleus is stable and does not decay by
EC. Hydrogen and deuterium are stable and cannot decay by EC. Nickel is not
known to undergo EC either. The electron capture alone would be one miracle,
but it would not be enough.

As for outright capture of an electron by any nucleus having a transmutation
effect, you must realize that the proton consists of three quarks, like the
neutron - but NOT the same three. This is why EC alone is not enough to
change a proton into a neutron.

One of the quarks must be replaced for the change to occur. An electron
anti-neutrino in combination with the electron is one way this can be done,
and that is one of W-L's seven miracles. This is due to conservation of
baryon number and other details, which are above my pay grade to explain.
Baryon number is conserved in the interactions of the Standard Model, so
violation of that would require another miracle, equivalent to conservation
of energy.

The neutron consists of two down-quarks and one up-quark with heavier
charge, and the decay of one of the down quarks into a lighter up quark can
be achieved by the interaction of a W boson but that does not normally
happen the other way. This means the neutron decays into a proton (which
contains one down and two up quarks), an electron, and an electron
antineutrino. The reverse can happen, but not without the neutrino.
Neutrinos are seldom absorbed by matter. In an LENR cell, a few neutrino
absorptions per year could be expected. That is the third or fourth miracle.
I lost count.

Miracles do happen, and the Standard Model can change if and when this is
proved; and maybe three interconnected miracles can happen at once to change
the model, due to some factor which is yet unknown. Seven is a long way
beyond the pale, all the way to Tipperary. 

… especially the last one - about gammas being ~100% downshifted to IR.
ROTFL. 

Jones
attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-23 Thread Harry Veeder

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 -Original Message-
 From: Harry Veeder

 According to Robin reduced-mass neutrons can form spontaneously, but
 rarely, when an electron is captured by a nucleus. Would it be possible to
 exchange the seven miracles for one miracle of a reduced-mass neutron from a
 free electron and free proton/deuteron?

 Unfortunately, it is not that simple and may still involve three or four
 miracles; at least when the target nucleus is stable and does not decay by
 EC. Hydrogen and deuterium are stable and cannot decay by EC. Nickel is not
 known to undergo EC either. The electron capture alone would be one miracle,
 but it would not be enough.

 As for outright capture of an electron by any nucleus having a transmutation
 effect, you must realize that the proton consists of three quarks, like the
 neutron - but NOT the same three. This is why EC alone is not enough to
 change a proton into a neutron.

 One of the quarks must be replaced for the change to occur. An electron
 anti-neutrino in combination with the electron is one way this can be done,
 and that is one of W-L's seven miracles. This is due to conservation of
 baryon number and other details, which are above my pay grade to explain.
 Baryon number is conserved in the interactions of the Standard Model, so
 violation of that would require another miracle, equivalent to conservation
 of energy.


 The neutron consists of two down-quarks and one up-quark with heavier
 charge, and the decay of one of the down quarks into a lighter up quark can
 be achieved by the interaction of a W boson but that does not normally
 happen the other way. This means the neutron decays into a proton (which
 contains one down and two up quarks), an electron, and an electron
 antineutrino. The reverse can happen, but not without the neutrino.
 Neutrinos are seldom absorbed by matter. In an LENR cell, a few neutrino
 absorptions per year could be expected. That is the third or fourth miracle.
 I lost count.

 Miracles do happen, and the Standard Model can change if and when this is
 proved; and maybe three interconnected miracles can happen at once to change
 the model, due to some factor which is yet unknown. Seven is a long way
 beyond the pale, all the way to Tipperary.

 … especially the last one - about gammas being ~100% downshifted to IR.
 ROTFL.



The standard model, I assume, is predicated on the conviction that QM
is correct and also necessary.
It is felt necessary because it explains the apparent stability of
matter which CM could not do.
However, the belief that it necessary comes at a cost. It leads to the
standard model which teaches that elemental transformations
either require tremendous force to bring about, or where they do occur
spontaneously in radioactive materials,
those materials become prized commodities like exotic animals or slaves.

From the perspective of classical physics electrons naturally spiral
into the nucleus.
Traditionally this is a regarded as fatal flaw, but sometimes a flaw
can be desirable.
The lattice lets the loaded hydrogen express some classic shortcomings.


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 22 Mar 2013 01:34:47 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
Lou,

If LENR neutrons are indeed generated as proposed by W-L, almost all will
 be in the thermal range - quite a low momentum by fusion standards.


They speak about ultra low momentum neutrons, which I think is
significantly lower than thermal energies.  These would then collide with
nickel substrate atoms in inelastic and elastic collisions as well as be
absorbed.  The highest absorption cross sections in the graphs you point to
for nickel are ~1000 for 63Ni and ~1 for 59Ni.  63Ni is only synthetic,
and 59Ni exists only in trace quantities, so in general the absorption
cross section for unenriched nickel will be lower than these.  According to
the charts, the cross section for 58Ni, the most common isotope (68
percent), is ~100 barns, and that for 60Ni (26 percent) is ~50 barns.  So I
think you would take the weighted average of these to get an upper bound on
the absorption cross section of a block of normal nickel; e.g., 100 * .68 +
50 * .26 = 81 barns. That would be the upper bound, I think, neglecting
other isotopes that exist in small amounts.

I looked, and it is difficult to pin down exactly how to calculate the half
value layer (the amount of material needed to decrease the intensity of an
incident neutron beam by half) starting from the microscopic total cross
section. Here we have the absorption cross section rather than the total
cross section.  The other two relevant cross sections -- elastic and
inelastic -- are going to bounce our neutrons around and then out of the
system, so I wonder if they can be neglected.  It seems that shielding
thickness is something that is experimentally determined and not calculated
analytically so much, although perhaps Robin or someone else can help us
out with a calculation.

The mean free path (mfp) should be (roughly) the atomic volume divided by the
cross section. For a cross section of 81 barns and Ni, this works out to 1.351
mm.

The fraction that gets transmitted is e^(-d/mfp) where d is any given distance.
In this case e^(-d/1.351mm). So for a thickness of 10 mm, you get a transmission
fraction of 6.1E-4 = 0.061%. For 1 mm you get 47.7%.

Note however that the absorption cross section increases as the speed of the
neutrons decreases, hence WL's emphasis on ultra cold.

(See e.g. http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/endfplot.pl?j=fd=mcnpf=mcnp/Ni-58)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 22 Mar 2013 01:34:47 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
I assume that is a lot, and
that that would set off a GM counter.

BTW note that GM counters are not really designed to detect slow neutrons. They
will only do so via secondary effects, i.e. absorption of the neutron resulting
in a radioactive substance...then just hope it has a short half life. ;)
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:52:31 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder 

According to Robin reduced-mass neutrons can form spontaneously, but
rarely, when an electron is captured by a nucleus. Would it be possible to
exchange the seven miracles for one miracle of a reduced-mass neutron from a
free electron and free proton/deuteron?

Unfortunately, it is not that simple and may still involve three or four
miracles; at least when the target nucleus is stable and does not decay by
EC. Hydrogen and deuterium are stable and cannot decay by EC. Nickel is not
known to undergo EC either. The electron capture alone would be one miracle,
but it would not be enough.

The Ni doesn't need to undergo electron capture. The point was that a proton and
an electron could be absorbed concurrently by the Ni, combining to form a new
neutron in the Ni.
This is not impossible, and doesn't even violate the standard model.
It also means that there would be no *free* neutrons created. Hence the lack of
free neutrons being detected.

