subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart"

Not sure if Peter mentioned this rather dated but prescient Violante paper.
It is truly amazing in the present time frame. The paper has been mentioned
in the past, but few seem to have been overly impressed with the findings,
which could be way ahead of their time, and other papers by V. get most of
the attention, instead of this beauty.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVanalysisof.pdf

At 11-12 years old, it precedes Rossi by many years; and it precedes the
emphasis on SPP phenomenon wrt Ni-H - which many now assume to be one of the
driving factors in Rossi’s success. Apparently no one thought to look
backwards for guidance, instead of forwards - after Rossi took the stage. If
you did not notice the date, you might think that it was published yesterday
and designed to explain Rossi in the context of SPP. It is a stroke of
brilliance in a way.

To cut to the chase - the gain comes from SPP simulated conversion of Ni64
to Cu65. This should shed about 2 MeV but there is no gamma. The half-life
of the intermediary is a few hours. It all fits.

This paper could be way ahead of its time, depending on the TP2 report. The
reason it did not get more attention could be the confusion in details - and
using the terms “blank” for the control and “black” for the hydride - and at
a time before SPP was well understood by many in LENR.

Plus although there was a huge shift in the ratio of Cu63 to Cu65, they did
not confirm it by doing an isotope analysis of the nickel. Had they done so,
and if the new TP2 report does find the same isotope shift in copper, with a
corresponding reduction in Ni64, then the paper would be regarded as a
modern day miracle.

Jones

attachment: winmail.dat

RE: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVanalysisof.pdf

To cut to the chase - the gain comes from SPP simulated
conversion of Ni64 to Cu65. This should shed about 2 MeV [7 actually] but
there is no gamma. The half-life of the intermediary is a few hours. It all
fits.


Correction: Ni-64 mass 63.928, proton mass 1.007 (total 64.935), Cu-65 mass
64.928. 

Thus the gain is about 7 MeV. Ni65 spin is high 5/2-. Ni64 spin is 0+. Cu-65
spin is 3/2-

But no reported gamma. Could some of that extra mass be involved in the spin
transitions?

Of further note: the percentage of Ni64 in natural nickel is 0.91 %. 

This is low and unfortunately - it is unlikely that most of it could be used
up. If half of a percent of nickel is in play for conversion to copper - in
any sample and the net gain is around 7 MeV then this means that bulk
nickel, even with a very small active isotope population, still has the
potential to contribute about 10-20,000 times more energy than chemical – kg
to kg.

IOW 10 grams of nickel would give the equivalent heat of about a barrel of
oil.

That makes the bottom line problematic, since 10 grams of nickel powder will
cost more than a barrel of oil… assuming this is accurate. (operating on a
caffeine deficit)

Jones




attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

Sorry about your caffeine deficit, but 10g of Ni doesn't cost more than a
barrel of oil.  A kilogram of Ni powder I use was sent to me as a sample.
No one would sample 100 barrels of oil.  Ni is cheap.

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

IOW 10 grams of nickel would give the equivalent heat of about a barrel of
 oil.

 That makes the bottom line problematic, since 10 grams of nickel powder
 will
 cost more than a barrel of oil… assuming this is accurate. (operating on a
 caffeine deficit)

 Jones

RE: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Sorry about your caffeine deficit, but 10g of Ni doesn't cost more than a 
barrel of oil.  A kilogram of Ni powder I use was sent to me as a sample.  No 
one would sample 100 barrels of oil.  Ni is cheap.

 

But did your sample work?

 

:-) Not being intentionally glib, but the nickel Rossi uses is somehow special 
and possibly costly – who knows?

 

The QSI nickel nanopowder which gave a small amount of gain in the Ahern 
experiments costs about $20/gram as I remember. The Arata nickel powders are 
even pricier since they are spin cast.

 

But yes – I agree that once the best powder is found - the volume price will 
come down with mass production. 

 

The disappointment for many will be that the Rossi effect, if it is limited to 
the one isotope - may not be the slam-dunk solution to the energy crisis which 
we all hoped that it would be.

 

 

IOW 10 grams of nickel would give the equivalent heat of about a barrel of
oil.

That makes the bottom line problematic, since 10 grams of nickel powder will
cost more than a barrel of oil… assuming this is accurate. (operating on a
caffeine deficit)

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-06 Thread Axil Axil

I believe why Rossi likes to use Ni64 is because that stable isotope is
relatively rich in neutrons. The addition of a proton pair(2He) will not
result in positron production when a proton becomes a neutron by beta decay
in a proton rich nucleus. This is important to Rossi so that he can keep
his nuclear profile low.

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

   *From:* Bob Higgins



 Sorry about your caffeine deficit, but 10g of Ni doesn't cost more than a
 barrel of oil.  A kilogram of Ni powder I use was sent to me as a sample.
 No one would sample 100 barrels of oil.  Ni is cheap.



 But did your sample work?



 J Not being intentionally glib, but the nickel Rossi uses is somehow
 special and possibly costly – who knows?



 The QSI nickel nanopowder which gave a small amount of gain in the Ahern
 experiments costs about $20/gram as I remember. The Arata nickel powders
 are even pricier since they are spin cast.



 But yes – I agree that once the best powder is found - the volume price
 will come down with mass production.



 The disappointment for many will be that the Rossi effect, if it is
 limited to the one isotope - may not be the slam-dunk solution to the
 energy crisis which we all hoped that it would be.





 IOW 10 grams of nickel would give the equivalent heat of about a barrel of
 oil.

 That makes the bottom line problematic, since 10 grams of nickel powder
 will
 cost more than a barrel of oil… assuming this is accurate. (operating on a
 caffeine deficit)

 Jones

RE: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

The Violante paper was a fine effort; and it clearly identified one source of 
gain which was somewhat expected: nickel to copper. It is a mistake to assume 
that there could not be more avenues for gain than this particular one.

 

Certainly, there could be other channels which were outside the scope of the 
experiment and were missed. Even if the V-team did indeed identify the 
predominant or even the only way that nickel can transmute to copper, which 
could be the case, they did not analyze the nickel isotopes.

 

So, if nickel goes to nickel with gain (i.e. Ni58 - Ni60) or if protons fuse 
to deuterons (Storm’s model) or if there is a non-nuclear gain such as f/H or 
hydrogen dropping into DDL, then this is not accounted for in this paper. That 
is our hope.

 

In short, there could be much more gain than what they see – but the fact that 
they did such a good job identifying what they did report – all of these other 
pathways look more interesting - since any of them could feed off the large 7 
MeV gain from the Ni64 to Cu65 channel since it does not involve the prompt 
gamma and may involve spin abnormalities.

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Sorry about your caffeine deficit, but 10g of Ni doesn't cost more than a 
barrel of oil.  A kilogram of Ni powder I use was sent to me as a sample.  No 
one would sample 100 barrels of oil.  Ni is cheap.

 

But did your sample work?

 

:-) Not being intentionally glib, but the nickel Rossi uses is somehow special 
and possibly costly – who knows?

 

The QSI nickel nanopowder which gave a small amount of gain in the Ahern 
experiments costs about $20/gram as I remember. The Arata nickel powders are 
even pricier since they are spin cast.

 

But yes – I agree that once the best powder is found - the volume price will 
come down with mass production. 

 

The disappointment for many will be that the Rossi effect, if it is limited to 
the one isotope - may not be the slam-dunk solution to the energy crisis which 
we all hoped that it would be.

 

 

IOW 10 grams of nickel would give the equivalent heat of about a barrel of
oil.

That makes the bottom line problematic, since 10 grams of nickel powder will
cost more than a barrel of oil… assuming this is accurate. (operating on a
caffeine deficit)

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

I use carbonyl Ni, the same as Rossi and Defkalion.  Rossi adds his own
treatment which he claims is cheap.  Neither use nano-Ni.  Will my
treatment of this Ni work?  Only time will tell.  Results with the QSI
nano-Ni have been disappointing.  Also, nano-Ni is not durable - I.E, it
will easily sinter into larger particles at high temperature (600C).  If
nano-Ni was found to be required, it will be painful to make something work
at high temperature for long periods.  Nano-Ni might be OK for hand warmers.

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

   *From:* Bob Higgins



 Sorry about your caffeine deficit, but 10g of Ni doesn't cost more than a
 barrel of oil.  A kilogram of Ni powder I use was sent to me as a sample.
 No one would sample 100 barrels of oil.  Ni is cheap.



 But did your sample work?



 J Not being intentionally glib, but the nickel Rossi uses is somehow
 special and possibly costly – who knows?



 The QSI nickel nanopowder which gave a small amount of gain in the Ahern
 experiments costs about $20/gram as I remember. The Arata nickel powders
 are even pricier since they are spin cast.



 But yes – I agree that once the best powder is found - the volume price
 will come down with mass production.



 The disappointment for many will be that the Rossi effect, if it is
 limited to the one isotope - may not be the slam-dunk solution to the
 energy crisis which we all hoped that it would be.





 IOW 10 grams of nickel would give the equivalent heat of about a barrel of
 oil.

 That makes the bottom line problematic, since 10 grams of nickel powder
 will
 cost more than a barrel of oil… assuming this is accurate. (operating on a
 caffeine deficit)

 Jones

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-06 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Bob, Good point regarding the sintering of Ni nano powder, perhaps some of the 
importance with respect to geometry and heat sinking is to keep temperatures 
beneath sintering threshold.
IMHO nano powders are a robust form of skeletal catalyst that become over 
active to the point of deformation when enough appropriate gas atoms are loaded 
into the bulk material, both lattice and voids such that lockstep motion and 
fractional transitions are harnessed. I suspect that OU requires quickly 
wicking away the excess heat before deformation can occur while not inhibiting 
the reaction rate / keeping the environment balanced on the head of a pin.
Fran
From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 11:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

I use carbonyl Ni, the same as Rossi and Defkalion.  Rossi adds his own 
treatment which he claims is cheap.  Neither use nano-Ni.  Will my treatment of 
this Ni work?  Only time will tell.  Results with the QSI nano-Ni have been 
disappointing.  Also, nano-Ni is not durable - I.E, it will easily sinter into 
larger particles at high temperature (600C).  If nano-Ni was found to be 
required, it will be painful to make something work at high temperature for 
long periods.  Nano-Ni might be OK for hand warmers.

