Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
I am simply asking ***There is nothing simple about your asking. You led with this statement: As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. you how you came to arrive at your opinion. ***I would ask the same of you, but you can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. You demand explanation within LENR when everyone involved with LENR knows that the phenomena cannot be explained at this time. How did you arrive at your opinion that someone could generate such an opinion, and that they could do so to your satisfaction when you've demonstrated such obtuse reasoning? If such a request offends you ***The request does not offend me. Your original approach offends me and should offend anyone. Consider this to be me as often as I instruct you. then forget this attempt at further communication. ***You call this communication? Your stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am simply asking you how you came to arrive at your opinion. If such a request offends you then forget this attempt at further communication. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Once again, you're confused. Just because someone can't explain a phenomena (like cold fusion branching) doesn't mean the phenomena doesn't exist. Rocks fell from the sky for centuries before the explanation was ever figured out. Please try to come up to speed on the process of science, especially before you get so touchy in your ignorance. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi's reactor reaches a burn up temperature of 2000C before the refectory outer shell of the reactor melts down. Please explain how this very high white hot temperature can be reached if the heat from LENR is generated from inside the nickel powder. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Yes. Perhaps you should come up to speed before going into @$$#0/e mode. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Any references available? On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.comwrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.comwrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Once again, you're confused. Just because someone can't explain a phenomena (like cold fusion branching) doesn't mean the phenomena doesn't exist. Rocks fell from the sky for centuries before the explanation was ever figured out. Please try to come up to speed on the process of science, especially before you get so touchy in your ignorance. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi's reactor reaches a burn up temperature of 2000C before the refectory outer shell of the reactor melts down. Please explain how this very high white hot temperature can be reached if the heat from LENR is generated from inside the nickel powder. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Yes. Perhaps you should come up to speed before going into @$$#0/e mode. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Any references available? On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
I am simply asking you how you came to arrive at your opinion. If such a request offends you then forget this attempt at further communication. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Once again, you're confused. Just because someone can't explain a phenomena (like cold fusion branching) doesn't mean the phenomena doesn't exist. Rocks fell from the sky for centuries before the explanation was ever figured out. Please try to come up to speed on the process of science, especially before you get so touchy in your ignorance. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi's reactor reaches a burn up temperature of 2000C before the refectory outer shell of the reactor melts down. Please explain how this very high white hot temperature can be reached if the heat from LENR is generated from inside the nickel powder. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Yes. Perhaps you should come up to speed before going into @$$#0/e mode. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Any references available? On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.comwrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
near the surface yes, maybe not at the surface. the bulk seems to matter, but maybe only as surprising substrate. 2014-05-10 6:05 GMT+02:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. I have heard from someone who has done business with Brillouin in the past that one should be wary of the claims they make. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
I wrote: I have heard from someone who has done business with Brillouin in the past that one should be wary of the claims they make. I should add that I do not know the person well and cannot vouch for the accuracy of the claim of having done business with Brillouin, so take this detail for what it is worth. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Any references available? On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Yes. Perhaps you should come up to speed before going into @$$#0/e mode. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Any references available? On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Rossi's reactor reaches a burn up temperature of 2000C before the refectory outer shell of the reactor melts down. Please explain how this very high white hot temperature can be reached if the heat from LENR is generated from inside the nickel powder. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Yes. Perhaps you should come up to speed before going into @$$#0/e mode. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Any references available? On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 8 May 2014 19:50:52 -0400: Hi, [snip] Thank you for proving my point that the cathode is an engine. ;) mix...