The only question is, would the electron be kept by the new nucleus, resulting
in neutron creation, and a heavier isotope of the original nucleus, or would it
be ejected resulting in a nucleus of the next element in the periodic table?
(If past experience is any guide, then likely sometimes one, sometimes the
other).

e.g. H + 58Ni - 59Ni or H + 58Ni - 59Cu 

As for outright capture of an electron by any nucleus having a transmutation
effect, you must realize that the proton consists of three quarks, like the
neutron - but NOT the same three. This is why EC alone is not enough to
change a proton into a neutron.

Conservation of energy is another reason, at least where free protons and
neutrons are concerned.


One of the quarks must be replaced for the change to occur. An electron
anti-neutrino in combination with the electron is one way this can be done,
and that is one of W-L's seven miracles. This is due to conservation of
baryon number and other details, which are above my pay grade to explain.
Baryon number is conserved in the interactions of the Standard Model, so
violation of that would require another miracle, equivalent to conservation
of energy.

Baryon number is conserved as long as the sum of the number of protons and
neutrons remains constant. Nobody is suggesting that this be violated, not is it
necessary. (IOW this basically a straw man argument.)


The neutron consists of two down-quarks and one up-quark with heavier
charge, and the decay of one of the down quarks into a lighter up quark can
be achieved by the interaction of a W boson but that does not normally
happen the other way. This means the neutron decays into a proton (which
contains one down and two up quarks), an electron, and an electron
antineutrino. The reverse can happen, but not without the neutrino.
Neutrinos are seldom absorbed by matter. In an LENR cell, a few neutrino
absorptions per year could be expected. That is the third or fourth miracle.

It isn't necessary to capture a free neutrino. It's possible to create a
neutrino anti-neutrino pair, then keep the one that you want (need), and discard
the other. This is the likely mechanism in most such reactions. (Some beta decay
reactions have a half life of mere microseconds, indicating that capture of a
neutrino (or anti-neutrino) from an external source is highly unlikely to be the
mechanism involved.)
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-23 Thread Eric Walker

Thank you, Robin.

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:49 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

So I
 think you would take the weighted average of these to get an upper bound
 on
 the absorption cross section of a block of normal nickel; e.g., 100 * .68
 +
 50 * .26 = 81 barns.


My earlier calculation was flawed.  I neglected to include data for the
other isotopes of nickel found in nature, so the weighted average was taken
over parts that added up to less than 100 percent.  If you included the
other isotopes, especially the trace one with the much higher cross
section, I think the cross sections would have gone up.

I see that the page you link to is for 58Ni.  Is there a straightforward
way to to get the total cross section for nickel in its natural isotopic
abundances?

Note however that the absorption cross section increases as the speed of the
 neutrons decreases, hence WL's emphasis on ultra cold.

 (See e.g.
 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/endfplot.pl?j=fd=mcnpf=mcnp/Ni-58)


Nickel seems to have a high total absorption cross section.  With W-L there
is an implicit (or perhaps explicit?) assumption that the ultra cold
neutrons being generated will be absorbed in sufficient numbers to avoid
thermalizing, spilling out, spreading out into the environment and sending
a neutron counter sky high (not necessarily a GM counter).  Suppose 1 W is
being generated by way of neutron capture and we are sure that it is
neutron capture that is involved.  I'm curious whether you think that some
configuration of nickel in an unshielded cell could be found to absorb all
of the neutrons without setting off a neutron detector, or whether
new physics would be needed to explain the lack of neutrons leaking out.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

 The Ni doesn't need to undergo electron capture. The point was that a
proton and an electron could be absorbed concurrently by the Ni, combining
to form a new neutron in the Ni.

Hi Robin,

And where does the energy come from for the neutrino pair? - that requires
several MeV and even if you had it, an electron positron pair would be more
likely. And even if a neutrino pair was somehow formed, what guarantees that
it will be absorbed?

This is not impossible, and doesn't even violate the standard model.

Without the neutrino, it is impossible, and without the energy for creating
a neutrino pair that step is impossible. And even if the energy is
available, it is extremely unlikely that an electron anti-neutrino is formed
and absorbed at the very instant when it is needed.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

In reply to  Harry Veeder's message of Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:59:19 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
The standard model, I assume, is predicated on the conviction that QM
is correct and also necessary.
It is felt necessary because it explains the apparent stability of
matter which CM could not do.

CM explains the stability of matter just fine, once you accept that the electron
ceases to radiate when it reaches the point that a further change in energy
would require a concurrent change in angular momentum that is less than that
required to form a photon. IOW a violation of the conservation of angular
momentum, for the electron photon ensemble. IMO It is this which prevents the
electron from permanently collapsing into the nucleus via photon emission.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:50:39 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

 The Ni doesn't need to undergo electron capture. The point was that a
proton and an electron could be absorbed concurrently by the Ni, combining
to form a new neutron in the Ni.

Hi Robin,

And where does the energy come from for the neutrino pair? - that requires
several MeV and even if you had it, an electron positron pair would be more
likely.

What makes you think it would require several MeV? Last I saw, they were having
trouble proving that the neutrino had any mass at all, let alone several MeV.

 And even if a neutrino pair was somehow formed, what guarantees that
it will be absorbed?

This is not impossible, and doesn't even violate the standard model.

Without the neutrino, it is impossible, and without the energy for creating
a neutrino pair that step is impossible. And even if the energy is
available, it is extremely unlikely that an electron anti-neutrino is formed
and absorbed at the very instant when it is needed.


...about as unlikely as beta decay reaction? ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:47:17 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
Thank you, Robin.

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:49 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

So I
 think you would take the weighted average of these to get an upper bound
 on
 the absorption cross section of a block of normal nickel; e.g., 100 * .68
 +
 50 * .26 = 81 barns.


My earlier calculation was flawed.  I neglected to include data for the
other isotopes of nickel found in nature, so the weighted average was taken
over parts that added up to less than 100 percent.  If you included the
other isotopes, especially the trace one with the much higher cross
section, I think the cross sections would have gone up.

Then you should be able to follow the same procedure, but include all the
natural isotopes, no?


I see that the page you link to is for 58Ni.  Is there a straightforward
way to to get the total cross section for nickel in its natural isotopic
abundances?

I don't know. If I were in your shoes, I would just do what you did, but include
all the isotopes.


Note however that the absorption cross section increases as the speed of the
 neutrons decreases, hence WL's emphasis on ultra cold.

 (See e.g.
 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/endfplot.pl?j=fd=mcnpf=mcnp/Ni-58)


Nickel seems to have a high total absorption cross section.  With W-L there
is an implicit (or perhaps explicit?) assumption that the ultra cold
neutrons being generated will be absorbed in sufficient numbers to avoid
thermalizing, spilling out, spreading out into the environment and sending
a neutron counter sky high (not necessarily a GM counter).  Suppose 1 W is
being generated by way of neutron capture and we are sure that it is
neutron capture that is involved.  I'm curious whether you think that some
configuration of nickel in an unshielded cell could be found to absorb all
of the neutrons without setting off a neutron detector, or whether
new physics would be needed to explain the lack of neutrons leaking out.

I am no supporter of WL theory as they proclaim it. This is one of the reasons.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories



-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

 What makes you think it would require several MeV? Last I saw, they were
having trouble proving that the neutrino had any mass at all, let alone
several MeV.

What you must be referring to is rest mass; but like a photon, neutrinos
always move very close to the speed of light. When a neutron decays, on rare
occasion, the proton and electron stay bound, and the electron anti-neutrino
carries away all the energy which is ~.78 MeV. This is generally assumed to
represent the upper limit of mass-energy of the electron anti-neutrino. It
is reasonable to assume if pair production is involved it would be require
over 1.5 MeV.

