date:20120705

Values are found in some work substantially 
higher, but it is generally consistent with a 
theory that the actual reaction Q is the 
deuterium value, but roughly half if the helium 
is being trapped in the cathode or otherwise 
escaping detection. Helium *is* apparently 
trapped in the cathode, near the surface, 
consistent with origin at or near the surface. 
Helium is not found in the bulk of the cathode.


If helium is born near the surface with a little 
kinetic energy, it will ion-implant itself in the 
palladium and helium is generally not mobile in 
palladium at these low temperatures. McKubre was 
able to coax some or most helium out of the 
cathode by cycling loading/deloading.


I've suggested dissolving the cathode to release 
the helium, but this has not been done to my 
knowledge. It's an area where plenty remains to be done.


For a review of the helium work, see Storms, 
"Status of cold fusion (2010)," 
Naturwissenschaften. There is an as-published preprint on http://lenr-canr.org.


The finding of helium correlated with heat is amply replicated. See Storms.

Storms estimates from the data that the Q is 25 
+/- 5 MeV/He-4, but I haven't seen a rigorous 
analysis. There is quite a bit of variability, 
easily due to the difficulties in capturing all the helium.


At 04:21 PM 7/4/2012, Eric Walker wrote:
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Abd ul-Rahman 
Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:


Actual experimental results are more toward 
double, the value, over 40 MeV/He-4, which very 
likely reflects the difficulty in capturing all 
the helium (if helium is not captured and 
measured, particularly if it remains trapped in 
the palladium), then there is less helium 
reported, and the value of heat/helium goes up proportionally.



Abd, I find this a very interesting result. Â 
What is the variability here? Â How reliable is the 40 MeV figure?


Assuming for the moment that the 40 MeV/4He 
result is solid and can be reliably replicated, 
and going with helium as a predominant 
non-radiative byproduct, what does this say 
about the reactions involved? Â Does it mean 
that there would need to be more than helium 
generation, or is there a way to work out helium 
generation that produces this level of energy?


Eric

Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02


We do not know what the reaction is.

Storms proposes that d e d (two deuterons with an 
electron in between) are trapped in cracks in the 
Pd, and that a slow process results in fusion 
with release of energy as a series of X-rays 
resonant in the crack. I and, I suspect, most 
physicists, don't think much of the "slow fusion" 
concept, but helium was proposed early on as the 
ash, by Preparata, and Miles, who found the 
correlation, considered his work a validation of Preparata's theory.


Basically, a known fusion reaction is d + d -> 
He-4 plus gamma. The energy released, mostly in the gamma, is 23.8 MeV.


The first problem with this is that this is a 
*very* minor branch, d + d prefers to go to 
tritium plus a proton (50%) or helium-3 plus a neutron (50%).


The second problem is that, on the face, this 
requires high energy to overcome the Coulomb 
barrier. But some kind of catalysis, as Storms is 
proposing, might overcome that, as happens with muon-catalyzed fusion.


The third problem is that the gamma is necessary 
in the helium branch, to conserve momentum.


These are the classic theoretical problems of "cold fusion" conceived as d + d.

There are other possibilities. In particular, 
Takahashi has done the math for a multibody 
problem, finding that four deuterons, as two 
deuterium molecules (with the electrons), 
arranged in a tetrahedral configuration with very 
low relative momentum, will collapse into a 
Bose-Einstein Condensate and fuse within a 
femtosecond. This would form a Beryllium-8 
nucleus, which will ultimately decay into two 
helium nuclei. If nothing else has happened, the 
two nuclei would each have 23.8 MeV of kinetic energy.


That would be alpha radiation, which would still 
be low-penetrating. But that radiation is not 
seen. The Hagelstein limit (named after his 2010 
paper) is about 20 KeV, for any major charged 
particle radiation from PdD cold fusion.


It is possible for the excited Be-8 nucleus to 
shed most of its energy by photon emissions at 
low enough energies to satisfy the Hagelstein 
limit, before it fissions. I'll add that, 
probably, nobody knows what to expect if fusion 
occurs within a Bose-Einstein Condensate.


Takahashi's study is simply of a single 
possibility. The real reaction may be more 
complex, there are some signs that 6D may be active instead of 4D.


(To answer an obvious question about this theory, 
this could not happen with pure liquid or solid 
deuterium (i.e., at very low temperatures), 
because the two deuterium molecules cannot 
approach closely enough, it requires some kind of 
confinement to manage that. Takahashi, in his 
study, assumes confinement in the palladium 
lattice. Storms points out -- cogently -- that 
the lattice itself is unlikely to be the site of 
the reaction, and points to cracks, which could 
explain a lot about cold fusion, the famous lack 
of control and variability. Takahashi's idea, 
though, would probably work with some cavity for 
confinement other than a lattice site.)


At 04:27 PM 7/4/2012, Eric Walker wrote:

I wrote:

Assuming for the moment that the 40 MeV/4He 
result is solid and can be reliably replicated, 
and going with helium as a predominant 
non-radiative byproduct, what does this say 
about the reactions involved? Â Does it mean 
that there would need to be more than helium 
generation, or is there a way to work out helium 
generation that produces this level of energy?



To answer my own question (using what you've already hinted at):

One way to get at this figure would be to allow 
a large amount of the helium to escape. Â Then 
it would seem like theÂ residueÂ was responsible 
for the entire balance of the heat, when in fact 
some of it resulted from escaped helium.


Eric

[Vo]:Higgs found or not?

2012-07-05 Thread David Roberson


The news is buzzing with the CERN announcement of the discovery of a new boson. 
 They are careful not to state that the Higgs has been found at this time.

How would they actually know that this is the Higgs when there are no known 
particles that are associated with the force of gravity that I am aware of?  
Obviously it is not possible to see any gravitation effects from such a massive 
particle in the short time of its existence.  And, it seems to me that the 
actual mass has been unknown for a long time and seems to be changing every 
time I read about what is expected.

Are they jumping the gun in this case to get publicity?  In my estimate it is 
more likely that they have found some other type of particle that might even be 
more interesting than the Higgs.  Does anyone share my question about this 
discovery?

Dave

Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02


At 04:29 PM 7/4/2012, Rich Murray wrote:

Well, there's a saying in Zen about swallowing the Niagara Falls in
one gulp -- perhaps a tsunami of verbal arguments by Lomax may float
visions that are plausibly contrary to the visions aired by Murray --
but the possiblities of micro and nano level storage and release of
chemical energy by bubbles on the Pd surface, increasingly rough,
complex and chaotic with time, need to be tested, not just
persuasively discussed.


It's not actually important enough to be worth the effort, my opinion.

My "Zen" comment is that I may be trying to raise the water level in 
a well by tossing snow into it.



Returning to, ahem, discussion...

I'm assuming that minute bubbles of O2 would adhere to the Pd by
normal molecular attraction, the Van der Waals quantum interaction of
outer electrons between O2 and Pd, just like bubbles in soda pop or a
glass of water, sticking to surfaces, perhaps forming a hemisphere,
while the ignition would occur very quickly, since rough Pd is a
catalyst -- now, many here can estimate the speed of burning roughly
by invoking the nonequilibrium velocity distribution at the burning
temperature in complex fast-moving nonlinear combustion next to or on
a surface within electrolyte -- too fast for heat dissipation via
conduction or convection --


Great idea. The problem is that as soon as the bubble hits loaded Pd, 
the Pd will catalyze immediate combustion. It does that, you know.



A sphere stuck to a surface has radial symmetry, pointing at the
surface -- so my hunch was that a jet or bipolar jet might ensue --


So you have this reaction creating steam at the point of contact of 
the bubble and the palladium. This would blow the bubble away from 
the palladium.


No, to get a major heat release, quickly, which is what vaporizing 
palladium would require, you have to have an explosive mixture in the 
bubble. And from what I remember of the math, there is barely enough 
energy to accomplish melting the palladium, all of the available 
energy must be transferred to the palladium, in that small volume, 
with little escape. I don't see any way.



heat transfer would be by radiation and then by kinetic impact of new
H2O molecules moving at many km/sec, the speed inside the fierce
burning in H2-O2 liquid rocket engines -- so one bubble would vaporize
at least it own volume of Pd surface, releasing the H stored at 1 to 1
loading ratio, which would make a momentary enriched environment for
the next O2 bubble -- need data for how crowded these bubbles can
actually get in the electrolyte next to the cathode, especially if
they are positively charged, and thus attracted to the cathode -- so
Murray's logic is, if the micro craters are via chemical energy, then
therefore a lot of the O2 micro bubbles are positively charged -- time
for a quick micro experiment...

only experiment can find the distribution of H2 and O2 micro and nano
scale bubbles, and survey complex, unpredictable corrosion effects --
recall that acoustic cavitation can erode ship propellers.