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Jones Beene 
jone...@pacbell.netmailto:jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
From: Bob Higgins

Sorry about your caffeine deficit, but 10g of Ni doesn't cost more than a 
barrel of oil.  A kilogram of Ni powder I use was sent to me as a sample.  No 
one would sample 100 barrels of oil.  Ni is cheap.

But did your sample work?

☺ Not being intentionally glib, but the nickel Rossi uses is somehow special 
and possibly costly – who knows?

The QSI nickel nanopowder which gave a small amount of gain in the Ahern 
experiments costs about $20/gram as I remember. The Arata nickel powders are 
even pricier since they are spin cast.

But yes – I agree that once the best powder is found - the volume price will 
come down with mass production.

The disappointment for many will be that the Rossi effect, if it is limited to 
the one isotope - may not be the slam-dunk solution to the energy crisis which 
we all hoped that it would be.


IOW 10 grams of nickel would give the equivalent heat of about a barrel of
oil.

That makes the bottom line problematic, since 10 grams of nickel powder will
cost more than a barrel of oil… assuming this is accurate. (operating on a
caffeine deficit)

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-06 Thread Axil Axil

A micro particle size of 5 microns is the resonate size for optimum dipole
vibrations for a temperature of 600C.

Dipole motion is the power source that drives the nano sized field emitters
on the surface of these nickel micro particles. These field emitters are
best shapes as parabolas or alternately as sharp lines as per Piantelli's
surface design.

DGT supports their particles using a nickel foam. Suspending and spacing
the micro particles throughout the volume of a  nickel foam is a way to
separate the particles to avoid nickel to copper transmutation. DGT only
fuses hydrogen to light elements like boron, lithium and beryllium in the
hydrogen envelope within the nickel foam.

On the other hand, Rossi packs his powder tight which will cause nickel to
copper transmutation. The nickel foam also provides a positively charged
backplane during dipole vibration that enables the formation of a Bose
Einstein condensate at the tips of the nano field emitter network on the
surface of the nickel micro-powder particles.






On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

 I use carbonyl Ni, the same as Rossi and Defkalion.  Rossi adds his own
 treatment which he claims is cheap.  Neither use nano-Ni.  Will my
 treatment of this Ni work?  Only time will tell.  Results with the QSI
 nano-Ni have been disappointing.  Also, nano-Ni is not durable - I.E, it
 will easily sinter into larger particles at high temperature (600C).  If
 nano-Ni was found to be required, it will be painful to make something work
 at high temperature for long periods.  Nano-Ni might be OK for hand warmers.

 Bob Higgins

 On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

   *From:* Bob Higgins



 Sorry about your caffeine deficit, but 10g of Ni doesn't cost more than a
 barrel of oil.  A kilogram of Ni powder I use was sent to me as a sample.
 No one would sample 100 barrels of oil.  Ni is cheap.



 But did your sample work?



 J Not being intentionally glib, but the nickel Rossi uses is somehow
 special and possibly costly – who knows?



 The QSI nickel nanopowder which gave a small amount of gain in the Ahern
 experiments costs about $20/gram as I remember. The Arata nickel powders
 are even pricier since they are spin cast.



 But yes – I agree that once the best powder is found - the volume price
 will come down with mass production.



 The disappointment for many will be that the Rossi effect, if it is
 limited to the one isotope - may not be the slam-dunk solution to the
 energy crisis which we all hoped that it would be.





 IOW 10 grams of nickel would give the equivalent heat of about a barrel of
 oil.

 That makes the bottom line problematic, since 10 grams of nickel powder
 will
 cost more than a barrel of oil… assuming this is accurate. (operating on a
 caffeine deficit)

 Jones

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-06 Thread Axil Axil

If Bose Einstein condensation is involved, isothermal heat distribution
would keep the MICRO powder at the same temperature as the coolest part of
the reactor.

When the reactor melts down, the entire pipe grows white hot, so there must
be superfluidic heat distribution going on to distribute heat evenly.

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X 
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:

  Bob, Good point regarding the sintering of Ni nano powder, perhaps some
 of the importance with respect to geometry and heat sinking is to keep
 temperatures beneath sintering threshold.

 IMHO nano powders are a robust form of skeletal catalyst that become over
 active to the point of deformation when enough appropriate gas atoms are
 loaded into the bulk material, both lattice and voids such that lockstep
 motion and fractional transitions are harnessed. I suspect that OU requires
 quickly wicking away the excess heat before deformation can occur while not
 inhibiting the reaction rate / keeping the environment balanced on the head
 of a pin.

 Fran

 *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, October 06, 2014 11:09 AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will
 depart



 I use carbonyl Ni, the same as Rossi and Defkalion.  Rossi adds his own
 treatment which he claims is cheap.  Neither use nano-Ni.  Will my
 treatment of this Ni work?  Only time will tell.  Results with the QSI
 nano-Ni have been disappointing.  Also, nano-Ni is not durable - I.E, it
 will easily sinter into larger particles at high temperature (600C).  If
 nano-Ni was found to be required, it will be painful to make something work
 at high temperature for long periods.  Nano-Ni might be OK for hand warmers.



 Bob Higgins



 On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 *From:* Bob Higgins



 Sorry about your caffeine deficit, but 10g of Ni doesn't cost more than a
 barrel of oil.  A kilogram of Ni powder I use was sent to me as a sample.
 No one would sample 100 barrels of oil.  Ni is cheap.



 But did your sample work?



 J Not being intentionally glib, but the nickel Rossi uses is somehow
 special and possibly costly – who knows?



 The QSI nickel nanopowder which gave a small amount of gain in the Ahern
 experiments costs about $20/gram as I remember. The Arata nickel powders
 are even pricier since they are spin cast.



 But yes – I agree that once the best powder is found - the volume price
 will come down with mass production.



 The disappointment for many will be that the Rossi effect, if it is
 limited to the one isotope - may not be the slam-dunk solution to the
 energy crisis which we all hoped that it would be.





 IOW 10 grams of nickel would give the equivalent heat of about a barrel of
 oil.

 That makes the bottom line problematic, since 10 grams of nickel powder
 will
 cost more than a barrel of oil… assuming this is accurate. (operating on a
 caffeine deficit)

 Jones

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-06 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Axil, that is also a good point that might explain why the anomaly is so hard 
to reproduce – perhaps impossible without the superfluidic heat distribution 
you mention.. I do see degradation issues as boundary conditions vary that 
would eat away / sinter the geometry around the edges which is likely why Rossi 
is always throttling back on the COP and why these materials tend to degrade to 
the point where they have to be re-activated.
Fran

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 12:21 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

If Bose Einstein condensation is involved, isothermal heat distribution would 
keep the MICRO powder at the same temperature as the coolest part of the 
reactor.

When the reactor melts down, the entire pipe grows white hot, so there must be 
superfluidic heat distribution going on to distribute heat evenly.

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X 
francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:
Bob, Good point regarding the sintering of Ni nano powder, perhaps some of the 
importance with respect to geometry and heat sinking is to keep temperatures 
beneath sintering threshold.
IMHO nano powders are a robust form of skeletal catalyst that become over 
active to the point of deformation when enough appropriate gas atoms are loaded 
into the bulk material, both lattice and voids such that lockstep motion and 
fractional transitions are harnessed. I suspect that OU requires quickly 
wicking away the excess heat before deformation can occur while not inhibiting 
the reaction rate / keeping the environment balanced on the head of a pin.
Fran
From: Bob Higgins 
[mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.commailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 11:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

I use carbonyl Ni, the same as Rossi and Defkalion.  Rossi adds his own 
treatment which he claims is cheap.  Neither use nano-Ni.  Will my treatment of 
this Ni work?  Only time will tell.  Results with the QSI nano-Ni have been 
disappointing.  Also, nano-Ni is not durable - I.E, it will easily sinter into 
larger particles at high temperature (600C).  If nano-Ni was found to be 
required, it will be painful to make something work at high temperature for 
long periods.  Nano-Ni might be OK for hand warmers.

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Jones Beene 
jone...@pacbell.netmailto:jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
From: Bob Higgins

Sorry about your caffeine deficit, but 10g of Ni doesn't cost more than a 
barrel of oil.  A kilogram of Ni powder I use was sent to me as a sample.  No 
one would sample 100 barrels of oil.  Ni is cheap.

But did your sample work?

☺ Not being intentionally glib, but the nickel Rossi uses is somehow special 
and possibly costly – who knows?

The QSI nickel nanopowder which gave a small amount of gain in the Ahern 
experiments costs about $20/gram as I remember. The Arata nickel powders are 
even pricier since they are spin cast.

But yes – I agree that once the best powder is found - the volume price will 
come down with mass production.

The disappointment for many will be that the Rossi effect, if it is limited to 
the one isotope - may not be the slam-dunk solution to the energy crisis which 
we all hoped that it would be.


IOW 10 grams of nickel would give the equivalent heat of about a barrel of
oil.

That makes the bottom line problematic, since 10 grams of nickel powder will
cost more than a barrel of oil… assuming this is accurate. (operating on a
caffeine deficit)

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-06 Thread mixent

In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Mon, 6 Oct 2014 09:09:07 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
I use carbonyl Ni, the same as Rossi and Defkalion.  Rossi adds his own
treatment which he claims is cheap.  Neither use nano-Ni.  Will my
treatment of this Ni work?  Only time will tell.  Results with the QSI
nano-Ni have been disappointing.  Also, nano-Ni is not durable - I.E, it
will easily sinter into larger particles at high temperature (600C).  If
nano-Ni was found to be required, it will be painful to make something work
at high temperature for long periods.  Nano-Ni might be OK for hand warmers.