Of course, the next little problem is that there is no evidence at all for
neutrino pair production, ergo ... another putative miracle is required.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:29:00 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

 What makes you think it would require several MeV? Last I saw, they were
having trouble proving that the neutrino had any mass at all, let alone
several MeV.

What you must be referring to is rest mass; but like a photon, neutrinos
always move very close to the speed of light. When a neutron decays, on rare
occasion, the proton and electron stay bound, and the electron anti-neutrino
carries away all the energy which is ~.78 MeV. This is generally assumed to
represent the upper limit of mass-energy of the electron anti-neutrino. It
is reasonable to assume if pair production is involved it would be require
over 1.5 MeV.

It is not at all reasonable. In fact quite the reverse. If you look at the other
end of the neutron decay spectrum, you will see that the maximum energy acquired
by the electron is 782 keV, which is apparently available, while the
anti-neutrino is still formed, implying that formation of a low energy
anti-neutrino requires next to no energy.
In this respect, I suspect that neutrinos are much like photons. They can carry
almost any amount of energy, including near zero.


Of course, the next little problem is that there is no evidence at all for
neutrino pair production, ergo ... another putative miracle is required.

How do you know that beta decay is not evidence for neutrino anti-neutrino pair
production?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-23 Thread David Roberson

Harry,


An electron would not spiral into the nucleus if it is a continuous charge 
instead of a point source.   Think of it as a steady DC current which generates 
a magnetic field that does not radiate energy like an accelerated charge.  This 
model is likely not correct, but it would achieve what you are discussing.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Mar 23, 2013 5:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other 
theories


On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 -Original Message-
 From: Harry Veeder

 According to Robin reduced-mass neutrons can form spontaneously, but
 rarely, when an electron is captured by a nucleus. Would it be possible to
 exchange the seven miracles for one miracle of a reduced-mass neutron from a
 free electron and free proton/deuteron?

 Unfortunately, it is not that simple and may still involve three or four
 miracles; at least when the target nucleus is stable and does not decay by
 EC. Hydrogen and deuterium are stable and cannot decay by EC. Nickel is not
 known to undergo EC either. The electron capture alone would be one miracle,
 but it would not be enough.

 As for outright capture of an electron by any nucleus having a transmutation
 effect, you must realize that the proton consists of three quarks, like the
 neutron - but NOT the same three. This is why EC alone is not enough to
 change a proton into a neutron.

 One of the quarks must be replaced for the change to occur. An electron
 anti-neutrino in combination with the electron is one way this can be done,
 and that is one of W-L's seven miracles. This is due to conservation of
 baryon number and other details, which are above my pay grade to explain.
 Baryon number is conserved in the interactions of the Standard Model, so
 violation of that would require another miracle, equivalent to conservation
 of energy.


 The neutron consists of two down-quarks and one up-quark with heavier
 charge, and the decay of one of the down quarks into a lighter up quark can
 be achieved by the interaction of a W boson but that does not normally
 happen the other way. This means the neutron decays into a proton (which
 contains one down and two up quarks), an electron, and an electron
 antineutrino. The reverse can happen, but not without the neutrino.
 Neutrinos are seldom absorbed by matter. In an LENR cell, a few neutrino
 absorptions per year could be expected. That is the third or fourth miracle.
 I lost count.

 Miracles do happen, and the Standard Model can change if and when this is
 proved; and maybe three interconnected miracles can happen at once to change
 the model, due to some factor which is yet unknown. Seven is a long way
 beyond the pale, all the way to Tipperary.

 … especially the last one - about gammas being ~100% downshifted to IR.
 ROTFL.



The standard model, I assume, is predicated on the conviction that QM
is correct and also necessary.
It is felt necessary because it explains the apparent stability of
matter which CM could not do.
However, the belief that it necessary comes at a cost. It leads to the
standard model which teaches that elemental transformations
either require tremendous force to bring about, or where they do occur
spontaneously in radioactive materials,
those materials become prized commodities like exotic animals or slaves.

From the perspective of classical physics electrons naturally spiral
into the nucleus.
Traditionally this is a regarded as fatal flaw, but sometimes a flaw
can be desirable.
The lattice lets the loaded hydrogen express some classic shortcomings.


Harry

RE: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories



-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

represent the upper limit of mass-energy of the electron anti-neutrino. It
is reasonable to assume if pair production is involved it would be require
over 1.5 MeV.

It is not at all reasonable...

OK - then let's ask the obvious question - where's the beef? 

Can you provide any citation for neutrino-antineutrino pair production in
actuality? If so, then there should have an associated energy ... 

... but since these two particles are not electrically charged, like the
positron/electron it is unclear if it is even possible at all. That would be
yet another miracle, it would seem.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-23 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 That would be
 yet another miracle, it would seem.

Faith seems to have become an important part of LENR.  I never had a
religion before now.  :-)

RE: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

 That would be
 yet another miracle, it would seem.

Faith seems to have become an important part of LENR.  I never had a
religion before now.  :-)

I thought you wuz a Southern Babuddhist Gnostic ...

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-23 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 -Original Message-
 From: Terry Blanton

 That would be
 yet another miracle, it would seem.

 Faith seems to have become an important part of LENR.  I never had a
 religion before now.  :-)

 I thought you wuz a Southern Babuddhist Gnostic ...

You promised to never tell.  Ohhh.

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:40:30 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

represent the upper limit of mass-energy of the electron anti-neutrino. It
is reasonable to assume if pair production is involved it would be require
over 1.5 MeV.

It is not at all reasonable...

OK - then let's ask the obvious question - where's the beef? 

Can you provide any citation for neutrino-antineutrino pair production in
actuality? If so, then there should have an associated energy ... 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269306005351
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=7cad=rjaved=0CFQQFjAGurl=http%3A%2F%2Fadsabs.harvard.edu%2Ffull%2F1967ApJ...150..979Bei=xnZOUd6JCcitiAfx74GoAgusg=AFQjCNF1gCDTJqH6iYKaz7_hYuFNOISOdgbvm=bv.44158598,d.aGc
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=9ved=0CGAQFjAIurl=http%3A%2F%2Flss.fnal.gov%2Farchive%2Fother%2Fiu-ntc-92-12.pdfei=xnZOUd6JCcitiAfx74GoAgusg=AFQjCNHs6wvnhA6omkD1ectAIpGI0Kqzkwbvm=bv.44158598,d.aGccad=rja
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=14cad=rjaved=0CD8QFjADOAourl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.science.gov%2Ftopicpages%2Fn%2Fneutrino%2Bpair%2Bemission.htmlei=MXpOUf6YLvCviQfTzIGQCQusg=AFQjCNFeG8ewjfyOVglxWBRTaiqnWw-j-wbvm=bv.44158598,d.aGc
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-23 Thread Eric Walker

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:11 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

Then you should be able to follow the same procedure, but include all the
 natural isotopes, no?


I've gone back and corrected the calculation to take into account the
missing isotopes.  This time I obtained upper and lower bounds for the
total cross section, from both Robin's Web site [1] and Lou's site [2], and
I did the calculation using Robin's method along with a modified version of
that method.

Here are the estimated upper and lower bounds for the total neutron cross
sections for nickel as it is found in its natural isotopic abundances.  The
combined cross sections are the weighted values of the cross sections for
individual isotopes of nickel.

