Re: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week

[Alan Fletcher]

Amusing Road Trip by Dr Bob (accompanying Albert and Isaac and a few humans of 
varying photogenity) linked (in reverse chronological order) at 

LENR-to-Market Weekly -- August 22, 2013


about half-way down.

Is this a Cold Fusion cuppa tea ?
http://www.drboblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/jasmin-tea.jpg

(Plus a collation of other ICCF and NI stuff).

Re: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week

[blaze spinnaker]

Why do you keep saying there is nothing inside?


On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ruby  wrote:

>  On 8/23/13 6:52 AM, a.ashfield wrote:
>
> You know, the two spheres, one running hotter than the other.
> He said "come back Thursday to see what's inside."
> I have not seen anything written about this.  Did he open it up?
>
>
>
> http://coldfusionnow.org/cravens-demo-a-puzzle-for-onlookers/
>
>
> --
> Ruby Carat
> r...@coldfusionnow.org
> Skype ruby-carat
> www.coldfusionnow.org
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week

[Jones Beene]

In prior post, the suggestion was made that the RPF
explanation could be relevant- reversible proton fusion. 
Would that same mechanism work with deuterium - as in RDF in
an experiment where only deuterium was being used with no trigger input ?
IOW - is there a reversible form of temporary deuteron
bonding?
Probably not. Sorry for that inference.
The main mechanism for the temporary nature of bonding in
RPF is the Pauli Exclusion principle, which would not apply to deuterons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle
My apologies. 


<>

RE: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week

[Jones Beene]

From: Ruby 

a.ashfield wrote:
You know, the two spheres, one running
hotter than the other.
He said "come back Thursday to see what's
inside."
I have not seen anything written about this.
Did he open it up?


http://coldfusionnow.org/cravens-demo-a-puzzle-for-onlookers/

Thanks for the writeup. This demonstration is a diamond in the rough, but
not necessarily for its intended purpose. As a cold fusion demo, it is
problematic for almost all theories for gain - since there is no apparent
input energy and almost certainly no significant nuclear reaction (other
than a few cosmic rays). 
In fact, there could be no "real" energy anomaly at all and this becomes a
good demonstration of superradiance/subradiance ... and/or adding a high
level of "coherency" to blackbody radiation. Not to mention, a demonstration
of how easy it is for the LENR crowd to jump to conclusions. Here is the
start of the mundane explanation, which would involve the "cavity with a
hole" scenario here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
Notice in the image of the Cravens device at the demo, both spheres are
indeed a "cavity with a hole", in the sense of preferentially letting in a
few photons - it is possible in the mundane explanation that the "hot" side
is shedding the same energy as the cold side but that blackbody radiation
has been made coherent, creating the illusion that it is hotter (and
affecting the thermocouple differently)
To continue with the semi-skeptical viewpoint (which is not my actual
viewpoint BTW):  even at ambient there will be "virtual input" energy when
... to quote D.C.  - the carbon that holds the metal lattice has a size just
matched to the black body radiation wavelength at the operating
temperatures.
IOW - what we seem to have ongoing in this demo can be verbalized as a
vibrational resonance at near ambient temperature, which results in an
apparently gainful reaction triggered by mechanical lattice vibrations -
which are themselves tuned to semi-coherency (superradiance) at a frequency
which is near ambient. The emphasis is on "apparently". 
Here is the close analogy. Imagine a microwave oven. The oven uses RF for
heating but the thermal value of the photons, at the frequency employed
(2.45 GHz) is surprisingly low. In fact, each photon is  very close to
absolute zero in terms of heat content (a few thousandth of one degree K).
Yet, when the cold photons are emitted in an intense stream at the same
frequency, they can accomplish net heating, as if they were hot when in
fact, they are very cold.
This shows the extreme value of coherency ! which is to say - the relative
value of photon coherency vis-à-vis random photon energy (some of it
interfering with itself) in terms of net heat transfer. The photons in a
microwave oven produce heating only because of massive coherency and
intensity, but NOT because of intrinsic heat or the wave/particles. In
contrast, when food is exposed to sunlight, there is almost no coherency but
the individual photons are hot. Nevertheless, the microwave oven can heat
food more rapidly than sunlight. 
But when sunlight is focused, say with a magnifying lens - that same light
starts to take on a degree of coherency (superradiance)... thus emphasizing
the main point of this explanation, going back to the Cravens demo, which is
that resonance (in the form of wavelength coherency) can be an effective
substitute for other forms of thermal input up to a limit (which seems to be
4 degree C in this case).
Cravens has structured a comparative system in which blackbody coherency
becomes ingrained on one side only. Does that affect the thermocouple to
show gain, when there is no real gain? The answer is probably a partial
"yes" but not a total yes. The mundane explanation is that there is no real
thermal gain, only a redistribution of the Maxwellian distribution - but my
explanation is that there is both.
However, there is no traditional nuclear reaction in this demo at all - and
in fact, if Cravens were to compare the hot side - against another sphere
containing the same carbon lattice but with helium instead of deuterium,
there would almost certainly be less difference between the two than with
sand. However and the caveat for the skeptics out there is this: if there is
anything significant, when comparing helium vs. hydrogen, then it will
indicate that the photon coherency is making hydrogen more reactive than
helium in some non-nuclear way. I suspect there is some difference.
That would be where the RPF explanation would come in - reversible proton
fusion. I will not burden you with more detail on that except to say that
there is no traditional nuclear reaction in RPF at all, and no lasting
fusion, as it is fully reversible - yet there is excess heat. Thus, RPF is a
form of LE