Maybe it can be mixed with another powder to stop it sintering, by keeping the
particles separate?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

This is frequently done with noble metal catalysts.  They are mixed with a
thin oxide wash coat and applied either to a metal or a ceramic base.
The Ni is tougher to keep from sintering.  You want the nano-Ni exposed,
but the nano-features melt at about 600C and will begin sintering at 300C.

One of the ways that nano materials are fabricated is by successive
oxidation and reduction.  The oxidation causes the material to grow (think
how a rusty nail grows as it oxidizes).  Then when reduced you are left
with an elemental metal skeleton having features smaller than you began
with.  My process uses this technique to expose nano features after partial
sintering by oxidation/reduction with a final step of reduction.  I start
with larger particles, add nano-Fe2O3, and then go through stages of
thermal oxidation and reduction.

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:01 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Mon, 6 Oct 2014 09:09:07 -0600:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 I use carbonyl Ni, the same as Rossi and Defkalion.  Rossi adds his own
 treatment which he claims is cheap.  Neither use nano-Ni.  Will my
 treatment of this Ni work?  Only time will tell.  Results with the QSI
 nano-Ni have been disappointing.  Also, nano-Ni is not durable - I.E, it
 will easily sinter into larger particles at high temperature (600C).  If
 nano-Ni was found to be required, it will be painful to make something
 work
 at high temperature for long periods.  Nano-Ni might be OK for hand
 warmers.

 Maybe it can be mixed with another powder to stop it sintering, by keeping
 the
 particles separate?
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-06 Thread mixent

In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Mon, 6 Oct 2014 16:13:39 -0600:
Hi,

Even if 300C were the limit, would that really be a problem? IIRC Jed has
mentioned that 300-350C is the usual working temperature of fission reactors, so
it appears to be a usable temperature range.
Furthermore, Rossi's Hot-cat is already operating at temperatures well above
600C.

This is frequently done with noble metal catalysts.  They are mixed with a
thin oxide wash coat and applied either to a metal or a ceramic base.
The Ni is tougher to keep from sintering.  You want the nano-Ni exposed,
but the nano-features melt at about 600C and will begin sintering at 300C.

One of the ways that nano materials are fabricated is by successive
oxidation and reduction.  The oxidation causes the material to grow (think
how a rusty nail grows as it oxidizes).  Then when reduced you are left
with an elemental metal skeleton having features smaller than you began
with.  My process uses this technique to expose nano features after partial
sintering by oxidation/reduction with a final step of reduction.  I start
with larger particles, add nano-Fe2O3, and then go through stages of
thermal oxidation and reduction.

Bob Higgins
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

Robin,

My understanding is that the temperature of the exchanger heating the water
is at 300C.  If this were the case in a LENR reactor, then the reaction
core would probably have to be substantially hotter to overcome the thermal
resistance and have that operating point.  The concern is the temperature
of the Ni.  With good design, the Ni could be only 30-50C hotter than the
water contact point in the heat exchanger.  This means having a very close
thermal contact of the Ni with the reactor vessel - the Ni must be like a
thick film coating on the vessel wall.

It is not clear what Rossi used as his nano-catalyst with the Ni in his
hotCat - it may be nano-zirconium which has a much higher melting
temperature.  Rossi once said he had explored other catalysts and found
them to work, but not with as high of a COP as the one he originally used.
I suspect he went back to one of these other catalysts for the hotCat as
part of getting it up to higher temperature.  Then he added his mouse to
improve the COP.  I think the mouse was a first stage using his original
recipe (likening Rossi to Colonel Sanders :) ).

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:59 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Mon, 6 Oct 2014 16:13:39 -0600:
 Hi,

 Even if 300C were the limit, would that really be a problem? IIRC Jed has
 mentioned that 300-350C is the usual working temperature of fission
 reactors, so
 it appears to be a usable temperature range.
 Furthermore, Rossi's Hot-cat is already operating at temperatures well
 above
 600C.

 This is frequently done with noble metal catalysts.  They are mixed with a
 thin oxide wash coat and applied either to a metal or a ceramic base.
 The Ni is tougher to keep from sintering.  You want the nano-Ni exposed,
 but the nano-features melt at about 600C and will begin sintering at 300C.
 
 One of the ways that nano materials are fabricated is by successive
 oxidation and reduction.  The oxidation causes the material to grow (think
 how a rusty nail grows as it oxidizes).  Then when reduced you are left
 with an elemental metal skeleton having features smaller than you began
 with.  My process uses this technique to expose nano features after
 partial
 sintering by oxidation/reduction with a final step of reduction.  I start
 with larger particles, add nano-Fe2O3, and then go through stages of
 thermal oxidation and reduction.
 
 Bob Higgins
 [snip]
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-06 Thread Jed Rothwell

mix...@bigpond.com wrote:


 Even if 300C were the limit, would that really be a problem? IIRC Jed has
 mentioned that 300-350C is the usual working temperature of fission
 reactors, so
 it appears to be a usable temperature range.


Yup. See:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/reactor.html

QUOTE: A typical operating pressure for such reactors is about 70
atmospheres at which pressure the water boils at about 285 deg C. This
operating temperature gives a Carnot efficiency of only 42% with a
practical operating efficiency of around 32%, somewhat less than the PWR.

They use such low temperatures because it reduces wear and tear on the
reactor vessel, the boilers and the turbines. Essentially, they trade off
efficiency for longer equipment life. They can do this because uranium fuel
is so cheap per megajoule.

Nowadays, 32% for a combustion reactor would be scandalous. Combined cycle
plants are ~50% efficient.

This would be a crazy temperature for any other type of power generator. It
would be wasteful. The Carnot efficiency is low. It would be even worse
operating a combustion reactor at this temperature, because combustion is
so much hotter. A large temperature difference between the initial reaction
and the pressurized water makes a system difficult to engineer.

A low temperature would be fine for a cold fusion system because the fuel
is free. Carnot efficiency does not matter. However, it would mean the
reactor is bulky, and it would produce a lot of waste heat, so it needs a
big radiator. It would not be good for an automobile engine. It might look
a little like a 19th century steam tractor -- all engine!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-06 Thread mixent

In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Mon, 6 Oct 2014 18:19:12 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin,

My understanding is that the temperature of the exchanger heating the water
is at 300C.  If this were the case in a LENR reactor, then the reaction
core would probably have to be substantially hotter to overcome the thermal
resistance and have that operating point.  The concern is the temperature
of the Ni.  With good design, the Ni could be only 30-50C hotter than the
water contact point in the heat exchanger.  This means having a very close
thermal contact of the Ni with the reactor vessel - the Ni must be like a
thick film coating on the vessel wall.

It is not clear what Rossi used as his nano-catalyst with the Ni in his
hotCat - it may be nano-zirconium which has a much higher melting
temperature.  Rossi once said he had explored other catalysts and found
them to work, but not with as high of a COP as the one he originally used.
I suspect he went back to one of these other catalysts for the hotCat as
part of getting it up to higher temperature.  

You may be correct about this.

Then he added his mouse to
improve the COP.  I think the mouse was a first stage using his original
recipe (likening Rossi to Colonel Sanders :) ).

IIRC the mouse only has a COP of about 1.2-1.6.


Bob Higgins
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-04 Thread frobertcook

SiC may not be a bad neutron absorber.  It should thermalize some with its C.  
The neutron window needed is one that lets thermal neutrons out to be  
measured.  A small patch of B or other thermal absorber is all thats needed to 
determine a thermal neutron flux.

I  do not consider high energy neutrons happen in LENR to a significant 
extent--cold neutrons may.  They should be monitored to understand the science 
IMHO.

Bob Cook




Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE SmartphoneBob Higgins 
rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote:
I seriously doubt that in the TPT the experimenters would have been allowed
to modify the hotCat.  A membrane would have provided a continuous leak
to the limited supply of H2 inside the hotCat; however, a thin area window
would suffice if they could modify it.  If the reaction produces high
energy gamma, it will come right through the vessel, attenuated by the mass
per square cm of the reactor vessel.  So you don't need a window for high
energy gamma.  However, we know that high energy gamma cannot be the
primary carrier of the heat because too much of the energy would escape the
reactor vessel, and it would be dangerous to be around and easily
measured.  Low energy gamma (below 25 keV) may be a primary carrier of the
heat because it would be highly attenuated by the reactor vessel (and thus
thermalized).  Measuring low energy gamma is difficult because it doesn't
escape easily.  To measure this, you either need to create a sensor that
can be placed inside the reactor (and it would have to work with at the
hotCat's high temperature); OR, you need to make your reactor vessel thin
in a small spot (a window); OR, make your reactor vessel small, so that the
whole containment vessel can be thin (this is what I am doing).

Neutrons don't need a window - they will just come through.  If the heat
were carried by neutrons, the reactor vessel would not get hot because
there is not enough mass and capture cross-section there to stop
(thermalize) them.  The neutrons would just be killing everyone around the
reactor.  Any few neutrons detected externally are definitely a useful clue
about internal reactions, but fortunately few neutrons are ever detected.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:57 AM, frobertcook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  A small diameter membrane to allow some internal radiation out seems
 like a nice feature in any test, which the professors would certainly
 consider.

  In an good test one should expect to see such a feature.

  The same should be expected for neutrons--a neutron window.

  Bob

RE: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

In addition to what Bob says, the problem with RF as a signature for the Rossi 
effect, is that it would have been spotted before now.

 

Because the wiring in Labs (or homes) is of an effective length which makes it 
a good antenna, even when carrying 60 Hz, any significant RF will have a 
noticeable effect, especially a visible effect on lighting. Also effected would 
be radios, cell phones, hearing aids, Wi-Fi etc … almost everything except the 
microwave oven, the transmitter of which has been designed into what is an 
excellent Faraday cage.