@bigpond.com wrote: You do not calculate the energy density of engines. You calculate the energy density of fuels. (Unless as Jed mentioned, you are stuck with the Hydrogen in the cathode, and it is not replaceable - in which case the outlook for CF is far more restricted.) I do not think that would be a major problem. It is easy to work around it. First, a well-established fact: The reaction produces helium. Roughly half of that comes out of metal, and the other half goes deeper in, and McKubre points out. That tells us that some gas does get trapped in the metal, and even the dynamic flux of an active cold fusion cell does not drive it out automatically. Of course, helium is not hydrogen, but still, it does indicate there is trapped gas. Now for some speculation. Suppose that gas loading, electrolysis and other methods all depend on a trapped supply of hydrogen in the metal, as I suggested. We still know how to drive the hydrogen and helium out, by various methods. We may have to turn off the reaction while doing that, and then reload the metal and start it up again. That would be a problem if entire machine ran with a single metal cathode, or one single discrete batch of gas loaded powder. But there is not need to make it that way. If the load/deload duty cycles were about equal, that means you need 10 cathodes to do the work that 5 cathodes could do full time. That is of no importance, except that it makes the machine a little less compact than it would be otherwise. You would not grouse about it any more than you would complain that a 6-cylinder automobile ICE fires only one cylinder at a time, so it operates at 1/6 of total capacity. (Actually some early ICEs and Diesel engines had only one cylinder, but I expect they vibrated like the dickens and made a lot of noise.) Controlling and keeping track of the load/deload cycles would call for sophisticated computer controls, but any kind of cold fusion engine will need this. It will call for multiple independently sealed cell, rather than a single discrete cell. That will make manufacturing a little more complicated, but with robotic assembly lines it will hardly affect the cost. Nowadays, increased complexity does not increase the cost of machinery much, and it does not reduce reliability. That is why hybrid automobiles work so well. It is worth the trade-off in complexity, even though you end up with a machine that can only be assembled by robots, and that can only be operated with computer controls. - Jed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
In reply to Bob Cook's message of Thu, 8 May 2014 15:54:23 -0700: Hi, [snip] Rossi's low temperature E-Cat I believe has a fixed H supply and a fixed Ni supply. They are loaded together in the sealed reactor tube at the beginning of the heating to start the reaction. Rossi's Hot Cat reactor may have a continuous supply of H. Bob True, but I think the low temperature E-cat is really just a prototype, not really production ready. Furthermore, I think it is as yet far from proven that the Ni actually takes part in the reaction. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Of course, helium is not hydrogen, but still, it does indicate there is trapped gas. For palladium and deuterium, where we know 4He is produced, 4He is immobile in bulk palladium, while deuterium will escape over time. The 4He gets stuck in a way that H or D does not, as I remember. Yeah. It is well established that He gets stuck more easily. But I do not think the difference is so dramatic that H or D will all come out but the He will remain completely stuck. The methods they use to unstick it before taking an inventory are the same as the methods used to drive the H or D out. I have read various papers about this and discussed it but I do not recall which papers. An implication is that to measure the full amount of 4He that has been produced in a PdD system, it is advisable to melt down a cathode to get at the 4He trapped in the bulk. That is the extreme method! The point I am trying to make is that for a short experiment with bulk metal, that produces heat for a few weeks, probably most of the D that reacts was in the cathode to start with. Probably not much more comes from the electrolyte. So it is a reasonable approximation to the used the moles of metal and assume there are that many moles of D. Okay, for all I know it could be off by a factor of 5 or 10 but that still isn't many moles. They say that loading is never uniform, and bulk metal never loads 100%, so 1 mol gas per 1 mol metal is an exaggeration. (So they say.) Even when loading is measured at 100% that is because the 4 probes are hitting loaded areas between them, I think. Probably the lost gas method would show less than 100%. I would not know about nanoparticles. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Agree it is relevant to power density and less so for energy density since it is only certain metal lattices that possess this property and the property is far more dependent of the broken geometries of the lattice.. This property is the ability of the metal to reflect near infrared light. how often and to what extent defects occur seems more important than the volume even to the point where researches have to track manufacturers and lot numbers of the metal lattice to be certain they get the same materials capable of exhibiting these anomalous properties. Dipole energy (electrons) and infrared light are localized and concentrated and combined into polaritons by the sharp points and/or small cavities in the metal infrared reflecting metal I disagree with this portion of your reply [snip] Since the actual source of energy is likely to be the Hydrogen in the water, not the actual cathode metal, the volume of the cathode is pretty much irrelevant [/snip] The metal is the catalyzer of the reaction that involves production of magnetic fields from polariton vortex flow. Yes the energy may come from the gas but it is the lattice confinement and change in level of confinement at the defects that provide the environment that liberates this normally inaccessible source of energy from hydrogen - The uncertainty principle amplifies the polariton energy to shorten its wavelength into the EUV spectrum range. We don't have to accept ZPE, hydrino or hydrotron to all agree that defects in lattice geometry, their population density and their topologies allow this energy to be produced such that you have to consider the hydrogen and the containment together as the actual energy source so Jeds' focus on the cathode geometry as a crude metric seems viable. The key to the LENR process is the unique properties of the polariton and the metal that produces those polariton properties. These metals are not consumed in general. It is the hydrogen and other light elements that are the fuel.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Who's arguing to the contrary? A certain % of Helium can't be trapped in the surface layer why? On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Agree it is relevant to power density and less so for energy density since it is only certain metal lattices that possess this property and the property is far more dependent of the broken geometries of the lattice..how often and to what extent defects occur seems more important than the volume even to the point where researches have to track manufacturers and lot numbers of the metal lattice to be certain they get the same materials capable of exhibiting these anomalous properties. I disagree with this portion of your reply [snip] Since the actual source of energy is likely to be the Hydrogen in the water, not the actual cathode metal, the volume of the cathode is pretty much irrelevant [/snip] Yes the energy may come from the gas but it is the lattice confinement and change in level of confinement at the defects that provide the environment that liberates this normally inaccessible source of energy from hydrogen - We don't have to accept ZPE, hydrino or hydrotron to all agree that defects in lattice geometry, their population density and their topologies allow this energy to be produced such that you have to consider the hydrogen and the containment together as the actual energy source so Jeds' focus on the cathode geometry as a crude metric seems viable. Fran -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:05 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed In reply to fznidar...