Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
I've heard Rossi and some others happy about some signal around 511Kev (e+ anihilation)... to be confirmed. note that DGT claim gamme in 30-500keV... compatible with 511keV divided (is it possible? ) however if much energy is cared by e+, and annihilation, should not there be much more gamma than observed, at a point of being dangerous ? Just a naive question... if no gamma nor neutrons is produced at noticeable quantity, does it mean that most energy is transmitted by some charged particles, that don't annihilate ? why not alpha, e-, p+, heavy ions, all with important kinetic energy, which is dispersed in many quanta in the lattice by many electromagnetic interaction question to physicist: if an e-, or a p+, an alpha is thrown out of the reaction zone with say as much as 24MeV kinetic energy (or twice 12MeV), how is the kinetic energy dissipated ? something like Cerenkov ? are there many gamma produced? 2014-02-12 23:21 GMT+01:00 H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. Hi, Not so - the reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. They net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Jones The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes differ. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Hot fusion OU milestone reported
You make good points about different requirements... not that for most physicist what is assumed by theory is not extraordinary thus need no serious evidence... This is the only and key problem: theory! In fact I think it is a very many time replicated tragedy. As Thomas Kuhn and Nassim nicholas Taleb, explain and describe independently (that is a replication guys!) history is rewritten after each failure, to make a fairy tale that academic science have absolutely perfectly manage the transition, and that only old and incompetent guys have opposed. 2014-02-12 21:52 GMT+01:00 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com: The way they deny LENR is unprecedented in science. At least I hope so.
Re: [Vo]:Hot fusion OU milestone reported
Actually, they considered only what entered the core of D+T. That is about 1/100 000 of the total that enters the whole machine for the shot. 2014-02-13 1:55 GMT-02:00 Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com: Correct me if I'm wrong but they didn't really achieve OU because the target only got 10% of the incident energy so the actual energy gain was in a subsystem rather than in the whole system. [m] On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: As a skeptic I demand that another independent group of scientists replicate the results. How do we know that the input power required to run the lasers is accurately measured? The list of possible errors is a mile long for an experiment this complicated. The important point that I think we've missed is that the scientists carrying out this research are *qualified* scientists. For this kind of scientist, independent replication is not necessary, because they have sufficient skill to carry out an experiment whose results one can trust. About the recent milestone, if I may be allowed to move the goalposts a little: now the challenge is to get continuous OU operation, producing enough energy to recuperate the investment in hardware and people operating the system. Eric -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Jones--Bob Cook Here-- Can you show how the p-e-p reaction as you understand it conserves spin? I would think that the newly fused particle, whatever it is, would have 1/2 or 3/2 spin--I do not know. If a positron is emitted, its spin would be -1/2 I think. That would make the new particle have 0 or 1 spin. The reaction of the positron and electron give photons with 0 spin. Bob . -Original Message- From: Jones Beene tt Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. Hi, Not so - the reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. They net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Bob, these three particles create a deuteron after all of the excess mass energy has been emitted as photons. The neutrino has very little energy because very little remains when the d forms. The creation process is unique to lenr and applies to all the isotopes of hydrogen, at least that is my model. if lenr is to be explained, you need to stop thinking in conventional terms. This is a new kind of nuclear process. Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 12, 2014, at 3:00 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones--Bob Cook Here-- Can you show how the p-e-p reaction as you understand it conserves spin? I would think that the newly fused particle, whatever it is, would have 1/2 or 3/2 spin--I do not know. If a positron is emitted, its spin would be -1/2 I think. That would make the new particle have 0 or 1 spin. The reaction of the positron and electron give photons with 0 spin. Bob . -Original Message- From: Jones Beene tt Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. Hi, Not so - the reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. They net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles
Upon further reflection, the paired proton conjecture may be on the right track after all. In the ICCF-18 paper, Dr. Yeong E. Kim defines his reactions in terms of deuterons, but deuteron formation can only happen when the hydrogen isotope used in the LENR reaction is deuterium. When protium hydrogen having a single proton and zero neutrons is used, only protons form the hydrogen nucleus. Deuteron formation cannot happen because there are no neutrons in the hydrogen. So to form a hydrogen nuclear pair, only protons are available and not deuterons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_isomers_of_hydrogen The parahydrogen form of hydrogen spin isomers has zero spin and is consistent with the zero spin rule of thumb for photofusion. Dr. Kim may have made a major mistake by taking his deuteron base theory of Pt/D fusion and moved it unmodified into the Ni/H reactor theory. This error is what has confused me lately. If I am not thinking correctly, please correct me. On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I stand corrected. Dr. Yeong E. has proposed a double deuteron pair as the boson component of his Bose Einstein condensate theory for many years. The ion member of the hydrogen dipole will be a deuteron so a cluster fusion reaction consistent with Kim would include those neutrons in that hydrogen ion pair. So sorry, please excuse me, I just made a human mistake and was not trying to aggravate Ed. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: [From Axil] It is a safe assumption that pairing of protons is occurring. I see no reason for this assumption. Such pairs are only found in H2, which is not nuclear reactive. Ed, Axil is playing with you. See: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=forum+troll Eric
[Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Ed--Bob here-- The protons are fermi particles with a spin of 1/2, so 2 protons would create a new particle spin of 1 plus the 1/2 from the electron for a total of +1-1/2. I think deuteron's are Bose particles with a spin of 0. Correct me if I am wrong. What happens to the excess spin? Bob -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:30 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Bob, these three particles create a deuteron after all of the excess mass energy has been emitted as photons. The neutrino has very little energy because very little remains when the d forms. The creation process is unique to lenr and applies to all the isotopes of hydrogen, at least that is my model. if lenr is to be explained, you need to stop thinking in conventional terms. This is a new kind of nuclear process. Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 12, 2014, at 3:00 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones--Bob Cook Here-- Can you show how the p-e-p reaction as you understand it conserves spin? I would think that the newly fused particle, whatever it is, would have 1/2 or 3/2 spin--I do not know. If a positron is emitted, its spin would be -1/2 I think. That would make the new particle have 0 or 1 spin. The reaction of the positron and electron give photons with 0 spin. Bob . -Original Message- From: Jones Beene tt Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. Hi, Not so - the reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. They net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook Jones--Bob Cook Here-- Can you show how the p-e-p reaction as you understand it conserves spin? Hi Bob, No one can adequately explain the many inconsistencies of this proposed route to gain in LENR. Were it not for the reputation of the proponents, it would be ignored. It is obviously a ploy to shoehorn a known fusion reaction into experimental results where it does not fit - and there is no way to do this without resort to fiction. In short, the proposed proton fusion to deuterium in LENR - cannot be the known version which eventually powers our sun. It could happen rarely but that is the best that can be said, without some minimum level of proof. BC: I would think that the newly fused particle, whatever it is, would have 1/2 or 3/2 spin--I do not know. If a positron is emitted, its spin would be -1/2 I think. That would make the new particle have 0 or 1 spin. This depends on what details, precisely, have been invented in place of the known reaction. The known proton reaction on the sun conserves spin with an extraordinarily rare beta decay, but that would be problematic for LENR in its rarity and also it would be obvious, and we know there is no beta decay, as there is no signature - thus an new kind of proton reaction has to be invented in order to match the experimental results. As you might guess, I am not enthusiastic about this route, but it may happen on occasion. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
I say in LENR that the double proton(spin 0) fusion happens then after this fusion occurs an electron(spin -1/2) capture comes next (reverse beta decay) the spin of 1/2 is removed by an electron neutrino.
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Axil, if the reaction involves the capture of an electron, and there are many available nearby, the positron - electron annihilation would not occur. This would explain why no 511 keV radiation is seen. Of course the energy escaping via the neutrino would be significant. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 13, 2014 10:08 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev I say in LENR that the double proton(spin 0) fusion happens then after this fusion occurs an electron(spin -1/2) capture comes next (reverse beta decay) the spin of 1/2 is removed by an electron neutrino.
