Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
I'd like to add my Poynting Vector based model to the mix. I had posted this on another thread about Ed Storms's latest book. To: *All; y'all; et al* Here’s my theory. On either side of a crack in the substrate material, you’ve got electrons moving at different speeds, creating a microscopically small differential capacitor. The vibrations push the differential charge “upward”, which is to say from the smallest separation of the crack to the largest. When the charge differential gets to a certain point, a spark is generated. This spark is what creates the Nuclear Active Environment. But it is not due to plasma physics, it is due to a force generated by a spark that goes across the anode cathode of a capacitor. In the below Quantum Potential article, a propulsive force was found that matches these conditions (except that we’re seeing it on a microscopic level). Asymmetric Capacitor Thrusterhttp://www.quantum-potential.com/ACT%20NASA.pdf An earlier SBIR study commissioned by the Air Force reported a propulsive force caused by a spark between ACT electrodes [3]. The study [3] also focused on ACT thrust in high vacuum (10−5 to 10−7 Torr) and reports small (on the order of 10 nN) thrust in vacuum under pulsed DC voltage conditions. Furthermore, the study [3] reports observation of thrust when a piezoelectric dielectric material such as lead titanate or lead zirconate (high relative dielectric constants of k = 1750) was used between the ACT electrodes. The thrust was apparently produced by slow pulsing spark-‐initiated breakdown of the dielectric. The magnitude of the propulsive force increases with the intensity of sparking across the dielectric. The study [3] recommended further exploration of sparking across dielectrics as a source of propulsive forces in ACTs. Unfortunately, no such follow-‐up study was conducted. I believe this Asymmetric Capacitor force has been previously described as the Poynting Vector. I think it is enhanced by the advent of a spark across the electrodes. But I might be mistaken. http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/pft01.htm During a charging process of a flat capacitor, the Poynting vector ( S=ExH ) comes from outside the capacitor towards the wire connections, parallel to the surface of the armatures inside the dielectric medium. There is an energy flow directly proportional to ExB. This energy is not provided by the wires but comes from the surrounding space around the capacitor. ( ref: The Feynman Lectures on Physics : Electromagnetism vol2, Chap: 27-5, fig 27-3 by Addison-Wesley Publishing company. ) So, this Poynting Asymmetrical Capacitor Vector generates a unidirectional force. Any protons within its path would be propelled into a nearby Hydrogen atom which is trapped inside a Palladium matrix. This force is enough to overcome the Coulomb Barrier. A couple of guesses: There would have to be hundreds of thousands of these sparks every second, constantly spitting matter or protons or electrons in one direction similar to a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) particle accelerator, where only 1 in 100k particles actually collides with a nucleus of a hydrogen atom and fuses. This force is proportional to the distance between electrodes, so the effect would happen closer to the small vertex of the crack rather than the large ends of the crack. The transfer of energy of fused atoms is mostly heat because the collision is unidirectional, and the gamma rays that are emitted only come out in certain geometrical probabilities, and most of those probabilities are directly in line with host atoms on the palladium (or nickel) matrix. I look at it similar to a pellet gun hitting balloons -- most of the time the air escapes the balloon in almost the same regions each time. These reactions only occur one atom at a time, so the geometrically restricted release of gamma rays is similarly restricted. The released energy is absorbed by the matrix one atom-release at a time. On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Some appetizers to hold you over http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2896450/posts On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: I'm still waiting to receive my copy. I'll have more to say then. I'm guessing most haven't gotten around to it either. But generally speaking it deserves some in-depth analysis for sure. On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: / /An Examination of the Relationship between Observation and Explanation/ by Edmund Storms See http://lenrexplained.com/ ***So why is this book being greeted by indifference yawning by Vorticians?
Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
Hello Jones: There is an interesting CNT patent mentioned on ECat World. Carbon Nanotube Energy? New Patent Filed by Seldon Technologies Posted on February 28, 2014 by adminhttp://www.e-catworld.com/author/admin/* 30 Commentshttp://www.e-catworld.com/2014/02/carbon-nanotube-energy-new-patent-filed-by-seldon-technologies/#comments http://www.repost.us/article-preview/hash/11a8412d31aba3bdeb31cf1479f2481c/ Here's something that just came to my attention, and I haven't really had time to investigate it thoroughly, so I thought I'd put it up here for information and comment. It's a patent filed by Seldon Technologies, a Vermont company which works mainly in the field of water purification, and use carbon nanotubes in their filtration systems to make a product they call Nanomesh. Seldon seems to be branching out in their research and development endeavors, however, and have filed a patenthttps://www.google.com/patents/US20130266106?dq=ininventor:%22James+F.+Loan%22hl=ensa=Xei=0bMOU4nIJMyGogT-1YLoAgved=0CDUQ6AEwAAwhich deals with energy production titled Methods of generating energetic particles using nanotubes and articles thereof. The patent was published on October 10 2013. The abstract reads: There is disclosed a method of generating energetic particles, which comprises contacting nanotubes with a source of hydrogen isotopes, such as D2O, and applying activation energy to the nanotubes. In one embodiment, the hydrogen isotopes comprises protium, deuterium, tritium, and combinations thereof. There is also disclosed a method of transmuting matter that is based on the increased likelihood of nuclei interaction for atoms confined in the limited dimensions of a nanotube structure, which generates energetic particles sufficient to transmute matter and exposing matter to be transmuted to these particles. I can't find any reference to any product under development out there, but the application mentions some experiments done with carbon nanotubes in which neutron production 'above background levels' was measured. For example, in one experiment, a carbon nanotube electrode was submerged in a bath of deuterium, and after a voltage was passed through it, neutron bursts were recorded. On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Another factor favoring CNT - as the containment mechanism for hydrogen in an alternative version of LENR (instead of a metal lattice) is the similarity to graphene in presence of electrons. There is every reason to suspect that CNT would support ballistic electrons at least as well as graphene. New paper. http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/02/ballistic-transport-graphene-suggests-new-type-electronic-device *From:* Jones Beene Hi Kevin, I did include two variants of BEC- one is associated with Kim and one with Takahashi. Neither can adequately explain operation at elevated temperatures. This is a list that is continually evolving and I will include a 1D version in the next go-around. Jones *From:* Kevin O'Malley Thanks for posting this, Jones. It reminds me of an earlier post on Vortex that was a compilation of LENR theories but I cannot find it with the search engine nor even with google.
RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
Hi Kevin, Yes the is the same inventor I posted about yesterday- Christopher Cooper. Everyone interesting in this facet of LENR should look at the patent drawings and the simplicity of the claims. This should be a breeze to replicate - if there is anything to it. This situation begs for more information, but it looks like you were on that particular wavelength (as Van Morrison would opine). Yesterday - all indications seemed to be that Cooper's several patent applications were speculative, as opposed to reduced to practice. This is due to his lack of publications and lack of data - which can be explained by wanting to fly under the radar until the patent was granted (it has not been granted). Moreover, as suggested in that post, if one is in the business of CNT - which his company is - and one has read any of the LENR literature mentioning CNT, then there would have been no reason not to try it in a simple form, which seems to be the case. Then, one can cogently argue that if he tried CNT with heavy water and saw gain that is by definition reduced to practice. No argument there. And - on closer look, his application claims priority going back to 2005 so he is no newcomer to the field. I am stunned that he has not published or availed himself of expertise outside of his own skills - because of a major problem. The problem is that this alone may not be patentable, due to prior art - and yet he is using a light source for the input ! That pushes everything into another realm of very high importance, depending on other details. This could have been a huge breakthrough - except that Chris did not mention SPP implying that he probably does not know of the plasmon polariton mechanism. It's too late now even though applications can be altered and augmented (but one loses priority). That is too bad because otherwise he might have broad coverage. As it stands now, this disclosure is terribly deficient in prior art and looks unprofessional to an extent. Sadly, I think he will have very little IP coverage in the end, when he realizes what is to be found in prior art. But he came very close to a significant filing here. Too bad he chose to fly under the radar. That strategy almost never works out well. From: Kevin O'Malley Hello Jones: There is an interesting CNT patent mentioned on ECat World. Carbon Nanotube Energy? New Patent Filed by Seldon Technologies Posted on February 28, 2014 Jones Beene wrote: Another factor favoring CNT - as the containment mechanism for hydrogen in an alternative version of LENR (instead of a metal lattice) is the similarity to graphene in presence of electrons. There is every reason to suspect that CNT would support ballistic electrons at least as well as graphene. New paper. http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/02/ballistic-transport-graphene-suggests-new- type-electronic-device From: Jones Beene Hi Kevin, I did include two variants of BEC- one is associated with Kim and one with Takahashi. Neither can adequately explain operation at elevated temperatures. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