Rich Murray is standing on his head to explain away a minor effect, 
the signs of occasional high local heating seen on codeposition 
cathodes. It's not utterly impossible that this is due to 
recombination there, but recombination is limited to a small fraction 
of the energy involved in these experiments. Remember, these people 
keep track of orphaned oxygen.


We'll get to the real point below.


I suggest that experiments should be as tiny as possible, looking to
view the details of events real-time, one by one, as has been so
fruitful in nuclear physics since Rutherford looked at the
distribution of flashes on a fluorescent screen for hours from alpha
particle bombardment of a thin metal film in 1911, proving the
incrediby small size and huge density of the nucleus, as well as of
the alpha (helium nucleus) particle.


When I started tooling up, I bought a piece of cadmium sulfide, I 
think it is, film and watched, under a microscope, the flashes from a 
bit of Am-241 liberated from an old smoke detector. There should be 
flashes of light from an active codep cathode. I also plan to listen 
for sound, SPAWAR has reported transient shock waves from a codep 
cathode built on a piezoelectric sensor. I just plan to pop a piezo 
mike on the outside of the cell and look at around 100 KHz. Some day soon


The goal is not to prove cold fusion. These signs don't do that. They 
are what one researcher calls "tells." That is, symptoms that a 
reaction is occurring. If tells can be identified, the research can 
accelerate. As it is, it can take weeks to run one experiment. Letts 
is working on an approach that seems to produce results relatively 
quickly, but he's still looking at days, really.



Methinks Storms, Rothwell, and Lomax proclaim too much re the
heat-helium correlation.


It's crucial. Cold fusion researchers have themselves not realized 
the significance of heat/helium. Or if they know it, they

[Vo]:peter hagelstein's new theory

2012-07-05 Thread Andre Blum


Hi,

I may have missed this, but does anyone have more details about or a 
pointer to Peter Hagelstein's new theory, that was (according to Jed) so 
well received at the symposium in Williamsburg?


Thanks
Andre

Re: [Vo]:peter hagelstein's new theory

It is the newest version, or iteration, of the same theory he had before.
He should be publishing soon. The people at W&M said they want manuscripts
in 2 weeks.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02

2012-07-05 Thread Finlay MacNab


Wait!
Suddenly you admit that the authors don't believe the field is 3000V/cm within 
the electrolyte?  Maybe you should read the paper again in order to fully 
understand it.
 

> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 01:25:36 -0500
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
> From: a...@lomaxdesign.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims  of 
> effects of  external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting  electrolyte: 
> Rich Murray  2012.03.01 2012.07.02
> 
> At 12:00 PM 7/4/2012, Finlay MacNab wrote:
> >Your argument assumes that the there is no air 
> >gap between the dielectric and the charged 
> >plates.  It also assumes that the electrolyte 
> >behaves like a regular 100ohm resistor.
> 
> The plates are against the cell walls. Sure, you 
> can make up an air gap. It would be small and 
> have almost no effect on the analysis.
> 
> Yes. The electrolyte, within bounds, behaves 
> somewhat like a resistor. In fact, the resistance 
> changes under real conditions, it's noisy, as I 
> mentioned. Noisy resistor, and there is 
> capacitance in parallel and in series with the 
> resistor, if you want a more complete model. The 
> details are completely swamped by the magnitude 
> of the problem. The effect on the electrolyte and 
> all that is immersed in it is minute.
> 
> And I seriously doubt the competence of anyone 
> who asserts otherwise, after seeing the problem. 
> I very much doubt that anyone from SPAWAR will 
> defend that paper, and I do think it likely that we will see some comment.
> 
> It was just an error, and it does not impeach the vast bulk of their work.
> 
> >In this case, where the movement of ions in 
> >electrolyte is dominated by diffusion and mixing 
> >from the gas bubbles generated by redox 
> >reactions at the two, in solution, electrodes 
> >the electrolyte does not behave like a 100ohm 
> >resistor.  Your treatment of the system as two 
> >dielectrics sandwiched between three metal 
> >plates is not sufficient to describe the system.
> 
> That isn't my description of the system. It is 
> two dielectrics between two metal plates, not 
> three, and between the two dielecrics (acrylic) 
> is an electrolyte, that is, water with a 
> substance dissolved so that it will conduct a 
> substantial current with a modest voltage.
> 
> Absolutely, modeling the electrolyte with a 
> resistor is primitive. But the difference in the 
> behavior of the electrolyte, due to error in this 
> model, with respect to the division of the high 
> voltage across the three regions, will be insignificant.
> 
> >You don't know if mixing and diffusion within 
> >the electrolyte and the extremely low mobility 
> >of solvated ions would allow an external 
> >electric field to exist within the electrolyte 
> >and allow electrophoretic and other field 
> >induced effects to influence the near surface of the Pd film.
> 
> I know that an equipotential surface exists 
> inside the cell that will totally screen any 
> effects on this cell from what is beyond that. 
> The current from the high voltage supply, through 
> the electrolyte, will be in the picoamp range, 
> that is completely necessary, because the only 
> conduction path is through two plates with very 
> high resistance. This current is totally swamped 
> by noise from many sources. Likewise the voltage 
> experienced by the electrolyte stemming from the high voltage supply.
> 
> Finlay, don't immolate yourself on trying to be 
> right. You know enough to get into trouble, to 
> make up complex explanations that ignore the 
> obvious. The electrolyte is a decent conductor, 
> the LiCl salt has been added for that purpose, 
> and that purpose alone. Ohms law still applies 
> with current, voltage, and resistance through an 
> electrolyte. Power dissipation is still current 
> times voltage. Kirchoff's Law still applies with electrolytes.
> 
> >Finally,  the only mention of the strength of 
> >the electric field in the paper: "the cell 
> >placement in an electric field (2500–3000 V 
> >cm-1)" refers to the entire cell, it does not 
> >refer to the field within the electrolyte.  The 
> >authors never assert that the field strength is 
> >3000 V/cm within the electrolyte.
> 
> The cell is placed in an electric field with that 
> strength before the cell is placed in it. In 
> fact, with the cell in place, loaded with 
> electrolyte, the field strength becomes much 
> quite a bit higher, within the acrylic, and far, 
> far lower within the electrolyte. They imply that 
> the field within the cell would be substantial 
> enough to affect cell chemistry, when the field 
> within the cell is actually truly miniscule, 
> swamped by noise in the other sources of voltage, 
> specifically the electrolytic power supply, as 
> well as the electrochemical phenomena taking place.
> 
> Basically, there is a region about an inch wide. 
> It is between two plates. The plates have 6 KV 
> between them. The cell is placed in that space.

Re: [Vo]:Higgs found or not?

2012-07-05 Thread Terry Blanton

Higgs are slowing you down.  Free Higgs with integer spin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLyfBhi3xj4

Now we know we are more than two quarks and an electron.

T

Re: [Vo]:Higgs found or not?

2012-07-05 Thread Harry Veeder

Found or made?

The LHC is the mother and the laws of physics are the father.

Harry

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> Higgs are slowing you down.  Free Higgs with integer spin:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLyfBhi3xj4
>
> Now we know we are more than two quarks and an electron.
>
> T
>

RE: [Vo]:Higgs found or not?

2012-07-05 Thread Jones Beene

David,

I agree that this is could be an elaborate PR stunt, and little more. That
would be true, even if they nailed it. So what ? How can one justify the
enormous expense? It does zero for practical solutions to the energy crisis.

The prima donnas at CERN are extremely well-paid and are highly motivated
financially to keep the Euros flowing in a time of cutbacks for other
science programs. The Higgs search is a boondoggle of gigantic proportions;
and naming it the "god particle" is emblematic of the lengths they will go
to for greed, rather than science... or to be fair: for greed with some
arguable science on the side. 

That money could be better spent elsewhere. LENR comes to mind.

However, as for the science, and as for what the geniuses may have missed in
the rush to judgment (you mentioned "another particle" which could be
confused with this discovery), consider this... whatever was found weighs-in
at about 125 GeV or giga-electronvolts, according to reports. Funny, that
figure was mentioned but the commentators did not follow up on the
implications.

There are indeed possible implications for LENR and energy anomalies in
general. If you look at the periodic table for nuclei in that mass-energy
range, you find the interesting situation with elements 52 and 53, and
possible 54. These would be tellurium, iodine and xenon. 

Why is iodine lighter than tellurium, when it has a higher Z? This seldom
happens in the periodic table (twice, I think). 

Did we not determine previously here that the only other example in the
periodic table was Nickel !?! (i.e. Ni is lower in a.m.u than Cobalt yet has
higher Z. This "could be" coincidental for sure, but it is a bit curious,
due to other considerations including our focus on Ni-H.