UB Kaeri: 206 barns
LB Kaeri: 45 barns
UB NDS: 94 barns
LB NDS: 29 barns

On the basis of these cross sections, I calculated the upper and lower
bounds for the transmitted fraction of an incident beam of neutrons at 1mm
and 10mm, using Robin's approach as well as a modified version of Robin's
approach relying upon the mean free path described in Wikipedia's article
on the neutron capture cross section [3]. The two sets of calculations
agreed to within two degrees of precision, which was nice to see.  Since
they agreed, I'll just give the transmitted percentages using Robin's
approach:

UB, 1mm: 76.6 percent
LB, 1mm: 15.2 percent
UB, 10mm: 7 percent
LB, 10mm: small

For 1W of power being generated by way of neutron capture, assuming around
10 MeV per capture, there would be about 624 billion neutrons generated per
second.  The number of neutrons per second that would be transmitted
through 1mm and 10mm of inactive nickel shielding would be:

UB, 1mm: 478 billion
LB, 1mm: 94 billion
UB, 10mm: 43 billion
LB, 10mm: 4000

This assumes that there are no neutrons being generated in the nickel
shielding surrounding the active core, an assumption that runs counter to
conjecture that LENR (in Pd/D) is a surface effect.

An interesting thing that I discovered as I was looking into this was that
Robin's Web site and Lou's Web site disagree significantly on what happens
to the total cross sections when the energies are small.  In general,
Robin's Web site gave values that were well below the maximums, at around
10E-4 MeV, while Lou's site gave values that were highest at the very
lowest energies, around 10E-10 MeV.  I'm not sure what was going on there.
 Just to be safe, the above calculations make use of both the cross
sections at the lowest energies as well as the maximum values for the cross
sections.

It interesting to note that the combined cross section can be expected to
go way up as 58Ni transmutes to 59Ni, which normally exists in trace
amounts but would build up over time, as 59Ni has an extremely large
neutron capture cross section.  Note that nickel would become dangerously
radioactive over time as it was activated under this kind of neutron flux.

Eric


[1] http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/
[2] http://www-nds.iaea.org/ngatlas2/
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_cross_section

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-22 Thread Eric Walker

Lou,

If LENR neutrons are indeed generated as proposed by W-L, almost all will
 be in the thermal range - quite a low momentum by fusion standards.


They speak about ultra low momentum neutrons, which I think is
significantly lower than thermal energies.  These would then collide with
nickel substrate atoms in inelastic and elastic collisions as well as be
absorbed.  The highest absorption cross sections in the graphs you point to
for nickel are ~1000 for 63Ni and ~1 for 59Ni.  63Ni is only synthetic,
and 59Ni exists only in trace quantities, so in general the absorption
cross section for unenriched nickel will be lower than these.  According to
the charts, the cross section for 58Ni, the most common isotope (68
percent), is ~100 barns, and that for 60Ni (26 percent) is ~50 barns.  So I
think you would take the weighted average of these to get an upper bound on
the absorption cross section of a block of normal nickel; e.g., 100 * .68 +
50 * .26 = 81 barns. That would be the upper bound, I think, neglecting
other isotopes that exist in small amounts.

I looked, and it is difficult to pin down exactly how to calculate the half
value layer (the amount of material needed to decrease the intensity of an
incident neutron beam by half) starting from the microscopic total cross
section. Here we have the absorption cross section rather than the total
cross section.  The other two relevant cross sections -- elastic and
inelastic -- are going to bounce our neutrons around and then out of the
system, so I wonder if they can be neglected.  It seems that shielding
thickness is something that is experimentally determined and not calculated
analytically so much, although perhaps Robin or someone else can help us
out with a calculation.

An absorption cross section of 81 is not perfect.  It is not hard to
imagine that some neutrons would get through.  To get a sense of how many
neutrons we're talking about, consider the number needed to produce by 1 W
of power production through absorption into nickel.  The upper bound on the
amount of energy that will be provided by a single Ni(n,*) reaction will be
around 10 MeV, if I've done my calculation right.  For 1W power, 1J of
energy is produced during one 1s.  To get 1J energy, at you need

  6.24150974E12 MeV / 10 MeV = 6.24E11 neutron captures per second.

The trick is to figure out how efficient 81 barns is at stopping that kind
of flux.  If even 0.1 percent of the neutrons escape, that's 624 million
neutrons escaping from the system per second.  I assume that is a lot, and
that that would set off a GM counter.  If this is correct, the question
becomes whether 81 barns is going to stop a lot more than 99.9 percent of
the neutrons being generated and captured.

Also bear in mind that there is a saturation that occurs, where the nickel
cannot be further activated, after which it starts to transmit neutrons.
 At that point I think they would need to be absorbed by other isotopes
that have evolved lest they escape in large numbers.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-22 Thread Arnaud Kodeck

Eric,

 

Says that slow neutron is produced and absorbed by atoms in a LENR device.
In the order of 6.24E11 neutron captures per second for 1W, as you said,
some atoms which have received an absorbed neutron will become radioactive,
emitting gamma. Example: 58Ni + n - 59Ni - 59Co + e+. We should easily
detect e- + e+ = 2 gammas 511KeV with a 100$ Geiger counter. Anyway, it is
not good to play around such a reactor in those conditions.

 

Arnaud

  _  

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: vendredi 22 mars 2013 09:35
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other
theories

 

Lou,

 

If LENR neutrons are indeed generated as proposed by W-L, almost all will
be in the thermal range - quite a low momentum by fusion standards.

 

They speak about ultra low momentum neutrons, which I think is
significantly lower than thermal energies.  These would then collide with
nickel substrate atoms in inelastic and elastic collisions as well as be
absorbed.  The highest absorption cross sections in the graphs you point to
for nickel are ~1000 for 63Ni and ~1 for 59Ni.  63Ni is only synthetic,
and 59Ni exists only in trace quantities, so in general the absorption cross
section for unenriched nickel will be lower than these.  According to the
charts, the cross section for 58Ni, the most common isotope (68 percent), is
~100 barns, and that for 60Ni (26 percent) is ~50 barns.  So I think you
would take the weighted average of these to get an upper bound on the
absorption cross section of a block of normal nickel; e.g., 100 * .68 + 50 *
.26 = 81 barns. That would be the upper bound, I think, neglecting other
isotopes that exist in small amounts.

 

I looked, and it is difficult to pin down exactly how to calculate the half
value layer (the amount of material needed to decrease the intensity of an
incident neutron beam by half) starting from the microscopic total cross
section. Here we have the absorption cross section rather than the total
cross section.  The other two relevant cross sections -- elastic and
inelastic -- are going to bounce our neutrons around and then out of the
system, so I wonder if they can be neglected.  It seems that shielding
thickness is something that is experimentally determined and not calculated
analytically so much, although perhaps Robin or someone else can help us out
with a calculation.

 

An absorption cross section of 81 is not perfect.  It is not hard to imagine
that some neutrons would get through.  To get a sense of how many neutrons
we're talking about, consider the number needed to produce by 1 W of power
production through absorption into nickel.  The upper bound on the amount of
energy that will be provided by a single Ni(n,*) reaction will be around 10
MeV, if I've done my calculation right.  For 1W power, 1J of energy is
produced during one 1s.  To get 1J energy, at you need

 

  6.24150974E12 MeV / 10 MeV = 6.24E11 neutron captures per second.

 

The trick is to figure out how efficient 81 barns is at stopping that kind
of flux.  If even 0.1 percent of the neutrons escape, that's 624 million
neutrons escaping from the system per second.  I assume that is a lot, and
that that would set off a GM counter.  If this is correct, the question
becomes whether 81 barns is going to stop a lot more than 99.9 percent of
the neutrons being generated and captured.

 

Also bear in mind that there is a saturation that occurs, where the nickel
cannot be further activated, after which it starts to transmit neutrons.  At
that point I think they would need to be absorbed by other isotopes that
have evolved lest they escape in large numbers.