Jones Bob here-- You indicated the following: Chris did not mention SPP implying that he probably does not know of the plasmon polariton mechanism. It's too late now even though applications can be altered and augmented (but one loses priority). Has anyone you know mentioned SPP in a patent? Axil sure has talked about it and there may be others. Axil's EGO lecture last year that Peter Gluck posted was pretty descriptive in this regard. Axil has a little addition to the theory with his solariton particle, that may or should be included in a patent application. Fran may be interested as well as others. Fran's experiment needs a window to look for high magnetic fields also to get a better handle on the science.This may make it more expensive. Final question: Has Kim published anything about BEC with paired +spin/-spin particles that are in effect a Bose particle? For example paired electrons, an electron and a proton, paired muons, a muon and electron, a He-3 with a D, etc. I'm trying to think outside of Ed's box. Such paring may help explain the D flux-through- Ca oxide transmutations ( 2, 4, 8, OR 12 AMU) in the Japanese experiments several years ago. Maybe they have already explained the transmutation phenomena they observed, I do not know. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 6:49 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice Hi Kevin, Yes the is the same inventor I posted about yesterday- Christopher Cooper. Everyone interesting in this facet of LENR should look at the patent drawings and the simplicity of the claims. This should be a breeze to replicate - if there is anything to it. This situation begs for more information, but it looks like you were on that particular wavelength (as Van Morrison would opine). Yesterday - all indications seemed to be that Cooper's several patent applications were speculative, as opposed to reduced to practice. This is due to his lack of publications and lack of data - which can be explained by wanting to fly under the radar until the patent was granted (it has not been granted). Moreover, as suggested in that post, if one is in the business of CNT - which his company is - and one has read any of the LENR literature mentioning CNT, then there would have been no reason not to try it in a simple form, which seems to be the case. Then, one can cogently argue that if he tried CNT with heavy water and saw gain that is by definition reduced to practice. No argument there. And - on closer look, his application claims priority going back to 2005 so he is no newcomer to the field. I am stunned that he has not published or availed himself of expertise outside of his own skills - because of a major problem. The problem is that this alone may not be patentable, due to prior art - and yet he is using a light source for the input ! That pushes everything into another realm of very high importance, depending on other details. This could have been a huge breakthrough - except that Chris did not mention SPP implying that he probably does not know of the plasmon polariton mechanism. It's too late now even though applications can be altered and augmented (but one loses priority). That is too bad because otherwise he might have broad coverage. As it stands now, this disclosure is terribly deficient in prior art and looks unprofessional to an extent. Sadly, I think he will have very little IP coverage in the end, when he realizes what is to be found in prior art. But he came very close to a significant filing here. Too bad he chose to fly under the radar. That strategy almost never works out well. From: Kevin O'Malley Hello Jones: There is an interesting CNT patent mentioned on ECat World. Carbon Nanotube Energy? New Patent Filed by Seldon Technologies Posted on February 28, 2014 Jones Beene wrote: Another factor favoring CNT - as the containment mechanism for hydrogen in an alternative version of LENR (instead of a metal lattice) is the similarity to graphene in presence of electrons. There is every reason to suspect that CNT would support ballistic electrons at least as well as graphene. New paper. http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/02/ballistic-transport-graphene-suggests-new- type-electronic-device From: Jones Beene Hi Kevin, I did include two variants of BEC- one is associated with Kim and one with Takahashi. Neither can adequately explain operation at elevated temperatures.
RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook Jones Bob here-- You indicated the following: Chris did not mention SPP implying that he probably does not know of the plasmon polariton mechanism. It's too late now even though applications can be altered and augmented (but one loses priority). Has anyone you know mentioned SPP in a patent? Yes but the first instance is not clear. See Egely: WO 2012164323 A3 https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012164323A3 But one cannot be the inventor of anything already known in prior art whether it is mentioned in a patent filing or in the scientific literature. Mention of SPP was made in the literature as far back as 1985. The first instance I can find on Vortex is from GJB in 2011: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg58521.html But I think the main credit for SPP in LENR goes to Julian Brown. I cannot find the exact paper but he is/was prolific. http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878 This is an important point and it would be helpful to track it down, but I do not have time today. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
Jones-- Thanks. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 9:26 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Jones Bob here-- You indicated the following: Chris did not mention SPP implying that he probably does not know of the plasmon polariton mechanism. It's too late now even though applications can be altered and augmented (but one loses priority). Has anyone you know mentioned SPP in a patent? Yes but the first instance is not clear. See Egely: WO 2012164323 A3 https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012164323A3 But one cannot be the inventor of anything already known in prior art whether it is mentioned in a patent filing or in the scientific literature. Mention of SPP was made in the literature as far back as 1985. The first instance I can find on Vortex is from GJB in 2011: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg58521.html But I think the main credit for SPP in LENR goes to Julian Brown. I cannot find the exact paper but he is/was prolific. http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878 This is an important point and it would be helpful to track it down, but I do not have time today. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