All of the these three elements, tellurium, iodine and xenon, have in fact
been mentioned as energy anomalies over the years in one form or another -
far in excess of similar elements. There is compelling  information on
electrical discharge anomalies in Xenon, (see
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg58918.html
 for a recent Xe claim but there are others including Papp and Gray). 

There is plenty of detail on energy anomalies in the vortex archives on all
of these three elements. But having the same mass as the putative boson may
be only coincidental, admittedly ... unless you believe in quantum mechanics
taken to its full extreme 


From: David Roberson 

The news is buzzing with the CERN announcement of the
discovery of a new boson.  They are careful not to state that the Higgs has
been found at this time.
 
How would they actually know that this is the Higgs when
there are no known particles that are associated with the force of gravity
that I am aware of?  Obviously it is not possible to see any gravitation
effects from such a massive particle in the short time of its existence.
And, it seems to me that the actual mass has been unknown for a long time
and seems to be changing every time I read about what is expected.
 
Are they jumping the gun in this case to get publicity?  In
my estimate it is more likely that they have found some other type of
particle that might even be more interesting than the Higgs.  Does anyone
share my question about this discovery?
 
Dave
<>

Re: [Vo]:Higgs found or not?

2012-07-05 Thread Harry Veeder

Anyway, now that the origin of mass has been "found", perhaps the
focus will finally shift to the origin of energy.

Harry


On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
> Found or made?
>
> The LHC is the mother and the laws of physics are the father.
>
> Harry
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>> Higgs are slowing you down.  Free Higgs with integer spin:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLyfBhi3xj4
>>
>> Now we know we are more than two quarks and an electron.
>>
>> T
>>

RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02


At 11:41 AM 7/5/2012, Finlay MacNab wrote:

Wait!

Suddenly you admit that the authors don't believe the field is 
3000V/cm within the electrolyte?  Maybe you should read the paper 
again in order to fully understand it.


No. While I'm not a mind reader, it does appear that the authors 
believe there is an electric field within the cell, created by the 
external field, that would exert forces on the surface morphology, 
they refer to this again and again.


They never estimate the field whose effects they are "seeing." The 
only statement of field intensity is the 2500-3000 V/cm. value. There 
is no discrimination between "placing the cell in an electric field," 
and what field might actually affect the contents of the cell.


It's extremely odd. The appearance is that they assume that there 
would be some effect within the cell, some significant force exerted, 
and exerting a force was their goal.


When I read a paper, I often read it with some interest in mind. I'd 
seen this paper before, but never read it with full attention and 
full critical resources. When Rich made his notice about SPAWAR's 
alleged failure to "respond," I looked for the original work and came 
back to this paper. I simply read it, this time, looking for values, 
and saw that the paper had a lot of explanatory text that was 
general, like "the effect of the field on different parts of the cell 
will be different for each part." That's not a quote, it's an example 
of the kind of text. I.e., a lot of fluff. There is no coverage of 
different effects shown by different parts.


Really, Finley, look for what this paper actually shows. Is what is 
claimed supported by the evidence reported?


Has anyone ever confirmed any of this?

Is it at all plausible?

What exactly is the effect of an electric field on the deposit? Is it 
described clearly and discriminated from the obvious wide variation 
seen *regardless*?


If their goal was to show an effect of a force on the cathode, 
applying an *external field* would not be a way to do it. That 
applies no force, there would have to be an internal field, which is 
not possible separately from there being an internal current, if 
there is a conductive electrolyte containing the cathode. Want a 
force? Well, one could fun high electrolytic current across the cell 
--- independently from the regular electrolysis. That high current 
would likely affect the cathode. It would exert an electric field 
effect. Definitely.


SPAWAR has done work with "external magnetic fields." Those fields 
penetrate the cell, practically as if the cell materials aren't 
there. There are known effects of a magentic field.


Nobody else has ever shown an effect from an "external electric 
field." And I doubt anyone is going to try. This paper provides no 
reason to do so! There is no comment on any possible enhancement of 
the heat effect or any other possible nuclear effect. This appeared 
in an electrochemistry journal. It was presumably of some interest as 
to shifts in the complex deposits formed with PdD codeposition or 
deposition/evolution. It has some pretty pictures. For comparison, 
there is one image of a "non-electric field" deposit that doesn't 
look a whole lot different from one with a field, and then lots of 
various images of complex structures, with an implication that these 
are related to the electric field. No real survey of what structures 
are found under either condition.


But once we realize that the "external electric field" cannot be 
exerting any significant force on the cathode, we know that any 
possible DC electric field effect is completely buried deeply in the 
noise that does exist because of the electrolysis current 
(electrolysis is pretty noisy, the resistance varies substantially as 
bubbles are generated and released), we can easily see that the 
effects ascribed to the electric field must have some other cause, or 
don't exist, they are just illusory, as easily happens with 
subjective reports of "difference."


There is a possible other cause, this is a high-voltage source from a 
television, I think, and those often have a high-frequency element 
because of how the high voltage is generated. There may be a level of 
vibration in the cell, possibly above the audio range, I don't know 
what it would be. That vibration of the cell at some frequency would 
affect morphology is quite believable. Easy to test. But probably not 
worth the effort! There is *so* much else to do, with much greater 
implications.


Rich Murray noticed the error, and, this time, brought it up, I 
think, because Duncan referred to some SPAWAR images. Then Rich 
confused this electric field work with other work where the little 
"volcanos" are shown, and came up with speculations about how leakage 
of the high voltage could somehow sneak into and burn holes in the cathode.


Nope. Totally irrelevant, those volcanos are not part of this work, 
apparently (though maybe there is some reference or image el

Re: [Vo]:general approximation of the viability of gamma quenching

2012-07-05 Thread pagnucco

Eric,

It appears that the photon-stopping power of electrons which are "dressed"
in electromagnetic fields may be much greater than that of bare electrons
- i.e., "dressed" electrons that are exchanging large numbers of virtual
photons with nearby nuclei and other electrons in magnetic and coulomb
interactions. See:

"On Compton scattering of energetic photons by light atoms in the
presence of a low-frequency electromagnetic field"

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:919561:1/component/escidoc:919560/COMPT777.pdf

The gist of the paper is stated on page 3:
"...that spectra of both emitted electrons and scattered photons can be
remarkably modified by the interaction with a weak low-frequency laser
field."

Perhaps even greater effects occur in intense e-m fields generated in
carbon and metal nanostructures.

However, since gammas would not even be generated in some proposed LENR
theories (e.g., neutron capture), this may be moot.

I have some more data, but not enough time to post it right now.

-- Lou Pagnucco


Eric Walker wrote:
> I'm learning more and more how different the worlds of quantum mechanics
> and high energy physics are from that of everyday experience.
>
> There's been an ongoing discussion about the viability of "active gamma
> suppression," or the quenching of gammas, during a LENR reaction.  This is
> an interesting question because its outcome tells us something about the
> kinds of reactions that are possible in light of the available
> experimental
> evidence.  In this context the question of the viability the quenching of
> gammas under any circumstances is an important one.  I'm starting to
> collect a number of interesting articles and links that seem to be
> relevant
> here, which I hope to put together in an email at some point.  But before
> I
> do that I wanted to share this particular link, which seems promising:
>
> "Automatic quenching of high energy Î³-ray sources by synchrotron photons"
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0701633.pdf
>
> We investigate a magnetized plasma in which injected high energy gamma
> rays
> annihilate on a soft photon ï¬eld, that is provided by the synchrotron
> radiation of the created pairs. For a very wide range of magnetic ï¬elds,
> this process involves gamma-rays between 0.3GeV and 30TeV. We derive a
> simple dynamical system for this process, analyze its stability to runaway
> production of soft photons and paris [pairs], and find conditions for it
> to
> automatically quench by reaching a steady state with an optical depth to
> photon-photon annihilation larger than unity. We discuss applications to
> broad-band Î³-ray emitters, in particular supermassive black holes.
> Automatic quenching limits the gamma-ray luminosity of these objects and
> predicts substantial pair loading of the jets of less active sources.
>
>
> Some important details here -- the gammas that are thought to be quenched
> are 10 to 1,000,000 times more powerful than the ones we're interested in.
>  So even though the conditions under which the quenching is thought to
> happen are extreme, these ranges also provide an upper bound that is well
> above what we would need.  It is possible that the effect cannot be seen
> below these energies, but perhaps it might.  The authors require a
> magnetic
> field, but they suggest that the effect can be seen between 10^-9 and 10^6
> G.  The lower bound, 10^-9 G, is what you find in the human brain, and the
> upper bound, 10^6 G, is greater than but not too different from the
> magnetic field of a magnetic resonance imaging machine.
>
> The authors mention in passing a related paper looking at the nonlinear
> effects of pair production generated by ultrarelativistic protons.  A
> recent article at phys.org discusses how laser light coherently
> accelerates
> protons in a metal foil at higher energies than previously thought.
>
> http://phys.org/news/2012-07-higher-energies-laser-accelerated-particles.html
>
>
> So we could potentially have ultrarelativistic protons in our optical
> cavity, yielding pair production.  The pair production cross section in
> nickel also becomes non-negligible in the energy range of 1 to 30 MeV.
>
> http://imgur.com/MrE0K
>
> Eric
>

Re: [Vo]:peter hagelstein's new theory

2012-07-05 Thread pagnucco

Andre,

This may be a preview of what he presented:

"Coupling between a deuteron and a lattice"
P. L. Hagelstein, I. U. Chaudhary
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2159

-- Lou Pagnucco


Andre Blum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I may have missed this, but does anyone have more details about or a
> pointer to Peter Hagelstein's new theory, that was (according to Jed) so
> well received at the symposium in Williamsburg?
>
> Thanks
> Andre

Re: [Vo]:Higgs found or not?