 

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-22 Thread pagnucco

Eric,

If the W-L theory is correct, I cannot see how neutrons would form in a
thermal bath and would be cooler than their environment.  What would be
the cooling mechanism?  Moreover, given the high absorbing cross sections
over a very wide range of thermal energies, I think you are misinterpreting
the term ultra low momentum neutrons.  There is no need to postulate the
existence sub-thermal neutrons.

Trying to calculate transport of thermal neutrons in such a complex
environment is extremely challenging.  Moreover, don't forget we may be
dealing with collective/coherent phenomena - not isolated uncorrelated
free space events.  Many LENR researchers promoting different theories
concur on this.  This could change calculations dramatically, e.g., as
in lasing, Mossbauer effect, superconductors, ...

Neutron emissions have been reported - possibly real, possibly an artifact.

I do not know whether LENR exists, or, if it does, which theories are valid.

I am perplexed, though, that some, whose own beliefs are derided by main
stream science, are so eager to persecute.  Maybe they are smarter than
the rest. Maybe not.

Regards,
Lou Pagnucco

Eric Walker wrote:
 Lou,

 If LENR neutrons are indeed generated as proposed by W-L, almost all will
 be in the thermal range - quite a low momentum by fusion standards.


 They speak about ultra low momentum neutrons, which I think is
 significantly lower than thermal energies.  These would then collide with
 nickel substrate atoms in inelastic and elastic collisions as well as be
 absorbed.  The highest absorption cross sections in the graphs you point
 to
 for nickel are ~1000 for 63Ni and ~1 for 59Ni.  63Ni is only
 synthetic,
 and 59Ni exists only in trace quantities, so in general the absorption
 cross section for unenriched nickel will be lower than these.  According
 to
 the charts, the cross section for 58Ni, the most common isotope (68
 percent), is ~100 barns, and that for 60Ni (26 percent) is ~50 barns.  So
 I
 think you would take the weighted average of these to get an upper bound
 on
 the absorption cross section of a block of normal nickel; e.g., 100 * .68
 +
 50 * .26 = 81 barns. That would be the upper bound, I think, neglecting
 other isotopes that exist in small amounts.

 I looked, and it is difficult to pin down exactly how to calculate the
 half
 value layer (the amount of material needed to decrease the intensity of an
 incident neutron beam by half) starting from the microscopic total cross
 section. Here we have the absorption cross section rather than the total
 cross section.  The other two relevant cross sections -- elastic and
 inelastic -- are going to bounce our neutrons around and then out of the
 system, so I wonder if they can be neglected.  It seems that shielding
 thickness is something that is experimentally determined and not
 calculated
 analytically so much, although perhaps Robin or someone else can help us
 out with a calculation.

 An absorption cross section of 81 is not perfect.  It is not hard to
 imagine that some neutrons would get through.  To get a sense of how many
 neutrons we're talking about, consider the number needed to produce by 1 W
 of power production through absorption into nickel.  The upper bound on
 the
 amount of energy that will be provided by a single Ni(n,*) reaction will
 be
 around 10 MeV, if I've done my calculation right.  For 1W power, 1J of
 energy is produced during one 1s.  To get 1J energy, at you need

   6.24150974E12 MeV / 10 MeV = 6.24E11 neutron captures per second.

 The trick is to figure out how efficient 81 barns is at stopping that kind
 of flux.  If even 0.1 percent of the neutrons escape, that's 624 million
 neutrons escaping from the system per second.  I assume that is a lot, and
 that that would set off a GM counter.  If this is correct, the question
 becomes whether 81 barns is going to stop a lot more than 99.9 percent of
 the neutrons being generated and captured.

 Also bear in mind that there is a saturation that occurs, where the nickel
 cannot be further activated, after which it starts to transmit neutrons.
  At that point I think they would need to be absorbed by other isotopes
 that have evolved lest they escape in large numbers.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-22 Thread Harry Veeder

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote:
 Eric,



 Says that slow neutron is produced and absorbed by atoms in a LENR device.
 In the order of 6.24E11 neutron captures per second for 1W, as you said,
 some atoms which have received an absorbed neutron will become radioactive,
 emitting gamma. Example: 58Ni + n - 59Ni - 59Co + e+. We should easily
 detect e- + e+ = 2 gammas 511KeV with a 100$ Geiger counter. Anyway, it is
 not good to play around such a reactor in those conditions.



 Arnaud


http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml

quote
Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen propose that, in condensed matter,
local breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation occurs in
homogeneous, many-body, collectively oscillating patches of protons,
deuterons, or tritons found on surfaces of fully loaded metallic
hydrides; Born-Oppenheimer breakdown enables a degree of
electromagnetic coupling of surface proton/deuteron/triton
oscillations with those of nearby surface plasmon polariton (SPP)
electrons. Such coupling between collective oscillations creates local
nuclear-strength electric fields in the vicinity of the patches.

SPP electrons bathed in such high fields increase their effective
mass, thus becoming heavy electrons. Widom and Larsen propose that
heavy SPP electrons can react directly with protons, deuterons, or
tritons located in surface patches through an inverse beta decay
process that results in simultaneous collective production of one,
two, or three neutrons, respectively, and a neutrino.
Collectively produced neutrons are created ultra-cold; that is, they
have ultra-low momentum and extremely large quantum mechanical
wavelengths and absorption cross-sections compared to “typical”
neutrons at thermal energies.

Finally, Widom and Larsen propose that heavy SPP patch electrons are
uniquely able to immediately convert almost any locally produced or
incident gamma radiation directly into infrared heat energy, thus
providing a form of built-in gamma shielding for LENR nuclear
reactions.


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-22 Thread Axil Axil

 The polariton exists in a state of Quantum Mechanical superposition with
the other members of its ensemble in a Nano-cavity.   This is critical for
the thermalization of fusion energy because the polariton will share its
energy between all its entangled ensemble members when the fusion event
occurs. This transfer of energy results in decoherence of the entangled
states. The nano-cavity will rapidly reinitiate the BEC and the next fusion
of a polariton can occur.   Quantum complementarity is the essential
feature distinguishing quantum from classical physics.   When two physical
observables are complementary, the precise knowledge of one of them makes
the other unpredictable. The most known manifestation of this principle is
the property of quantum-mechanical entities to behave either as particles
or as waves under different experimental conditions. The link between
quantum correlations, quantum nonlocality and Bohr’s complementarity
principle was established in a series of “which-way” experiments, in which
the underlying idea is the same as in Young’s double-slit experiment.  Due
to its wave-like nature, a particle can be set up to travel along a quantum
superposition of two different paths, resulting in an interference pattern.
If however a “which-way” detector is employed to determine the particle’s
path, the particle like behavior takes over and an interference pattern is
no longer observed.   These experiments have brought evidence that the loss
of interference is not necessarily a consequence of the back action of a
measurement process. Quantum complementarity is rather an inherent property
of a system, enforced by quantum correlations. This manifestation of
quantum mechanics enables random fusion energy distribution for cavity
polaritons. Polaritons in micro-cavities are hybrid quasiparticles
consisting of a superposition of cavity photons and two-dimensional
collective electronic excitations (excitons) in an embedded quantum well.
Owing to their mutual Coulomb interaction, pump polaritons generated by a
resonant optical excitation can scatter resonantly into pairs of polaritons
(signal and idler).   In the low excitation limit, the polariton parametric
scattering is a spontaneous process driven by vacuum-field fluctuations
whereas, already at moderate excitation intensity, it displays
self-stimulation.   In either of these two cases where the fusion energy
goes is directed by the luck of the draw and the randomness of the vacuum
energy within the nano-cavity. Thermalization of fusion energy is all
important in LENR because it preserves the structure of the NAE. If the
energy produced by fusion was not moderated it would rapidly destroy the
cavities that contained the reaction.   This sometimes happens in LENR
where water is present as the source of the dielectric. In this situation,
the fusion energy produced by the reaction destroys the vessel of its
creation and a crater erupts in the cathode of the LENR device.