Jones-- Brown's 2007 item you refer to below is close to my first impression of what was happening back in 1989 in the P-F experiment. An excerpt from Brown's paper is included below: Enhanced low energy fusion rate in palladium (Pd) due to vibrational deuteron dipole-dipole interactions and associated resonant tunneling that over-cancels the Jastrow factor between deuteron pair wavefunctions J.S.Brown (Submitted on 12 Nov 2007) We show that interstitial hydrogen nuclei on a metallic lattice are strongly coupled to their near neighbors by the unscreened electromagnetic field mediating transitions between low-lying states. We then show that in almost-stoichiometric PdD clusters, in which most interstitial sites are occupied by a deuteron, certain specific superpositions of many-site product states exist that are lower in energy than the single-site ground state, suggesting the existence of a new low temperature phase. The modified behaviour of the two-particle wavefunction at small separations is investigated and prelimary results suggesting an over-canceling of the effective Coulomb barrier are presented. I concluded that it was not unlikely that 2 D could occupy the same lattice position inside the Pd face center cubic array and pair up in the magnetic field that existed as an internal B field with high + and - spin states (a virtual helium nucleus) and decay to a ground state--stable helium--with distribution of the spin energy to the electronic structure of the Pd lattice. I was not aware of the idea of Cooper pairs of electrons in 1989. I think I even wrote this down. I need to better understand the coupling that Brown refers to regarding the pair of D particles. It will be interesting to see whether he has the magnetic field represented in the coupling expression. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 9:26 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Jones Bob here-- You indicated the following: Chris did not mention SPP implying that he probably does not know of the plasmon polariton mechanism. It's too late now even though applications can be altered and augmented (but one loses priority). Has anyone you know mentioned SPP in a patent? Yes but the first instance is not clear. See Egely: WO 2012164323 A3 https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012164323A3 But one cannot be the inventor of anything already known in prior art whether it is mentioned in a patent filing or in the scientific literature. Mention of SPP was made in the literature as far back as 1985. The first instance I can find on Vortex is from GJB in 2011: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg58521.html But I think the main credit for SPP in LENR goes to Julian Brown. I cannot find the exact paper but he is/was prolific. http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878 This is an important point and it would be helpful to track it down, but I do not have time today. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
Jones and Fran-- Brown in the paper cited does NOT include the effect of magnetic fields. This omission would seem to be relative to one of his conclusions which follows from the paper: The intrinsic complexity of this exact method and the inapplicablity of a per- turbative approach have so far confounded our attempts to establish a lower bound on the absolute minimum site energy. It follows from the variational principle that inclusion of higher |s, n) states, as well as further increase in pla- quette size, will result in even lower minimum energies. A mean-field approach is perhaps indicated, but we have as yet to find a sufficiently accurate formula- tion. It is nevertheless already clear from the above data that entangled states are favoured in the stoichiometric regime. The existence of a low temperature phase in which all the deuterons cohere in a mesoscopically entangled state is hence strongly indicated. He suggests the inclusion of higher Spin--s--,n states will make reactions possible at lower energy input to the system. The math may be very hard to do the magnetic field/spin coupling? Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 9:26 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Jones Bob here-- You indicated the following: Chris did not mention SPP implying that he probably does not know of the plasmon polariton mechanism. It's too late now even though applications can be altered and augmented (but one loses priority). Has anyone you know mentioned SPP in a patent? Yes but the first instance is not clear. See Egely: WO 2012164323 A3 https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012164323A3 But one cannot be the inventor of anything already known in prior art whether it is mentioned in a patent filing or in the scientific literature. Mention of SPP was made in the literature as far back as 1985. The first instance I can find on Vortex is from GJB in 2011: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg58521.html But I think the main credit for SPP in LENR goes to Julian Brown. I cannot find the exact paper but he is/was prolific. http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878 This is an important point and it would be helpful to track it down, but I do not have time today. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
Jones-- Refeerences used in Brown's 2007 paper are as follows: [1] G. Kurizki, A. Kofman, V.Yudson, Phys. Rev. A53 R35-R38 (1996). [2] J.Brown, arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608292 [3] H.Krimmel, L. Schimmele, C. Els¨asser, M. F¨ahnle, J.Phys. Condens. Matt. 6 7679-7704 (1994). [4] M.Dyer,C.Zhang,A.Alavi, ChemPhysChem 6, 1711-1715 (2005). [5] M.Puska, R.Nieminen, Phys. Rev. B29, 5382-5397 (1984). Note the oldest was 1984. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 9:26 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Jones Bob here-- You indicated the following: Chris did not mention SPP implying that he probably does not know of the plasmon polariton mechanism. It's too late now even though applications can be altered and augmented (but one loses priority). Has anyone you know mentioned SPP in a patent? Yes but the first instance is not clear. See Egely: WO 2012164323 A3 https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012164323A3 But one cannot be the inventor of anything already known in prior art whether it is mentioned in a patent filing or in the scientific literature. Mention of SPP was made in the literature as far back as 1985. The first instance I can find on Vortex is from GJB in 2011: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg58521.html But I think the main credit for SPP in LENR goes to Julian Brown. I cannot find the exact paper but he is/was prolific. http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878 This is an important point and it would be helpful to track it down, but I do not have time today. Jones
RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
BTW - Julian Brown, aka JS Brown, aka J Brown is a top Oxford physicist, who was very interested in LENR before going over the European Patent Office (EPO). All of papers on arXiv are worth rereading. Unlike the USPTO - patents mentioning LENR are allowed in Europe, probably due to Brown's influence. -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Jones-- Refeerences used in Brown's 2007 paper are as follows: [1] G. Kurizki, A. Kofman, V.Yudson, Phys. Rev. A53 R35-R38 (1996). [2] J.Brown, arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608292 [3] H.Krimmel, L. Schimmele, C. Els¨asser, M. F¨ahnle, J.Phys. Condens. Matt. 6 7679-7704 (1994). [4] M.Dyer,C.Zhang,A.Alavi, ChemPhysChem 6, 1711-1715 (2005). [5] M.Puska, R.Nieminen, Phys. Rev. B29, 5382-5397 (1984). Note the oldest was 1984.
Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
Jones-- Too bad we do not have a similar presence in the US Patent Office. We may have been the leaders in LENR. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 2:11 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice BTW - Julian Brown, aka JS Brown, aka J Brown is a top Oxford physicist, who was very interested in LENR before going over the European Patent Office (EPO). All of papers on arXiv are worth rereading. Unlike the USPTO - patents mentioning LENR are allowed in Europe, probably due to Brown's influence. -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Jones-- Refeerences used in Brown's 2007 paper are as follows: [1] G. Kurizki, A. Kofman, V.Yudson, Phys. Rev. A53 R35-R38 (1996). [2] J.Brown, arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608292 [3] H.Krimmel, L. Schimmele, C. Els¨asser, M. F¨ahnle, J.Phys. Condens. Matt. 6 7679-7704 (1994). [4] M.Dyer,C.Zhang,A.Alavi, ChemPhysChem 6, 1711-1715 (2005). [5] M.Puska, R.Nieminen, Phys. Rev. B29, 5382-5397 (1984). Note the oldest was 1984.
Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
In reply to Kevin O'Malley's message of Mon, 24 Feb 2014 23:18:05 -0800: Hi, [snip] All: I found an interesting Cold FusionTheory Wiki http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Theory It's a start, at least. Over the years I have provided many examples of how Hydrinos could result in fission or fast protons/electrons. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
All: I found an interesting Cold FusionTheory Wiki http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Theory It's a start, at least. On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Hi Kevin, I did include two variants of BEC- one is associated with Kim and one with Takahashi. Neither can adequately explain operation at elevated temperatures. This is a list that is continually evolving and I will include a 1D version in the next go-around. Jones *From:* Kevin O'Malley Thanks for posting this, Jones. It reminds me of an earlier post on Vortex that was a compilation of LENR theories but I cannot find it with the search engine nor even with google. So I'll need to circle back on this item to comment on it because I intended to contrast your post to the earlier post. At any rate, I do not find the V1DLLBEC theory up there. Basically it's my theory that 1D BECs could form at much higher temperatures than expected and generate fusion events. As far as the 2nd miracle of where those fusion events are dissipated into the lattice, one would have to pursue my analogy about balloons within a matrix of tinker toys. When they pop, would you hear them? When a matrix of a few million balloons is generated, and a bullet is fired through it, would you be able to hear it? No, because the output energy would be absorbed into the matrix. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Below can be found at least 12 viable and distinct hypotheses for LENR gain. Given that some of the listings represent slight variations or enabler mechanisms there are more than a dozen entries (16). All are related in some way to hydrogen which is constrained in a lattice, and many require QM tunneling. The range of these, and the generally strong evidence for each are almost conclusive evidence for me that LENR cannot be reduced to a single reaction, nor even two - one for deuterium and one for protium. QM tunneling is complex. But the most controversial suggestion of all is that none of these are mutually exclusive, and several, or even most of them, could be at work simultaneously in any given experiment, if that reactor has all the necessary components. There is not even a good candidate for most likely unless the reaction involves only a limited range of options, such as palladium and deuterium which only produces helium-4 as ash. I am now dropping the attribution - since earlier there were numerous overlooked contributors, like Mitchell Swartz who were not credited but who are still fighting the USPTO for basic priority. 1) The original theory of PF applicable to palladium and deuterium, involving gammaless fusion to helium caused by coherent electron effects (screening) 2) Coulomb mediated reactions in general, including the deflation fusion model. When any one channel is highly favored, such as tritium or He-3, then there will be another separate distinguishable reaction at play, and it often involves an alloy or dopant to the lattice or to an electrolyte. Thus it is distinctly unique, and not a channel reaction. 3) The hydrino (or fractional hydrogen) mechanism. Several variations now exist. The species may be a predecessor step for LENR and may actually provide no excess heat unless it does proceed to a nuclear reaction. 4) The dense hydrogen cluster or dense deuterium model, differentiated as inverted Rydberg hydrogen or a DDL (deep Dirac layer). The DDL can be applicable to deuterium and it can result in something completely different from 1 and 2, such as heat only with no ash. 5) The P-e-P mechanism for Ni-H, which envisions protons fusing to deuterium via screening at much higher probability than in the solar model 6) The NASA filing (US 20110255645) suggests an alternative method for producing heavy electrons as a fusion catalyst in what looks like a beta decay mechanism. This is similar to 2, 5 and 8 7) The proposal of a high temperature BEC - Bose Einstein Condensate and/or the tetrahedral TSC model which is similar. 