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Normally the resistivity of a metal is linear in degrees Kelvin.  So, going 
from 300K to 1300K would cause a metal's resistance to increase by 1300/300 or 
a factor of 4.3.  The RF skin depth will increase as the square root of this 
change or about 2.  So, the leakage out of this Faraday cage will about double 
in amplitude (6 dB).  In an ideal Faraday cage (ideal conductor), all of the RF 
is reflected back into the interior, none leaks out, and none is absorbed.  In 
a real metal Faraday cage, most of the signal is reflected, the signal is 
attenuated substantially in going from inside to outside, and some of the power 
is absorbed in the metal.  The amount that leaks out is proportional to the 
number of skin depths in thickness of the Faraday cage metal.  The skin depth 
is 1/sqrt(pi F mu sigma), so it is inversely proportional to the square root of 
frequency.  High frequencies have small skin depth and hence, the metal 
thickness being more skin depths in thickness, the signal transmitted is more 
attenuated going through the metal.  Thus, low frequencies with big skin depths 
penetrate better and high RF frequencies penetrate less.  That is why I said 
that it is unlikely that high RF frequencies would escape in a measurable way - 
given the thickness of the reactor metal (probably on the order of 1.5mm) above 
100 kHz would probably be considered high frequency.  And, as previously 
stated, about 6dB more will come out at 1000C than at room temp.

 

Bob Higgins

 

Axil Axil wrote:

Dear Bob

 

Unlike myself, it is great that you are an expert in this subject that greatly 
interests me.

 

Please address this issue.  Unlike the usual RF shielding applications using 
stainless steel, the Hot-Cat reaches 1000C without active heat removal. 

 

Bearing in mind that RF shielding protection is a function of the conductivity 
of the metal, the electrical resistance of stainless steel is a increasing 
function of temperature. How much RF protection is lost in a 1000C stainless 
steel faraday cage as a function of the increasing temperature of stainless 
steel.

 

http://www.aksteel.com/pdf/markets_products/stainless/austenitic/304_304L_Data_Sheet.pdf

Electrical Resistivity of 304 stainless in 

(microhm-cm)

68*F (20*C) – 28.4 (72)

1200*F (659*C) – 45.8 (116)

 

 

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote:

Yes Axil, I am an RF engineer and I am aware of permalloy/supermalloy sheets 
used in EMI protection.  These materials are added in sensitive instrument 
applications to shunt low frequency evanescent magnetic fields, not propagating 
RF EM fields.  As I said, RF fields above about 1 kHz would be prevented from 
escaping from Rossi's hotCat by the hermetic stainless steel reactor enclosure 
acting as a Faraday cage.  There will be no propagating RF escaping from the 
Rossi's reactor vessel.  There is only the possibility of low frequency 
evanescent fields escaping.

 

Bob Higgins

 

 

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-7/iss-5/p24.pdf

 

How does magnetic shielding work?

All EMI shielding materials are manufac-

tured from high-permeability alloys that con-

tain about 80% nickel; the alloys vary in the

composition of their remaining metals. They

are usually fabricated as foils or sheets and

are baked at 2,000 °F in a dry hydrogen-rich

atmosphere to anneal them. Annealing sig-

nificantly improves a material’s attenuation,

that is, its ability to absorb and redirect mag-

netic fields.

 

A shielding alloy works by diverting a

magnetic flux into itself. The alloy redirects

the magnetic flux away from the sensitive

object and returns it to the north–south

field. Although the field from a magnet is

greatly reduced by a shield plate, the protec-

tive alloy itself is attracted to the magnet,

but with no ill effects. Closed shapes are the

most efficient for magnetic shielding—cylin-

ders with caps, boxes with covers, and simi-

lar enclosed shapes are the most effective

(see figure).

 

Magnetic shielding materials offer a very-

high-permeability path for magnetic field

lines to travel through, directing them

through the thickness of the shielding alloy

and keeping them from going where they

are not wanted. It is important that the

shield should

RE: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

 

Although the stainless steel version of the Rossi HT is effectively shielded 
and cannot release RF, it should be mentioned that this stainless tube itself 
could have been added specifically as a way to keep RF from being transmitted ! 
  (that should be your argument Axil)

 

I have private email from a Rossi observer who agrees that Andrea Rossi did 
talk specifically about the SiC tubes, and that he appears to have removed all 
of the reference from JoNP.

 

This does not mean SiC is relevant, just because it was removed, but there is 
also another argument for why RF could be there. We have talked about the 
Mossbauer effect wrt the Rossi effect before. Ni-61 and K-40, both of which are 
assumed to be involved in the Rossi effect are Mossbauer isotopes. Let’s say 
for the sake of argument that the first HT from Brasimone was indeed housed in 
SiC. If the reaction involves an high energy effect in nickel (Mossbauer 
effect, or a variation), then RF could have been an early problem which was 
solved by switching the external tube to stainless. An internal tube could 
still be SiC which is proved to provide IR superradiance at 11 microns (27 
THz). This IR could stimulate RF.

 

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg82733.html

 

Not sure if this is related to why Axil thinks RF will appear, but if so, then 
the spectrum is predictable and one could see an induced RF effect in the long 
twisted pair conductor of the power cables. If it is there, then it will 
probably show up in the range of 2 MHz

 

 

 

From: Jones Beene 

 

In addition to what Bob says, the problem with RF as a signature for the Rossi 
effect, is that it would have been spotted before now.

 

Because the wiring in Labs (or homes) is of an effective length which makes it 
a good antenna, even when carrying 60 Hz, any significant RF will have a 
noticeable effect, especially a visible effect on lighting. Also effected would 
be radios, cell phones, hearing aids, Wi-Fi etc … almost everything except the 
microwave oven, the transmitter of which has been designed into what is an 
excellent Faraday cage.

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Normally the resistivity of a metal is linear in degrees Kelvin.  So, going 
from 300K to 1300K would cause a metal's resistance to increase by 1300/300 or 
a factor of 4.3.  The RF skin depth will increase as the square root of this 
change or about 2.  So, the leakage out of this Faraday cage will about double 
in amplitude (6 dB).  In an ideal Faraday cage (ideal conductor), all of the RF 
is reflected back into the interior, none leaks out, and none is absorbed.  In 
a real metal Faraday cage, most of the signal is reflected, the signal is 
attenuated substantially in going from inside to outside, and some of the power 
is absorbed in the metal.  The amount that leaks out is proportional to the 
number of skin depths in thickness of the Faraday cage metal.  The skin depth 
is 1/sqrt(pi F mu sigma), so it is inversely proportional to the square root of 
frequency.  High frequencies have small skin depth and hence, the metal 
thickness being more skin depths in thickness, the signal transmitted is more 
attenuated going through the metal.  Thus, low frequencies with big skin depths 
penetrate better and high RF frequencies penetrate less.  That is why I said 
that it is unlikely that high RF frequencies would escape in a measurable way - 
given the thickness of the reactor metal (probably on the order of 1.5mm) above 
100 kHz would probably be considered high frequency.  And, as previously 
stated, about 6dB more will come out at 1000C than at room temp.

 

Bob Higgins

 

Axil Axil wrote:

Dear Bob

 

Unlike myself, it is great that you are an expert in this subject that greatly 
interests me.

 

Please address this issue.  Unlike the usual RF shielding applications using 
stainless steel, the Hot-Cat reaches 1000C without active heat removal. 

 

Bearing in mind that RF shielding protection is a function of the conductivity 
of the metal, the electrical resistance of stainless steel is a increasing 
function of temperature. How much RF protection is lost in a 1000C stainless 
steel faraday cage as a function of the increasing temperature of stainless 
steel.

 

http://www.aksteel.com/pdf/markets_products/stainless/austenitic/304_304L_Data_Sheet.pdf

Electrical Resistivity of 304 stainless in 

(microhm-cm)

68*F (20*C) – 28.4 (72)

1200*F (659*C) – 45.8 (116)

 

 

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote:

Yes Axil, I am an RF engineer and I am aware of permalloy/supermalloy sheets 
used in EMI protection.  These materials are added in sensitive instrument 
applications to shunt low frequency evanescent magnetic fields, not propagating 
RF EM fields.  As I said, RF fields above about 1 kHz would be prevented from 
escaping from Rossi's hotCat by the hermetic stainless steel reactor enclosure 
acting as a Faraday cage.  There will be no

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-04 Thread Axil Axil

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance*

Magnetic fields will always produce RF.

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) is a physical phenomenon
 in which nuclei in a magnetic field absorb and re-emit electromagnetic
radiation. This energy is at a specific resonance frequency which depends
on the strength of the magnetic field and the magnetic properties of the
isotope of the atoms.

A tester could determine exactly what were the isotopic contents of the
reactor from the NMR frequencies coming out of the reactor.

This is why Rossi may be silent about the RF emissions from his reactor.

On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:



 Although the stainless steel version of the Rossi HT is effectively
 shielded and cannot release RF, it should be mentioned that this stainless
 tube itself could have been added specifically as a way to keep RF from
 being transmitted !   (that should be your argument Axil)



 I have private email from a Rossi observer who agrees that Andrea Rossi
 did talk specifically about the SiC tubes, and that he appears to have
 removed all of the reference from JoNP.



 This does not mean SiC is relevant, just because it was removed, but there
 is also another argument for why RF could be there. We have talked about
 the Mossbauer effect wrt the Rossi effect before. Ni-61 and K-40, both of
 which are assumed to be involved in the Rossi effect are Mossbauer
 isotopes. Let’s say for the sake of argument that the first HT from
 Brasimone was indeed housed in SiC. If the reaction involves an high energy
 effect in nickel (Mossbauer effect, or a variation), then RF could have
 been an early problem which was solved by switching the external tube to
 stainless. An internal tube could still be SiC which is proved to provide
 IR superradiance at 11 microns (27 THz). This IR could stimulate RF.



 https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg82733.html



 Not sure if this is related to why Axil thinks RF will appear, but if so,
 then the spectrum is predictable and one could see an induced RF effect in
 the long twisted pair conductor of the power cables. If it is there, then
 it will probably show up in the range of 2 MHz







 *From:* Jones Beene



 In addition to what Bob says, the problem with RF as a signature for the
 Rossi effect, is that it would have been spotted before now.



 Because the wiring in Labs (or homes) is of an effective length which
 makes it a good antenna, even when carrying 60 Hz, any significant RF will
 have a noticeable effect, especially a visible effect on lighting. Also
 effected would be radios, cell phones, hearing aids, Wi-Fi etc … almost
 everything except the microwave oven, the transmitter of which has been
 designed into what is an excellent Faraday cage.



 *From:* Bob Higgins



 Normally the resistivity of a metal is linear in degrees Kelvin.  So,
 going from 300K to 1300K would cause a metal's resistance to increase by
 1300/300 or a factor of 4.3.  The RF skin depth will increase as the square
 root of this change or about 2.  So, the leakage out of this Faraday cage
 will about double in amplitude (6 dB).  In an ideal Faraday cage (ideal
 conductor), all of the RF is reflected back into the interior, none leaks
 out, and none is absorbed.  In a real metal Faraday cage, most of the
 signal is reflected, the signal is attenuated substantially in going from
 inside to outside, and some of the power is absorbed in the metal.  The
 amount that leaks out is proportional to the number of skin depths in
 thickness of the Faraday cage metal.  The skin depth is 1/sqrt(pi F mu
 sigma), so it is inversely proportional to the square root of frequency.
 High frequencies have small skin depth and hence, the metal thickness being
 more skin depths in thickness, the signal transmitted is more attenuated
 going through the metal.  Thus, low frequencies with big skin depths
 penetrate better and high RF frequencies penetrate less.  That is why I
 said that it is unlikely that high RF frequencies would escape in a
 measurable way - given the thickness of the reactor metal (probably on the
 order of 1.5mm) above 100 kHz would probably be considered high frequency.
 And, as previously stated, about 6dB more will come out at 1000C than at
 room temp.



 Bob Higgins



 Axil Axil wrote:

 Dear Bob



 Unlike myself, it is great that you are an expert in this subject that
 greatly interests me.



 Please address this issue.  Unlike the usual RF shielding applications
 using stainless steel, the Hot-Cat reaches 1000C without active heat
 removal.



 Bearing in mind that RF shielding protection is a function of the
 conductivity of the metal, the electrical resistance of stainless steel is
 a increasing function of temperature. How much RF protection is lost in a
 1000C stainless steel faraday cage as a function of the increasing
 temperature of stainless

RE: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

If that were true, a simple permanent magnet should produce RF. 

 

It does not.

 

From: Axil Axil 

 

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

 

Magnetic fields will always produce RF.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-04 Thread Axil Axil

NMR requires that a strong magnetic field is generated usually by a
superconducting magnet. RF radiation coming from a Ni/H reactor indicates
that strong magnetic fields are being generated.

On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  If that were true, a simple permanent magnet should produce RF.



 It does not.



 *From:* Axil Axil



 *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance*



 Magnetic fields will always produce RF.

RE: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

Axil - In NMR, the magnetic field does not produce RF. You do understand that ?

 

The important distinction you seem to be missing is that in NMR, target nuclei 
which are aligned in a magnetic field, but are not part of the magnet - absorb 
and re-emit electromagnetic radiation from an RF transmitter. NMR does not work 
without the external transmitter.

 

In the Mossbauer effect, there is similarity and difference. The resonance 
absorption begins at much higher energy (radioactive decay) and is attained by 
physically immobilizing the target nuclei in a crystal. 

 

In the Rossi effect, there may be version where x-ray radiation from DDL is 
absorbed and remitted in a recoilless way, in a magnetic field – which is a 
hybrid of NMR and Mossbauer.

 

From: Axil Axil

 

NMR requires that a strong magnetic field is generated usually by a 
superconducting magnet. RF radiation coming from a Ni/H reactor indicates that 
strong magnetic fields are being generated.

 

Jones Beene  wrote:

 

If that were true, a simple permanent magnet should produce RF. . It does not. 

From: Axil Axil  

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

Magnetic fields will always produce RF.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-03 Thread frobertcook

A small diameter membrane to allow some internal radiation out seems like a
nice feature in any test, which the professors would certainly consider.

In an good test one should expect to see such a feature.

The same should be expected for neutrons--a neutron window.

Bob

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE SmartphoneBob Higgins
rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote:
The 3.6 keV x-ray photons are easily detected with an x-ray spectrometer
such as the Amptek X-123SDD at
http://www.amptek.com/products/x-123sdd-complete-x-ray-spectrometer-with-silicon-drift-detector-sdd/
. See their chart at this URL for the different window options that will
easily allow detection down to 1 keV:
http://www.amptek.com/products/c-series-low-energy-x-ray-windows/ . I am
hoping to get one of these some day.

The bigger issue is that not much will make it out of the hotCat even if
that is the primary channel for conveying the heat.

In the case of RF, I would expect almost none to escape the hotCat because
the reaction is in a Faraday cage. The RF that could penetrate would have
to be below 1 kHz.

Bob Higgins

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

Hoped for prediction – but unlikely due to technical limitations: evidence
of the signature x-ray indicative of DDL/dark matter, in the range of 3.6
keV.

Since there is no commercial meter for this spectrum, the x-ray would have
to show up in some other clever way, such as film exposure – thus it is
unlikely.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-03 Thread frobertcook

Does anyone have a number for a one quanta transition in spin energy in terms 
of IR wave length?

Is it near the 11microms Jones  has noted?

Bob Cook




Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE SmartphoneJones Beene 
jone...@pacbell.net wrote: 
There is another version which no one talks about any more, which is housed in 
silicon carbide. This ceramic version was the one Rossi described in his 
tribute to Focardi as the breakthrough leading to the HotCat, after which, it 
was never mentioned again.
 
I have been trying to find the reference for this, since Rossi apparently 
removed it from JoNP. E-Cat World still has the story of the Focardi tribute 
and the “incident at Brasimone” which at one time led me to believe that 
silicon carbide tubes were important.
 
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/06/22/sergio-focardi-dies/
 
Rossi quote: See you soon, my great Friend and Master Sergio! I will never 
forget our work together and that day in the Brasimone Nuclear facility.
 
Apparently “that day” was when the HotCat first went operational. Rossi had 
said in the original story that the tube was silicon carbide, because that is 
what they had specialized in at Brasimone, ceramic plumbing for the Italian 
molten salt reactor.
 
There is a very good technical reason why SiC could be important – plasmon 
polaritons. SiC emits a nearly coherent blackbody level which is most unique 
and it is exactly the wavelength NASA says is important. It could be 
coincidental, or the reference could have been removed from JoNP because it 
gave away too much. This paper shows the sharp emission peak at ~11 microns 
Infrared properties of SiC particles Mutschke et al.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9903031.pdf
 
The plasmon/polariton connection to THz radiation in the far IR spectrum could 
be one key to robust LENR, as we seem to find in the HotCat. The paper by  
Hagelstein, Cravens and Letts includes some of the theory which would tie it 
all together with IR photons at 11 micron resonance.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LettsDstimulatio.pdf
 
However, since no reference ever appeared again to SiC, and all of the new 
HotCats seem to show stainless steel exterior, perhaps this detail will remain 
a false alarm, or else a mystery which will unfold in a couple of weeks.
 
Jones

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-03 Thread Alain Sepeda

8)


wait a little.

2014-10-03 2:16 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:

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


 John – if COP of 6-10 is seen over an extended time period, much of the
 mainstream physics community will go into full apoplectic and anaphylactic
 shock. It may never recover from the embarrassment.


 I do not think the COP will make any difference. I do not think this
 report will have any effect on the scientific establishment, unless it is
 published in Nature. I am pretty sure it will not be in Nature!

 However, I think it may have a positive impact. It may shake loose more
 funding for the research. Funding is what we need most at this stage. Even
 more than recognition. Of course, with recognition would come funding, but
 also opposition which we do not need.

 If word gets out that cold fusion is now attracting tens of millions in
 research funding, then most of the academic opposition will vanish
 overnight. Researchers everywhere will be applying for grants to study it.
 As Stan Szpak says, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

For an EM field to propagate, the electric and magnetic fields must be
coupled. Once you stop the electric field, the magnetic field will also be
stopped. At low enough frequencies, the penetration depth of the field
will allow some EM field to escape, attenuated by the propagation through
the metal.

Even if SiC was used for the tubes, it would block most RF as SiC ceramic
is a conductor, but a poor one. SiC is an expensive ceramic to make in the
size of the hotCat and if Rossi were using this, it would probably price
his hotCat out of the market for home devices. I don't believe he is using
SiC in his hotCat - I believe the reactor core is stainless steel (as the
Penon report describes) welded closed at the ends of the coaxial tubes.
That doesn't mean he hasn't experimented with SiC. SiC is very hard to
machine and it would be challenging and expensive to produce a coaxial
reactor vessel (as shown in the Penon report) and seal its ends.

Bob Higgins

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

NMR is caused by the vibration of the non-zero spin vector of a nucleus.
This vibrating nuclear spin produces a vibrating magnetic field.

The point of a Faraday cage is that it's made of a conductor, which
responds to electric fields. Both a strong magnetostatic (DC) and Ac fields
are different, and will barely be affected by the Faraday cage. (The cage
may have some magnetic properties, but that's not what makes it a Faraday
cage, and it's unlikely to have a significant impact on magnetic fields.)

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

I have posted the cross-section of the hotCat as I have surmised it to be
constructed. The active medium is entirely in a hermetically sealed
stainless coaxial tube arrangement. The reactor vessel itself IS the
Faraday cage. It is not a part of the test, it is a part of the hotCat.

Bob Higgins

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

How do you know that a faraday cage is part of the test?

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

The 3.6 keV x-ray photons are easily detected with an x-ray
spectrometer such as the Amptek X-123SDD at
http://www.amptek.com/products/x-123sdd-complete-x-ray-spectrometer-with-silicon-drift-detector-sdd/
. See their chart at this URL for the different window options that will
easily allow detection down to 1 keV:
http://www.amptek.com/products/c-series-low-energy-x-ray-windows/ . I
am hoping to get one of these some day.