[Vo]:Too much solar PV electricity in Hawii
Hawaii has the most expensive electricity in the U.S. Now they have too much PV electricity. The power company says it is overwhelming the distribution network. See: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/02/the-interconnection-nightmare-in-hawaii-and-why-it-matters-to-the-u-s-residential-pv-industry - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
-Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Bob, ES: these three particles create a deuteron after all of the excess mass energy has been emitted as photons. The neutrino has very little energy because very little remains when the d forms. The creation process is unique to lenr and applies to all the isotopes of hydrogen, at least that is my model. if lenr is to be explained, you need to stop thinking in conventional terms. This is a new kind of nuclear process. Ed, Bob I fully agree with this summary to the extent that when Ed's proposal is slanted slightly more into the f/H (fractional hydrogen) version, which is another way to look at a variation of Mills' CQM - and the deuteron loses energy as the ground state collapses, then it makes far more sense to imagine gammaless fusion as the QM result of the lowest state of two deuterons in the deep Dirac layer (DDL). This is the state that then goes to helium - via QM time reversal and recaptures the energy already expended in the prior shrinkage where UV photons have been shed all the way down. Very elegant ... at least with deuterium, this is very elegant. However, it is probably wise to acknowledge Mills' contribution and notably the argument does not explain more than necessary. The He nucleus is essentially paying back energy already shed so the lack of gamma can be explained away. This makes sense with bosons, but Pauli prevents this from happening with protons. There is no spin problem with deuterium going to helium. That would be another way of looking at Bob Cook's spin objection. However, one cannot transfer this lovely deuteron vehicle over to protons, without getting a speeding ticket. Instead something else must happen for energy to occur without the problems of spin and other major difficulties. The solution is obvious to me - and it is also unproved but suffers fewer objections when looking at experimental results. That something else, can indeed be based on the solar model and without a problem with spin. It is RPF which is also known as the diproton reaction. P+P - 2He There is no permanent fusion in RPF and no gamma. The two protons are ultimately unbound but this is not elastic collision and they do fuse for a tiny amount of time. QCD (the strong nuclear force) replaces the energy which has been shed on the atomic shrinkage, and that energy comes from excess proton mass. Again there is no proof of RPF either - but it comes with less baggage than P-e-P. That is the crux of the argument which Ed and I have several times per week - to the annoyance of others, no doubt. However, the ongoing argument has allowed both of us to hone our approaches- by focusing on the obvious weaknesses of the alternative. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Too much solar PV electricity in Hawaii
Yes! And Duke power is trying to avoid having to credit customers for their solar contributions to the grid. That was in last week's news. Shame on Duke. There are a disgusting corporate citizen . From: Jed Rothwell Hawaii has the most expensive electricity in the U.S. Now they have too much PV electricity. The power company says it is overwhelming the distribution network. See: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/02/the-interconnec tion-nightmare-in-hawaii-and-why-it-matters-to-the-u-s-residential-pv-indust ry - Jed
Re: [Vo]:the role of p-values in science
Statistics are just marvelous, sometimes theer is no way to deny the findings.. One Swedish guy clearly showed that the consumption of soda were totally driven by the first letter in the name of the month. J was the letter to look for if you want to sell soda. It is still true. Did I mention that June, July can be warm in Sweden and stats for December appear in January as the stats for the Christmas season. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: There's an interesting discussion of the role of the statistical p-value in science in a recent article published online at Nature ... Here is a the link to the article: http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700 Eric
Re: [Vo]:Too much solar PV electricity in Hawii
This is largely a problem with grid-tie solar inversion and the fact that solar generation only happens during the day. As long as the utility company has less PV inverted than the difference between their daytime and nighttime loads, it is better for them to have the PV generation. Once the PV generation exceeds the nighttime load, the PV begins to cause more throttling need at the power generation station. It is the difference in the two loads that must be supplied by sources such as coal, oil, and gas because nuclear can supply the constant need portion of the power. Then the worst case is the PV generation becomes greater than the daytime demand of the system. To continue to buffer this daytime PV generation excess would mean the utility has to perform power storage which requires new capital. The article points out that when the power generated exceeds the load drawn, the voltage will go up which will cause the anti-islanding feature of the grid-tie inverters to trip, turning off PV power generation at that site - the voltage will not go out of control. However, if the grid-tie inverter anti-islanding trips, the inverter is OFF and the user is getting no benefit from his power generation - not even to reduce his home load. This problem can be solved by adding storage at home. LENR distributed power generation would be different because it is around the clock generation. This provides much less headache for the power company - at least until so much power is generated they no longer have a viable business. Bob On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Hawaii has the most expensive electricity in the U.S. Now they have too much PV electricity. The power company says it is overwhelming the distribution network. See: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/02/the-interconnection-nightmare-in-hawaii-and-why-it-matters-to-the-u-s-residential-pv-industry - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
There is one complication that does not fall out of these various single track theories of LENR fusion. That complication is the Fission/Fusion reaction. What causes many protons to fuse with a high Z element like nickel? This process results in many and various secondary reaction trees producing one or more of the light elements including helium, boron, beryllium, and lithium to form coming out of one LENR reaction. Such a fission/fusion reaction can be explained by a complete suspension of the coulomb barrier in a volume of neighboring nuclei would allow a single nucleus to form with a very large and unsustainable amount of positive charge to be accumulated in one unstable large nucleus. When the Coulomb barrier is switched back on, the unstable nucleus with many excess protons would fission into many light atoms and one or two heaver atoms. In a series of independent secondary reactions, excess protons within the nuclei of this collection of multiple fission reaction products would then be converted to neutrons through electron capture after the primary fusion event has occurred. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I say in LENR that the double proton(spin 0) fusion happens then after this fusion occurs an electron(spin -1/2) capture comes next (reverse beta decay) the spin of 1/2 is removed by an electron neutrino.
Re: [Vo]:Too much solar PV electricity in Hawii
hmm, sounds like a need for a power intensive industry to move in. Say, something that uses seawater as well? like, oh, I dunno... water desalination and hydrogen separation? On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Hawaii has the most expensive electricity in the U.S. Now they have too much PV electricity. The power company says it is overwhelming the distribution network. See: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/02/the-interconnection-nightmare-in-hawaii-and-why-it-matters-to-the-u-s-residential-pv-industry - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Too much solar PV electricity in Hawii
leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote: hmm, sounds like a need for a power intensive industry to move in. Say, something that uses seawater as well? like, oh, I dunno... water desalination and hydrogen separation? They have plenty of fresh water in Hawaii. Hydrogen energy storage might be a good idea. This takes very little water. Pumped hydro might be good. That might take a lot of space, which they do not have. The Germans sometimes have excess generating capacity from PV and wind, which they store with pumped hydro. What they need is better batteries. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
I do not know anything about the X-prize. If someone here would like to submit a proposal, I would be happy to assist in writing it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
I need to update these figures. I realized I have been comparing OverUnity Apples to UnderUnity Oranges. Up until this week, Controlled Hot Fusion (CHF) experiments haven't even broken overunity, let alone ignition. *Nuclear fusion hits energy milestone*http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3122281/posts http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nuclear-fusion-hits-energy-milestone-1.2534140 The final reaction took place in a tiny hot spot about half the width of a human hair over about a ten thousandth of a millionth of a second. It released 17.3 kilojoules - almost double the amount absorbed by the fuel. look again at the two side by side: cold fusion 2 * 3600 seconds average * 1/2* 300 Mjoules (Max) * 14,700 replications / $300k average = 105840 sec*MjouleSamples/$ Hot fusion 0.5 seconds*10^-9 average * 1/2* 17.3KK joules (max) * 20 replications / $2 Billion average = 0.003 sec*MjouleSamples/$ That is now 25 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck. On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: It does not make sense to compare AVErage to MAXimum, anyways, because it depends upon having access to so much data that one can take the average of it. So I'm going to revise this aspect of the Bang4TheBuck calculation into 1/2 the maximum. One half of 300MJ is 150MJ. One half of 6MJ is 3MJ. Until we hear otherwise and need to revise it, shaving off an order of magnitude here or there. That doesn't change the fact that LENR is 12 orders of magnitude more bang for the buck than hot fusion. look at the two side by side: cold fusion 2 * 3600 seconds average * 300 Mjoules (Max) * 14,700 replications / $300k average = 105840 sec*MjouleSamples/$ Hot fusion 0.5 seconds average * 6 Mjoules (max) * 20 replications / $2 Billion average = 0.0003 sec*MjouleSamples/$ That is now 14 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Controlled Hot-Fusion has generated more energy for longer sustained periods. Until a few years ago the PPPL held the world record. 10 MW for about 0.6 s. (6 MJ). I think some other Tokamak topped that by a wide margin, but I am not sure. ***The average cold fusion experiment generates several hundred megajoules for several hours and costs maybe $300k. No, the average experiment generates a megajoule or two at most. Only a few have generated 10 to 300 MJ. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
I've been rather too busy to respond, since one must be _very_ careful about setting up the criteria, but since there is additional interest I'll respond now briefly but carefully: On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What I'm asking for is something similar to what I asked of proponents of alternative fusion technologies when writing up the fusion prize legislation back in 1992http://www.oocities.org/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html : If you were considering competing for a cold fusion prize to be awarded for a reliably reproducible experimental protocol, how would you like to see that prize's criteria stated? Well, it does not seem complicated. I guess I would say it has to be replicated by at least two other labs; it has to work in one out of ten runs; and it has produce a high signal to noise ratio. Exactly how high should be defined by someone who understands statistics better than I do. It would be nice if they could have intermediate prizes for incremental progress. One of out ten may not seem like much, but it is enough to make the experiment reasonably easy to replicate. In fundamental research, there is never any call for high reproducibility, only replicability -- which is a different thing. IPS cell reproducibility is something like 1%. I think Obokata has improved it a great deal with her new technique, but it is still low. Improved reproducibility has no bearing on the scientific validity of the claim, but it does make the research easier, and it is needed for eventual commercialization. The central problem in setting up a cold fusion prize is the cost of judging since replication is the foundation of judging and the cost of replication can be considerable. Moreover, the selection of those who are considered skilled in the art in the sense meant by patent validation (ie: that a patent is valid only if its disclosure allows those skilled in the art to realize beneficial use), must be controlled by the judging authorities. This is problematic since it is hard to know, a priori, what the art will be if one is trying to unconstrain the innovators in achieving the goal. Therefore it seems necessary that two conditions be met: 1) That the entrant will pay the costs of replication. 2) That the entrant will pay the costs of the negotiation of which teams are considered skilled in the art for the purpose of replication.
Re: [Vo]:Atlanta is in a tizzy
The weather has completely cleared up in Atlanta, and the snow has mostly melted. But the power company website shows they are still hard at work: http://outagemap.georgiapower.com/external/default.html They are finally catching up. In the last 20 minutes, the numbers have dropped: 2:16 2,603 outages, 202,419 customers affected 2:26 2,568 outages, 195,515 customers 2:36 2,571 outages, 193,532 customers There are many yellow triangles saying 5 or less customers. They will be the last to be fixed. When the wire pulls out of your house, they don't fix it at all. You have to call someone. That happened to me once. Future generations will say we put up with a lot of bother with this technology. It is the best we can do at a reasonable cost. Putting the wires underground costs a fortune. Maintenance or replacement of underground cables costs another fortune. Zoom out the map to show the whole state and you can see where the weather system changed from freezing rain to snow, just south of Atlanta. A whole bunch of outages down there, not so many a little further north. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Jed: There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The Xprize foundation is very active. Go to xprize.org I was involved with Dr Peter Diamandis when he first came to St Louis to propose a Lindbergh type prize to the St Louis Science Center. All the legal documents for prizes have been hashed over and over since this started with the Ansari Xprize in 1996, my has it been that long, I feel old. Anyway the foundation is constantly setting up new prizes and finding sponsors. I would start with them if you really have an interest. Prizes are wonderful for attracting 10-15 times the value of the prize in investment into capturing the prize. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I do not know anything about the X-prize. If someone here would like to submit a proposal, I would be happy to assist in writing it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Too much solar PV electricity in Hawii
Yes, but iirc, they are on the shipping path to a few areas that aren't, and might not always be returning with full cargoes from dropping off in north america. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote: hmm, sounds like a need for a power intensive industry to move in. Say, something that uses seawater as well? like, oh, I dunno... water desalination and hydrogen separation? They have plenty of fresh water in Hawaii. Hydrogen energy storage might be a good idea. This takes very little water. Pumped hydro might be good. That might take a lot of space, which they do not have. The Germans sometimes have excess generating capacity from PV and wind, which they store with pumped hydro. What they need is better batteries. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:10:32 -0800: Hi Jones, Note, that as Harry said, I was referring to p-e-p, not pp. The pp reaction does indeed produce a positron, however the p-e-p reaction is an electron capture reaction, and the only particles produced are a deuteron and a neutrino. Given that the mass of the electron neutrino is minuscule compared to that of the deuteron, it will get more than the lion's share of the energy. Moreover, the neutrinos from the Sun with a sharp energy of 1.44 MeV resulting from this reaction have been detected. -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. Hi, Not so - the reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. They net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Jones Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
In reply to Bob Cook's message of Thu, 13 Feb 2014 06:52:29 -0800: Hi, [snip] Ed--Bob here-- The protons are fermi particles with a spin of 1/2, so 2 protons would create a new particle spin of 1 plus the 1/2 from the electron for a total of +1-1/2. I think deuteron's are Bose particles with a spin of 0. Correct me if I am wrong. What happens to the excess spin? I think a spin of 1/2 actually means +- 1/2, i.e. in any given instance it may be either +1/2 or -1/2. D has a spin of 1. P - +1/2 P - +1/2 e - +1/2 neutrino -1/2 - D1 = Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Too much solar PV electricity in Hawii
leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, but iirc, they are on the shipping path to a few areas that aren't . . . Aren't what? You mean places that do not have fresh water? You cannot ship water with an ordinary containership. You need a tanker. Water is so cheap it would make no economic sense to transport it by any ship or vehicle. The only way to move it is by pipeline. The average cost of water in the U.S. is $1.50 per thousand gallons ($0.0015). It costs roughly $0.03 per gallon to ship oil by tanker. That's 20 times greater. You could desalinate water on the west coast a lot cheaper than you could ship water anywhere. Most containerships coming from Asia do not stop at Hawaii. They would never go out of their way to stop there for water! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The Xprize foundation is very active. Go to xprize.org Someone has to persuade this organization to offer a prize for cold fusion. Right? I do not know how to go about doing that. I do not think it is likely anyone can persuade them, so I am not going to try. However, if someone else here wants to try, I would be happy to edit your proposal. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Jed: I know Diamandis pretty well and other members of his board. I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary. What is the chance any of the players, Rossi, DGT, Lenuco, Brilluion etc have something that will be convincing to the public, if so no Prize is necessary. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The Xprize foundation is very active. Go to xprize.org Someone has to persuade this organization to offer a prize for cold fusion. Right? I do not know how to go about doing that. I do not think it is likely anyone can persuade them, so I am not going to try. However, if someone else here wants to try, I would be happy to edit your proposal. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary. What is the chance any of the players, Rossi, DGT, Lenuco, Brilluion etc have something that will be convincing to the public, if so no Prize is necessary. I agree. Actually, if Rossi or one of the others convinces investors, we do not need them to convince the public. It seems Rossi has convinced Cherokee, so I guess we do not need an X-prize. We will not need the public until later, when it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real, and that it will soon complete with other sources of energy. At that point, I expect the fossil fuel industry, the DoE, and the other established players will declare all-out war. They will try to stop cold fusion by any means possible, with public relations campaigns, and by paying members of Congress to pass laws making the use of cold fusion illegal. We will need strong public support to stop them from crushing it. At this moment in history, practically no one realizes cold fusion is real. There is not opposition to the research. The only people trying to stop it are academic scientists and a few publishers such as Scientific American and the New York Times science editors. Most opponents are trying to stop it because they think it is fraud and lunacy, as Robert Park says. Others think it unscientific nonsense, similar to creationism. A few scientists in the plasma fusion program want to stop it because they fear it will cut their budget. As far as I can tell, no one is trying to stop it because they fear commercial competition. They will though. Nothing is more certain. It is inconceivable to me that people making billions of dollars will roll over and play dead the moment they realize cold fusion is better than oil or coal. You need only look at the coal industry for proof of that. They have been campaigning for years trying to crush wind energy, by buying off members of Congress and journalists, and publishing propaganda. They are also working to persuade the public that global warming is not real. They have largely succeeded in that. - Jed
[Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
From: H Veeder (this also answers Robin's more recent posting) The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 . so we have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes differ. JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is twofold 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is ingrained and systemic. 2) Therefore . even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider the obvious problem of exclusivity. Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no gammas ! Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is supposed to be different from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, when the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory - other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor indicia which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays are ok but no gammas Jones BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of 0.511 + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that system. It cannot increase above that level unless substantial energy comes from outside the system. A neutron has a mass of 939.6 MeV/c^2. So, to make a neutron from an electron and a proton, the extra 782 keV has to come from outside the electron-proton system. It cannot come from the acceleration of the particles toward each other by their own attraction. One simply MUST make the neutron first - even if the deuteron, the end product of p+n does have a usable mass deficit. People who should know better are in denial about the rarity of p-e-p ! Let's get over it and move on. P-e-p is dead-in-the-water for adequately explaining the Rossi effect.
[Vo]:Re: Fusion by Pseudo-Particles
Axil—Bob Cook here-- I would note that the discussion in Wikipedia applies to a hydrogen molecular QM system. The individual protons retain their 1/2 spin. When a Hydrogen enters a matrix it may remain as a molecule or it may enter as an ion. If there is an ionization process available, it probably enters as an ion. In the Ni-H system it is not clear to me what happens. Rossi is vague. Once in the Ni system the magnetic fields would influence what happens next to each of the various hydrogen molecule isomers identified in the Wikipedia item, if they enter the matrix as a molecule. Ed may know what happens when hydrogen is mixed with Ni or Ni nano particles under 12 Atmospheres. Ionization within or without the matrix may be influenced by Rossi’s catalist. Keep in mind the reaction, whatever it is, must conserve spin. Therefore it may be more probable that the isomer with 0 spin is the one that reacts last since it would have a lower energy then the other isomers and would take more activation energy to react. However, if two protons with antiparallel spins are found together in a single Ni matrix cell flooded with electrons, it may be possible to form a D (+ CHARGE AND 0 SPIN) using 1 eletron and producing 1 positron. Angular momentum and spin would be conserved. The big question is whether the molecular spin of the original H molecule being 0 can couple to the nuclear process which ends up with 0 spin. Other Hydrogen molecular isomers may also react under different conditions and differing schemes for spin conservation. Bob From: Axil Axil Upon further reflection, the paired proton conjecture may be on the right track after all. In the ICCF-18 paper, Dr. Yeong E. Kim defines his reactions in terms of deuterons, but deuteron formation can only happen when the hydrogen isotope used in the LENR reaction is deuterium. When protium hydrogen having a single proton and zero neutrons is used, only protons form the hydrogen nucleus. Deuteron formation cannot happen because there are no neutrons in the hydrogen. So to form a hydrogen nuclear pair, only protons are available and not deuterons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_isomers_of_hydrogen The parahydrogen form of hydrogen spin isomers has zero spin and itas consistent with the zero spin rule of thumb for photofusion. Dr. Kim may have made a major mistake by taking his deuteron base theory of Pt/D fusion and moved it unmodified into the Ni/H reactor theory. This error is what has confused me lately. If I am not thinking correctly, please correct me. On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I stand corrected. Dr. Yeong E. has proposed a double deuteron pair as the boson component of his Bose Einstein condensate theory for many years. The ion member of the hydrogen dipole will be a deuteron so a cluster fusion reaction consistent with Kim would include those neutrons in that hydrogen ion pair. So sorry, please excuse me, I just made a human mistake and was not trying to aggravate Ed. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: [From Axil] It is a safe assumption that pairing of protons is occurring. I see no reason for this assumption. Such pairs are only found in H2, which is not nuclear reactive. Ed, Axil is playing with you. See: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=forum+troll Eric
RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
The nuclear power industry wants global warming to be real. So do wind and solar interests. The biggest booster of the global warming movement is rarely mentioned: the TBTJ banks such as Goldman Sachs - who want to feed off supervising carbon markets.
[Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Axil—Bob Cook here- That sounds possible from the spin part. How does the double proton form? I think the electrons and the two protons may all react in the QM Ni system at the same time ( 10 x e-18 sec.) Bob From: Axil Axil Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 9:54 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev There is one complication that does not fall out of these various single track theories of LENR fusion. That complication is the Fission/Fusion reaction. What causes many protons to fuse with a high Z element like nickel? This process results in many and various secondary reaction trees producing one or more of the light elements including helium, boron, beryllium, and lithium to form coming out of one LENR reaction. Such a fission/fusion reaction can be explained by a complete suspension of the coulomb barrier in a volume of neighboring nuclei would allow a single nucleus to form with a very large and unsustainable amount of positive charge to be accumulated in one unstable large nucleus. When the Coulomb barrier is switched back on, the unstable nucleus with many excess protons would fission into many light atoms and one or two heaver atoms. In a series of independent secondary reactions, excess protons within the nuclei of this collection of multiple fission reaction products would then be converted to neutrons through electron capture after the primary fusion event has occurred. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I say in LENR that the double proton(spin 0) fusion happens then after this fusion occurs an electron(spin -1/2) capture comes next (reverse beta decay) the spin of 1/2 is removed by an electron neutrino.
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: H Veeder (this also answers Robin’s more recent posting) The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 … so we have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes differ. JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is twofold 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is ingrained and systemic. 2) Therefore … even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider the obvious problem of exclusivity. Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no gammas ! Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is “supposed to be different” from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, when the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory - other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor indicia which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays are ok but no gammas Jones BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of 0.511 + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that system. It cannot increase above that level unless substantial energy comes from outside the system. A neutron has a mass of 939.6 MeV/c^2. So, to make a neutron from an electron and a proton, the extra 782 keV has to come from outside the electron-proton system. It cannot come from the acceleration of the particles toward each other by their own attraction. One simply MUST make the neutron first – even if the deuteron, the end product of p+n does have a usable mass deficit. People who should know better are in denial about the rarity of p-e-p ! Let’s get over it and move on. P-e-p is dead-in-the-water for adequately explaining the Rossi effect.
RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Funny you didn't mention the TBTJ banks in your supposed fallacy - the banks that conspired with the FBI to discuss using snipers to deal with Occupy protesters ( exposed in redacted documents) Or how they bribed police to make sure that these protests were kept away from their mansions ( NYPD/ Jamie Dimon). Or how they committed the greatest fraud in US history but suffered no prosecutions ( Public TV - Frontline investigation) Or how the US Attorney General admitted he couldn't control them (Eric Holder). Categoring their malevolent influence as ad hominem is a fallacy, indeed.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Fusion by Pseudo-Particles
I like the cluster theory that Dr George Miley supports and also Dr. Kim for a number of reasons. 1 -A small hydrogen nano-particle can supply all the protons needed to feed a large proton cluster reaction. 2 - Strong magnetic screening can support a large scale suspension of the coulomb barrier where a single fusion reaction involving multiple nuclei in a that volume can take place on mass. 3 - Cluster fusion can produce many low Z elements from a follow on fission reaction due to the accumulation of excess protons in the primary fusion product. 4 - Conservation of spin in not enforced in a reaction involving EMF. For example, if a small hydrogen cluster is very near a nickel atom, most of the positive ions(protons) in the cluster would fall in a region of coulomb barrier negation caused by the screening effects of a strong magnetic field. Cluster fusion requires coulomb barrier screening over an extended volume of space. Lots of low Z elements in the reaction ash as has been revealed by both DGT and Rossi speak to the primary role of the fusion/fission reaction in Ni/H LENR. Only charge screening can make Fusion/fission happen. All the dots are connecting.
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
When the coulomb repulsion is removed from a pile of protons, they will attract each other and minimize energy by forming a pair with zero spin. In other words, large scale wide area charge screening is required to get protons to pair up based on opposite spins. This happens with electrons in superconductivity. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil--Bob Cook here- That sounds possible from the spin part. How does the double proton form? I think the electrons and the two protons may all react in the QM Ni system at the same time ( 10 x e-18 sec.) Bob *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, February 13, 2014 9:54 AM *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev There is one complication that does not fall out of these various single track theories of LENR fusion. That complication is the Fission/Fusion reaction. What causes many protons to fuse with a high Z element like nickel? This process results in many and various secondary reaction trees producing one or more of the light elements including helium, boron, beryllium, and lithium to form coming out of one LENR reaction. Such a fission/fusion reaction can be explained by a complete suspension of the coulomb barrier in a volume of neighboring nuclei would allow a single nucleus to form with a very large and unsustainable amount of positive charge to be accumulated in one unstable large nucleus. When the Coulomb barrier is switched back on, the unstable nucleus with many excess protons would fission into many light atoms and one or two heaver atoms. In a series of independent secondary reactions, excess protons within the nuclei of this collection of multiple fission reaction products would then be converted to neutrons through electron capture after the primary fusion event has occurred. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I say in LENR that the double proton(spin 0) fusion happens then after this fusion occurs an electron(spin -1/2) capture comes next (reverse beta decay) the spin of 1/2 is removed by an electron neutrino.
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the math... 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* H Veeder *(this also answers Robin's more recent posting)* The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 ... so we have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes differ. JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is twofold 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is ingrained and systemic. 2) Therefore ... even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider the obvious problem of exclusivity. Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no gammas ! Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is supposed to be different from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, when the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory - other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor indicia which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays are ok but no gammas Jones BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of 0.511 + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that system. It cannot increase above that level unless substantial energy comes from outside the system. A neutron has a mass of 939.6 MeV/c^2. So, to make a neutron from an electron and a proton, the extra 782 keV has to come from outside the electron-proton system. It cannot come from the acceleration of the particles toward each other by their own attraction. One simply MUST make the neutron first - even if the deuteron, the end product of p+n does have a usable mass deficit. People who should know better are in denial about the rarity of p-e-p ! Let's get over it and move on. P-e-p is dead-in-the-water for adequately explaining the Rossi effect.
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary. What is the chance any of the players, Rossi, DGT, Lenuco, Brilluion etc have something that will be convincing to the public, if so no Prize is necessary. I agree. Actually, if Rossi or one of the others convinces investors, we do not need them to convince the public. It seems Rossi has convinced Cherokee, so I guess we do not need an X-prize. That's true if Rossi has a handle on the science. There is wide-spread opinion among genuine skeptics (not to be confused with true believers in the bureaucratic interpretation of physical theory) that what Rossi has is more likely a technique that is more replicable and higher magnitude than the FPE, but little better in terms of theory. If that is the case, progress in engineering will be exceedingly costly until a scientific research program is executed by those who have access to Rossi's device or devices with similar replicability. Since all of those devices are, at present, under non-disclosure agreement, a key dimension of scientific discourse is missing and progress in development must be indefinitely delayed.
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them into account. Ed Storms. Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the math... 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: H Veeder (this also answers Robin’s more recent posting) The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 … so we have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes differ. JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is twofold 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is ingrained and systemic. 2) Therefore … even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider the obvious problem of exclusivity. Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no gammas ! Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is “supposed to be different” from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, when the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory - other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor indicia which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays are ok but no gammas Jones BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of 0.511 + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that system. It cannot increase above that level unless substantial energy comes from outside the system. A neutron has a mass of 939.6 MeV/c^2. So, to make a neutron from an electron and a proton, the extra 782 keV has to come from outside the electron-proton system. It cannot come from the acceleration of the particles toward each other by their own attraction. One simply MUST make the neutron first – even if the deuteron, the end product of p+n does have a usable mass deficit. People who
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: Categoring their malevolent influence as ad hominem is a fallacy, indeed. I did not say ad hominem. That is a different fallacy. I said circumstantial ad hominem. That is, dismissing a claim because it is in the best interest of the claimant that the claim be true. That is a fallacy even if everyone knows the claimant is evil. You can say claim X is incorrect for [various technical reasons] and from that you can assert that because it would be in the best interests of claimant for claim X to be true, I suspect that Y is lying. That is the reverse logic. You start by showing the claim is wrong and from that you impugn the motives of the claimant. That is logical. What is not logical is to say that because the claimant is known to be immoral, that in itself disproves the claim. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
I have not heard of any reports of tritium being generated by the NiH reactor. Is tritium a dot that we need to concern ourselves about? On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them into account. Ed Storms. Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the math... 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* H Veeder *(this also answers Robin's more recent posting)* The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 ... so we have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes differ. JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is twofold 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is ingrained and systemic. 2) Therefore ... even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider the obvious problem of exclusivity. Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no gammas ! Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is supposed to be different from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, when the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory - other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor indicia which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays are ok but no gammas Jones BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of 0.511 + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that system. It cannot increase above that level unless substantial energy comes from outside the system. A neutron has a mass of 939.6 MeV/c^2. So, to make a neutron from an electron and a proton, the extra 782 keV has to come from outside the electron-proton system. It cannot come from the acceleration of the particles toward each other by their own attraction. One simply MUST make the
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: That's true if Rossi has a handle on the science. There is wide-spread opinion among genuine skeptics (not to be confused with true believers in the bureaucratic interpretation of physical theory) that what Rossi has is more likely a technique that is more replicable and higher magnitude than the FPE, but little better in terms of theory. If that is the case, progress in engineering will be exceedingly costly until a scientific research program is executed by those who have access to Rossi's device or devices with similar replicability. It may be exceedingly costly, but it seems the people at Cherokee are exceedingly wealthy. They can probably put more money into it than the X-prize can offer, or that it can drum up. That is not to say there would be no benefit to opening up the research to many more groups. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
Pulled Threads. Unfortunately, many of them were pulled from FR and my efforts to save them using Ubuntu software led to a debacle. Here's my first new attempt. Looks like the mod is back from vacation. http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=3122363,26 In the *General/Chat* forum, on a thread titled * What causes the anomalous excess heat? An hypothesis.*, *Kevmo * wrote: Inability to want to comprehend? ***That would describe Skeptopaths PERFECTLY. Active denial of giving a damn about 14000 replications? ***Yup. Anti-Science Luddites would be a perfect description of such an attitude. Paycheck-poor feet-In-The-Sand Attitude? ***Simply reaching at this point. PissPoor Attitude would make a better representation, with the Piss pouring down your feet into the sand. Simply Intellectually tired of caring ! ***Anti-Science Luddites. They don't care, they can't be bothered to care, they don't want to care but yet they still log onto these threads What an amazing display of vigorous ignorance!!! Yea that about covers it ! ***Yup. The AdamHenry*BandWagon index is high for CHF, low for cold fusion. You seagulls have demonstrated that over and over again. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm growing weary of the same objections, over and over and over again on various internet sites. So I'm going to post each qa here just send links.
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
I mean to say: because it would be in the best interests of claimant Y for claim X to be true, [and because I have proved X is false], I suspect that Y is lying. In short, once you establish that X is false, you can then use that fact to impugn motives. You cannot do it the other way around. The fact that Mr. Y says X is never proof that X is true. Strictly speaking. In real life it is common sense to suspect that Mr. Y. may be motivated by crass self interest. Go ahead and suspect that, but just remember it is a logical fallacy. From the website: A person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Atlanta is in a tizzy
As of 7:46 the number of outages is finally starting to fall, to 2,496, and the number of customers is now 130,854. This notice gives you a feeling for the scale and expense of the effort: *2/13/2014, 7:00 p.m. * *Georgia Power continues to experience widespread outages and damage to power lines and poles from ice covered trees. New outages are occurring as limbs and trees continue to fall.* *As of 7:00 p.m., we have restored service to 460,000 customers since the beginning of the storm. Currently 154,000 customers remain without power.* *Several thousand Company line crews, engineers and support personnel are responding as needed to restore service, along with over 3,000 utility crews from Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio and Texas. Crews are working in the areas where we have experienced outages.* It makes you realize why electricity is so expensive, and how much better small cold fusion generators would be. Imagine the cost of bringing 3,000 utility crews from places like Ohio and Texas. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Well, by exceedingly costly I wasn't referring to the scientific research program. I was referring to the development program. You _really_ don't want to do engineering in the absence of validated theory. Development is costly enough with a validated theory. Indeed, *with* a validated theory it is exceedingly costly compared to a scientific research program. *Without* a validated theory it is virtually astronomical. Now, having said that, the profits are virtually astronomical so maybe they can pull an Edison (massive parallel trial and error) with the Chinese and really get somewhere without a validated theory. It just seems tragic. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: That's true if Rossi has a handle on the science. There is wide-spread opinion among genuine skeptics (not to be confused with true believers in the bureaucratic interpretation of physical theory) that what Rossi has is more likely a technique that is more replicable and higher magnitude than the FPE, but little better in terms of theory. If that is the case, progress in engineering will be exceedingly costly until a scientific research program is executed by those who have access to Rossi's device or devices with similar replicability. It may be exceedingly costly, but it seems the people at Cherokee are exceedingly wealthy. They can probably put more money into it than the X-prize can offer, or that it can drum up. That is not to say there would be no benefit to opening up the research to many more groups. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Atlanta is in a tizzy
If one of these cold fusion companies comes out with an electrical generator to power a home in the next few months, it won't be the blacks being lynched by southerners. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: As of 7:46 the number of outages is finally starting to fall, to 2,496, and the number of customers is now 130,854. This notice gives you a feeling for the scale and expense of the effort: *2/13/2014, 7:00 p.m. * *Georgia Power continues to experience widespread outages and damage to power lines and poles from ice covered trees. New outages are occurring as limbs and trees continue to fall.* *As of 7:00 p.m., we have restored service to 460,000 customers since the beginning of the storm. Currently 154,000 customers remain without power.* *Several thousand Company line crews, engineers and support personnel are responding as needed to restore service, along with over 3,000 utility crews from Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio and Texas. Crews are working in the areas where we have experienced outages.* It makes you realize why electricity is so expensive, and how much better small cold fusion generators would be. Imagine the cost of bringing 3,000 utility crews from places like Ohio and Texas. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:02:06 -0800: Hi, [snip] Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is supposed to be different from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. In Ed's scenario, this may be possible. Namely, if sufficient mass is lost before the reaction occurs, such that there is insufficient remaining to form a positron. However this implies that whatever the mechanism that disperses the energy prior to the reaction, it must always get rid of a minimal amount each time, in order to ensure that no positrons are formed. (Perhaps they are occasionally, and this is what Rossi found originally?) Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, when the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory - other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor indicia which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays are ok but no gammas The obvious conclusion here would be that no nuclear reaction takes place. Just f/H formation. Note: I have previously proposed nuclear reactions where the energy is carried by a heavy charged particle, and stated that these were gamma-less. That's not quite true, as occasionally a heavy particle will collide with a nucleus and excite it, such that it emits a gamma when it decays back to the ground state. These secondary gammas should be detectable, and the fact that they are missing virtually rules out fast particles as the means by which energy is dispersed. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary. ***WHY the f**k not? Whoever dumps money into the prize would get their press exposure 20X over, and whomever wins the prize would have dumped more than 3-4X into it than they won? Do you understand what the XPrize level of exposure brings to LENR? On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: Jed: I know Diamandis pretty well and other members of his board. I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary. What is the chance any of the players, Rossi, DGT, Lenuco, Brilluion etc have something that will be convincing to the public, if so no Prize is necessary. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The Xprize foundation is very active. Go to xprize.org Someone has to persuade this organization to offer a prize for cold fusion. Right? I do not know how to go about doing that. I do not think it is likely anyone can persuade them, so I am not going to try. However, if someone else here wants to try, I would be happy to edit your proposal. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Atlanta is in a tizzy
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:15 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: If one of these cold fusion companies comes out with an electrical generator to power a home in the next few months, it won't be the blacks being lynched by southerners. What an odd thing to say.
Re: [Vo]:Atlanta is in a tizzy
I wrote: It makes you realize why electricity is so expensive, and how much better small cold fusion generators would be. Imagine the cost of bringing 3,000 utility crews from places like Ohio and Texas. Years ago when I made this point, someone responded by saying: What if the generators are unreliable? What if one of them breaks in a storm? Or suppose one breaks at the house where someone who needs electricity constantly for a medical device? That is worth thinking about. Suppose that a cold fusion generator MTBF and hours of outage per year are higher than today's power company electricity. Oddly enough, it would still be more reliable in some important ways, because of mitigating factors: Cold fusion generators will not fail en mass from a single common cause, the way power company electricity fails in an ice storm. The generators will fail individually for the same sort of reasons automobiles or refrigerators fail: old equipment, manufacturing defects, maintenance errors. The number of cold fusion generators that fail on any given day will be constant. So the number of repair crews needed to keep the generators running will not spike. Inventory will be predictable and there will be no sudden demand for replacement units. Suppose that in severely inclement weather, your cold fusion generator fails, even though the weather has nothing to do with it. A repair crew cannot reach you. You are in the dark. However, your neighbors will be unaffected. You can always go next door to stay warm. You might borrow electricity with a 50-foot extension cord. (I did this for a few days when the wires were pulled out of our house during a storm.) It will be easier to cope with. I expect that many larger appliances will be self powered with their own cold fusion power supplies, especially furnaces, air conditioners and hot water heaters. So even if your power goes off, the furnace will stay on, and you can still take a hot bath. This is like having a gas stove during a power failure. You can still cook. At my house the the gas water heater is not connected to electricity, and you can light the gas stove with a match, so we could cook and bathe normally during a power failure. We do not have all our eggs in one basket. Finally, for people who have a critical, life-sustaining need for electricity, it will be possible to buy two or more generators, with automatic redundancy built in. This will be similar to what some people do today, which is to buy a natural gas fired emergency generator that cuts into service immediately when the power fails, and which is tied into your house main panel. If both generators fail for some reason (say, with a common cause such as a short circuit) you could still go next door where they have electricity. Or you might use the 50-foot extension cord. Equipment reliability is complicated. It cannot always be measured easily with metrics such as MTBF. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Well, by exceedingly costly I wasn't referring to the scientific research program. I was referring to the development program. You _really_ don't want to do engineering in the absence of validated theory. Why not? Most technology was developed without a theory. Most of the machines and structures you see around you were developed in ancient times when they had no idea what elements are, never mind atoms. I mean things like knives, concrete, steel, wooden houses, water pipes . . . People can use models, intuitive methods or Edisonian methods in place of a theory. It is more art than science, but art will take you a long way. Development is costly enough with a validated theory. True, but cold fusion will pay back at rate somewhere around $1 billion per day. So it will be worth the cost. More to the point, once it begins to succeed by Edisonian methods, people will rush to find a comprehensive theory. Will they find one? Probably. Why? During a long rainy spell, someone said to Mark Twain, do you think it will ever stop raining? He said, it always has. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary. ***WHY the f**k not? Whoever dumps money into the prize would get their press exposure 20X over, and whomever wins the prize would have dumped more than 3-4X into it than they won? Do you understand what the XPrize level of exposure brings to LENR? Okay, so that would make it desirable. But not necessary. Or not essential to the survival of the field, if Rossi can pull it off. As I said before, if you can bell that particular cat, and bring in the X-prize, we mice will be grateful. We will give you the Golden Cheese Award. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:54:11 -0500: Hi, [snip] In a series of independent secondary reactions, excess protons within the nuclei of this collection of multiple fission reaction products would then be converted to neutrons through electron capture after the primary fusion event has occurred. You don't really need any weak force conversions in this scenario, because the initial heavy nucleus (e.g. Ni) already has a higher neutron:proton ratio than required by many light elements. (e.g. 60 Ni = 32N:28P). Many light elements have a 1:1 ratio, so there are 4 neutrons to spare from the Ni that can combine with 4 free protons to produce low mass elements with a 1:1 ratio (e.g. 24Mg, 28Si, 32S, 36Ar etc., all of which are stable isotopes.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
With fusion/fission in mind and its need for neutrons, it might make things go smother in the reaction if the nickel's isotope neutron profile was increased say to Ni62 or Ni64. That will supply 34 or 36 extra neutrons to form light elements more readily. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:04 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:54:11 -0500: Hi, [snip] In a series of independent secondary reactions, excess protons within the nuclei of this collection of multiple fission reaction products would then be converted to neutrons through electron capture after the primary fusion event has occurred. You don't really need any weak force conversions in this scenario, because the initial heavy nucleus (e.g. Ni) already has a higher neutron:proton ratio than required by many light elements. (e.g. 60 Ni = 32N:28P). Many light elements have a 1:1 ratio, so there are 4 neutrons to spare from the Ni that can combine with 4 free protons to produce low mass elements with a 1:1 ratio (e.g. 24Mg, 28Si, 32S, 36Ar etc., all of which are stable isotopes.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There is one complication that does not fall out of these various single track theories of LENR fusion. That complication is the Fission/Fusion reaction. What causes many protons to fuse with a high Z element like nickel? This process results in many and various secondary reaction trees producing one or more of the light elements including helium, boron, beryllium, and lithium to form coming out of one LENR reaction. Such a fission/fusion reaction can be explained by a complete suspension of the coulomb barrier in a volume of neighboring nuclei would allow a single nucleus to form with a very large and unsustainable amount of positive charge to be accumulated in one unstable large nucleus. When the Coulomb barrier is switched back on, the unstable nucleus with many excess protons would fission into many light atoms and one or two heaver atoms. Barriers in general perform two functions. They keep something out as well keeping something in. The coulomb barrier keeps protons apart, but could it be argued that they keep mass-energy locked inside. If so, if it were possible to switch the barrier off, that would be like opening a floodgate, so to speak. Fusion is likely to follow but it would not be a necessity for the release of energy. Harry
[Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Axil—Bob Cook Here— On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I say in LENR that the double proton(spin 0) fusion happens then after this fusion occurs an electron (spin -1/2) capture comes next (reverse beta decay) the spin of 1/2 is removed by an electron neutrino. Axil I believe electrons have a spin of +1/2, not –1/2. The outgoing neutrino would have to have a –1/2 spin—maybe an electron anti neutrino or whatever its called—a positron neutrino. Bob
RE: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other? In Ed's scenario, this may be possible. Namely, if sufficient mass is lost before the reaction occurs, such that there is insufficient remaining to form a positron. Hi, That seems unlikely. Slight mass can perhaps be lost in ground state collapse, but not enough. You say mass loss before the p-e-p reaction occurs and the positron, which must be avoided - has .511 MeV so that means the energy radiated by ground state collapse cannot derive from the electron, so how is it lost from the proton? What mechanism is involved? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Yes, 1/2 and the electron neutrino has that same spin. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil--Bob Cook Here-- On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I say in LENR that the double proton(spin 0) fusion happens then after this fusion occurs an electron (spin -1/2) capture comes next (reverse beta decay) the spin of 1/2 is removed by an electron neutrino. Axil I believe electrons have a spin of +1/2, not -1/2. The outgoing neutrino would have to have a -1/2 spin--maybe an electron anti neutrino or whatever its called--a positron neutrino. Bob
Re: [Vo]:Too much solar PV electricity in Hawii
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: It is the difference in the two loads that must be supplied by sources such as coal, oil, and gas because nuclear can supply the constant need portion of the power. I get the impression that the nuclear plants are as much a challenge to be dealt with as anything. Because of their constant input into the grid, they force any adjustments that will need to be made onto gas and coal. Then the worst case is the PV generation becomes greater than the daytime demand of the system. ... This problem can be solved by adding storage at home. In this context it is interesting that Southern California Edison and PGE have been rejecting applications for net metering from consumers that have both solar panels and batteries, unless they have two meters installed [1]. I believe the reason given is that there's currently no way to know whether the customers are simply filling up the batteries during certain times and then returning the power back to the grid later on, and hence the energy may not be renewable energy. This explanation only makes sense to me if there's some kind of rebate for selling renewable energy back to the grid. There was an interesting article in the Economist about how Europe's utilities have lost half a trillion euros since 2008 and are facing very difficult technical challenges as a result of the increasing presence of and variability resulting from renewable energy [2]. Eric [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-07/battery-stored-solar-power-sparks-backlash-from-utilities.html [2] http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587782-europes-electricity-providers-face-existential-threat-how-lose-half-trillion-euros
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Just a naive question... if no gamma nor neutrons is produced at noticeable quantity, does it mean that most energy is transmitted by some charged particles, that don't annihilate ? This is not a naive question. It's a question that many physicists, and some people here, get hung up on. These people are confident that there is no way for a nuclear reaction to yield energy to the environment other than through fast particles, neutrinos or gammas. Others here are trying to think through some other, more benign ways, that energy might be transferred. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Theory has to account for the DGT ash assay released in ICCF-17. http://cdn.coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2012-08-13-ICCF-17__Paper_DGTGx.pdf See Table 3. We learned from the MIT lecture that the coupling between the nuclear reaction site and the gamma/energy receiver must be strong. That connection must be an EMF coupling because gamma rays are EMF. It can't be charge, it might be photons, but it is most likely magnetic. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:39 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There is one complication that does not fall out of these various single track theories of LENR fusion. That complication is the Fission/Fusion reaction. What causes many protons to fuse with a high Z element like nickel? This process results in many and various secondary reaction trees producing one or more of the light elements including helium, boron, beryllium, and lithium to form coming out of one LENR reaction. Such a fission/fusion reaction can be explained by a complete suspension of the coulomb barrier in a volume of neighboring nuclei would allow a single nucleus to form with a very large and unsustainable amount of positive charge to be accumulated in one unstable large nucleus. When the Coulomb barrier is switched back on, the unstable nucleus with many excess protons would fission into many light atoms and one or two heaver atoms. Barriers in general perform two functions. They keep something out as well keeping something in. The coulomb barrier keeps protons apart, but could it be argued that they keep mass-energy locked inside. If so, if it were possible to switch the barrier off, that would be like opening a floodgate, so to speak. Fusion is likely to follow but it would not be a necessity for the release of energy. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:39 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: If so, if it were possible to switch the barrier off, that would be like opening a floodgate, so to speak. Fusion is likely to follow but it would not be a necessity for the release of energy. It seems to me that in order for Coulomb barrier to be switched off in this manner, it's not going to come for free. You're going to have to feed a ghastly amount of energy into the system somehow in order to effect this hypothetical flipping of the light switch. In other words, the switch is probably going to be unlike a normal light switch and instead will be very difficult to flip on and off. The energy has to come from somewhere in order to keep the books of the Bank of Heisenberg balanced. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
The energy for the switch comes from infrared heat concentrated by 20 orders of magnitude and positive feed back of nuclear energy from the nuclear reaction. The magnitude of the magnetic field that does the screening is between 10^5 and10^12 tesla. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:39 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: If so, if it were possible to switch the barrier off, that would be like opening a floodgate, so to speak. Fusion is likely to follow but it would not be a necessity for the release of energy. It seems to me that in order for Coulomb barrier to be switched off in this manner, it's not going to come for free. You're going to have to feed a ghastly amount of energy into the system somehow in order to effect this hypothetical flipping of the light switch. In other words, the switch is probably going to be unlike a normal light switch and instead will be very difficult to flip on and off. The energy has to come from somewhere in order to keep the books of the Bank of Heisenberg balanced. Eric
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium production. There are other possible explanations for tritium -- my own favorite lead is that it arises when there is lithium. It is true that some LENR researchers have conjectured a hypothetical relationship between the ratio of H/D and the levels of tritium, but (1) I'm not sure this conjecture has been put on a firm foundation and (2) it's not necessarily incompatible with an explanation that involves lithium. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Ed --Bob Here- I have assumed spin--angular momentum--is conserved. Are you saying forget about that conventional thinking--that angular momentum is not conserved in the lenr new nuclear process? Bob -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Ed--Bob here-- The protons are fermi particles with a spin of 1/2, so 2 protons would create a new particle spin of 1 plus the 1/2 from the electron for a total of +1-1/2. I think deuteron's are Bose particles with a spin of 0. Correct me if I am wrong. What happens to the excess spin? Bob -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:30 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Bob, these three particles create a deuteron after all of the excess mass energy has been emitted as photons. The neutrino has very little energy because very little remains when the d forms. The creation process is unique to lenr and applies to all the isotopes of hydrogen, at least that is my model. if lenr is to be explained, you need to stop thinking in conventional terms. This is a new kind of nuclear process. Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 12, 2014, at 3:00 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones--Bob Cook Here-- Can you show how the p-e-p reaction as you understand it conserves spin? I would think that the newly fused particle, whatever it is, would have 1/2 or 3/2 spin--I do not know. If a positron is emitted, its spin would be -1/2 I think. That would make the new particle have 0 or 1 spin. The reaction of the positron and electron give photons with 0 spin. Bob . -Original Message- From: Jones Beene tt Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. Hi, Not so - the reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. They net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Jones
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Prove me wrong. Tritium production only happens in the Pd/D system and not in a Ni/H system. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium production. There are other possible explanations for tritium -- my own favorite lead is that it arises when there is lithium. It is true that some LENR researchers have conjectured a hypothetical relationship between the ratio of H/D and the levels of tritium, but (1) I'm not sure this conjecture has been put on a firm foundation and (2) it's not necessarily incompatible with an explanation that involves lithium. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Atlanta is in a tizzy
Why? Do you think the rule of law is going to deal justice to those responsible for suppressing cold fusion? Do you think blacks will be targeted by lynch mobs because blacks suppressed cold fusion? On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:15 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: If one of these cold fusion companies comes out with an electrical generator to power a home in the next few months, it won't be the blacks being lynched by southerners. What an odd thing to say.
[Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Dave—Bob Cook Here-- The electron neutrino may have high energy and 1/2 spin for sure. I think high energy electron neutrinos have be seen coming from the Sun. Bob From: David Roberson Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:20 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Axil, if the reaction involves the capture of an electron, and there are many available nearby, the positron - electron annihilation would not occur. This would explain why no 511 keV radiation is seen. Of course the energy escaping via the neutrino would be significant. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 13, 2014 10:08 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev I say in LENR that the double proton(spin 0) fusion happens then after this fusion occurs an electron(spin -1/2) capture comes next (reverse beta decay) the spin of 1/2 is removed by an electron neutrino.
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: From the website: A person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. In a strict sense, this is true. But people are inherently intuitive, and intuition goes beyond cut-and-dry logic. In a related connection, see: http://xkcd.com/1132/ It is (or should be) a logical fallacy to hew too strictly to whether a conclusion is based on a logical fallacy. Eric
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Well, by exceedingly costly I wasn't referring to the scientific research program. I was referring to the development program. You _really_ don't want to do engineering in the absence of validated theory. Why not? Simply because the business risk is more economically reduced by science than by development. Most technology was developed without a theory. Most technology was developed before the scientific method and the Guttenberg Press. Most of the machines and structures you see around you were developed in ancient times when they had no idea what elements are, never mind atoms. I mean things like knives, concrete, steel, wooden houses, water pipes . . . People can use models, intuitive methods or Edisonian methods in place of a theory. It is more art than science, but art will take you a long way. You deleted my rational placement of Edisonian methodology.
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Prove me wrong. Tritium production only happens in the Pd/D system and not in a Ni/H system. I think this is obvious.
Re: [Vo]:Atlanta is in a tizzy
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:32 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Why? Do you think the rule of law is going to deal justice to those responsible for suppressing cold fusion? Do you think blacks will be targeted by lynch mobs because blacks suppressed cold fusion? I just think that it is a strange association.
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Prove me wrong. Tritium production only happens in the Pd/D system and not in a Ni/H system. I don't disagree. This seems like a promising conclusion. I'm not aware of any hard evidence one way or the other. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
One big limitation of gamma decay is for nuclear states of zero spin. This is the usual case in LENR. A state of zero spin cannot transition to another state of zero spin by emitting a photon. As discussed in chapter this violates conservation of angular momentum. But there are other ways that a nucleus can adjust energy besides emitting an electromagnetic photon. One way is by kicking an atomic electron out of the surrounding atom. This process is called internal conversion because the electron is outside the nucleus. It allows transitions between states of zero spin. For atoms, two-photon emission is a common way to achieve decays between states of zero angular momentum. However, for nuclei this process is less important because internal conversion usually works so well. Internal conversion is also important for other transitions. Gamma decay is slow between states that have little difference in energy and/or a big difference in spin. For such decays, internal conversion can provide a faster alternative. Internal conversion may be where the excess elections come from in LENR systems. Electrons could be carrying away spin in a zero spin nuclear reaction. I am sure that in a complex cluster fusion/fission reaction nature will balance the spin books correctly. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ed --Bob Here- I have assumed spin--angular momentum--is conserved. Are you saying forget about that conventional thinking--that angular momentum is not conserved in the lenr new nuclear process? Bob -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Ed--Bob here-- The protons are fermi particles with a spin of 1/2, so 2 protons would create a new particle spin of 1 plus the 1/2 from the electron for a total of +1-1/2. I think deuteron's are Bose particles with a spin of 0. Correct me if I am wrong. What happens to the excess spin? Bob -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:30 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Bob, these three particles create a deuteron after all of the excess mass energy has been emitted as photons. The neutrino has very little energy because very little remains when the d forms. The creation process is unique to lenr and applies to all the isotopes of hydrogen, at least that is my model. if lenr is to be explained, you need to stop thinking in conventional terms. This is a new kind of nuclear process. Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 12, 2014, at 3:00 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones--Bob Cook Here-- Can you show how the p-e-p reaction as you understand it conserves spin? I would think that the newly fused particle, whatever it is, would have 1/2 or 3/2 spin--I do not know. If a positron is emitted, its spin would be -1/2 I think. That would make the new particle have 0 or 1 spin. The reaction of the positron and electron give photons with 0 spin. Bob . -Original Message- From: Jones Beene tt Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. Hi, Not so - the reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. They net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Jones
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Axil, tritium has been made using H2O, which is close enough. Tritium has been made in the absence of lithium. Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:49 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I have not heard of any reports of tritium being generated by the NiH reactor. Is tritium a dot that we need to concern ourselves about? On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them into account. Ed Storms. Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the math... 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: H Veeder (this also answers Robin’s more recent posting) The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 … so we have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes differ. JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is twofold 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is ingrained and systemic. 2) Therefore … even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider the obvious problem of exclusivity. Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no gammas ! Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is “supposed to be different” from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, when the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory - other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor indicia which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays are ok but no gammas Jones BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of 0.511 + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that system. It cannot increase above that level unless substantial
Re: [Vo]:Atlanta is in a tizzy
Oh its strange to associate the south with lynching or is it strange to associate the south with a particular potential to recognize how much damage has been done by suppression of cold fusion's potential for home generators now that they've experienced catastrophic cold cutting the lifeblood of modern society: electricity? On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:32 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Why? Do you think the rule of law is going to deal justice to those responsible for suppressing cold fusion? Do you think blacks will be targeted by lynch mobs because blacks suppressed cold fusion? I just think that it is a strange association.
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
Close only counts in horse shoes. There is always a small amount of deuterium in water. That tritium could be coming from contamination. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Axil, tritium has been made using H2O, which is close enough. Tritium has been made in the absence of lithium. Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:49 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I have not heard of any reports of tritium being generated by the NiH reactor. Is tritium a dot that we need to concern ourselves about? On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them into account. Ed Storms. Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the math... 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* H Veeder *(this also answers Robin's more recent posting)* The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 ... so we have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes differ. JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is twofold 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is ingrained and systemic. 2) Therefore ... even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider the obvious problem of exclusivity. Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no gammas ! Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is supposed to be different from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. Simplest answer: the known reaction cannot be excluded from happening, when the energy threshold is met - and there will be gammas even if the hypothetical p-e-p reaction has none by itself. ERGO. We really have no realistic option in framing a proper LENR theory - other than to find a gainful reaction which NEVER produces gammas nor indicia which are not in evidence (bremsstrahlung ). UV or soft x-rays are ok but no gammas Jones BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of 0.511 + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conversion *Internal conversion* is a radioactive decayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decayprocess where an excited nucleus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus interacts electromagnetically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism with an electron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron in one of the lower atomic orbitals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital, causing the electron to be emitted (ejected) from the atom.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conversion#cite_note-Loveland-1Thus, in an internal conversion process, a high-energy electron is emitted from the radioactive atom, but not from a nucleon in the nucleus. Instead, the electron is ejected as a result of an interaction between the entire nucleus and an outside electron that interacts with it. For this reason, the high-speed electrons from internal conversion are not beta particleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle, since the latter come from beta decayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay, where they are newly created in the process. Since no beta decay takes place during internal conversion, the element atomic number does not change, and thus (as is the case with gamma decayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_decay) no transmutation of one element to another is seen. However, since an electron is lost, an otherwise neutral atom becomes ionizedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization. Also, no neutrino is emitted during internal conversion. Internally converted electrons do not have the characteristic energetically spread spectrum of beta particles, which results from varying amounts of decay energy being carried off by the neutrino (or antineutrino) in beta decay. Internally converted electrons, which carry a fixed fraction of the characteristic decay energy, have a well-specified discrete energy. The energy spectrum of a beta particle is thus a broad hump, extending to a maximum decay energy value, while the spectrum of internally converted electrons has a sharp peak. If these internal conversion electrons are dipole electrons and have been absorbed inside the solation, the nuclear decay energy would be transferred directly into the solation and be thermalized by resonance. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: One big limitation of gamma decay is for nuclear states of zero spin. This is the usual case in LENR. A state of zero spin cannot transition to another state of zero spin by emitting a photon. As discussed in chapter this violates conservation of angular momentum. But there are other ways that a nucleus can adjust energy besides emitting an electromagnetic photon. One way is by kicking an atomic electron out of the surrounding atom. This process is called internal conversion because the electron is outside the nucleus. It allows transitions between states of zero spin. For atoms, two-photon emission is a common way to achieve decays between states of zero angular momentum. However, for nuclei this process is less important because internal conversion usually works so well. Internal conversion is also important for other transitions. Gamma decay is slow between states that have little difference in energy and/or a big difference in spin. For such decays, internal conversion can provide a faster alternative. Internal conversion may be where the excess elections come from in LENR systems. Electrons could be carrying away spin in a zero spin nuclear reaction. I am sure that in a complex cluster fusion/fission reaction nature will balance the spin books correctly. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.comwrote: Ed --Bob Here- I have assumed spin--angular momentum--is conserved. Are you saying forget about that conventional thinking--that angular momentum is not conserved in the lenr new nuclear process? Bob -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Ed--Bob here-- The protons are fermi particles with a spin of 1/2, so 2 protons would create a new particle spin of 1 plus the 1/2 from the electron for a total of +1-1/2. I think deuteron's are Bose particles with a spin of 0. Correct me if I am wrong. What happens to the excess spin? Bob -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:30 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Bob, these three particles create a deuteron after all of the excess mass energy has been emitted as photons. The neutrino has very little energy because very little remains when the d forms. The creation process is unique to lenr and applies to all the isotopes of hydrogen, at least that is my model. if lenr is to be explained, you need to stop thinking in conventional terms. This is a new kind of nuclear
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Atlanta is in a tizzy
Yes. - Reply message - From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Atlanta is in a tizzy Date: Thu, Feb 13, 2014 10:51 PM Oh its strange to associate the south with lynching or is it strange to associate the south with a particular potential to recognize how much damage has been done by suppression of cold fusion's potential for home generators now that they've experienced catastrophic cold cutting the lifeblood of modern society: electricity? On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:32 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Why? Do you think the rule of law is going to deal justice to those responsible for suppressing cold fusion? Do you think blacks will be targeted by lynch mobs because blacks suppressed cold fusion? I just think that it is a strange association.
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:00:00 -0800: Hi Jones, [snip] -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other? In Ed's scenario, this may be possible. Namely, if sufficient mass is lost before the reaction occurs, such that there is insufficient remaining to form a positron. Hi, That seems unlikely. Slight mass can perhaps be lost in ground state collapse, but not enough. You say mass loss before the p-e-p reaction occurs and the positron, which must be avoided - has .511 MeV so that means the energy radiated by ground state collapse cannot derive from the electron, so how is it lost from the proton? What mechanism is involved? Jones ..that's really a question that Ed should answer, as it's his theory, however I would go so far as to suggest that perhaps field cancellation by the approaching electron might do the job. However...The most energy lost through formation of a Hydrino molecule is 593 keV, slightly more than an electron mass. Creation of a deuteron via p-e-p liberates 1.44 MeV. 1.44 - 0.593 = 846 keV, which is more than enough to form a positron. Bottom line:- It seems unlikely to me that that this is the mechanism, so I'm anxious to see Ed's response. (I mention Hydrinos only because the minimum electron orbit is determined by the speed of light.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Atlanta is in a tizzy
No. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:23 PM, hohlr...@gmail.com hohlr...@gmail.comwrote: Yes. - Reply message - From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Atlanta is in a tizzy Date: Thu, Feb 13, 2014 10:51 PM Oh its strange to associate the south with lynching or is it strange to associate the south with a particular potential to recognize how much damage has been done by suppression of cold fusion's potential for home generators now that they've experienced catastrophic cold cutting the lifeblood of modern society: electricity? On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:32 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Why? Do you think the rule of law is going to deal justice to those responsible for suppressing cold fusion? Do you think blacks will be targeted by lynch mobs because blacks suppressed cold fusion? I just think that it is a strange association.
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Bob wrote: | Axil I believe electrons have a spin of +1/2, not –1/2. The outgoing neutrino would have to have | a –1/2 spin—maybe an electron anti neutrino or whatever its called—a positron neutrino. ... Sorry for barging into this convo here, but I thought it would be useful to briefly describe Spin, so we are all on the same footing... Spin (or more specifically, intrinsic spin) of electrons are either +1/2 or –1/2. Remember the Stern-Gerlach Experiment[1]? ... Electrons (which are Fermions) are spin-1/2 particles, meaning that they can possess a spin of +1/2 (Spin Up) or –1/2 (Spin Down), and that they exist in a superposition of the |+1/2 and |-1/2 states. The magnitude 1/2 is the value (in units of “h”) of the projection of the spin along the + or - z axis... The classical analogue of intrinsic spin, is to envision the electron as a spherical top that is spinning and there is a precession around the z axis, at an angle such that the value of the spin along the z axis is exactly +/- h/2 ... ... Just as a side note, photons are bosons that have a spin of +/- 1 . You can break down light (photons) as a superposition of right and left circularly polarized light; Spin +1 Photons are termed Right Circularly Polarized Photons and Spin –1 Photons are the Left Circularly Polarized Critters[2]... FYI: You won’t find the term “Critters” in the Wikipedia Notes, sorry! ... Spinless Particles are Particles of Spin 0 ... ... So the spin of the electronneutrino pair is a superposition of the possible spin states... Carry on! - Mark Jurich [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization#Angular_momentum_and_spin
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Of course I understand what the Xprize can accomplish, I was there at the beginning pitching it in St Louis. But if any of the entities talking about products introduces one that works, what prize do you suggest be funded? Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2014, at 7:39 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary. ***WHY the f**k not? Whoever dumps money into the prize would get their press exposure 20X over, and whomever wins the prize would have dumped more than 3-4X into it than they won? Do you understand what the XPrize level of exposure brings to LENR? On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: Jed: I know Diamandis pretty well and other members of his board. I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary. What is the chance any of the players, Rossi, DGT, Lenuco, Brilluion etc have something that will be convincing to the public, if so no Prize is necessary. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The Xprize foundation is very active. Go to xprize.org Someone has to persuade this organization to offer a prize for cold fusion. Right? I do not know how to go about doing that. I do not think it is likely anyone can persuade them, so I am not going to try. However, if someone else here wants to try, I would be happy to edit your proposal. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
Randy, think about it like this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEYcGPF00l0 The companies that are threatening to, any day now (really -- just another year -- trust us -- don't introduce an X-Prize for cold fusion because it is moot or really soon will be) start selling a commercial cold fusion device are not doing so. Obviously, since doing so would make an X-Prize for cold fusion moot, Murphy's Law says that the only way to get them to release a commercial device would be to start serious progress toward an X-Prize for cold fusion. It's sort of like the X-Prize for cold fusion is the buttered bread and the cold fusion product release is the cat. Separately nothing happens. Strap them together and -- breakthrough! On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: Of course I understand what the Xprize can accomplish, I was there at the beginning pitching it in St Louis. But if any of the entities talking about products introduces one that works, what prize do you suggest be funded? Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2014, at 7:39 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary. ***WHY the f**k not? Whoever dumps money into the prize would get their press exposure 20X over, and whomever wins the prize would have dumped more than 3-4X into it than they won? Do you understand what the XPrize level of exposure brings to LENR? On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: Jed: I know Diamandis pretty well and other members of his board. I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary. What is the chance any of the players, Rossi, DGT, Lenuco, Brilluion etc have something that will be convincing to the public, if so no Prize is necessary. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The Xprize foundation is very active. Go to xprize.org Someone has to persuade this organization to offer a prize for cold fusion. Right? I do not know how to go about doing that. I do not think it is likely anyone can persuade them, so I am not going to try. However, if someone else here wants to try, I would be happy to edit your proposal. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
In reply to Bob Cook's message of Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:59:06 -0800: Hi, [snip] Axil I believe electrons have a spin of +1/2, not 1/2. The outgoing neutrino would have to have a 1/2 spinmaybe an electron anti neutrino or whatever its calleda positron neutrino. Bob AFAIK The spin quantum number is just the absolute value of the allowed instantaneous values. I.e. a particle with spin=1/2 could have an actual instantaneous spin of either +1/2 or -1/2. This goes for all Fermions. The actual value being an indication of the direction of the angular momentum vector, which could be either up or down at any given instant. Obviously each combination of particles has a combination of spins that has a minimum energy. For D this means both the proton and the neutron have the same angular momentum vectors, and hence the deuteron has spin 1, when it's energy is minimal. When you are making a deuteron from its parts, you are free to choose what instantaneous spin values each of the constituents has, so you could choose e.g. P (- 1/2) + N (- 1/2) - D (-1) (absolute value 1), or P (+1/2) + N (+ 1/2) - D (+1) (absolute value 1). The only difference between the two D's is that one is upside down relative to the other. However given thermal and zero point motion, the relative orientation of the two nuclei would rapidly change (independently), so it doesn't usually make much sense to speak of signed spins. My point is that the individual building blocks (Fermions) can have either + or - spins at the time that they combine, so determining the final spin is not just a matter of adding 1/2's. However you need to be careful that if you start with an odd number of Fermions, then you also end up with an odd number of Fermions (ditto for even). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Velocity dependent model of Coulomb's law
James Bowery and other vortex members,
Today I learned about the the work of Bernard Burchell.
He argues for a velocity dependent version of coulomb's law*
In his model the coloumb force between two like charges increases when the
charges are moving together and decreases when they are moving apart.
The reverse is true for opposite charges.
The revised law:
F = {K(q1)(q2)/r^2} {1 + [(q1)(q2)(v1- v2)]/c}^3
He goes into more detail here:
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/RelativisticMass.htm
This is just a small fraction of his work. He has many bold and wonderful
ideas in his free on-line book.
http://www.alternativephysics.org/
-
* I made a similar proposal on vortex sometime ago although it was nothing
more than an intuition and I only considered like charges:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45063.html
Harry
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: BTW - take an electron and proton at rest, that system has a mass of 0.511 + 938.272 = 938.8 MeV/c^2. That is the total mass available to that system. It cannot increase above that level unless substantial energy comes from outside the system. A neutron has a mass of 939.6 MeV/c^2. So, to make a neutron from an electron and a proton, the extra 782 keV has to come from outside the electron-proton system. It cannot come from the acceleration of the particles toward each other by their own attraction. One simply MUST make the neutron first - even if the deuteron, the end product of p+n does have a usable mass deficit. People who should know better are in denial about the rarity of p-e-p ! Let's get over it and move on. P-e-p is dead-in-the-water for adequately explaining the Rossi effect. Fair enough, but may be Ed's starting point is necessary for your reversible proton fusion. Think of it as electron mediated reversible proton fusion. Harry
Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal
(Seriously, that's one of my favorite shorts of all time. The actor is a comedic genius as well as the directing, editing and writing being excellent.) On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:02 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Randy, think about it like this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEYcGPF00l0 The companies that are threatening to, any day now (really -- just another year -- trust us -- don't introduce an X-Prize for cold fusion because it is moot or really soon will be) start selling a commercial cold fusion device are not doing so. Obviously, since doing so would make an X-Prize for cold fusion moot, Murphy's Law says that the only way to get them to release a commercial device would be to start serious progress toward an X-Prize for cold fusion. It's sort of like the X-Prize for cold fusion is the buttered bread and the cold fusion product release is the cat. Separately nothing happens. Strap them together and -- breakthrough! On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.comwrote: Of course I understand what the Xprize can accomplish, I was there at the beginning pitching it in St Louis. But if any of the entities talking about products introduces one that works, what prize do you suggest be funded? Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2014, at 7:39 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary. ***WHY the f**k not? Whoever dumps money into the prize would get their press exposure 20X over, and whomever wins the prize would have dumped more than 3-4X into it than they won? Do you understand what the XPrize level of exposure brings to LENR? On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.comwrote: Jed: I know Diamandis pretty well and other members of his board. I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary. What is the chance any of the players, Rossi, DGT, Lenuco, Brilluion etc have something that will be convincing to the public, if so no Prize is necessary. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The Xprize foundation is very active. Go to xprize.org Someone has to persuade this organization to offer a prize for cold fusion. Right? I do not know how to go about doing that. I do not think it is likely anyone can persuade them, so I am not going to try. However, if someone else here wants to try, I would be happy to edit your proposal. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:P-e-P is a no-go ! Get over it !
about tritium, and NiH, in your vision, does this mean some d+e+p, or d+e+d happen like p+e+p depending on the available reactant (and I imagine the geometric structure of the fields around). the fact that d and p have different mass, make the reaction p+e+d very different from p+e+p or d+e+d, more asymetrical... maybe it is more collective to make it symmetrical again? I remember that some tritium experiments show that maximum tritium was produced with 50%D 50%H... in that vision NiH reactors would produce D, then some T (anv much less He4) after some time if the fuel is much consumed. by the way, why is p+p impossible ? too much energy needed ? even in collective context (hard to imagine MeV piled upon thousands of coherent p) The idea that gamma or neutrons cannot be filtered at 10^-6 whatever is the mechanism is anyway a strong point... I feel now that it cannot be produced. the way the reaction behave in lattice, near the surface, in abnormal places (vacancies, cracks, nanostructures) say geometry and electronic field geometry are important... There is something about interference... 2014-02-14 1:23 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Alain, Math is useless because it is based on conventional mechanisms. The process CAN NOT occur in a lattice without violating the laws of thermodynamics. The p+e+p is the only form that can also explain tritium production. These requirements limit what is possible. Please take them into account. Ed Storms. Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Seing the idea of p+e+p plus the fact it can only happen in lattice, in some very specific situations, I naturally think about geometry, symmetry... the error of free space nuclear physicist was to think in free space. It seems Takahashi have similar ideas, but with different details... and symmetry can forbid some events, why not p+p? now have to check the math... 2014-02-13 23:57 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com: Jones, you keep saying no theory explains LENR and keep suggesting reasons to reject while suggesting your own explanation that is isolated to one part of the process. On the other hand, I suggest a comprehensive mechanism that not only can explain all observations wthout adhoc assumptions but can predict many new behaviors and where to look for the NAE. Is a model that can do this not worth considering seriously rather than reject based on incomplete understanding and arbitrary reasons? Ed Storms Sent from my iPad On Feb 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* H Veeder *(this also answers Robin's more recent posting)* The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory proposes can be valid because gammas are expected. RvS: Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which is almost undetectable. JB: the p+p reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an electron producing 2 gammas. The net energy is over 1 MeV and easily detectable. Electron capture is real, but seldom by a proton at low energy. There is a real reaction in physics, but the ratio of that to p+p is 400:1 ... so we have the insurmountable problem of exclusivity (see below). HV: The process of p-e-p fusion is suppose to be different from the process of p-p fusion. The outcome may be the same, but the processes differ. JB: Again, this is a very rare reaction - and my contention about it is twofold 1) there is no robust reaction in the real world where protons go directly to a deuteron without first forming a neutron, and that first step is energetically impossible, so the rarity of this p-e-p reaction is ingrained and systemic. 2) Therefore ... even if there were such a reaction in LENR, at ten or even 100 times greater probability than the known p+p version, consider the obvious problem of exclusivity. Either way it does NOT happen in practice since we know there are no gammas ! Consider exclusivity. For the sake of argument - even if there are found to be two possible proton reactions, and one reaction is supposed to be different from the known solar reaction, but the outcome is the same except for the gamma - the problem always comes back to one of perfect exclusivity. Exclusivity is the logical fallacy that cannot be overcome. When a gamma reaction is known to happen with the same reactant, how can that reaction be excluded from happening, in a new scenario when both reactions are given enough energy to overcome the fusion threshold? Especially if one (the desired reaction) is much rarer than the other. Simplest answer: the known