Re: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week

[Ruby]

On 8/23/13 6:52 AM, a.ashfield wrote:

You know, the two spheres, one running hotter than the other.
He said "come back Thursday to see what's inside."
I have not seen anything written about this. Did he open it up?



http://coldfusionnow.org/cravens-demo-a-puzzle-for-onlookers/


--
Ruby Carat
r...@coldfusionnow.org 
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org 

RE: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week

[DJ Cravens]

you will need to wait and read the report.  Those questions are answered in the 
up coming IE.
Or you could just read what I have already written here.
 
D2

 
CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com
From: stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:05:04 -0600

Dennis, can you tell us what difference existed between the two balls? What was 
in the active ball compared to the control? Why is one hotter than the other 
one?  Where did you have the balls constructed?
Ed
On Aug 23, 2013, at 1:59 PM, James Bowery wrote:You had written:
 I have some stainless steel ones that have been slightly warm (0.5 C) since 
last Nov. Realize the spheres are just one of many things I am working on. You 
need to operate with excitation and higher temps for more power. The spheres 
are just a stepping stone on a much longer path – a slight diversion on the way 
to my real goal. With a slight modification to your demo, you may break through 
the cold fusion public relations problem:Simply heat the bath in which both 
balls sit.  The importance of this cannot be overemphasized as it will 
dramatically decrease the duration of the demonstration required to rule out 
internal energy storage, and these public relations demos invariably have a 
short attention span.
 

 
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:17 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:
 yes, I opened it on Thurs. 
 
There will be an article in Infinite Energy in the next month or two.
I think they also plan on having the article on there web site. 
It has been written, edited and scheduled for publication.
  
Yes the sample was hotter than the control.  But the really important point is 
that it was hotter than the bath it was in by about 4C.
 
Dennis
 
PS you can see a little about it via E cat world, and Cold fusion now sites.
  
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:52:12 -0400
From: a.ashfi...@verizon.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week

  You know, the two spheres, one running hotter than the other.
  He said "come back Thursday to see  what's inside."
  I have not seen anything  written about this.  Did he 
open  it up?
   

  

RE: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week

[DJ Cravens]

yes, but the demo is over now and the sphere has been cut open.
 
I do not plan on presueing this approach.  
It was just a one shot because I make a promise to a friend.  
 
D2

 
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:59:09 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week
From: jabow...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

You had written:

I have some stainless steel ones that have been slightly warm (0.5 C) since 
last Nov.
Realize the spheres are just one of many things I am working on. You need to 
operate with excitation and higher temps for more power. The spheres are just a 
stepping stone on a much longer path – a slight diversion on the way to my real 
goal.
With a slight modification to your demo, you may break through the cold fusion 
public relations problem:
Simply heat the bath in which both balls sit.  The importance of this cannot be 
overemphasized as it will dramatically decrease the duration of the 
demonstration required to rule out internal energy storage, and these public 
relations demos invariably have a short attention span.





On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:17 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:




yes, I opened it on Thurs. 
 
There will be an article in Infinite Energy in the next month or two.
I think they also plan on having the article on there web site. 
It has been written, edited and scheduled for publication.

 
Yes the sample was hotter than the control.  But the really important point is 
that it was hotter than the bath it was in by about 4C.
 
Dennis
 
PS you can see a little about it via E cat world, and Cold fusion now sites.

 
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:52:12 -0400
From: a.ashfi...@verizon.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Subject: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week


  


  
  
You know, the two spheres, one running hotter than the other.

  He said "come back Thursday to see
  what's inside."

  I have not seen anything
  written about this.  Did he open
  it up?

  

  

Re: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week

[Edmund Storms]

Dennis, can you tell us what difference existed between the two balls?  
What was in the active ball compared to the control? Why is one hotter  
than the other one?  Where did you have the balls constructed?


Ed
On Aug 23, 2013, at 1:59 PM, James Bowery wrote:


You had written:

I have some stainless steel ones that have been slightly warm (0.5  
C) since last Nov.


Realize the spheres are just one of many things I am working on. You  
need to operate with excitation and higher temps for more power. The  
spheres are just a stepping stone on a much longer path – a slight  
diversion on the way to my real goal.


With a slight modification to your demo, you may break through the  
cold fusion public relations problem:


Simply heat the bath in which both balls sit.  The importance of  
this cannot be overemphasized as it will dramatically decrease the  
duration of the demonstration required to rule out internal energy  
storage, and these public relations demos invariably have a short  
attention span.





On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:17 PM, DJ Cravens   
wrote:

yes, I opened it on Thurs.

There will be an article in Infinite Energy in the next month or two.
I think they also plan on having the article on there web site.
It has been written, edited and scheduled for publication.

Yes the sample was hotter than the control.  But the really  
important point is that it was hotter than the bath it was in by  
about 4C.


Dennis

PS you can see a little about it via E cat world, and Cold fusion  
now sites.


Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:52:12 -0400
From: a.ashfi...@verizon.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week


You know, the two spheres, one running hotter than the other.
He said "come back Thursday to see what's inside."
I have not seen anything written about this.  Did he open it up?

Re: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week

[James Bowery]

You had written:

I have some stainless steel ones that have been slightly warm (0.5 C) since
last Nov.

Realize the spheres are just one of many things I am working on. You need
to operate with excitation and higher temps for more power. The spheres are
just a stepping stone on a much longer path – a slight diversion on the way
to my real goal.

With a slight modification to your demo, you may break through the cold
fusion public relations problem:

Simply heat the bath in which both balls sit.  The importance of this
cannot be overemphasized as it will dramatically decrease the duration of
the demonstration required to rule out internal energy storage, and these
public relations demos invariably have a short attention span.




On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:17 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:

> yes, I opened it on Thurs.
>
> There will be an article in Infinite Energy in the next month or two.
> I think they also plan on having the article on there web site.
> It has been written, edited and scheduled for publication.
>
> Yes the sample was hotter than the control.  But the really important
> point is that it was hotter than the bath it was in by about 4C.
>
> Dennis
>
> PS you can see a little about it via E cat world, and Cold fusion now
> sites.
>
> --
> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:52:12 -0400
> From: a.ashfi...@verizon.net
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week
>
>
> You know, the two spheres, one running hotter than the other.
> He said "come back Thursday to see what's inside."
> I have not seen anything written about this.  Did he open it up?
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week

[DJ Cravens]

yes, I opened it on Thurs. 
 
There will be an article in Infinite Energy in the next month or two.
I think they also plan on having the article on there web site. 
It has been written, edited and scheduled for publication.
 
Yes the sample was hotter than the control.  But the really important point is 
that it was hotter than the bath it was in by about 4C.
 
Dennis
 
PS you can see a little about it via E cat world, and Cold fusion now sites.
 
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:52:12 -0400
From: a.ashfi...@verizon.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Dennis Cravens' LENR demonstration at NI Week


  


  
  
You know, the two spheres, one running hotter than the other.

  He said "come back Thursday to see
  what's inside."

  I have not seen anything
  written about this.  Did he open
  it up?