The bigger issue is that not much will make it out of the hotCat even
if that is the primary channel for conveying the heat.

In the case of RF, I would expect almost none to escape the hotCat
because the reaction is in a Faraday cage. The RF that could penetrate
would have to be below 1 kHz.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

I seriously doubt that in the TPT the experimenters would have been allowed
to modify the hotCat.  A membrane would have provided a continuous leak
to the limited supply of H2 inside the hotCat; however, a thin area window
would suffice if they could modify it.  If the reaction produces high
energy gamma, it will come right through the vessel, attenuated by the mass
per square cm of the reactor vessel.  So you don't need a window for high
energy gamma.  However, we know that high energy gamma cannot be the
primary carrier of the heat because too much of the energy would escape the
reactor vessel, and it would be dangerous to be around and easily
measured.  Low energy gamma (below 25 keV) may be a primary carrier of the
heat because it would be highly attenuated by the reactor vessel (and thus
thermalized).  Measuring low energy gamma is difficult because it doesn't
escape easily.  To measure this, you either need to create a sensor that
can be placed inside the reactor (and it would have to work with at the
hotCat's high temperature); OR, you need to make your reactor vessel thin
in a small spot (a window); OR, make your reactor vessel small, so that the
whole containment vessel can be thin (this is what I am doing).

Neutrons don't need a window - they will just come through.  If the heat
were carried by neutrons, the reactor vessel would not get hot because
there is not enough mass and capture cross-section there to stop
(thermalize) them.  The neutrons would just be killing everyone around the
reactor.  Any few neutrons detected externally are definitely a useful clue
about internal reactions, but fortunately few neutrons are ever detected.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:57 AM, frobertcook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  A small diameter membrane to allow some internal radiation out seems
 like a nice feature in any test, which the professors would certainly
 consider.

  In an good test one should expect to see such a feature.

  The same should be expected for neutrons--a neutron window.

  Bob

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-03 Thread hohlr...@gmail.com

Isn't that the same as fully ionized H? 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Fartphone

- Reply message -
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart
Date: Thu, Oct 2, 2014 11:49 PM

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

I predict a CoP of 2.6 and that the reactor accumulates a high

positive charge even to the point of occasionally arcing to it's

frame.  (Actually, the arc path is from the frame to the reactor.)


Just curious -- why the accumulation of positive charge?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-03 Thread Eric Walker




 On Oct 3, 2014, at 7:28, hohlr...@gmail.com hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Isn't that the same as fully ionized H? 

 
 Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Fartphone
 
 - Reply message -
 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart
 Date: Thu, Oct 2, 2014 11:49 PM
 
 On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 I predict a CoP of 2.6 and that the reactor accumulates a high
 positive charge even to the point of occasionally arcing to it's
 frame.  (Actually, the arc path is from the frame to the reactor.)
 
 Just curious -- why the accumulation of positive charge?
 
 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-03 Thread Eric Walker


 On Oct 3, 2014, at 7:28, hohlr...@gmail.com hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Isn't that the same as fully ionized H?

The ionized electrons have to go somewhere when they're stripped from the H.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-7/iss-5/p24.pdf

*How does magnetic shielding work?*
All EMI shielding materials are manufac-
tured from high-permeability alloys that con-
tain about 80% nickel; the alloys vary in the
composition of their remaining metals. They
are usually fabricated as foils or sheets and
are baked at 2,000 °F in a dry hydrogen-rich
atmosphere to anneal them. Annealing sig-
nificantly improves a material’s attenuation,
that is, its ability to absorb and redirect mag-
netic fields.

A shielding alloy works by diverting a
magnetic flux into itself. The alloy redirects
the magnetic flux away from the sensitive
object and returns it to the north–south
field. Although the field from a magnet is
greatly reduced by a shield plate, the protec-
tive alloy itself is attracted to the magnet,
but with no ill effects. Closed shapes are the
most efficient for magnetic shielding—cylin-
ders with caps, boxes with covers, and simi-
lar enclosed shapes are the most effective
(see figure).

Magnetic shielding materials offer a very-
high-permeability path for magnetic field
lines to travel through, directing them
through the thickness of the shielding alloy
and keeping them from going where they
are not wanted. It is important that the
shield should offer a complete path for the
field lines, so that they do not exit the mate-
rial in a place where they will cause unin-
tended interference.

*What is the difference between RF shield -*
*ing and magnetic shielding?*

Ra d i o-frequency (RF) shielding is
required when it is necessary to block high-
frequency (100 kHz and above) interference
fields. RF shields typically use copper, alu-
minum, galvanized steel, or conductive rub-
b e r, plastic, or paints. These materials work
at high frequencies by means of their high
c o n d u c t i v i t y. Unlike magnetic shields that
use their high permeability to attract mag-
netic fields, RF shielding has little or no
magnetic permeability. However, when they
are properly engineered and constructed,
magnetic-shield alloys become broadband
shields that protect against both EMI and
RF interference.

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

Bob Higgins

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

NMR is caused by the vibration of the non-zero spin vector of a nucleus.
This vibrating nuclear spin produces a vibrating magnetic field.

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

I have posted the cross-section of the hotCat as I have surmised it to
be constructed. The active medium is entirely in a hermetically sealed
stainless coaxial tube arrangement. The reactor vessel itself IS the
Faraday cage. It is not a part of the test, it is a part of the hotCat.

Bob Higgins

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

How do you know that a faraday cage is part of the test?

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

The bigger issue is that not much will make it out of the hotCat even
if that is the primary channel for conveying the heat.

In the case of RF, I

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

Yes Axil, I am an RF engineer and I am aware of permalloy/supermalloy
sheets used in EMI protection. These materials are added in sensitive
instrument applications to shunt low frequency evanescent magnetic fields,
not propagating RF EM fields. As I said, RF fields above about 1 kHz would
be prevented from escaping from Rossi's hotCat by the hermetic stainless
steel reactor enclosure acting as a Faraday cage. There will be no
propagating RF escaping from the Rossi's reactor vessel. There is only the
possibility of low frequency evanescent fields escaping.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-7/iss-5/p24.pdf

*What is the difference between RF shield -*
*ing and magnetic shielding?*

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

Dear Bob

Unlike myself, it is great that you are an expert in this subject that
greatly interests me.

Please address this issue. Unlike the usual RF shielding applications
using stainless steel, the Hot-Cat reaches 1000C without active heat
removal.

Bearing in mind that RF shielding protection is a function of the
conductivity of the metal, the electrical resistance of stainless steel is
a increasing function of temperature. How much RF protection is lost in a
1000C stainless steel faraday cage as a function of the increasing
temperature of stainless steel.

http://www.aksteel.com/pdf/markets_products/stainless/austenitic/304_304L_Data_Sheet.pdf

Electrical Resistivity of 304 stainless in

(microhm-cm)

68°F (20°C) – 28.4 (72)

1200°F (659°C) – 45.8 (116)

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-7/iss-5/p24.pdf

*What is the difference between RF shield -*
*ing and magnetic shielding?*

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

Free electrons and those produced by heat induced dipole charge separation
will be confined to the Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP - electron photon
hybrid particles) solitons at the tips of the nickel nanowires and also
between the solid crystal hydrogen Rydberg matter nano-particles as SPP
solitons.

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Oct 3, 2014, at 7:28, hohlr...@gmail.com hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Isn't that the same as fully ionized H?


 The ionized electrons have to go somewhere when they're stripped from the
 H.

 Eric

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-03 Thread hohlr...@gmail.com

The entirety of their inertial mass is distributed via spin coupling. Or maybe 
not.

- Reply message -
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart
Date: Fri, Oct 3, 2014 11:03 AM

The ionized electrons have to go somewhere when they're stripped from the H.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

The interesting thing about polaritons is that the constituent
electrons lose most of their mass when the SPPs become entangled with
photons. The polariton has just 10^^-11 times the mass of the electron that
forms it.

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 2:05 PM, hohlr...@gmail.com hohlr...@gmail.com
wrote:


 The entirety of their inertial mass is distributed via spin coupling. Or
 maybe not.

 - Reply message -
 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart
 Date: Fri, Oct 3, 2014 11:03 AM




 The ionized electrons have to go somewhere when they're stripped from the
 H.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

Normally the resistivity of a metal is linear in degrees Kelvin. So, going
from 300K to 1300K would cause a metal's resistance to increase by 1300/300
or a factor of 4.3. The RF skin depth will increase as the square root of
this change or about 2. So, the leakage out of this Faraday cage will
about double in amplitude (6 dB). In an ideal Faraday cage (ideal
conductor), all of the RF is reflected back into the interior, none leaks
out, and none is absorbed. In a real metal Faraday cage, most of the
signal is reflected, the signal is attenuated substantially in going from
inside to outside, and some of the power is absorbed in the metal. The
amount that leaks out is proportional to the number of skin depths in
thickness of the Faraday cage metal. The skin depth is 1/sqrt(pi F mu
sigma), so it is inversely proportional to the square root of frequency.
High frequencies have small skin depth and hence, the metal thickness being
more skin depths in thickness, the signal transmitted is more attenuated
going through the metal. Thus, low frequencies with big skin depths
penetrate better and high RF frequencies penetrate less. That is why I
said that it is unlikely that high RF frequencies would escape in a
measurable way - given the thickness of the reactor metal (probably on the
order of 1.5mm) above 100 kHz would probably be considered high frequency.
And, as previously stated, about 6dB more will come out at 1000C than at
room temp.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

Dear Bob

Unlike myself, it is great that you are an expert in this subject that
greatly interests me.

Please address this issue. Unlike the usual RF shielding applications
using stainless steel, the Hot-Cat reaches 1000C without active heat
removal.

http://www.aksteel.com/pdf/markets_products/stainless/austenitic/304_304L_Data_Sheet.pdf

Electrical Resistivity of 304 stainless in

(microhm-cm)

68°F (20°C) – 28.4 (72)

1200°F (659°C) – 45.8 (116)

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-7/iss-5/p24.pdf

*What is the difference between RF shield -*
*ing and magnetic shielding?*

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

Will this third party test be honest and all revealing? Will the
independent testers keep the reasons why they have tested the Hot-Cat
system in a particular way secret as per some initial understanding with
Rossi to keep confidential the design and theory that underpins the Hot-Cat.

In particular, during this second third party test (TPT), I predict that
the Hot-Cat will generate a huge amount of Radio frequency (RF) radiation.
This very large amount of RF will by its fundamental nature have imposed a
major impediment in testing. People who test a system that produces a large
amount of RF radiation are operating in a highly disorderly testing
environment.

To compensate, the testers would have needed to avoid the disruptions and
inherent inaccuracies imposed on the monitoring electronics and sensors
that such a radiating system imposes on the testing equipment.

I believe that this huge RF radiation environment forced the use of a
remote temperature camera in the first TPT test. This gigantic RF
production will be a major clue as to how the E-Cat works.

Will the testers keep the reasons why they are compensating for the RF
interference a secret as required by an initial pretest confidentiality
agreement with Rossi. This emanation of a large RF signature from the
Hot-Cat will be an unambiguous clue to how the Hot-Cat works.

If the TPT is scientifically honest, I expect to see a chart that depicts
the RF emanations from the Hot-Cat as a function of power output. This
would be similar to a gamma radiation chart vs. power output.

If the TPT is scientifically honest, the inner workings of the Hot-Cat will
be easy to see from the data provided. If the past is prolog, from what was
publicized in the first TPT, there will be a careful screening of the test
data that is revealed publically in this second TPT to keep the inner
workings of the Hot-Cat opaque.



On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Dear Friends,

 Anticipating some possible effects of the Rossi Report 2,
 I have published:


 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/it-comes-judgment-day-for-lenr-paradigm.html

 Let's wait and see if I was right. To increase my chsnces I predicted more
 things, some contradictory. A good researcher can become a prophet after
 retirement.
 Peter



 --
 Dr. Peter Gluck
 Cluj, Romania
 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

From: Peter Gluck 

 

Dear Friends, Anticipating some possible effects of the Rossi Report 2,

I have published:

 

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/it-comes-judgment-day-for-lenr-paradigm.html

 

Let's wait and see if I was right. To increase my chsnces I predicted more 
things, some contradictory. A good researcher can become a prophet after 
retirement.

 

Well, Peter, it’s hard to be wrong without a few specific predictions g.

 

Here are mine:

1)COP near 2 for extended periods. 

2)No gamma radiation

3)Evidence of quiescence (unexpected cessation of the gain)

 

Hoped for prediction – but unlikely due to technical limitations: evidence of 
the signature x-ray indicative of DDL/dark matter, in the range of 3.6 keV. 

 

Since there is no commercial meter for this spectrum, the x-ray would have to 
show up in some other clever way, such as film exposure – thus it is unlikely.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-02 Thread Jed Rothwell

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Will this third party test be honest and all revealing?

Probably. The first report was, and this is the same group of people.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

I expect to see even distribution of heat based on superfulidity. I expect
to see RF radiation increase over time and heat output decrease in like
proportion. If an ash assay is provided, a large amount of iron and
61NI will  be found in the ash.

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  *From:* Peter Gluck



 Dear Friends, Anticipating some possible effects of the Rossi Report 2,

 I have published:




 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/it-comes-judgment-day-for-lenr-paradigm.html



 Let's wait and see if I was right. To increase my chsnces I predicted more
 things, some contradictory. A good researcher can become a prophet after
 retirement.



 Well, Peter, it’s hard to be wrong without a few specific predictions g.



 Here are mine:

 1)COP near 2 for extended periods.

 2)No gamma radiation

 3)Evidence of quiescence (unexpected cessation of the gain)



 Hoped for prediction – but unlikely due to technical limitations: evidence
 of the signature x-ray indicative of DDL/dark matter, in the range of 3.6
 keV.



 Since there is no commercial meter for this spectrum, the x-ray would have
 to show up in some other clever way, such as film exposure – thus it is
 unlikely.



 Jones

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-02 Thread Foks0904 .

While I am hopeful and optimistic about the report, I am sometimes
pessimistic about its potential impact on the outsider public. For
example, hasn't Mills' gotten a fair amount of
independent/quasi-independent verification on certain aspects of his theory
(certainly the excess heat), yet no real attention because no commercial
product on the market as of yet (that we know about)? Isn't the
experimental reality of excess heat obvious/true/proven, yet that can't
even gain traction in the public. Not saying it couldn't/wouldn't be a huge
story, just stating some general pessimism about the attention span of
people outside this community.

I agree that COP near 2.0 would be relevant, as mentioned by Jones here 
Brian Ahern elsewhere, and I'm not expecting any gammas commensurate with
excess heat (based on passed observations/experiences w/ PdD  NiH
systems) -- though I'm willing to be surprised. I would be much happier if
David French's magic numbers COP 6-10  Temperatures 200-600F could be
achieved (if I'm remembering correctly).

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  *From:* Peter Gluck



 Dear Friends, Anticipating some possible effects of the Rossi Report 2,

 I have published:




 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/it-comes-judgment-day-for-lenr-paradigm.html



 Let's wait and see if I was right. To increase my chsnces I predicted more
 things, some contradictory. A good researcher can become a prophet after
 retirement.



 Well, Peter, it’s hard to be wrong without a few specific predictions g.



 Here are mine:

 1)COP near 2 for extended periods.

 2)No gamma radiation

 3)Evidence of quiescence (unexpected cessation of the gain)



 Hoped for prediction – but unlikely due to technical limitations: evidence
 of the signature x-ray indicative of DDL/dark matter, in the range of 3.6
 keV.



 Since there is no commercial meter for this spectrum, the x-ray would have
 to show up in some other clever way, such as film exposure – thus it is
 unlikely.



 Jones

RE: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

This will be interesting Axil. You’re saying lots of RF should be seen, and
I will predict that no RF will be seen. That is a sharp contrast. 

RF is easy to detect, and cheap accurate spectrum analyzers are found on
Amazon. What spectrums are you predicting?

I doubt if the ash will be tested, as that would give away trade secrets.


From: Axil Axil 

I expect to see even distribution of heat based on
superfulidity. I expect to see RF radiation increase over time and heat
output decrease in like proportion. If an ash assay is provided, a large
amount of iron and 61NI will  be found in the ash.

Jones Beene  wrote: From: Peter Gluck 
Dear Friends, Anticipating some possible
effects of the Rossi Report 2,
I have published:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/it-comes-judgment-day-for-lenr-parad
igm.html
Let's wait and see if I was right. To
increase my chsnces I predicted more things, some contradictory. A good
researcher can become a prophet after retirement.
Well, Peter, it’s hard to be wrong without a few specific
predictions g.
Here are mine:
1)COP near 2 for extended periods. 
2)No gamma radiation
3)Evidence of quiescence (unexpected cessation of the
gain)
Hoped for prediction – but unlikely due to technical
limitations: evidence of the signature x-ray indicative of DDL/dark matter,
in the range of 3.6 keV. 
Since there is no commercial meter for this spectrum, the
x-ray would have to show up in some other clever way, such as film exposure
– thus it is unlikely.
 
Jones
 
 
 

attachment: winmail.dat

RE: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

From: Foks0904  

 

I would be much happier if David French's magic numbers COP 6-10  
Temperatures 200-600F could be achieved (if I'm remembering correctly).

 

John – if COP of 6-10 is seen over an extended time period, much of the 
mainstream physics community will go into full apoplectic and anaphylactic 
shock. It may never recover from the embarrassment.

 

That may not be the worst thing in the world of science, since the level of 
past arrogance begs for its overdue “comeuppance,” as they say. However, 
French’s high COP is not needed in the real world, and maybe is not realistic - 
based on the history of the field … at least not so long as the Rossi reaction 
can be triggered by heat alone (without electric input). 

 

As I have tried to show, COP of 2 in heat-triggered systems is the effectively 
the same as “infinite” for all practical purposes. It simply means more units 
are needed before the loop can be closed, depending on the details of the 
Maxwellian distribution - so the overhead is higher with 2 instead of 6, but 
either can be engineered as closed-loop, or infinite COP.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-02 Thread Foks0904 .

As I have tried to show, COP of 2 in heat-triggered systems is the
effectively the same as “infinite” for all practical purposes. It simply
means more units are needed before the loop can be closed, depending on the
details of the Maxwellian distribution - so the overhead is higher with 2
instead of 6, but either can be engineered as closed-loop, or infinite COP.

Yes that is something I've been curious about for awhile. You have added to
that understanding.

John

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

   *From:* Foks0904



 I would be much happier if David French's magic numbers COP 6-10 
 Temperatures 200-600F could be achieved (if I'm remembering correctly).



 John – if COP of 6-10 is seen over an extended time period, much of the
 mainstream physics community will go into full apoplectic and anaphylactic
 shock. It may never recover from the embarrassment.



 That may not be the worst thing in the world of science, since the level
 of past arrogance begs for its overdue “comeuppance,” as they say. However,
 French’s high COP is not needed in the real world, and maybe is not
 realistic - based on the history of the field … at least not so long as the
 Rossi reaction can be triggered by heat alone (without electric input).



 As I have tried to show, COP of 2 in heat-triggered systems is the
 effectively the same as “infinite” for all practical purposes. It simply
 means more units are needed before the loop can be closed, depending on the
 details of the Maxwellian distribution - so the overhead is higher with 2
 instead of 6, but either can be engineered as closed-loop, or infinite COP.



 Jones

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-02 Thread Daniel Rocha

Be sure, Krivit (he twitted about it I think) will make the greatest effort
ever to make bad publicity of Rossi. More than any of his tests before.

That will be bad. He will really try to spam every place, nag every
journalist or report concerning any positive aspect of it. And

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-02 Thread Bob Higgins

The 3.6 keV x-ray photons are easily detected with an x-ray spectrometer
such as the Amptek X-123SDD at
http://www.amptek.com/products/x-123sdd-complete-x-ray-spectrometer-with-silicon-drift-detector-sdd/
.  See their chart at this URL for the different window options that will
easily allow detection down to 1 keV:
http://www.amptek.com/products/c-series-low-energy-x-ray-windows/ .  I am
hoping to get one of these some day.

The bigger issue is that not much will make it out of the hotCat even if
that is the primary channel for conveying the heat.

In the case of RF, I would expect almost none to escape the hotCat because
the reaction is in a Faraday cage.  The RF that could penetrate would have
to be below 1 kHz.

Bob Higgins

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 Hoped for prediction – but unlikely due to technical limitations: evidence
 of the signature x-ray indicative of DDL/dark matter, in the range of 3.6
 keV.



 Since there is no commercial meter for this spectrum, the x-ray would have
 to show up in some other clever way, such as film exposure – thus it is
 unlikely.



 Jones

RE: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

Bob,

 

Good find on the AmpTek. I see from their website and their Space Related 
Products that they probably made the detectors which discovered the (reputed) 
dark matter signal.

 

The problem as you realize is:  how does one let the radiation radiation out of 
the HotCat, to be detected, since it is absorbed by steel. Fortunately the wl 
is very short.

 

In many of Mills papers, with EUV being measured - which is a similar problem, 
he uses the tiniest possible pinhole with the sensor being actually exposed 
directly to hot hydrogen, which is supposedly cooled as it goes through the 
pinhole and apparently does not damage the sensor.

 

I doubt that the Swedes would have put a pinhole in Rossi’s reactor, but who 
knows.

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

The bigger issue is that not much will make it out of the hotCat even if that 
is the primary channel for conveying the heat.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-02 Thread Jed Rothwell

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


 John – if COP of 6-10 is seen over an extended time period, much of the
 mainstream physics community will go into full apoplectic and anaphylactic
 shock. It may never recover from the embarrassment.


I do not think the COP will make any difference. I do not think this report
will have any effect on the scientific establishment, unless it is
published in Nature. I am pretty sure it will not be in Nature!

However, I think it may have a positive impact. It may shake loose more
funding for the research. Funding is what we need most at this stage. Even
more than recognition. Of course, with recognition would come funding, but
also opposition which we do not need.

If word gets out that cold fusion is now attracting tens of millions in
research funding, then most of the academic opposition will vanish
overnight. Researchers everywhere will be applying for grants to study it.
As Stan Szpak says, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

How do you know that a faraday cage is part of the test?

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

 The 3.6 keV x-ray photons are easily detected with an x-ray spectrometer
 such as the Amptek X-123SDD at
 http://www.amptek.com/products/x-123sdd-complete-x-ray-spectrometer-with-silicon-drift-detector-sdd/
 .  See their chart at this URL for the different window options that will
 easily allow detection down to 1 keV:
 http://www.amptek.com/products/c-series-low-energy-x-ray-windows/ .  I am
 hoping to get one of these some day.

 The bigger issue is that not much will make it out of the hotCat even if
 that is the primary channel for conveying the heat.

 In the case of RF, I would expect almost none to escape the hotCat because
 the reaction is in a Faraday cage.  The RF that could penetrate would have
 to be below 1 kHz.

 Bob Higgins

 On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 Hoped for prediction – but unlikely due to technical limitations:
 evidence of the signature x-ray indicative of DDL/dark matter, in the range
 of 3.6 keV.



 Since there is no commercial meter for this spectrum, the x-ray would
 have to show up in some other clever way, such as film exposure – thus it
 is unlikely.



 Jones

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-02 Thread Bob Higgins

I have posted the cross-section of the hotCat as I have surmised it to be
constructed.  The active medium is entirely in a hermetically sealed
stainless coaxial tube arrangement.  The reactor vessel itself IS the
Faraday cage.  It is not a part of the test, it is a part of the hotCat.

Bob Higgins

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 How do you know that a faraday cage is part of the test?

 On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 The 3.6 keV x-ray photons are easily detected with an x-ray spectrometer
 such as the Amptek X-123SDD at
 http://www.amptek.com/products/x-123sdd-complete-x-ray-spectrometer-with-silicon-drift-detector-sdd/
 .  See their chart at this URL for the different window options that will
 easily allow detection down to 1 keV:
 http://www.amptek.com/products/c-series-low-energy-x-ray-windows/ .  I
 am hoping to get one of these some day.

 The bigger issue is that not much will make it out of the hotCat even if
 that is the primary channel for conveying the heat.

 In the case of RF, I would expect almost none to escape the hotCat
 because the reaction is in a Faraday cage.  The RF that could penetrate
 would have to be below 1 kHz.

RE: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

From: Axil Axil 

 

How do you know that a faraday cage is part of the test? 

 

 

By definition, a Faraday cage is an enclosure made of a conductive material. 

 

One version of the hot cat is housed in a stainless steel tube, so it is a 
Faraday cage. 

 

There is another version which no one talks about any more, which is housed in 
silicon carbide. This ceramic version was the one Rossi described in his 
tribute to Focardi as a breakthrough, then it was never mentioned again.

RE: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

 

There is another version which no one talks about any more, which is housed in 
silicon carbide. This ceramic version was the one Rossi described in his 
tribute to Focardi as the breakthrough leading to the HotCat, after which, it 
was never mentioned again. 

 

I have been trying to find the reference for this, since Rossi apparently 
removed it from JoNP. E-Cat World still has the story of the Focardi tribute 
and the “incident at Brasimone” which at one time led me to believe that 
silicon carbide tubes were important.

 

http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/06/22/sergio-focardi-dies/

 

Rossi quote: See you soon, my great Friend and Master Sergio! I will never 
forget our work together and that day in the Brasimone Nuclear facility.

 

Apparently “that day” was when the HotCat first went operational. Rossi had 
said in the original story that the tube was silicon carbide, because that is 
what they had specialized in at Brasimone, ceramic plumbing for the Italian 
molten salt reactor. 

 

There is a very good technical reason why SiC could be important – plasmon 
polaritons. SiC emits a nearly coherent blackbody level which is most unique 
and it is exactly the wavelength NASA says is important. It could be 
coincidental, or the reference could have been removed from JoNP because it 
gave away too much. This paper shows the sharp emission peak at ~11 microns 
Infrared properties of SiC particles Mutschke et al.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9903031.pdf

 

The plasmon/polariton connection to THz radiation in the far IR spectrum could 
be one key to robust LENR, as we seem to find in the HotCat. The paper by  
Hagelstein, Cravens and Letts includes some of the theory which would tie it 
all together with IR photons at 11 micron resonance.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LettsDstimulatio.pdf

 

However, since no reference ever appeared again to SiC, and all of the new 
HotCats seem to show stainless steel exterior, perhaps this detail will remain 
a false alarm, or else a mystery which will unfold in a couple of weeks.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

NMR is caused by the vibration of the non-zero spin vector of a nucleus.
This vibrating nuclear spin produces a vibrating magnetic field.

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

Bob Higgins

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

How do you know that a faraday cage is part of the test?

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

The 3.6 keV x-ray photons are easily detected with an x-ray spectrometer
such as the Amptek X-123SDD at
http://www.amptek.com/products/x-123sdd-complete-x-ray-spectrometer-with-silicon-drift-detector-sdd/
. See their chart at this URL for the different window options that will
easily allow detection down to 1 keV:
http://www.amptek.com/products/c-series-low-energy-x-ray-windows/ . I
am hoping to get one of these some day.

The bigger issue is that not much will make it out of the hotCat even if
that is the primary channel for conveying the heat.

In the case of RF, I would expect almost none to escape the hotCat
because the reaction is in a Faraday cage. The RF that could penetrate
would have to be below 1 kHz.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

We want to deal with resonance in the 5 micron range and smaller. This is
the size of the nickel micro particle in the Ni/H reactor.

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:



 There is another version which no one talks about any more, which is
 housed in silicon carbide. This ceramic version was the one Rossi described
 in his tribute to Focardi as the breakthrough leading to the HotCat, after
 which, it was never mentioned again.



 I have been trying to find the reference for this, since Rossi apparently
 removed it from JoNP. E-Cat World still has the story of the Focardi
 tribute and the “incident at Brasimone” which at one time led me to believe
 that silicon carbide tubes were important.



 http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/06/22/sergio-focardi-dies/



 Rossi quote: See you soon, my great Friend and Master Sergio! I will never
 forget our work together and *that day* in the Brasimone Nuclear facility.



 Apparently “that day” was when the HotCat first went operational. Rossi
 had said in the original story that the tube was silicon carbide, because
 that is what they had specialized in at Brasimone, ceramic plumbing for the
 Italian molten salt reactor.



 There is a very good technical reason why SiC could be important – plasmon
 polaritons. SiC emits a nearly coherent blackbody level which is most
 unique and it is exactly the wavelength NASA says is important. It could be
 coincidental, or the reference could have been removed from JoNP because it
 gave away too much. This paper shows the sharp emission peak at ~11 microns
 Infrared properties of SiC particles Mutschke et al.

 http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9903031.pdf



 The plasmon/polariton connection to THz radiation in the far IR spectrum
 could be one key to robust LENR, as we seem to find in the HotCat. The
 paper by  Hagelstein, Cravens and Letts includes some of the theory which
 would tie it all together with IR photons at 11 micron resonance.

 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LettsDstimulatio.pdf



 However, since no reference ever appeared again to SiC, and all of the new
 HotCats seem to show stainless steel exterior, perhaps this detail will
 remain a false alarm, or else a mystery which will unfold in a couple of
 weeks.



 Jones

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart

2014-10-02 Thread Terry Blanton

I predict a CoP of 2.6 and that the reactor accumulates a high
positive charge even to the point of occasionally arcing to it's
frame.  (Actually, the arc path is from the frame to the reactor.)

=^^=

RE: [Vo]:Rossi Report will come, old paradigm will depart