2012-07-05 Thread Guenter Wildgruber

Jones et al,

I think we have to keep in mind what the essence of a theory is:
It is based on a set of assumptions and expands from those with an established 
set of tools, ie 'the set of accepted methods'.

Based on that 'belief' of mine, the Higgs Boson is something which only 
'exists' within this belief-system.

A similar case being the Ptolemaen system of cycles and epicycles.

It had-and has- true predictive value, but was a lot more cost-intensive than 
the Galilean theory.
So if you have a workable theory, but which does not converge but eventually 
needs hyperexponetial effort ton chase the other ghosts (dark matter, dark 
energy), one has a problem.

So the next question is, whether the particle zoo can ultimately be closed, or 
whether there is some infinite regress, which finally eats up all of the 
resources the universe has to offer, to explain 'itself'.

We will see.

Guenter




 Von: Jones Beene 
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 19:11 Donnerstag, 5.Juli 2012
Betreff: RE: [Vo]:Higgs found or not?
 
David,

I agree that this is could be an elaborate PR stunt, and little more. That
would be true, even if they nailed it. So what ? How can one justify the
enormous expense? It does zero for practical solutions to the energy crisis.

The prima donnas at CERN are extremely well-paid and are highly motivated
financially to keep the Euros flowing ...

[Vo]:Rossi’s new reactor core design

Rossi’s new reactor core design

http://pesn.com/2012/01/14/9602012_Momentous_Breakthroughs_Announced_During_Anniversary_E-Cat_Interview/

Momentous Breakthroughs Announced During Anniversary E-Cat Interview -
January 15, 2012

It was also clarified that each individual home E-Cat system will utilize
one reactor core. This is different than what was stated only a couple
months ago, which indicates just how rapidly progress is being made. If the
reactor core is the size of a single pack of cigarettes (about 85 cubic
centimeters) and can produce 10 kilowatts of power, this makes the power
density 117 watts per cubic centimeter -- a super high value!

I believe that many of the design ideas for this reactor core were given to
Rossi by the US government. This new design is a total departure from the
thermionic designs he originally developed.

The amount of design latitude necessary in the design of the core of
Rossi’s new style reactor core to do this minimization is very limited.

Rossi had to have totally changed his technology to have accomplished this
downsized core and the inherent stabilization of performance that has been
reported in his new systems.

by the necessity of its small size, this miniature design may be a solid
state design with virtually no or at most minimal flows of gases and now
air born nano-powder.

The hydrogen for the envelope is provided through the decomposition of a
metal hydride such as titanium or magnesium so the volume of the envelope
is very small.

The basic goal of the design is to maximize the electrostatic field at the
tips of core’s SWNTs near the boundary with the nickel micro-powder.

This reactor core being the size of a computer processor would be built as
follows:

This reactor core has a surface area of a few square centimeters. Its
dimensions and topology are as follows:

A circular shaped reactor core has a diameter of 10 centimeters.

The core is 3 cm thick, formed in two parts composed of a base sheet and a
top sheet.

The sheets are composed of a carbon rich metal alloy and perfectly flat
metal such as tungsten carbide with a thickness of 1 mm.

The bottom sheet is covered with nickel micro-powder between 1 and 4
microns in diameter.

The top sheet is a substrate for thickly packed vertically aligned SWNTs
each having a lengths of about a mm.

The top and base sheets are separated such that the tips of the SWNTs just
touch the micro powder using spacers that promote hydrogen flow in and
among the SWNTs.

The top sheet is connected to the negative potential of a 50kv pulsed DC
power source. The positive potential is grounded.

The core may operate with a minimum pulse length of 1 microsecond and a
duty cycle of between 0.1% and 100%. For example, a pulse length of 1
microsecond and an off time of 10 milliseconds results in a duty cycle of
1%. Pulse mode may, for example, provide lower average current density at
the tips of the SWNTs and therefore increase the heat output of the core.
In operation, an electric field of between 20 and 500 volts/micron is
required,

The core is enclosed in a circular high pressure hydrogen envelope about
the thickness of a pack of cigarettes (about 85 cubic centimeters). This
enclosure is composed of stainless steel or tungsten.

When the core is in operation, it glows red like the elements of an
electric toaster to produce 10 kW of thermal power.

Cheers: Axil

Re: [Vo]: European commission recommends funding for LENR research

2012-07-05 Thread Alan J Fletcher



At 09:46 AM 7/4/2012, Harry Veeder wrote:
>

http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/emerging-materials-report_en.pdf

> The effect takes place only with D in
Pd, therefore a search for ashes
(mainly He and Tritium) have to be included into the research
program
as a further task in order to define the effect.
They don't seem to have heard of H+Ni 

(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- and the
defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!)

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s new reactor core design

2012-07-05 Thread Guenter Wildgruber

Axil,

>...I believe that many of the design ideas for this reactor core were given to 
>Rossi by the US government. ...

Now you are in a bit of fairytaling.

Q1: Why should the mythical US-government exactly, which is as incompetent as 
corrupt, support Rossi?
and not NASA, Navy , MIT etc?
Spare me detailed comments on those institutions. They would be quite 
differentiated, but nevertheless hopefully realistic enough, to assess their 
capabilities.

Q2: Could it be even remotely possible that anybody could accomplish this feat 
within 6-9months, to completely redesign his original design?

A: No. No.

Wish You a good recovery!

Guenter




 Von: Axil Axil 
An: vortex-l  
Gesendet: 20:44 Donnerstag, 5.Juli 2012
Betreff: [Vo]:Rossi’s new reactor core design
 

Rossi’s new reactor core design
 
http://pesn.com/2012/01/14/9602012_Momentous_Breakthroughs_Announced_During_Anniversary_E-Cat_Interview/
 
Momentous Breakthroughs Announced During Anniversary E-Cat
Interview - January 15, 2012
 
It was also clarified that each individual home E-Cat
system will utilize one reactor core. This is different than what was stated
only a couple months ago, which indicates just how rapidly progress is being
made
...

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s new reactor core design

Rossi’s new reactor core design, Rewritten to improve readability and
remove typos.

http://pesn.com/2012/01/14/9602012_Momentous_Breakthroughs_Announced_During_Anniversary_E-Cat_Interview/

Momentous Breakthroughs Announced During Anniversary E-Cat Interview -
January 15, 2012

It was also clarified that each individual home E-Cat system will utilize
one reactor core. This is different than what was stated only a couple
months ago, which indicates just how rapidly progress is being made. If the
reactor core is the size of a single pack of cigarettes (about 85 cubic
centimeters) and can produce 10 kilowatts of power, this makes the power
density 117 watts per cubic centimeter -- a super high value!

I believe that many of the design ideas for this reactor core were given to
Rossi by the US government. This new design is a total departure from the
thermionic designs he originally developed.

The amount of latitude necessary in the design of this new style core to
achieve this minimization is very limited.  Furthermore, the new Rossi
reactor must now use precise electric control to get the stability that it
is reported to have.

Rossi must have had to totally change his technology to have accomplished
this downsized core.

The thermionic design had to be discarded to achieve the inherent
stabilization of performance that has been reported in his new systems.

The design of the small core requires a miniaturized design. For this, a
solid state design is a requirement; with virtually no or at most minimal
flows of hydrogen and no air born movement of nickel powder.

In order to allow the decomposition of a metal hydride such as titanium or
magnesium to provide the hydrogen for the envelope, the volume of the
envelope must be very small.

The basic goal of the design is to maximize the electrostatic field at the
tips of core’s SWNTs very near or on the boundary with the nickel
micro-powder.

Being the size of a computer processor, this reactor core would be built as
follows:

This reactor core has a surface area of a few square centimeters. Its
dimensions and topology are as follows:

A circular shaped reactor core has a diameter of 10 centimeters.

The core is 3 cm thick, formed in two parts composed of a base sheet and a
top sheet.

The sheets are composed of a carbon rich metal alloy to aid in the adhesion
of SWNTs. These sheets are perfectly flat made of a carbon rich metal alloy
such as tungsten carbide. The thickness of these sheets is one mm.

The bottom sheet is covered with nickel micro-powder grains between 1 and 4
microns in diameter.

The top sheet is a substrate for thickly packed vertically aligned SWNTs
each having a length of about a mm.

The top and base sheets are separated such that the tips of the SWNTs just
touch the micro powder. This separation is achieved using spacers that
support hydrogen flow in and among the SWNTs.

The top sheet is connected to the negative potential of a 50kv pulsed DC
power source. The positive potential is grounded.

The core may operate with a minimum pulse length of 1 microsecond and a
duty cycle of between 0.1% and 100%. For example, a pulse length of 1
microsecond and an off time of 10 milliseconds results in a duty cycle of
1%. Pulse mode may, for example, provide lower average current density at
the tips of the SWNTs and therefore increase the heat output of the core.
In operation, an electric field of between 20 and 500 volts/micron is
required,

The core is enclosed in a circular high pressure hydrogen envelope about
the thickness of a pack of cigarettes (about 85 cubic centimeters). This
enclosure is composed of stainless steel or tungsten.

When the core is in operation, it glows red like the elements of an
electric toaster to produce 10 kW of thermal power.

Cheers:  Axil

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Rossi’s new reactor core design
>
>
>
>
> http://pesn.com/2012/01/14/9602012_Momentous_Breakthroughs_Announced_During_Anniversary_E-Cat_Interview/
>
>
>
> Momentous Breakthroughs Announced During Anniversary E-Cat Interview -
> January 15, 2012
>
>
>
> It was also clarified that each individual home E-Cat system will utilize
> one reactor core. This is different than what was stated only a couple
> months ago, which indicates just how rapidly progress is being made. If the
> reactor core is the size of a single pack of cigarettes (about 85 cubic
> centimeters) and can produce 10 kilowatts of power, this makes the power
> density 117 watts per cubic centimeter -- a super high value!
>
>
>
>
>
> I believe that many of the design ideas for this reactor core were given
> to Rossi by the US government. This new design is a total departure from
> the thermionic designs he originally developed.
>
>
>
> The amount of design latitude necessary in the design of the core of
> Rossi’s new style reactor core to do this minimization is very limited.
>
>
>
> Rossi had to have totally changed hi

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s new reactor core design

Rossi’s new reactor core design, Rewritten to improve readability and
remove typos. Another try.

http://pesn.com/2012/01/14/9602012_Momentous_Breakthroughs_Announced_During_Anniversary_E-Cat_Interview/

Momentous Breakthroughs Announced During Anniversary E-Cat Interview -
January 15, 2012

It was also clarified that each individual home E-Cat system will utilize
one reactor core. This is different than what was stated only a couple
months ago, which indicates just how rapidly progress is being made. If the
reactor core is the size of a single pack of cigarettes (about 85 cubic
centimeters) and can produce 10 kilowatts of power, this makes the power
density 117 watts per cubic centimeter -- a super high value!

I believe that many of the design ideas for this reactor core were given to
Rossi by the US government. This new design is a total departure from the
thermionic designs he originally developed.

The amount of latitude necessary in the design of this new style core to
achieve this minimization is very limited.  Furthermore, the new Rossi
reactor must now use precise electric control to get the stability that it
is reported to have.

Rossi must have had to totally change his technology to have accomplished
this downsized core.

The thermionic design had to be discarded to achieve the inherent
stabilization of performance that has been reported in his new systems.

The design of the small core requires a miniaturized design. For this, a
solid state design is a requirement; with virtually no or at most minimal
flows of hydrogen and no air born movement of nickel powder.

In order to allow the decomposition of a metal hydride such as titanium or
magnesium to provide the hydrogen for the envelope, the volume of the
envelope must be very small.

The basic goal of the design is to maximize the electrostatic field at the
tips of core’s SWNTs very near or on the boundary with the nickel
micro-powder.

Being the size of a computer processor, this reactor core would be built as
follows:

This reactor core has a surface area of a few square centimeters. Its
dimensions and topology are as follows:

A circular shaped reactor core has a diameter of 10 centimeters.

The core is 3 cm thick, formed in two parts composed of a base sheet and a
top sheet.

The sheets are composed of a carbon rich metal alloy to aid in the adhesion
of SWNTs. These sheets are perfectly flat made of a carbon rich metal alloy
such as tungsten carbide. The thickness of these sheets is one mm.

The bottom sheet is covered with nickel micro-powder grains between 1 and 4
microns in diameter.

The top sheet is a substrate for thickly packed vertically aligned SWNTs
each having a length of about a mm.

The top and base sheets are separated such that the tips of the SWNTs just
touch the micro powder. This separation is achieved using spacers that
support hydrogen flow in and among the SWNTs.

The top sheet is connected to the negative potential of a 50kv pulsed DC
power source. The positive potential is grounded.

The core may operate with a minimum pulse length of 1 microsecond and a
duty cycle of between 0.1% and 100%. For example, a pulse length of 1
microsecond and an off time of 10 milliseconds results in a duty cycle of
1%. Pulse mode may, for example, provide lower average current density at
the tips of the SWNTs and therefore increase the heat output of the core.
In operation, an electric field of between 20 and 500 volts/micron is
required,

The core is enclosed in a circular high pressure hydrogen envelope about
the thickness of a pack of cigarettes (about 85 cubic centimeters). This
enclosure is composed of stainless steel or tungsten.

When the core is in operation, it glows red like the elements of an
electric toaster to produce 10 kW of thermal power.

Cheers:  Axil

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Rossi’s new reactor core design, Rewritten to improve readability and
> remove typos.
>
>
>
>
> http://pesn.com/2012/01/14/9602012_Momentous_Breakthroughs_Announced_During_Anniversary_E-Cat_Interview/
>
>
>
> Momentous Breakthroughs Announced During Anniversary E-Cat Interview -
> January 15, 2012
>
>
>
> It was also clarified that each individual home E-Cat system will utilize
> one reactor core. This is different than what was stated only a couple
> months ago, which indicates just how rapidly progress is being made. If the
> reactor core is the size of a single pack of cigarettes (about 85 cubic
> centimeters) and can produce 10 kilowatts of power, this makes the power
> density 117 watts per cubic centimeter -- a super high value!
>
>
>
>
>
> I believe that many of the design ideas for this reactor core were given
> to Rossi by the US government. This new design is a total departure from
> the thermionic designs he originally developed.
>
>
>
> The amount of latitude necessary in the design of this new style core to
> achieve this minimization is very limited.  F

Re: [Vo]:Rossis new reactor core design

At 01:44 PM 7/5/2012, Axil Axil wrote:

Rossi's new reactor core design

http://pesn.com/2012/01/14/9602012_Momentous_Breakthroughs_Announced_During_Anniversary_E-Cat_Interview/

Momentous Breakthroughs Announced During Anniversary E-Cat Interview
- January 15, 2012

[etc].

There is something totally clear from this document.

There are people who can talk your pants off. Sit down and talk with
them, they can convince many people, maybe even most, to part with
their money, their trust, even their lives.

It's obvious that for the PESN interviewers, Rossi is such a person.

This has nothing to do with whether he's telling the truth or lying.

It has to do with a belief about substance arising entirely out of talking.

Due to the interview, I'm more convinced that ever the E-Cat
technology is not only real and works, but is racing towards the market place.

In other words, due to *talk* -- and little or nothing other than
that -- , the writer is convinced of a fact. No independent
confirmation needed.

With a person like this, something happens with many people. They
want to believe him. Even skeptics may give him every benefit of the
doubt, and skeptics may even forget to check everything. It seems rude.

I haven't watched the interview, don't have time. I simply notice this:

Rossi promised it would all be over by last October, that there would
be units for sale, independent public demonstrations, etc. None of
that has happened.

People involved with LENR know that Nickel Hydrogen reactions might
be possible, so often give Rossi the benefit of the doubt.

But generating a high output, even if he has done that, is only the
first step in moving to commercialization. It's also necessary that
the reaction be reliable and long-term sustainable. A reactor that
works for a day or two is going to be a problem.

Worse, a reactor that works at a low level for a while and suddenly
starts working at a high level could be a serious safety hazard.

Defkalion supporters have alleged that Defkalion withdrew from the
contract with Rossi because he had not met the contract standards for
reliability. True or false? I don't know. How could I know? I'd just
form an opinion from what the *people* seem like to me. That is
totally unreliable, we all can easily be fooled by people. Both
directions, by the way. We might not trust people for reasons that
have nothing to do with actual untrustworthiness.

So, now, Rossi is allegedly moving to manufacture of a million units.
To be actually at that position, he must have a reliable core
*already.* He could start selling that core *immediately* for
investigational use. With something accessible for demonstration, the
position of the U.S. Patent Office could *easily* be reversed, their
standard denial of cold fusion devices is rebuttable with an
accessible demo. He'd apply for the patent and duke it out in court
if needed, and, if he could demonstrate that core, he'd win, hands down.

He doesn't have to claim nuclear reactions at all. For a patent, he
only needs to demonstrate utility. Heat.

Rossi's position makes no sense, unless he's engaging in puffery. He
may be able to say this and say that, but there is *nothing* reliable
here, it's all claim by Rossi, shifting, and speculation by others,
and "I believe him." Or "I don't believe him."

For all of us and our energy future, I hope that Rossi is right, that
he really is about to start selling a working product. But my
personal sense tells me to not depend on it.

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s new reactor core design

Rossi’s new reactor core design, Rewritten to improve readability and
remove typos.

http://pesn.com/2012/01/14/9602012_Momentous_Breakthroughs_Announced_During_Anniversary_E-Cat_Interview/

*Momentous Breakthroughs Announced During Anniversary E-Cat Interview -
January 15, 2012*

It was also clarified that each individual home E-Cat system will utilize
one reactor core. This is different than what was stated only a couple
months ago, which indicates just how rapidly progress is being made. If the
reactor core is the size of a single pack of cigarettes (about 85 cubic
centimeters) and can produce 10 kilowatts of power, this makes the power
density 117 watts per cubic centimeter -- a super high value!

I believe that many of the design ideas for this reactor core were given to
Rossi by the US government. This new design is a total departure from the
thermionic designs he originally developed.

The amount of latitude necessary in the design of this new style core to
achieve this minimization is very limited.  Furthermore, the new Rossi
reactor must now use precise electric control to get the stability that it
is reported to have.

Rossi must have had to totally change his technology to have accomplished
this downsized core.

The thermionic design had to be discarded to achieve the inherent
stabilization of performance that has been reported in his new systems.

The design of the small core requires a miniaturized design. For this, a
solid state design is a requirement; with virtually no or at most minimal
flows of hydrogen and no air born movement of nickel powder.

In order to allow the decomposition of a metal hydride such as titanium or
magnesium to provide the hydrogen for the envelope, the volume of the
envelope must be very small.

The basic goal of the design is to maximize the electrostatic field at the
tips of core’s SWNTs very near or on the boundary with the nickel
micro-powder.

Being the size of a computer processor, this reactor core would be built as
follows:

This reactor core has a surface area of a few square centimeters. Its
dimensions and topology are as follows:

A circular shaped reactor core has a diameter of 10 centimeters.

The core is 3 cm thick, formed in two parts composed of a base sheet and a
top sheet.

The sheets are composed of a carbon rich metal alloy to aid in the adhesion
of SWNTs. These sheets are perfectly flat made of a carbon rich metal alloy
such as tungsten carbide. The thickness of these sheets is one mm.

The bottom sheet is covered with nickel micro-powder grains between 1 and 4
microns in diameter.

The top sheet is a substrate for thickly packed vertically aligned SWNTs
each having a length of about a mm.

The top and base sheets are separated such that the tips of the SWNTs just
touch the micro powder. This separation is achieved using spacers that
support hydrogen flow in and among the SWNTs.

The top sheet is connected to the negative potential of a 50kv pulsed DC
power source. The positive potential is grounded.

The core may operate with a minimum pulse length of 1 microsecond and a
duty cycle of between 0.1% and 100%. For example, a pulse length of 1
microsecond and an off time of 10 milliseconds results in a duty cycle of
1%. Pulse mode may, for example, provide lower average current density at
the tips of the SWNTs and therefore increase the heat output of the core.
In operation, an electric field of between 20 and 500 volts/micron is
required,

The core is enclosed in a circular high pressure hydrogen envelope about
the thickness of a pack of cigarettes (about 85 cubic centimeters). This
enclosure is composed of stainless steel or tungsten.

When the core is in operation, it glows red like the elements of an
electric toaster to produce 10 kW of thermal power.

Cheers:  Axil

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Rossi’s new reactor core design
>
>
>
>
> http://pesn.com/2012/01/14/9602012_Momentous_Breakthroughs_Announced_During_Anniversary_E-Cat_Interview/
>
>
>
> Momentous Breakthroughs Announced During Anniversary E-Cat Interview -
> January 15, 2012
>
>
>
> It was also clarified that each individual home E-Cat system will utilize
> one reactor core. This is different than what was stated only a couple
> months ago, which indicates just how rapidly progress is being made. If the
> reactor core is the size of a single pack of cigarettes (about 85 cubic
> centimeters) and can produce 10 kilowatts of power, this makes the power
> density 117 watts per cubic centimeter -- a super high value!
>
>
>
>
>
> I believe that many of the design ideas for this reactor core were given
> to Rossi by the US government. This new design is a total departure from
> the thermionic designs he originally developed.
>
>
>
> The amount of design latitude necessary in the design of the core of
> Rossi’s new style reactor core to do this minimization is very limited.
>
>
>
> Rossi had to have totally changed

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s new reactor core design

I judge claims made in the field of LENR by technical consistency between
the claim and the research I can do to confirm or reject them. Rossi has
never failed such a check.



On their face, his claims are unbelievable but I project the design that
they imply and also predict what those claims mean in terms of the natural
laws that must be true for those claims to also be true.







 Cheers:  Axil




On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> At 01:44 PM 7/5/2012, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>  Rossi's new reactor core design
>>
>> http://pesn.com/2012/01/14/**9602012_Momentous_**Breakthroughs_Announced_
>> **During_Anniversary_E-Cat_**Interview/
>>
>> Momentous Breakthroughs Announced During Anniversary E-Cat Interview -
>> January 15, 2012
>>
> [etc].
>
> There is something totally clear from this document.
>
> There are people who can talk your pants off. Sit down and talk with them,
> they can convince many people, maybe even most, to part with their money,
> their trust, even their lives.
>
> It's obvious that for the PESN interviewers, Rossi is such a person.
>
> This has nothing to do with whether he's telling the truth or lying.
>
> It has to do with a belief about substance arising entirely out of talking.
>
>  Due to the interview, I'm more convinced that ever the E-Cat technology
>> is not only real and works, but is racing towards the market place.
>>
>
> In other words, due to *talk* -- and little or nothing other than that --
> , the writer is convinced of a fact. No independent confirmation needed.
>
> With a person like this, something happens with many people. They want to
> believe him. Even skeptics may give him every benefit of the doubt, and
> skeptics may even forget to check everything. It seems rude.
>
> I haven't watched the interview, don't have time. I simply notice this:
>
> Rossi promised it would all be over by last October, that there would be
> units for sale, independent public demonstrations, etc. None of that has
> happened.
>
> People involved with LENR know that Nickel Hydrogen reactions might be
> possible, so often give Rossi the benefit of the doubt.
>
> But generating a high output, even if he has done that, is only the first
> step in moving to commercialization. It's also necessary that the reaction
> be reliable and long-term sustainable. A reactor that works for a day or
> two is going to be a problem.
>
> Worse, a reactor that works at a low level for a while and suddenly starts
> working at a high level could be a serious safety hazard.
>
> Defkalion supporters have alleged that Defkalion withdrew from the
> contract with Rossi because he had not met the contract standards for
> reliability. True or false? I don't know. How could I know? I'd just form
> an opinion from what the *people* seem like to me. That is totally
> unreliable, we all can easily be fooled by people. Both directions, by the
> way. We might not trust people for reasons that have nothing to do with
> actual untrustworthiness.
>
> So, now, Rossi is allegedly moving to manufacture of a million units. To
> be actually at that position, he must have a reliable core *already.* He
> could start selling that core *immediately* for investigational use. With
> something accessible for demonstration, the position of the U.S. Patent
> Office could *easily* be reversed, their standard denial of cold fusion
> devices is rebuttable with an accessible demo. He'd apply for the patent
> and duke it out in court if needed, and, if he could demonstrate that core,
> he'd win, hands down.
>
> He doesn't have to claim nuclear reactions at all. For a patent, he only
> needs to demonstrate utility. Heat.
>
> Rossi's position makes no sense, unless he's engaging in puffery. He may
> be able to say this and say that, but there is *nothing* reliable here,
> it's all claim by Rossi, shifting, and speculation by others, and "I
> believe him." Or "I don't believe him."
>
> For all of us and our energy future, I hope that Rossi is right, that he
> really is about to start selling a working product. But my personal sense
> tells me to not depend on it.
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s new reactor core design

2012-07-05 Thread Guenter Wildgruber

...but I project the design that they imply and also predict what those claims 
mean in terms of
the natural laws that must be true for those claims to also be true.
...

Hmm,
does this mean that You consider any claims to be 'true' which do not 
contradict the laws of nature (as they are currently stated)' ?

Bloody realist I am.
What projector do You use?
I buy it tomorrow. Limit $500.

Guenter

 Von: Axil Axil 
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 21:59 Donnerstag, 5.Juli 2012
Betreff: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s new reactor core design

On their face, his claims are unbelievable but I project
the design that they imply and also predict what those claims mean in terms of
the natural laws that must be true for those claims to also be true.

 Cheers:  Axil
 On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  
wrote:

At 01:44 PM 7/5/2012, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>
>Rossi's new reactor core design
>>
>>
>>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s new reactor core design

It’s a matter of research.

For example, Mileys observation that hydrogen in a crack is superconductive
prompted me to look into and learn about one dimensional superconductivity.

Not many critics at CERN have the time to do this sort of shotgun fact
finding. They reject cold fusion because they do not have time to perform
due diligence research.

Another example, The Hora theory of cold fusion as the basis for nebular
enrichment of heavy element that is consistent with the natural abundance
of isotopes in cold fusion ash samples.

Ed Storms crack theory does not cause me any problems and fits in with my
understanding of how F&P reactions work.

In general, one must take the cold fusion research as a fact and research
it until it is proven or disproven in your own mind.

I do not yet believe in the hydrino because fractional orbitals may be seen
in two dimensional based Dirac cone electron orbitals as they form on the
surface of two dimensional topological insulators. But the verdict is still
out on this one.

Cheers:Axil

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Guenter Wildgruber wrote:

> ...but I project the design that they imply and also predict what those
> claims mean in terms of the natural laws that must be true for those claims
> to also be true.
> ...
>
> Hmm,
> does this mean that You consider any claims to be 'true' which do not
> contradict the laws of nature (as they are currently stated)' ?
>
>
> Bloody realist I am.
> What projector do You use?
> I buy it tomorrow. Limit $500.
>
> Guenter
>
>   --
> *Von:* Axil Axil 
> *An:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Gesendet:* 21:59 Donnerstag, 5.Juli 2012
> *Betreff:* [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s new reactor core design
>
>  On their face, his claims are unbelievable but I project the design that
> they imply and also predict what those claims mean in terms of the natural
> laws that must be true for those claims to also be true.
>
>  Cheers:  Axil
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
> wrote:
>
> At 01:44 PM 7/5/2012, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>  Rossi's new reactor core design
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:How to modify cross-sections and branching ratios...

2012-07-05 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

[NOTE: I changed the Subject line, but this msg was sparked by Lou
Pagnucco's posting Thursday, July 05, 2012 11:06 AM]

 

Well, from a qualitative reading of the paper referred to in Lou's posting,
it would appear that the scattering cross section

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

can be 'altered substantially' by a 'rather weak, low frequency field'.

 

(the 'low-frequency field' in this work is from a laser, so I wouldn't
exactly call that low-frequency; unless they are referring to the repetition
rate and not the frequency of the laser light itself)

 

Don't know if this effect on the scattering cross section applies to LENR,
however, I think it supports the argument that 

   *cross sections can be modified by very simple and low-power means*.

 

When one reads this paper and Hagelstein's latest, I have to wonder if the
RF generator is serving a similar purpose; namely, to modify the 'normal'
cross-sections and/or branching ratios!

 

And, perhaps that is why the resistive heater needed to be maintained at
some level... i.e., after LENR ignition started, and the heater power was
reduced to a much lower level, it wasn't the heat from the heater that was
important, but the low frequency pulsing of an E-or-B field which served to
alter branching ratios... remember that PWM was being used to set power
level to the heater.  There was also much discussion on this forum right
after Rossi's first demo as to whether his setup was using a return path
thru the reactor so the Ni powder was being affected by a pulsing E-field.

 

-Mark

 

 

-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com [mailto:pagnu...@htdconnect.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 11:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:general approximation of the viability of gamma quenching

 

Eric,

 

It appears that the photon-stopping power of electrons which are "dressed"

in electromagnetic fields may be much greater than that of bare electrons

- i.e., "dressed" electrons that are exchanging large numbers of virtual
photons with nearby nuclei and other electrons in magnetic and coulomb
interactions. See:

 

"[1]On Compton scattering of energetic photons by light atoms in the
presence of a low-frequency electromagnetic field"

 

 

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:919561:1/component/escidoc:919
560/COMPT777.pdf

 

The gist of the paper is stated on page 3:

"...that spectra of both emitted electrons and scattered photons can be
remarkably modified by the interaction with a weak low-frequency laser
field."

 

Perhaps even greater effects occur in intense e-m fields generated in carbon
and metal nanostructures.

 

However, since gammas would not even be generated in some proposed LENR
theories (e.g., neutron capture), this may be moot.

 

I have some more data, but not enough time to post it right now.

 

-- Lou Pagnucco

Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s new reactor core design

2012-07-05 Thread David Roberson


It is no secret that Rossi has had many inputs from readers of his journal. I 
have suggested a flat design to both Rossi and DGT for over a year that sounds 
similar to what he has. To me it was obvious that a flat design would be far 
superior to a round one if you were interested in scaling the power. First, you 
find an ideal thickness that has the thermal characteristics that you desire, 
then you can grow it in the same plane as required. The heat then can escape 
through the same general path length but over a larger area as the system power 
needs rise.

The funny thing is that they have told me on several occasions that their 
original design was better than a planar one.  Maybe now they are beginning to 
understand my reasons.


Why would the government want to help Rossi get ahead of the other competitors? 
 Perhaps they found an LENR device powering one of those UFO's that they have 
in storage. 


Dave

vortex-l@eskimo.com

Here is an uninformative report on the conference:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/Cold-Fusion-is-Real-by-Josh-Mitteldorf-120704-254.html



I would say more about the conference but I figure the proceedings will
soon be available so it is better to let the authors speak for themselves.
If the proceedings are delayed I will ask the people at W&M to send me the
PowerPoint slides. They collected them on the chairman's computer. I will
upload them or send them to interested parties. Papers are better than
slides so let's wait.

There was a lot of talk about potential commercialization including a
discussion by a guy from Switzerland, Nicolas Chauvin, about making cold
fusion powered cars. That may seem premature but Chauvin is a smart cookie
doing a lot of preliminary groundwork in automotive transportation with
cold fusion heat engines that might be well worthwhile.

- Jed

vortex-l@eskimo.com

Here are the list of attendees:

http://www.cvent.com/events/international-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-symposium-ilenrs-12/attendees-2afdc5aee9fe479ca69ff752477cbd25.aspx

- Jed

[Vo]:OT: Wall of Fire

2012-07-05 Thread Harry Veeder

Wall of Fire - Yves Klein

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfMlVXPS2aE

Harry

[Vo]:NE power outage seen from space

Here is a photo from space showing Pittsburgh, Baltimore, DC and Richmond
with a slider to show before-and-after conditions:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/dc-storm-from-space/?hpid=z1

It isn't North Korea but it does show dramatic, widespread outages. My
sister who lives near Charlottesville, VA just got power back this morning.

To attend the meeting at W&M I drove from Gettysburg, PA through DC to
Williamsburg. There were trees down and damage the whole way. Power was out
from Frederick MD all the way to southern Virginia. Many of the people
attending the conference from the surrounding areas lost power. I have
never seen such widespread storm damage at this time of year in that part
of the country. It was a hurricane that formed over land instead of the
ocean; a so-called derecho -- a word I had not heard up until last
week. The intensity was caused by the record high heat. I expect that, in
turn, was caused by global warming.

Washington DC has always had a lot of violent weather and extreme
temperatures, but it is usually local. It seldom reaches Frederick or
Gettysburg. I have never heard of such a thing stretching hundreds of miles.

Gettysburg and the rest of southern Pennsylvania has every kind of weather
every day of the year. It is hot, cold, raining and then clear in 30-minute
increments throughout the day. I grew up thinking that is normal. That is
also how the weather works in Ithaca, NY. People up there say "if you don't
like the weather around here, wait 15 minutes." The problem it that it is
dreary, gray and cold most of the time there, like of like in Scotland. I
hold that such places are the source of discovery and intellectual ferment
partly because people have nothing better to do than sit around indoors
thinking. Not like the Riviera, Bermuda or Florida.

These outages demonstrate the need for decentralized cold fusion power
generation. So does the crisis in electric power in Japan with all the
reactors turned off.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Rossi’s new reactor core design

2012-07-05 Thread jean guy moreau

Speaking of UFO and LENR, might be worth watching this video.Interesting to see 
the burns on the poor man chest as he faced direct exhaust from LENR heated air 
;)) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLtb8ph2WQQ JG MoreauQuebec
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s new reactor core design
From: dlrober...@aol.com
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:11:52 -0400

It is no secret that Rossi has had many inputs from readers of his journal. I 
have suggested a flat design to both Rossi and DGT for over a year that sounds 
similar to what he has. To me it was obvious that a flat design would be far 
superior to a round one if you were interested in scaling the power. First, you 
find an ideal thickness that has the thermal characteristics that you desire, 
then you can grow it in the same plane as required. The heat then can escape 
through the same general path length but over a larger area as the system power 
needs rise.

The funny thing is that they have told me on several occasions that their 
original design was better than a planar one.  Maybe now they are beginning to 
understand my reasons.

Why would the government want to help Rossi get ahead of the other competitors? 
 Perhaps they found an LENR device powering one of those UFO's that they have 
in storage. 

Dave

[Vo]:NAIIC Fukushima reactor accident report blames the victims . . . as usual

Here is the English report from the Japanese Parliament (Diet)
investigating committee:

http://naiic.go.jp/en/

Here are some interesting comments by Chairman Kurokawa in the Executive
Summary. Incidentally, I cannot find these comments in the Japanese version:

"THE EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI of March 11, 2011 were natural disasters of a
magnitude that shocked the entire world. Although triggered by these
cataclysmic events, the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a
profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen and
prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective
human response.

How could such an accident occur in Japan, a nation that takes such great
pride in its global reputation for excellence in engineering and
technology? This Commission believes the Japanese people – and the global
community – deserve a full, honest and transparent answer
to this question.

Our report catalogues a multitude of errors and willful negligence that
left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11. And it
examines serious deficiencies in the response to the accident by TEPCO,
regulators and the government. . . .

. . . This conceit was reinforced by the collective mindset of Japanese
bureaucracy, by which the first duty of any individual bureaucrat is to
defend the interests of his organization. Carried to an extreme, this led
bureaucrats to put organizational interests ahead of their paramount duty
to protect public safety.

Only by grasping this mindset can one understand how Japan’s nuclear
industry managed to avoid absorbing the critical lessons learned from Three
Mile Island and Chernobyl; and how it became accepted practice to resist
regulatory pressure and cover up small-scale accidents. It was this mindset
that led to the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant."

Yup. Check, check . . .  So far so good. He goes on to say:

". . . This report singles out numerous individuals and organizations for
harsh criticism, but the goal is not—and should not be—to lay blame. The
goal must be to learn from this disaster, and reflect deeply on its
fundamental causes, in order to ensure that it is never repeated. Many of
the lessons relate to policies and procedures, but the most important is
one upon which each and every Japanese citizen should reflect very deeply.

The consequences of negligence at Fukushima stand out as catastrophic, but
the mindset that supported it can be found across Japan. In recognizing
that fact, each of us should reflect on our responsibility as individuals
in a democratic society . . ."


In other words, blame it on the people and the culture of Japan. Not the
specific nitwits who put the fuel tank on the the ground on the ocean side
of the reactor plant. The blame is nebulous, applying to everyone, and
therefore to no one. This was the same response the government had
immediately after the surrender in WWII. The message to the citizens and
schoolchildren was: "You people did not fight hard enough. You failed the
Emperor and the nation." The government was all set to impose more
hardships and more sacrifices on the people when the Occupation Authorities
arrived and overruled it.

Lawrence Forsley, who was at W&M, went to Fukushima to assist in some of
the technical analyses of nuclear products. I believe it was some months
after the accident. He said the officials and scientists there are lying
through their teeth, and the situation is much more dire than they admit.
That is what Mizuno and many other independent observers have said.
Kurokawa said the accident is continuing to the present day. Apparently, so
is the lying and the cover up. However, the cover-up is far from airtight.
A lot of information is leaking out.

A cover-up never works. A cover-up plus baseless anodyne assurances from
officials make the public assume the government and TEPCO say are lying.
People imagine the real situation is even worse than it actually turns out
to be. That was true even in Stalinist Russia.

- Jed

[Vo]:Partial transcript of NI's Stefano Concezzi's segment from July 2nd LENR workshop in Rome, translated to English

2012-07-05 Thread Akira Shirakawa

Hello group,

On the "E-Cat News" blog I found a transcription in Italian of a portion
(the most relevant section) of NI's Stefano Concezzi's segment from the
latest LENR workshop in Rome, diligently made by user "un passante".
Surprisingly, it didn't gather much attention. By now, the information
presented isn't probably "news" anymore, but it's still an interesting read.

I've hand translated the transcript in English so that everybody can
understand it properly. Forgive me any error or inaccuracy:

[...] What is the master plan a company [such as National Instruments] should
have? First of all, to find, analyze results from public and private
institutions and researchers in good faith who want to show their work and
double check them. And if possible, replicate them.

To determine who are the top 10, simply because we have limited resources;
otherwise it would be interesting to interview them all. Finally, to establish
cooperations with them to make use of our products to accelerate research in
this field.

These are the studies [referring to a presentation slide] we have sponsored or
we are working with: the first one is professor Kim's from Purdue University, a
famous university in the USA, and it's based on the theory of condensed matter,
therefore Bose-Einstein's, an almost 80-year old theory. The aim is to find the
mathematical model and make it available to any student.
So, We're working with Purdue University, with professor Kim, and we will
present in August a mathematical model, and therefore tools that will be able
to be used by anybody, freely available on the web.

Same with MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Professor Hagelstein, or
"Hagelsteen" as he prefers to be called - based on the theory of quantum fields
inside the electrons.

But also with the Los Alamos National Lab, with the University of Missouri,
with the University of Bologna, where...

A thing that hasn't been cited so far is that, excluding professor Preparata,
there have been two Italian scientists, two university professors who made
science [in this field] progress significantly: one from the University of
Siena [Piantelli] and one from the University of Bologna [Focardi]. Both are
still alive, still working.

Well, one of these has a successor: professor Levi from the University of
Bologna, Department of Physics. We have sponsored their laboratory.

Same with ENEA. An ongoing collaboration. But also with INFN Frascati [Celani],
with the Universities of Kobe, Osaka, with the University of Texas in Austin,
with the French CEA [Commissariat à l'énergie atomique], with the Stanford
Research Institute and with the Naval Research Laboratories in the United
States.

So, Japan, United States and Europe. And again, to make sure we don't [favor
any territory in particular].

The original transcript in Italian by "un passante" can be found in the
comment section here:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/national-instruments-deeply-involved-with-many-lenr-projects/

You can listen to it in Italian starting from h:mm:ss <<2:08:33>> in
this link:

http://www.radioradicale.it/scheda/355900/verso-una-rivoluzione-energetica-non-inquinante

For convenience and future proofing I'm pasting it here as well. Again,
credits to "un passante":

Qual è il masterplan che una società può avere? Innanzitutto è trovare,
analizzare i risultati, di istituzioni pubbliche e private, di ricercatori in
buona fede che vogliono presentare i loro lavori e fare una doppia verifica, un
doppio check, di questi lavori. Se possibile, replicarli.
Determinare quali sono i top 10, semplicemente perchè abbiamo risorse limitate,
se no sarebbe interessante intervistarli tutti. E stabilire delle cooperazioni
e sfruttare le capacità dei nostri prodotti per accelerare la ricerca in questo
campo.

Queste sono le ricerche [si riferisce ad una slide] che noi abbiamo
sponsorizzato o con cui lavoriamo:
La prima (ricerca) è col Prof. Kim della Purdue University, una famosa
università negli Stati Uniti, e si basa sulla teoria della condensed matter,
dunque da Bode-Einstein, qualcosa che ha quasi 80 anni come teoria. Trovare il
modello matematico e portare questo modello matematico alla disponibilità di
qualsiasi studente.
Dunque stiamo lavorando con la Purdue University, col Prof. Kim, e presenteremo
ad agosto, un modello matematico, dunque dei tools, che possono essere
utilizzati da tutti, messi a disposizione sul web.

La stessa cosa con il MIT – Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Prof.
Hagelstein, o Hagelsteen come lui preferisce essere chiamato, che si basa sulla
teoria dei campi quantici all’interno degli elettroni.

Ma anche col Los Alamos National Lab, con l’University of Missouri, con
l’Università di Bologna, dove…

Un aspetto non citato finora è che, a prescindere dal Prof. Preparata, due
scienziati italiani, due professori universitari che hanno fatto progredire la
scienza in maniera molto significa

Re: [Vo]:OT: Wall of Fire

Here is another wall of fire in San Diego, where they accidentally shot off
20 minutes of July 4th fireworks in 15 seconds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuJHfkXEI-o

Sort of like a gigantic lightbulb.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/entire-san-diego-fireworks-show-exploded-in-15-seconds-ruining-show.html

Tweet: "Due to CA state budget cuts, San Diego downsized their annual
bayfront fireworks show to a single firework."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:NAIIC Fukushima reactor accident report blames the victims . . . as usual