Cheers:   Axil



On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be
 wrote:
  Eric,
 
 
 
  Says that slow neutron is produced and absorbed by atoms in a LENR
 device.
  In the order of 6.24E11 neutron captures per second for 1W, as you said,
  some atoms which have received an absorbed neutron will become
 radioactive,
  emitting gamma. Example: 58Ni + n - 59Ni - 59Co + e+. We should easily
  detect e- + e+ = 2 gammas 511KeV with a 100$ Geiger counter. Anyway, it
 is
  not good to play around such a reactor in those conditions.
 
 
 
  Arnaud


 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml

 quote
 Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen propose that, in condensed matter,
 local breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation occurs in
 homogeneous, many-body, collectively oscillating patches of protons,
 deuterons, or tritons found on surfaces of fully loaded metallic
 hydrides; Born-Oppenheimer breakdown enables a degree of
 electromagnetic coupling of surface proton/deuteron/triton
 oscillations with those of nearby surface plasmon polariton (SPP)
 electrons. Such coupling between collective oscillations creates local
 nuclear-strength electric fields in the vicinity of the patches.

 SPP electrons bathed in such high fields increase their effective
 mass, thus becoming heavy electrons. Widom and Larsen propose that
 heavy SPP electrons can react directly with protons, deuterons, or
 tritons located in surface patches through an inverse beta decay
 process that results in simultaneous collective production of one,
 two, or three neutrons, respectively, and a neutrino.
 Collectively produced neutrons are created ultra-cold; that is, they
 have ultra-low momentum and extremely large quantum mechanical
 wavelengths and absorption cross-sections compared to “typical”
 neutrons at thermal energies.

 Finally, Widom and Larsen propose that heavy SPP patch electrons are
 uniquely able to

RE: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-22 Thread Jones Beene

-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder 

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml

Harry - let's count the number of miracles required for this to happen:

quote
Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen propose that, in condensed matter,
local breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation occurs in
homogeneous, many-body, collectively oscillating patches of protons,
deuterons, or tritons found on surfaces of fully loaded metallic
hydrides; Born-Oppenheimer breakdown enables a degree of
electromagnetic coupling of surface proton/deuteron/triton
oscillations with those of nearby surface plasmon polariton (SPP)
electrons. 

Miracle 1 - SPPs couple with photons of light to become activated. There is
little or no light in electrolysis LENR experiments - but some light exists
in plasma glow or Mills reactions. If W-L want to cover electrolysis, then
they should demonstrate the reality of light photons, which are absent.
Blackbody radiation is not sufficient.

Such coupling between collective oscillations creates local
nuclear-strength electric fields in the vicinity of the patches.

Miracle 2 - Nuclear strength is MeV. There is no evidence of MeV fields or
even keV fields. These would be easy to document if they were present.
Nuclear-strength electric fields produce x-ray radiation which is largely
absent.

SPP electrons bathed in such high fields increase their effective
mass, thus becoming heavy electrons. 

Miracle 3 -Heavy electrons can apparently form near absolute zero, and then
rarely - but there is no evidence of them forming at all at elevated
temperature. 

Widom and Larsen propose that heavy SPP electrons can react directly with
protons, deuterons, or tritons located in surface patches through an inverse
beta decay process that results in simultaneous collective production of
neutrons

Miracle 4 - There is no known EC reaction with hydrogen - that is an absurd
invention which is completely without precedent.

Widom and Larsen propose two, or three neutrons, respectively, and a
neutrino... Collectively produced neutrons are created ultra-cold; 

Miracle 5 - neutrinos are rarely captured in matter. This is even more
outrageous than miracle 4.

Widom and Larsen propose that such neutrons they have ultra-low momentum
and extremely large quantum mechanical wavelengths and absorption
cross-sections compared to typical neutrons at thermal energies.

Miracle 6 - There is no evidence of this kind of neutron in all of physics -
and ultracold neutrons, which are well-known, are not similar to the W-L
concoction; but they should be if this proposal were to be taken seriously.

Finally, Widom and Larsen propose that heavy SPP patch electrons are
uniquely able to immediately convert almost any locally produced or incident
gamma radiation directly into infrared heat energy, thus
providing a form of built-in gamma shielding for LENR nuclear reactions.

Miracle 7 - This is completely beyond belief. There is no evidence of
gammas being converted to infrared in all of physics. 

Many observers who have followed LENR from the beginning are rightfully left
in a state of what can only be called disgust at the shameless hucksterism
(and attempted alteration) of established physics on display here. 

Heck ... one or two miracles should be enough for any theory, no?

Jones


attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-22 Thread Eric Walker

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 9:42 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

I am perplexed, though, that some, whose own beliefs are derided by main
 stream science, are so eager to persecute.  Maybe they are smarter than
 the rest. Maybe not.


Agreed. I don't think Widom and Larsen or their theory should be maligned.
 I'm not even in a position to assert an opinion about the theory.  I'm
just trying to understand.  When I try to understand, I raise objections
and hope that someone will address them, that's all.  The preceding hasn't
been intended as a forceful attack.  Instead it's just been to raise a
challenge in the hope that responses will further clarify understanding.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:


 Most chemists have no training in nuclear physics and most physicists have
 no training in chemistry.


That is an exaggeration. They have *some* training.


 Unfortunately, many physicists believe they understand all aspects of
 Nature.


That they do! That's a big problem.



 Consequently, I see no solution to the general rejection until a device
 having a demonstrated level of commercial power has been achieved.


That would be great. But I do not think we need a commercial level. 50 to
100 W would be fine, as long as it can be turned on and demonstrated on
demand most of the time. Actually, I would be thrilled with a reliable 10
W, and I am pretty sure I could get a lot of venture capital with that.

The term commercial level is somewhat ambiguous. How much heat is that?
Most heat sources used in today's energy systems are huge, typically
hundreds of megawatts. However, in the future I predict that very small
heat sources will be combined with thermoelectric batteries to power
devices directly. A 10 mW heat source may well be commercial in 20 years.
It would be enough to drive a cell phone. Eventually, tiny heat sources may
produce more net energy than big ones do.

I think the majority of machines use less 1,000 W, when you count things
like individual light bulbs as machines (or devices). I think most energy
is consumed by machines that use less than 1,000 W. I read that somewhere.
U.S. 120 VAC household electric outlets supply 1.5 kW maximum, so most
machines consume less than that. I mean coffee pots, dishwashers,
refrigerators, televisions and so on. Air conditioners, clothes washers and
dryers need heavier circuits. I do not think anything else in my house does.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

I wrote:


 A 10 mW heat source may well be commercial in 20 years. It would be
 enough to drive a cell phone.


Oops. No, it would take more like 12 W, I think. 3 W is the most a cell
phone is allowed to produce, for health safety reasons. I suppose you could
trickle charge the thing with a fraction of 1 W, but then it might run out
of power in the middle of a long conversation.

A 12 W thermoelectric heat source in a cell phone would make the phone too
hot to hold. I guess some sort of trickle charging would be needed.

I am having trouble finding the power consumption of a modern cell phone.
It has fallen considerably in recent years.