@aol.com's message of Wed, 7 May 2014 20:09:04 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 One thing I take issue with (more with standard practice in the CF community than with Jed in particular) is the use of the volume of the cathode in calculating energy density. Since the actual source of energy is likely to be the Hydrogen in the water, not the actual cathode metal, the volume of the cathode is pretty much irrelevant. (It is probably relevant for power density, but not energy density). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Thu, 8 May 2014 11:27:09 +: Hi, [snip] I disagree with this portion of your reply [snip] Since the actual source of energy is likely to be the Hydrogen in the water, not the actual cathode metal, the volume of the cathode is pretty much irrelevant [/snip] Yes the energy may come from the gas but it is the lattice confinement and change in level of confinement at the defects that provide the environment that liberates this normally inaccessible source of energy from hydrogen - We don't have to accept ZPE, hydrino or hydrotron to all agree that defects in lattice geometry, their population density and their topologies allow this energy to be produced such that you have to consider the hydrogen and the containment together as the actual energy source so Jeds' focus on the cathode geometry as a crude metric seems viable. This would only be true if the NAE was destroyed when the reaction happened, and were incapable of reforming. If either of these two are not true, then the cathode (for want of a more general term) has to be considered to be an engine and the Hydrogen has to be considered the fuel. You do not calculate the energy density of engines. You calculate the energy density of fuels. (Unless as Jed mentioned, you are stuck with the Hydrogen in the cathode, and it is not replaceable - in which case the outlook for CF is far more restricted.) Note however that both Rossi Defkalion appear to use a regular supply of external Hydrogen. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: You do not calculate the energy density of engines. You calculate the energy density of fuels. (Unless as Jed mentioned, you are stuck with the Hydrogen in the cathode, and it is not replaceable - in which case the outlook for CF is far more restricted.) I do not think that would be a major problem. It is easy to work around it. First, a well-established fact: The reaction produces helium. Roughly half of that comes out of metal, and the other half goes deeper in, and McKubre points out. That tells us that some gas does get trapped in the metal, and even the dynamic flux of an active cold fusion cell does not drive it out automatically. Of course, helium is not hydrogen, but still, it does indicate there is trapped gas. Now for some speculation. Suppose that gas loading, electrolysis and other methods all depend on a trapped supply of hydrogen in the metal, as I suggested. We still know how to drive the hydrogen and helium out, by various methods. We may have to turn off the reaction while doing that, and then reload the metal and start it up again. That would be a problem if entire machine ran with a single metal cathode, or one single discrete batch of gas loaded powder. But there is not need to make it that way. If the load/deload duty cycles were about equal, that means you need 10 cathodes to do the work that 5 cathodes could do full time. That is of no importance, except that it makes the machine a little less compact than it would be otherwise. You would not grouse about it any more than you would complain that a 6-cylinder automobile ICE fires only one cylinder at a time, so it operates at 1/6 of total capacity. (Actually some early ICEs and Diesel engines had only one cylinder, but I expect they vibrated like the dickens and made a lot of noise.) Controlling and keeping track of the load/deload cycles would call for sophisticated computer controls, but any kind of cold fusion engine will need this. It will call for multiple independently sealed cell, rather than a single discrete cell. That will make manufacturing a little more complicated, but with robotic assembly lines it will hardly affect the cost. Nowadays, increased complexity does not increase the cost of machinery much, and it does not reduce reliability. That is why hybrid automobiles work so well. It is worth the trade-off in complexity, even though you end up with a machine that can only be assembled by robots, and that can only be operated with computer controls. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! 2014-05-08 20:50 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: First, a well-established fact: The reaction produces helium. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Of course, helium is not hydrogen, but still, it does indicate there is trapped gas. For palladium and deuterium, where we know 4He is produced, 4He is immobile in bulk palladium, while deuterium will escape over time. The 4He gets stuck in a way that H or D does not, as I remember. An implication is that to measure the full amount of 4He that has been produced in a PdD system, it is advisable to melt down a cathode to get at the 4He trapped in the bulk. One reason people have suspected that PdD cold fusion is due to a surface or near surface reaction is that 4He is found near the surface and with decreasing probability further into the used cathode, where a clean sample does not show such a pattern (I think). But I believe the deuterium itself will gradually escape from palladium over time, like air leaking from a balloon. The dynamic with hydrogen and nickel is probably different with regard to this detail at least, as nickel, unalloyed, does not appear to readily absorb hydrogen in the way that unalloyed palladium does. I assume that loading is something that is only indirectly related to PdD cold fusion, and the actual mechanism simply depends upon a ready supply of deuterium, something that is accomplished in NiH system by having an additional source of hydrogen that releases it over time, e.g., when it is heated. But this is just speculation on my part. Eric