8) The beta decay/ ultracold neutron mechanism popularized by Widom-Larsen which is similar to a Brillouin/ NASA explanation. 9) Proton addition - to the metal lattice atoms, which was the original Focardi/Rossi conception. Rossi later refined this to emphasize only the heavier nickel isotopes, especially Ni-62 but gammaless. 10) Piantelli has a version of Ni-H with gammas and transmutation. 11) SPP or surface plasmon polariton catalysis in general - which is a theory involving plasmons, phonons and photons. This is more of an enabler pathway for several types of reactions. 12) Casimir dynamics, in general, including a dynamical effect, called DCE. This is an enabler pathway, as are other geometry constraints. 13) Accelerated nuclear decay. Some experiments benefit from unstable
RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
Hi Kevin, I did include two variants of BEC- one is associated with Kim and one with Takahashi. Neither can adequately explain operation at elevated temperatures. This is a list that is continually evolving and I will include a 1D version in the next go-around. Jones From: Kevin O'Malley Thanks for posting this, Jones. It reminds me of an earlier post on Vortex that was a compilation of LENR theories but I cannot find it with the search engine nor even with google. So I'll need to circle back on this item to comment on it because I intended to contrast your post to the earlier post. At any rate, I do not find the V1DLLBEC theory up there. Basically it's my theory that 1D BECs could form at much higher temperatures than expected and generate fusion events. As far as the 2nd miracle of where those fusion events are dissipated into the lattice, one would have to pursue my analogy about balloons within a matrix of tinker toys. When they pop, would you hear them? When a matrix of a few million balloons is generated, and a bullet is fired through it, would you be able to hear it? No, because the output energy would be absorbed into the matrix. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Below can be found at least 12 viable and distinct hypotheses for LENR gain. Given that some of the listings represent slight variations or enabler mechanisms there are more than a dozen entries (16). All are related in some way to hydrogen which is constrained in a lattice, and many require QM tunneling. The range of these, and the generally strong evidence for each are almost conclusive evidence for me that LENR cannot be reduced to a single reaction, nor even two - one for deuterium and one for protium. QM tunneling is complex. But the most controversial suggestion of all is that none of these are mutually exclusive, and several, or even most of them, could be at work simultaneously in any given experiment, if that reactor has all the necessary components. There is not even a good candidate for most likely unless the reaction involves only a limited range of options, such as palladium and deuterium which only produces helium-4 as ash. I am now dropping the attribution - since earlier there were numerous overlooked contributors, like Mitchell Swartz who were not credited but who are still fighting the USPTO for basic priority. 1) The original theory of PF applicable to palladium and deuterium, involving gammaless fusion to helium caused by coherent electron effects (screening) 2) Coulomb mediated reactions in general, including the deflation fusion model. When any one channel is highly favored, such as tritium or He-3, then there will be another separate distinguishable reaction at play, and it often involves an alloy or dopant to the lattice or to an electrolyte. Thus it is distinctly unique, and not a channel reaction. 3) The hydrino (or fractional hydrogen) mechanism. Several variations now exist. The species may be a predecessor step for LENR and may actually provide no excess heat unless it does proceed to a nuclear reaction. 4) The dense hydrogen cluster or dense deuterium model, differentiated as inverted Rydberg hydrogen or a DDL (deep Dirac layer). The DDL can be applicable to deuterium and it can result in something completely different from 1 and 2, such as heat only with no ash. 5) The P-e-P mechanism for Ni-H, which envisions protons fusing to deuterium via screening at much higher probability than in the solar model 6) The NASA filing (US 20110255645) suggests an alternative method for producing heavy electrons as a fusion catalyst in what looks like a beta decay mechanism. This is similar to 2, 5 and 8 7) The proposal of a high temperature BEC - Bose Einstein Condensate and/or the tetrahedral TSC model which is similar. 8) The beta decay/ ultracold neutron mechanism popularized by Widom-Larsen which is similar to a Brillouin/ NASA explanation. 9) Proton addition - to the metal lattice atoms, which was the original Focardi/Rossi conception. Rossi later refined this to emphasize only the heavier nickel isotopes, especially Ni-62 but gammaless. 10) Piantelli has a version of Ni-H with gammas and transmutation. 11) SPP or surface plasmon polariton catalysis in general - which is a theory involving plasmons, phonons and photons. This is more of an enabler pathway for several types of reactions. 12) Casimir dynamics, in general, including a dynamical effect, called DCE. This is an enabler pathway, as are other geometry constraints. 13) Accelerated nuclear decay. Some experiments benefit from unstable isotopes like potassium-40 which can undergo accelerated decay rates, 14) RPF or reversible proton fusion, which is based on the strong force, QCD and a transient state called the diproton, deriving energy from excess proton mass with no gammas. 15) The nanomagnetism
RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
Another factor favoring CNT - as the containment mechanism for hydrogen in an alternative version of LENR (instead of a metal lattice) is the similarity to graphene in presence of electrons. There is every reason to suspect that CNT would support ballistic electrons at least as well as graphene. New paper. http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/02/ballistic-transport-graphene-suggests-new- type-electronic-device From: Jones Beene Hi Kevin, I did include two variants of BEC- one is associated with Kim and one with Takahashi. Neither can adequately explain operation at elevated temperatures. This is a list that is continually evolving and I will include a 1D version in the next go-around. Jones From: Kevin O'Malley Thanks for posting this, Jones. It reminds me of an earlier post on Vortex that was a compilation of LENR theories but I cannot find it with the search engine nor even with google.
Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
Thanks for posting this, Jones. It reminds me of an earlier post on Vortex that was a compilation of LENR theories but I cannot find it with the search engine nor even with google. So I'll need to circle back on this item to comment on it because I intended to contrast your post to the earlier post. At any rate, I do not find the V1DLLBEC theory up there. Basically it's my theory that 1D BECs could form at much higher temperatures than expected and generate fusion events. As far as the 2nd miracle of where those fusion events are dissipated into the lattice, one would have to pursue my analogy about balloons within a matrix of tinker toys. When they pop, would you hear them? When a matrix of a few million balloons is generated, and a bullet is fired through it, would you be able to hear it? No, because the output energy would be absorbed into the matrix. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Below can be found at least 12 viable and distinct hypotheses for LENR gain. Given that some of the listings represent slight variations or enabler mechanisms there are more than a dozen entries (16). All are related in some way to hydrogen which is constrained in a lattice, and many require QM tunneling. The range of these, and the generally strong evidence for each are almost conclusive evidence for me that LENR cannot be reduced to a single reaction, nor even two - one for deuterium and one for protium. QM tunneling is complex. But the most controversial suggestion of all is that none of these are mutually exclusive, and several, or even most of them, could be at work simultaneously in any given experiment, if that reactor has all the necessary components. There is not even a good candidate for most likely unless the reaction involves only a limited range of options, such as palladium and deuterium which only produces helium-4 as ash. I am now dropping the attribution - since earlier there were numerous overlooked contributors, like Mitchell Swartz who were not credited but who are still fighting the USPTO for basic priority. 1) The original theory of PF applicable to palladium and deuterium, involving gammaless fusion to helium caused by coherent electron effects (screening) 2) Coulomb mediated reactions in general, including the deflation fusion model. When any one channel is highly favored, such as tritium or He-3, then there will be another separate distinguishable reaction at play, and it often involves an alloy or dopant to the lattice or to an electrolyte. Thus it is distinctly unique, and not a channel reaction. 3) The hydrino (or fractional hydrogen) mechanism. Several variations now exist. The species may be a predecessor step for LENR and may actually provide no excess heat unless it does proceed to a nuclear reaction. 4) The dense hydrogen cluster or dense deuterium model, differentiated as inverted Rydberg hydrogen or a DDL (deep Dirac layer). The DDL can be applicable to deuterium and it can result in something completely different from 1 and 2, such as heat only with no ash. 5) The P-e-P mechanism for Ni-H, which envisions protons fusing to deuterium via screening at much higher probability than in the solar model 6) The NASA filing (US 20110255645) suggests an alternative method for producing heavy electrons as a fusion catalyst in what looks like a beta decay mechanism. This is similar to 2, 5 and 8 7) The proposal of a high temperature BEC - Bose Einstein Condensate and/or the tetrahedral TSC model which is similar. 8) The beta decay/ ultracold neutron mechanism popularized by Widom-Larsen which is similar to a Brillouin/ NASA explanation. 9) Proton addition - to the metal lattice atoms, which was the original Focardi/Rossi conception. Rossi later refined this to emphasize only the heavier nickel isotopes, especially Ni-62 but gammaless. 10) Piantelli has a version of Ni-H with gammas and transmutation. 11) SPP or surface plasmon polariton catalysis in general - which is a theory involving plasmons, phonons and photons. This is more of an enabler pathway for several types of reactions. 12) Casimir dynamics, in general, including a dynamical effect, called DCE. This is an enabler pathway, as are other geometry constraints. 13) Accelerated nuclear decay. Some experiments benefit from unstable isotopes like potassium-40 which can undergo accelerated decay rates, 14) RPF or reversible proton fusion, which is based on the strong force, QCD and a transient state called the diproton, deriving energy from excess proton mass with no gammas. 15) The nanomagnetism formative theory involving magnons and cyclical phase change around the Curie point of Ni. This may be nonnuclear (ZPE related). 16) Any combination or permutation of the above - since none of them is mutually exclusive, and most actual
Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
On Feb 4, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Below can be found at least 12 viable and distinct hypotheses for LENR gain. Given that some of the listings represent slight variations or enabler mechanisms there are more than a dozen entries (16). All are related in some way to hydrogen which is constrained in a lattice, and many require QM tunneling. The range of these, and the generally strong evidence for each are almost conclusive evidence for me that LENR cannot be reduced to a single reaction, nor even two - one for deuterium and one for protium. QM tunneling is complex. But the most controversial suggestion of all is that none of these are mutually exclusive, and several, or even most of them, could be at work simultaneously in any given experiment, if that reactor has all the necessary components. There is not even a good candidate for most likely unless the reaction involves only a limited range of options, such as palladium and deuterium which only produces helium-4 as ash. I am now dropping the attribution - since earlier there were numerous overlooked contributors, like Mitchell Swartz who were not credited but who are still fighting the USPTO for basic priority. 1) The original theory of PF applicable to palladium and deuterium, involving gammaless fusion to helium caused by coherent electron effects (screening) Jones, please forgive my brevity and use of great certainty in my opinions. I find that if the issue can be reduce to black and white, it is easier to understand and discuss without getting distracted by irrelevant arguments. Screening, as normally applied, only affects the hot fusion reaction. Cold fusion requires a mechanism that both screens and dissipates energy. Normal screening does not do this. 2) Coulomb mediated reactions in general, including the deflation fusion model. When any one channel is highly favored, such as tritium or He-3, then there will be another separate distinguishable reaction at play, and it often involves an alloy or dopant to the lattice or to an electrolyte. Thus it is distinctly unique, and not a channel reaction. I have no idea what this means. It makes no sense. 3) The hydrino (or fractional hydrogen) mechanism. Several variations now exist. The species may be a predecessor step for LENR and may actually provide no excess heat unless it does proceed to a nuclear reaction. I agree this is a possibility. 4) The dense hydrogen cluster or dense deuterium model, differentiated as inverted Rydberg hydrogen or a DDL (deep Dirac layer). The DDL can be applicable to deuterium and it can result in something completely different from 1 and 2, such as heat only with no ash. The DDL is pure theory without any experimental support. The DDL and the hydrino might be the same thing. The Rydberg state has no justification and is only a way to use an accepted concept, i.e. name dropping. 5) The P-e-P mechanism for Ni-H, which envisions protons fusing to deuterium via screening at much higher probability than in the solar model This is proposed to occur in all materials and results in most of the energy. The process also provides the energy needed to cause transmutation. The process is NOT based on screening. This is a novel process that LENR has revealed. It has no relationship to what happens in the sun. 6) The NASA filing (US 20110255645) suggests an alternative method for producing heavy electrons as a fusion catalyst in what looks like a beta decay mechanism. This is similar to 2, 5 and 8 This idea is not like 2 or 5 in any way. In 5, the neutron is created ONLY inside the nucleus where energy is available. This patent is a rip-off of W-L and proposes the neutron is formed outside the lattice where energy is not available. 7) The proposal of a high temperature BEC - Bose Einstein Condensate and/or the tetrahedral TSC model which is similar. The BEC and TSC are not similar even to the authors of the models. 8) The beta decay/ ultracold neutron mechanism popularized by Widom-Larsen which is similar to a Brillouin/ NASA explanation. Yes, these are similar and wrong! 9) Proton addition - to the metal lattice atoms, which was the original Focardi/Rossi conception. Rossi later refined this to emphasize only the heavier nickel isotopes, especially Ni-62 but gammaless. I do not believe the claim. We have been provided only hear-say. 10) Piantelli has a version of Ni-H with gammas and transmutation. Yes, and this claim is well supported and can be explained. 11) SPP or surface plasmon polariton catalysis in general - which is a theory involving plasmons, phonons and photons. This is more of an enabler pathway for several types of reactions. This is only a suggestion