Here is a table of commonly used machines:

http://www.wholesalesolar.com/StartHere/HowtoSaveEnergy/PowerTable.html

Most are below the 1.5 kW limit.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-21 Thread Arnaud Kodeck

Jed,

 

For cell phone the maximum power from the mobile is given by the equilibrium
between Uplink (Handset - base station) and Downlink (Base station -
Handset). Hopefully, base stations have a better maximum power and also a
better sensitivity for the receive path (around -110 dBm). The mobile
sensitivity for the best one is -102 dBm.

 

At the beginning of a call, the mobile is emitting at full power. Then the
power is decreased over time if reception conditions are good at base
station. The goal is to reduce interferences with other mobiles and safe the
batteries. At the norm establishment (end 80s, early 90s) there was no
health consideration.

 

For GSM 2G 900Mhz Band, the maximum power is 2W (33 dBm)

For GSM 2G 1800Mhz Band, the maximum power is 1W (30 dBm)

For 3G, the maximum limit is 1W (not sure but around 1W)

For CDMA and PCS (used in USA), the powers are in the same value range.

 

For LENR point of view, if we want to make cell phone powered by LENR, there
is no need to have a 2W LENR power device because:

In call, the power is decreased over time.

In standby mode (no call), consumption is very low.

 

The best should have a battery charged by small LENR device of tenth of mW
electric. Battery would be charged when the mobile is in standby mode (no
call). Even with an efficiency of 5% to convert heat to electricity, only a
0.5W heat LENR device is far enough. 0.5W can be dissipated easily out of
the cell phone.

 

More generally, all nomad devices have a low power profile. They do not need
for the generation of supercondensateurs for example, but LENR well.

 

Arnaud

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: jeudi 21 mars 2013 19:57
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other
theories

 

I wrote:

 

A 10 mW heat source may well be commercial in 20 years. It would be enough
to drive a cell phone.

 

Oops. No, it would take more like 12 W, I think. 3 W is the most a cell
phone is allowed to produce, for health safety reasons. I suppose you could
trickle charge the thing with a fraction of 1 W, but then it might run out
of power in the middle of a long conversation.

 

A 12 W thermoelectric heat source in a cell phone would make the phone too
hot to hold. I guess some sort of trickle charging would be needed.

 

I am having trouble finding the power consumption of a modern cell phone. It
has fallen considerably in recent years.

 

Here is a table of commonly used machines:

 

http://www.wholesalesolar.com/StartHere/HowtoSaveEnergy/PowerTable.html

 

Most are below the 1.5 kW limit.

 

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-21 Thread Axil Axil

The key mechanism of the WL theory is defined in a way to make it very
hard or impossible to verify.

The specification of the ultra-low energy neutron was engineered to make it
virtually undetectable because it doesn’t move far from the nucleus before
its immense nuclear absorption cross section results in its almost
immediate incorporation into the nucleus immediately after its creation.

The ultra-low energy neutron is a political windfall for LENR since it
purportedly explains coulomb barrier penetration without the need to detect
this particle.

In my biased opinion, my plexciton theory is more experimentally practical.

It is centered on an experimentally verified miracle called the hot spot.

The hot spot in a lattice has been detected to concentrate input energy up
to 500,000,000 times that into output energy levels.

Other optimizations could push this concentration level into the trillions.

The nice feature of my theory is that it can be experimentally verified.
That means a lot.

It seems natural to me that people interested in LENR should be interested
in finding out more about these hot spots because such huge concentrations
of energy are uncommon in nature especially since there is so much
commonality between WL theory and Plexciton theory. NASA even calls their
version of WL theory, Plexciton theory.


Cheers:   Axil

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Peter has raised an important subject, but one so filled with emotion and
 complex arguments, knowing where to start is the problem. The discussion of
 theory we are witnessing is an indication of a deeper problem.

 Yes, CF is difficult to explain, but how we go about this discussion is
 important.  The CMNS discussion group was designed to allow a select group
 of people to compare ideas in a safe and respectful way.  On many
 occasions, this goal has not been achieved.  On too many occasions, the
 discussion has been distracted by arrogance and hubris.  These emotional
 reactions are expected because in many cases, we are competing for the same
 prize - the prize of explaining and applying the most important discovery
 of this century. But we are handicapped by a limited understanding of the
 phenomenon and generally by very little suitable training in the required
 general science.  If we were discussing an accepted phenomenon, the
 arguments we would be allowed to make would be restrained by known laws. In
 the case of LENR, people feel free to ignore even the most basic laws of
 nature. Naturally, this approach generates outrage. Just how far from known
 behavior and accepted understanding a theory is permitted to deviate is an
 important question, but one that needs to be discussed with civility.  Even
 so, the problem goes deeper.

 LENR is rejected by the people who determine when and how new ideas are
 developed. Why is this the case? I suggest this rejection occurs because
 the phenomenon involves a mixture of chemical and nuclear behavior. Both
 kinds of understanding are required to explain and apply the phenomenon.
  Most chemists have no training in nuclear physics and most physicists have
 no training in chemistry.  Unfortunately, many physicists believe they
 understand all aspects of Nature.  Because physicists generally control
 technological development of LENR, their collective opinions are important.
  I suggest the general rejection of LENR is the result of this combination
 of ignorance and arrogance, not because objective proof is lacking and not
 because it is called nuclear.  Consequently, I see no solution to the
 general rejection until a device having a demonstrated level of commercial
 power has been achieved. Only then will the claim be accepted even by
 people who insist the phenomenon violates accepted theory.  But, how can
 this goal be reached?

 At the present time, success in making LENR work results from luck because
 no method can be reproduced by everyone who makes the effort. In fact, even
 people who can make heat most of the time, still cannot control the process
 well enough for commercial application.  Achieving this control is
 prevented by ignorance of the controlling variables. In other words, until
 the conditions required for the nuclear process to occur are identified and
 controlled, reliable success will not be possible.  Understanding the
 nuclear process is not as important as knowing the required conditions
 because once the required conditions are created, the nuclear process
 occurs without further help.  This important and essential insight is
 generally ignored when a theoretical understanding is attempted.  Too many
 attempts either propose impossible conditions to precede the nuclear
 process or ignore the initiating conditions completely.  I believe this
 failure to properly identify the unique and required conditions is the
 major flaw in the present theories. This understanding requires a knowledge
 of chemistry, not nuclear physics.

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-21 Thread Eric Walker

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

The specification of the ultra-low energy neutron was engineered to make it
 virtually undetectable because it doesn’t move far from the nucleus before
 its immense nuclear absorption cross section results in its almost
 immediate incorporation into the nucleus immediately after its creation.


Nickel, to take one example, has a high neutron optical potential [1].
 When neutrons are very cold, they will reflect off of the nickel atoms to
a certain extent.  A typical LENR experiment shows power on the order of
watts to tens of watts.  If neutron capture were responsible for that kind
of power generation, there would be so many neutrons being generated that a
significant portion would reflect off of the nickel substrate atoms,
thermalize and exit the system, to be picked up in GM counters.

When neutrons have in fact been detected, the levels have usually been at
the threshold of the neutron detector.  One presumes that if there were a
large number of thermalized neutrons exiting a system, they would would be
in quantities sufficient to go well beyond the threshold of detection.

None of these are my own arguments.  I am repeating what I have heard
elsewhere.  Importantly, I am unfamiliar with the quantities that would be
needed to model this system and test these assumptions.  But it seems
reasonable to ask an explanation predicated upon neutron capture to address
these points.

Eric

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultracold_neutrons

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote:


 At the beginning of a call, the mobile is emitting at full power. Then the
 power is decreased over time if reception conditions are good at base
 station.

. . .

  For GSM 2G 900Mhz Band, the maximum power is 2W (33 dBm)

 For GSM 2G 1800Mhz Band, the maximum power is 1W (30 dBm)


Very interesting! Thanks for the info.

Still, I think that means that if you are in a bad location you will need
continuous power of 2 W. Therefore with a thermoelectric device if you want
to stay connected indefinitely, you would need enough heat to keep
producing 2 W continuously. I can imagine a situation like this when
someone is caught in the wilderness or trapped in a building in an
earthquake.

I do not think thermoelectric power conversion efficiency will remain at
only 5%. I presume it will be something more like 20% by the time this
technology matures. So, to get 2 W electricity you will need ~10 Watts
thermal.

Perhaps the cell phone cold fusion device could produce 10 W only in an
emergency and normally it would produce much less, to keep the handset from
getting hot.

You might also want a burst of high power when the cell phone is used as a
flashlight, with the screen continually at the brightest setting. Again,
this might be useful in an emergency. As I said, for someone lost in the
woods or trapped in a collapsed building in an earthquake.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-21 Thread Arnaud Kodeck

If the LENR mobile is coupled with a battery, then the battery will act as
the main power supply when mobile is in call state. LENR power station
should be seen here only has an embedded charger. In this condition, for the
majority of the users, continuous tenth of mW is enough.

 

In current available mobiles, it is not possible to have continuous call at
2W for a long period of time before batteries get empty. Nothing new for
LENR here, because the majority of people are not ready to pay more to be
able to call at 2W power 24h/24h.

 

I'm not sure we want to have 10W heat power in our pockets. Fire hazards due
to high temperature are here a main issue. This is against a mobile without
battery.

 

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: jeudi 21 mars 2013 23:00
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other
theories

 

Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote:

 

At the beginning of a call, the mobile is emitting at full power. Then the
power is decreased over time if reception conditions are good at base
station.

. . .

 For GSM 2G 900Mhz Band, the maximum power is 2W (33 dBm)

For GSM 2G 1800Mhz Band, the maximum power is 1W (30 dBm)

 

Very interesting! Thanks for the info.

 

Still, I think that means that if you are in a bad location you will need
continuous power of 2 W. Therefore with a thermoelectric device if you want
to stay connected indefinitely, you would need enough heat to keep producing
2 W continuously. I can imagine a situation like this when someone is caught
in the wilderness or trapped in a building in an earthquake.

 

I do not think thermoelectric power conversion efficiency will remain at
only 5%. I presume it will be something more like 20% by the time this
technology matures. So, to get 2 W electricity you will need ~10 Watts
thermal.

 

Perhaps the cell phone cold fusion device could produce 10 W only in an
emergency and normally it would produce much less, to keep the handset from
getting hot.

 

You might also want a burst of high power when the cell phone is used as a
flashlight, with the screen continually at the brightest setting. Again,
this might be useful in an emergency. As I said, for someone lost in the
woods or trapped in a collapsed building in an earthquake.

 

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-21 Thread Jones Beene

As you note, ultracold neutrons are an old and respected niche of physics -
and these known cold neutrons are easily detectable and bear not the
slightest resemblance to the W-L concoction – which IMHO is almost in the
category of brain-dead.

How can low energy be anything other than ultra-cold?

In their defense, W-L can make dandy presentation slides. They should open
up a graphics design studio.



From: Eric Walker 

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Axil Axil
janap...@gmail.com wrote:

The specification of the ultra-low energy neutron was
engineered to make it virtually undetectable because it doesn’t move far
from the nucleus before its immense nuclear absorption cross section results
in its almost immediate incorporation into the nucleus immediately after its
creation.

Nickel, to take one example, has a high neutron optical
potential [1].  When neutrons are very cold, they will reflect off of the
nickel atoms to a certain extent.  A typical LENR experiment shows power on
the order of watts to tens of watts.  If neutron capture were responsible
for that kind of power generation, there would be so many neutrons being
generated that a significant portion would reflect off of the nickel
substrate atoms, thermalize and exit the system, to be picked up in GM
counters.

When neutrons have in fact been detected, the levels have
usually been at the threshold of the neutron detector.  One presumes that if
there were a large number of thermalized neutrons exiting a system, they
would would be in quantities sufficient to go well beyond the threshold of
detection.

None of these are my own arguments.  I am repeating what I
have heard elsewhere.  Importantly, I am unfamiliar with the quantities that
would be needed to model this system and test these assumptions.  But it
seems reasonable to ask an explanation predicated upon neutron capture to
address these points.

Eric

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultracold_neutrons

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be wrote:


 In current available mobiles, it is not possible to have continuous call
 at 2W for a long period of time before batteries get empty.


So, in a dire emergency, present-day cell phones soon run out of power? I
mean an emergency when cell phone tower can barely be reached. As I said,
with someone lost in the woods or climbing a mountain, for example.

If we can make the new technology capable of continuous connection in a
rare but dire emergency, I think we should. We should not stay with the
limitations of the old technology if we can overcome them.



 I’m not sure we want to have 10W heat power in our pockets.


Perhaps this would only happen in emergency mode, where the screen flashes
red and a warning sound issues. A computer voice and message on the screen
tells you:

This cell phone can only maintain contact in high power emergency mode.
This cell phone will become hot in this mode. Would you like to continue in
emergency mode? Please answer Yes or No.

It might actually be useful to make the thing into a hot hand-warmer.
Again, this might be useful for someone lost in the woods on a cold winter
night. You could turn on the emergency mode and leave it in your coat
pocket. It would be like one of these chemical hand warmers. You can have
an emergency heat source mode. Heck, maybe even a lighter, to trigger a
fire.

Cell phones are becoming a kind of universal tool. People use them as
flashlights and wristwatches already.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

As you note, ultracold neutrons are an old and respected niche of physics
 - and these known cold neutrons are easily detectable and bear not
 the slightest resemblance to the W-L concoction – which IMHO is almost in
 the category of brain-dead.


I think this feeling about the W-L theory is widespread, which explains the
animosity towards it. Most other theories are more plausible and therefore
not the target of such comments.

Perhaps there is some measure of professional jealousy as well, because the
W-L theory has garnered so much mass media attention, and attention from
places such as NASA.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories

2013-03-21 Thread Edmund Storms



On Mar 21, 2013, at 4:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

As you note, ultracold neutrons are an old and respected niche of  
physics - and these known cold neutrons are easily detectable and  
bear not the slightest resemblance to the W-L concoction – which  
IMHO is almost in the category of brain-dead.


I think this feeling about the W-L theory is widespread, which  
explains the animosity towards it. Most other theories are more  
plausible and therefore not the target of such comments.


Perhaps there is some measure of professional jealousy as well,  
because the W-L theory has garnered so much mass media attention,  
and attention from places such as NASA.


Perhaps jealousy fuels some rejection, but in my case the problem is  
different. A person trained in science at the Ph.D. level has a basic  
understanding about how Nature behaves.  The W-L theory violates this  
understanding in several important ways. These violations have no  
relationship to how skeptics view CF. The violations result from  
conflict with logic and basic behavior.  When people trained in  
physics state that they think the theory is correct, a person has to  
wonder why. Did these people not obtain conventional training? Are  
these people unable to recognize flawed logic? These deficiencies are  
expected in untrained people, but how can they exist at NASA?  
Furthermore, when the challenges to the theory go unanswered, why  
would a serious scientist continue to claim it explains anything?  A  
person has to question the effectiveness of the scientific method in  
this case.


Ed


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories