[Vo]:Re: CMNS: Life Imitating Science
Brian, I agree with most of that statement. I believe Nature keeps them as far away from life as possible, locked into large black holes in the vacuum of space, possibly within stars corona's and on earth gravity should act on them over time as they make their way to the core. These are all safe places away from life as we know it. While they generate heat that allows life, they are also uncertain for life. Maybe collapsed matter is a better definition? There are recent theories that they do not evaporate completely. Thanks On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:56 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: All, I have updated my blog, sounds like some are interested, some are not and that is fine. I am up to 22 predictions from my theory, some of which may be a stretch but are relevant from my set of QM goggles. Prediction No. 22 is particularly interesting and relates to the foundation of quantum mechanics so I will list it below and it might explain the delays of cold fusion products hitting the market: The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa. --Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927 Uncertainty. Based upon Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principal the creation of singularities, which are a pure quantum mechanical construct, will create uncertainty in their surroundings. It is therefore theorized that any location in the universe that has a large mass of these micro singularities either residing or being created will have an increase in uncertainty within their surroundings. Within a piece of equipment this uncertainty will manifest itself as equipment failures and reliability issues as the singularities created over time take up residence in the structure of the equipment and gradually destroy it from low level Hawking radiation, Fission, Fusion and Chemical Reactions. This might be seen as short circuits in wiring, plug failure, vessel failure, brittleness, extreme energy events, etc. If these singularities escape the device they may take up space in biological organisms. Although they may instantly find a stable state, over time as they are excited by outside radiation, they may become unstable and trigger radiation, fission, fusion and chemical reactions within an organism. Due to gravity, they should find their way over long periods of time to the earths core where nature isolates them. http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 Godspeed -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CMNS group. To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Akira, According to my theory, at the moment the hydrogen collapses in a void or crack (singularity), you should get an instant burst of low level Hawking Radiation(full spectrum) since quantum singularities are very hot to start with and they will immediately evaporate matter down near local steady state thermodynamic and spatial equilibrium conditions within a void or crack in the lattice. If/once it settles down within a void it then will start slowly consuming hydrogen gas that it pulls gas matter into the void from outside and will continue emitting very low levels of radiation and heat. According to theory, some of this radiation is quarks and gluons and I am not sure these will register on your devices. Over time, the Hawking radiation and or collapse of nearby matter will create local/brittleness within the lattice at which point any internal collapse will create another immediate and local instability and burst of energy at which point it will come to a new thermodynamic equilibrium point. This will go one until a point at which enough matter is consumed that their is a complete collapse of the wire. Singularities can create temperature inversions as their surface area changes and they consume more/gas matter than they evaporate. Over time this should balance out at the end of the universe. These singularities will act as a quantum heat pump, pulling in matter from hydrogen or the lattice (or any other matter) and rewarding you with heat and radiation, much of it as heat. The Rohner/Papp video that shows a coil sucking gas from a reactor vessel and balloon is the same effect. The singularities have built up on the inside surface of the coil (he mentions that the surface has changed and sticks to the cyclinder) with a voltage and are acting as a quantum heat pump pulling in gas matter and liberating heat trying to achieve equilibrium in their environment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlgiwB8V4sc According to my theory, collapsed matter generates radiation and appear to exists in nature within cracks and voids of metals and rocks of the earth and is probably concentrated in the earth at the core, away from life. I believe it is the singularity(s) themselves that are more dangerous than the low level radiation. As you can see it is devouring the lattice with primary collapse, hawking radiation and some fission and fusion events as well as probably some chemical events from the heat release. Be careful of getting a singularity on/in you which will be hard to do since they are invisible. According to theory a singularity might be as small as 22 micro grams at planck length, about like a grain of sand but will be completely invisible. They might even be smaller based upon actual quantum gravity effects. Gravity wants to take it to the earth and dispose of it at the center where it safetly produces heat for the earth. Stewart On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-08-17 16:43, Peter Gluck wrote: According to Piantelli and to Defkalion. Ni does not work at all with deuterium, Why it works (?) here is a good/bad question. Celani reported strange results with Deuterium too (with his treated nanostructured ISOTAN44 wires). It works, but poorly compared to Hydrogen. See here, slide 45: http://www.22passi.it/**downloads/Celani_ICCF17_**Trasp3.pdfhttp://www.22passi.it/downloads/Celani_ICCF17_Trasp3.pdf His observations on Deuterium use: 21) After D2 intake, we increased, as usual, the temperature by power to the inert wire. The absorption was really of small amount. 22) We observed, for the first time in our experimentation with such kind of materials, some X (and/or gamma emission), coming-out from the reactor during the increasing of the temperature from about 100°C to 160°C. We used a NaI(Tl) detector, energy range 25-2000keV used as counter (safety purposes), not as spectrometer. Total time of such emission was about 600s and clearly detectable, burst like. 23) About thermal anomalies, we observed, very surprising, that the response was endothermic, not eso-thermic. The second day the system crossed the zero line and later become clearly eso-thermic. Similar effects were reported also by A. Takahashi and A. Kitamura. 24) After about 35s from the beginning of D2 intake the temperature abruptly increased and the wire was broken. We observed that the pressure decreased, because some problems to the reactor gas tight, but at times of 8s before. The SEM observations showed fusion of a large piece of wire. The shape was like a ball. Further analyses are in progress. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Life Imitating Science
Are you certain or uncertain? On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:56 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Uncertainty. My mind is obviously filled with singularities. T
[Vo]:Re: CMNS: Papp Noble MisheGas Engine
According to my theory these devices magnify the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principal by design (the larger the singularities or the more of them are created, the more uncertainty there is). Which, as you said and I agree is not good for life. Actually it is probably more of a love/hate relationship, heat is good, singularities are bad. Nature wants to create certainty within life organisms and repeatable processes to sustain it, singularities go against the mechanisms that support that and can trigger malfunctions. We are witness to what they can do to a piece of wire and should apply that to the rest of the world. Papp died of colon cancer, Tom Rohner recently died of pancreatic cancer and Dr. Richard Feynman who was there when a Papp device exploded died of two rare forms of cancer (he also worked for Los Alamos, which may have had something to do with it...) The Papp device was always malfunctioning and the Plasma Popper malfunctioned during the demo with Mr. McKubre. Note I am not saying the device causes cancer. I am merely stating facts about how people died. I said these devices create singularities and you said singularities are bad in nature and we agree 100% on that. The rest is pure speculation by others. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Brian Ahern ahern_br...@msn.com wrote: Step aside and ask yourself why after 50 years there is no working two cylinder engine. They have the prototype seemingly finished. Why doesn' it run? The general answer is we need xxx,xxx Dollars and 6 months to get it running. Their excuse is actually much more rediculous. If we finish it will be stolen. That is an absurd explanation for failing to show even a video of a running papp engine. They should join the Rossi club and fade away. Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:41:09 -0500 To: c...@googlegroups.com; c...@googlegroups.com From: a...@lomaxdesign.com Subject: CMNS: Papp Noble MisheGas Engine Original subject: RE: CMNS: Grand Unification Theory of Cold Fusion At 03:09 PM 8/16/2012, Brian Ahern wrote: None of the five competing groups have a working engine. Their excuse is a classic. We do not want to have a working engine because the MEN IN BLACK will take it. They cannot even provide a video of one running at any time, but they want your investment money nonetheless ! This is a new page from the Rossi play book. This comment is, unfortunately, misleading. To establish the Papp Effect, an engine is not necessary. All that is necessary is a device (or even a complete, detailed report, enough for replication) that shows the effect, such that it can be independently verified. Of course, selling or making available such a device or report will reveal the secret. In a field like this, there is reluctance to reveal whatever secrets one has possession of, because then someone could, indeed, steal it. However, if one has protected the secret with a patent, this risk is routinely taken. One of the problems here is that the original Papp patents have expired. On the other hand, those patents were not adequate to allow anyone to build a working device. (An Inteligentry employee explains in a video referenced below that Papp included red herrings that flat out won't work.) So those patents were not valid anyway, it could be claimed. Or they could be treated as having placed everything in them into the public domain (John Rohner is claiming that). The comment from Brian lumps all of the five competing groups together as if they tell the same story. The history of the Papp engine is complex, and was heavily interwoven with Papp's paranoia. While it's possible that, at one point or other, each of the five groups or a principal in them gave the reason of avoiding theft of the property, the major secrecy seems to have been abandonded by Plasmerg, John Rohner's company, and a kit is being offered. The kit documents disclose the fuel formula, already (reportedly it is the same formula as in the original Papp patent). The kit apparently discloses everything one needs to build a popper, and it includes (essentially, it *is*) the electronics, which would automatically apply the stimulation protocol at the push of a button. That is not a working engine, but one could make an engine from one, two, or more of these. Measuring the work done by the piston in this would be trivial, and measuring the input energy, as well. (Actually, if the device assembled per kit instructions works, it's an engine. Just a single-stroke one. But, sure, we think of something designed for continuous running.) (If the kit is built out of plastic, it might not be able to withstand continuous running. The popper was designed and built to test gas mixtures and electronic protocols, which is just what would be done. Struggling with a full engine would be a very Bad Idea.) Because I don't know of
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
Any upset to the thermodynamic or spatial equilibrium of a micro singularity(collapsed matter), once formed, will trigger an instant response Once a singularity is present within matter, they take in matter and energy in and return radiation out. The collapse of matter and/or radiation can trigger a secondary fission or fusion event. They are a nuclear furnace. You can kick them, drop them, wave them around, yell at them, cool them, heat them, radiate them and they return radiation as well as expand and contract. Gremlins. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Pardon if I missed this in the deluge of recent postings ICCF-17 Presentation - Surface Effect for Gas Loading Micrograin Palladium for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR - Heinrich Hora1, George H Miley, Mark Prelas, Kyu Jung Kim, Xiaoling Yang http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf (Slide 2) Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible It sounds like LENR appears in many guises. Does anyone have the accompanying paper? -- Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
Can a cold neutron capture reaction create a temperature inversion like an inhaling singularity can? On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 10:24 PM 8/16/2012, you wrote: From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Jed just informed me that it's okay to open this one: https://docs.google.com/**presentation/d/1SOA7Z4aIGnT_** HrshnzNF6vTsgj4PULTBceDyUINIZG**8/edithttps://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SOA7Z4aIGnT_HrshnzNF6vTsgj4PULTBceDyUINIZG8/edit They quietly endorse Widom-Larsen : A Hamiltonian with ≥ 782keV can cause a proton to capture an electron to yield an ultra cold neutron. p + ≥ 782KeV + e- » n + νe Unreadable for me. Krivit is making a Big Deal out of this presentation, and McKubre's co-authorship. I rather doubt that McKubre has reversed his position on neutrons. It is not clear at all that co-authorship represents endorsement of all of a presentation's conclusions or speculations.
Re: [Vo]:Re: ProdEngAssemble.avi
If you just sell plans for poppers, electronic circuit boards and licenses for the technology, then all of the liability rests with the OEM's they drag in. They probably give them a short demo in the shop before the thing malfunctions. I notice everytime I see a demo it is behind explosion proof glass. Oddity and UNCERTAINTY Stewart On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 11:17 PM 8/16/2012, Axil Axil wrote: I am putting two and two together here. The Papp engine ash was a brown powder. Thanks for letting us know that this was your speculation, not a conclusion from strong evidence. J Ronner talks about a two helium atom fusion process. And what J Rohner (I presume that was a mispelling) says about the process has as much -- or does it have more -- reliability than an angry monkey typiing would have? Rohner has said a lot that quite simply is not true when investigated. It starts with simple things, such as the availability of videos. But it continues with many examples of stuff that was, ah, a tad exaggerated. If we can call claiming to have a running test engines is an exaggeration if you only have test engines that may not have run at all. He's admitted to that whopper (last year, to PESN). Or claiming to have 2 MIT PhDs, but, when challenged, apparently, says they are secret and his resume now claims his education is irrelevant. Fine. It might be irrelevant, but why then did he claim the PhDs? Why did he claim the running test engines? He says why. He had to say *something* or investors would bail. That's called fraud. Saying what you think an investor wants to hear, when it isn't the truth, to induce them to maintain or make investments. Someone will nail him on this, I suspect, eventually. (However, he might be adequately covered by various agreements. We have to remember that it isn't illegal to lie, under some conditions. I'm just saying that we can't rely on what the man says for anything. If he says it's 3 PM, look at the clock before agreeing.) Basically, J Rohner's company, Inteligentry, is offering a popper kit, which, if it's real, would actually be an engine, albeit a single-stroke one. $350 for the electronics package, including coils and spark plugs, and the kit includes plans for the piston assembly, and the fuel formula (taken from the patent). He claims this device is what they used to test fuel and the electronic protocol to fire the thing, and that is sensible and believable. However, unlike the competing Bob Rohner, John hasn't shown even a single firing of the Popper. Caveat emptor. I consider that we would need to be aware of the possibility that the John Rohner kit is actually a Bob Rohner killer, aimed at discrediting his brother when the kit fails. Crazy? Sure. *But these people are crazy. At least John is, that's obvious. That has nothing to do with whether or not his various claims are true. Some of them might be. Indeed, he might be responding to long-standing family dysfunction. Lots of crazy people are. I still don't see any significant evidence for nuclear. The level of energy released is sometimes cited as evidence for nuclear, but really all that, if established, would show is not chemical. Some brown powder isn't evidence for nuclear unless we actually know what the powder is. Cold fusion was not actually established as nuclear until helium was identified as the predominant ash. Then we could say it was nuclear, and we could even go further because of the specific value of the correlation between anomalous heat and helium production. It was fusion. Because I'm being watched (they are under every rock), I'll point out that fusion does not just refer to d-d fusion, and the correlation value (estimated at 25+/-5 MeV/He-4 by Storms, 2007 and 2010) would result from any reaction that converts deuterium to helium, no matter what intermediates are involved. That conversion is called fusion. Fusion is the term for a whole class of reactions, not just one. However, interesting speculation, perhaps: This type fusion does not produce energy in fusing to boron8 atoms. But all boron isotopes under B11 will decay by fission. There are two conceivable ways in which the excited state in boron-8 could decay by emitting one proton, making a brief pit stop at beryllium-7. However, one of these ways is energy forbidden and the other does not conserve isospin. While conserving isospin is not a hard and fast rule, if there is any other way for the nucleus to decay, it will jump at that alternative. In this case the alternative, one that is both energy and isospin allowed, is to decay by emitting two protons in one step to an excited state in lithium-6, which is itself an isobaric-analog of the ground state of helium-6. Recently, this decay mode was observed for the first time by emitting two protons at the same time between isobaric analog states. To
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
Jojo, My singularity will rip matter apart in the near vacinity. Any neutrons that escape it will be very low momentum, since the singularities quantum gravity pull sucked all of the energy out of them. It also devours them. I am thinking about a new newsgroup for Evaporative Matter Nuclear Science. On Friday, August 17, 2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't this *not* predicted by the W-L theory? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
Feed yor gremlin a steady diet of hydrogen without any powder and you will
not get neutrons. This thing is ripping atoms apart
On Friday, August 17, 2012, Robert Lynn wrote:
Neutrons are hard to shield and when absorbed can produce radioactive
materials. Could this be a potentially killer blow to otherwise safe LENR?
Fission reactors typically create up to 10^13 neutrons per cm² per second,
and this experiment was only making about 20 per s, over (I assume) the
full 4Pi sphere but was also probably only a few watts of power. If this
is a standard feature of LENR and is scaled up to 10's or 100's of kW for
transport applications maybe we are looking at more like 10^10 per s will
it be ultimately be dangerous? The oil industry will be looking for
exactly this sort of flaw to keep themselves in business.
Why haven't other researchers seen Neutrons, were they not looking or are
they at too low an energy or flux to be easily detected?
On 17 August 2012 22:10, Akira Shirakawa
shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com');
wrote:
On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'pagnu...@htdconnect.com'); wrote:
Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using
shock
procedure
- Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't
this *not* predicted by the W-L theory?
Cheers,
S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Re: ProdEngAssemble.avi
Fast Recomb? What the hell is that? Matter collapse? What was the chemical reaction? On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: That death was from a chemical explosion. SRI, recombiner gunked up, researcher picked up the cell, gunk fell off, fast recomb,. Bang! He died, McKubre still has glass in him. As I recall reading. Closed cells are dangerous. LENR *could* be dangerous. Unreliable can cut both ways. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 17, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In a post today integral sited a death of a LENR developer in an explosion. The take away, LENR is dangerous when the power is high. It is best to be as safe as you can. Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:11 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com cheme...@gmail.com wrote: If you just sell plans for poppers, electronic circuit boards and licenses for the technology, then all of the liability rests with the OEM's they drag in. They probably give them a short demo in the shop before the thing malfunctions. I notice everytime I see a demo it is behind explosion proof glass. Oddity and UNCERTAINTY Stewart On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 11:17 PM 8/16/2012, Axil Axil wrote: I am putting two and two together here. The Papp engine ash was a brown powder. Thanks for letting us know that this was your speculation, not a conclusion from strong evidence. J Ronner talks about a two helium atom fusion process. And what J Rohner (I presume that was a mispelling) says about the process has as much -- or does it have more -- reliability than an angry monkey typiing would have? Rohner has said a lot that quite simply is not true when investigated. It starts with simple things, such as the availability of videos. But it continues with many examples of stuff that was, ah, a tad exaggerated. If we can call claiming to have a running test engines is an exaggeration if you only have test engines that may not have run at all. He's admitted to that whopper (last year, to PESN). Or claiming to have 2 MIT PhDs, but, when challenged, apparently, says they are secret and his resume now claims his education is irrelevant. Fine. It might be irrelevant, but why then did he claim the PhDs? Why did he claim the running test engines? He says why. He had to say *something* or investors would bail. That's called fraud. Saying what you think an investor wants to hear, when it isn't the truth, to induce them to maintain or make investments. Someone will nail him on this, I suspect, eventually. (However, he might be adequately covered by various agreements. We have to remember that it isn't illegal to lie, under some conditions. I'm just saying that we can't rely on what the man says for anything. If he says it's 3 PM, look at the clock before agreeing.) Basically, J Rohner's company, Inteligentry, is offering a popper kit, which, if it's real, would actually be an engine, albeit a single-stroke one. $350 for the electronics package, including coils and spark plugs, and the kit includes plans for the piston assembly, and the fuel formula (taken from the patent). He claims this device is what they used to test fuel and the electronic protocol to fire the thing, and that is sensible and believable. However, unlike the competing Bob Rohner, John hasn't shown even a single firing of the Popper. Caveat emptor. I consider that we would need to be aware of the possibility that the John Rohner kit is actually a Bob Rohner killer, aimed at discrediting his brother when the kit fails. Crazy? Sure. *But these people are crazy. At least John is, that's obvious. That has nothing to do with whether or not his various claims are true. Some of them might be. Indeed, he might be responding to long-standing family dysfunction. Lots of crazy people are. I still don't see any significant evidence for nuclear. The level of energy released is sometimes cited as evidence for nuclear, but really all that, if established, would show is not chemical. Some brown powder isn't evidence for nuclear unless we actually know what the powder is. Cold fusion was not actually established as nuclear until helium was identified as the predominant ash. Then we could say it was nuclear, and we could even go further because of the specific value of the correlation between anomalous heat and helium production. It was fusion. Because I'm being watched (they are under every rock), I'll point out that fusion does not just refer to d-d fusion, and the correlation value (estimated at 25+/-5 MeV/He-4 by Storms, 2007 and 2010) would result from any reaction that converts deuterium to helium, no matter what intermediates are involved. That conversion is called fusion. Fusion is the term for a whole class of reactions, not just one. However, interesting speculation, perhaps: This type fusion
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
Right, they made up a new state called Inverted Rydberg State that has ultra high density. Don't they really mean collapsed? Axil, I really don't think we are that far off. In both my theory and Miley a cluster of ultra high density matter is shredding it's environment and leaving a host of products. Do these inverted states hang around in their environment once they are created? On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: It gets even better. Many of my most favored words are in the description.as follows: *Clusters* of 156 deuterons (10pm diameter) in *non-localized Bose-Einstein** *state react with Pd nucleus (or as *inverted Rydberg state*) for element production via *compound nucleus *element with A = 306 (or 310) having two *magic numbers*. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am pleased to draw your attention to this opinion from the experimenter. The presentation states: Based on solid experiment of neutron emission and LENR-element generation: hypothetical models: Reactions in 2 pm distance due to *Coulomb screening* by factor 13 (5 for hot plasmas). Coulomb screening is confirmed; no gremlins here. *It is Coulomb screening that is ripping atoms apart.* ** *Cheers: Axil* On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:44 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: Jojo, My singularity will rip matter apart in the near vacinity. Any neutrons that escape it will be very low momentum, since the singularities quantum gravity pull sucked all of the energy out of them. It also devours them. I am thinking about a new newsgroup for Evaporative Matter Nuclear Science. On Friday, August 17, 2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't this *not* predicted by the W-L theory? Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
They are proposed to range from the largest of 6.6 billion solar masses down to 23 micrograms, the planck mass, about a grain of sand, but collapsed. I propose that they are not really stable they are always emitting some form of Ultra Low Momentum Radiation (see I can event my own terms also!) Whenever they come close enough to external matter or are fed energy of any kind they instaneously convert that matter to energy and evaporate it back to their environment, going back to a stable thermodynamic state. Large black holes belch higher levels of radiation when they consume a star or other matter that comes close enough all I am saying is that their babies do the same. http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3208 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole On Friday, August 17, 2012, wrote: In reply to ChemE Stewart's message of Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:53:15 -0400: Hi, [snip] Feed yor gremlin a steady diet of hydrogen without any powder and you will not get neutrons. This thing is ripping atoms apart [snip] How big/heavy does a gremlin have be in order to remain stable, i.e. for the mass consumption rate to equal the evaporation rate? (I realize that the mass consumption rate is variable, but please provide some reasonable limits.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: Papp Noble MisheGas Engine
Also, I forgot to mention that Jim Patterson's grandson who was helping him develop a commercial product from his cell, died at age 31 from some type of brain anuerism or hemmorage (not sure still checking). We all know what this reaction is doing to the matter in a wire or lattice, what if according to my theory, some collapsed matter escapes and enters the environment? On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:57 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: According to my theory these devices magnify the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principal by design (the larger the singularities or the more of them are created, the more uncertainty there is). Which, as you said and I agree is not good for life. Actually it is probably more of a love/hate relationship, heat is good, singularities are bad. Nature wants to create certainty within life organisms and repeatable processes to sustain it, singularities go against the mechanisms that support that and can trigger malfunctions. We are witness to what they can do to a piece of wire and should apply that to the rest of the world. Papp died of colon cancer, Tom Rohner recently died of pancreatic cancer and Dr. Richard Feynman who was there when a Papp device exploded died of two rare forms of cancer (he also worked for Los Alamos, which may have had something to do with it...) The Papp device was always malfunctioning and the Plasma Popper malfunctioned during the demo with Mr. McKubre. Note I am not saying the device causes cancer. I am merely stating facts about how people died. I said these devices create singularities and you said singularities are bad in nature and we agree 100% on that. The rest is pure speculation by others. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Brian Ahern ahern_br...@msn.com wrote: Step aside and ask yourself why after 50 years there is no working two cylinder engine. They have the prototype seemingly finished. Why doesn' it run? The general answer is we need xxx,xxx Dollars and 6 months to get it running. Their excuse is actually much more rediculous. If we finish it will be stolen. That is an absurd explanation for failing to show even a video of a running papp engine. They should join the Rossi club and fade away. Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:41:09 -0500 To: c...@googlegroups.com; c...@googlegroups.com From: a...@lomaxdesign.com Subject: CMNS: Papp Noble MisheGas Engine Original subject: RE: CMNS: Grand Unification Theory of Cold Fusion At 03:09 PM 8/16/2012, Brian Ahern wrote: None of the five competing groups have a working engine. Their excuse is a classic. We do not want to have a working engine because the MEN IN BLACK will take it. They cannot even provide a video of one running at any time, but they want your investment money nonetheless ! This is a new page from the Rossi play book. This comment is, unfortunately, misleading. To establish the Papp Effect, an engine is not necessary. All that is necessary is a device (or even a complete, detailed report, enough for replication) that shows the effect, such that it can be independently verified. Of course, selling or making available such a device or report will reveal the secret. In a field like this, there is reluctance to reveal whatever secrets one has possession of, because then someone could, indeed, steal it. However, if one has protected the secret with a patent, this risk is routinely taken. One of the problems here is that the original Papp patents have expired. On the other hand, those patents were not adequate to allow anyone to build a working device. (An Inteligentry employee explains in a video referenced below that Papp included red herrings that flat out won't work.) So those patents were not valid anyway, it could be claimed. Or they could be treated as having placed everything in them into the public domain (John Rohner is claiming that). The comment from Brian lumps all of the five competing groups together as if they tell the same story. The history of the Papp engine is complex, and was heavily interwoven with Papp's paranoia. While it's possible that, at one point or other, each of the five groups or a principal in them gave the reason of avoiding theft of the property, the major secrecy seems to have been abandonded by Plasmerg, John Rohner's company, and a kit is being offered. The kit documents disclose the fuel formula, already (reportedly it is the same formula as in the original Papp patent). The kit apparently discloses everything one needs to build a popper, and it includes (essentially, it *is*) the electronics, which would automatically apply the stimulation protocol at the push of a button. That is not a working engine, but one could make an engine from one, two, or more of these. Measuring the work done by the piston in this would be trivial, and measuring the input energy, as well
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
I think the invention was real, powerful and very uncertain and unreliable, prone to failures, malfunctions and explosions, nature of the beast. On Saturday, August 18, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 10:30 AM 8/17/2012, Arnaud Kodeck wrote: I think AR is smarter than this. He said Ni+p - Cu when it knew it was not the case. With this statement, he was sure that Cu will not be taken as a potential catalyst and only a by-product. Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this is the opposite of the intention of a patent Rossi can say whatever he likes about the theory of his work. It's legal. Lying is legal, under many conditions. The problem is that once we know someone is willing to lie for a good purpose, i.e., to protect his secrets, we can't trust anything he says unless we independently verify it. If someone would lie, shamelessly, they would also arrange a fraudulent demonstration. There isn't much difference. People become confused when this is pointed out, they think I'm saying that there *was* a fraudulent demonstration. No, I'm saying that we can't trust the demonstrations. That and little more. That NiH reactions might produce power is not and was not a big surprise, because there had been other reports (more sober, more scientific in nature). The surprise with Rossi was the level of heat and the claim of reliability. Many knowledgeable people think Rossi really did find an approach that generates significant heat, at least sometimes. It was the appearance of reliability that was new and surprising. If Rossi did not actually solve the reliability problem, which is the trillion-dollar question in all of cold fusion, it would explain the delays, the confident announcements followed by failures to perform as promised, followed by more confident announcements. Any day now, he'd think or hope, I'll solve this, and then nobody will worry about my fudging this or that. Comparisons with Papp are a bit shaky, because Papp was not using an approach analogous to that of anyone else. Rossi's work is an extension of what was already known as possible, or at least that had some level of experimental evidence of possibility. (As to theory, since we don't know what is happening with NiH, we only have speculations. In general, theory cannot establish the impossibility of any specific experimental outcome, for a number of reasons. Well-established theory can give us some guidance, that's about all. Independently confirmed experiment trumps theory, no matter how well-established, at least provisionally.) However, having said that, Papp and Rossi share a paranoia about others ripping off their invention. With Papp the paranoia was deep and quite damaging. It's unclear how deep it is with Rossi, some think it is a pretense with him, a game he plays to confuse competition. My general point is that we do not know if the Rossi devices really do produce power, or really are reliable, without independent confirmation. With the Papp Effect, there is also a lack of independent confirmation, still -- as far as anything published, I hear *rumor* of independent confirmation, which is almost useless -- and it is clear that Papp opposed all such. Rossi, as well, has declined many friendly opportunities for independent confirmation of his claims. With Papp, though, there were ample demonstrations, witnessed by many people, that establish one of two major possibilities: the engine was real, and powerful, or there was an extremely sophisticated fraud. Compressed air has been mentioned as one possibility, there could be others. Any given fraud mode might be ruled out for any given demonstration, there is nothing that limits an inventor to one mode of pretense. This is why we want to see *independent* confirmations, where the inventor is not present to guide the experimenters. We have another reason for wanting independent demonstrations, entirely independent. It forces the inventor to communicate what is necessary to others, thus making it unlikely that some secret will be lost. Sometimes, unfortunately, that's not possible. SRI, replicating the Case Effect, used material supplied by Case. It worked. This material was a catalyst prepared from coconut charcoal and plated with palladium, as I recall. When the material was accidentally discarded, nobody was able to create a new batch of material that worked. So the SRI replication was not *entirely* independent. Yet it did show that the particular material worked, it was independent in that way. But, unless someone figures out how to make that catalyst again, which I consider unlikely, there isn't any gold there commercially, and this is a dead end, useful only for certain facts developed. The Case replication did show
[Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
I agree. Basically I am talking about collapsed matter as the primary
trigger for all of the secoondary reactions which Abd is working on
figuring out. In quantum mechanics this is effected by the strength of
quantum scale gravity and also the hoop effect caused by a void. Once
matter collapses it will still obey quantum mechanic and thermodynamic
laws. I am going to do some calculations and see what I come up with.
I see a similarity in what Axil is calling ultra high density inverted
rydberg matter and what I am talking about. I of course have done a top
down approach.
The thing I am also concerned with now is does any of this stuff stay
around in the environment and not evaporate or decay completely which I
think would be very bad for the surroundings, including people.
I just put the theory out there last week. I am going to continue
developing it.
One last thought that I am adding to my theory regarding the big picture:
If this anomalous heat effect is basically evaporating matter under
relatively normal conditions then basically that tells us that all of the
matter in the universe will evaporate over time. And since hawking showed
that matter and anti-matter particles pop out of the vacuum and either
destroy each other or the anti-matter particle might get sucked into a
singularity to aid in its evaporation and leave a particle of matter that
escapes into space then the universe might be stuck in sort of an endless
do-loop of matter creation and evaporation to and from the quantum field.
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Jojo Jaro
jth...@hotmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'jth...@hotmail.com');
wrote:
**
CE, I think you need to gather your thoughts in one place, write a
comprehensive paper and flesh out many lacking details to your theory,
instead of repeating yourself ad nauseam here in Vortex, and interject your
theory at every post.
Your theory as posted in your blog is glaringly incomplete. I read your
theory and I found it a bit lacking. I would like to see some mathematical
support to your suppositions. Mathematical computations as to energy
levels required, creation rates and evaporation rates. If you can come up
with these, it would go a long ways in providing guidance for
experimentation, which I would be willing to do if it is within my
capability.
Also an explanation with mathematical data as to why a singularity is
formed in a void or crack as you propose instead of fusion occuring.
Saying that quantum gravity is large, hence it creates a singularity
ain't gonna cut it.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, of course, and assuming that you
are serious about developing your theory and not just playing with your
colleages here in Vortex, seeing how many your can loop around for a spin.
Jojo
- Original Message -
*From:* ChemE Stewart javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'cheme...@gmail.com');
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
*Sent:* Saturday, August 18, 2012 8:09 PM
*Subject:* [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
They are proposed to range from the largest of 6.6 billion solar masses
down to 23 micrograms, the planck mass, about a grain of sand, but
collapsed. I propose that they are not really stable they are always
emitting some form of Ultra Low Momentum Radiation (see I can event my own
terms also!) Whenever they come close enough to external matter or are
fed energy of any kind they instaneously convert that matter to energy and
evaporate it back to their environment, going back to a stable
thermodynamic state.
Large black holes belch higher levels of radiation when they consume a
star or other matter that comes close enough all I am saying is that their
babies do the same.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3208
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole
On Friday, August 17, 2012, wrote:
In reply to ChemE Stewart's message of Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:53:15 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Feed yor gremlin a steady diet of hydrogen without any powder and you
will
not get neutrons. This thing is ripping atoms apart
[snip]
How big/heavy does a gremlin have be in order to remain stable, i.e. for
the
mass consumption rate to equal the evaporation rate?
(I realize that the mass consumption rate is variable, but please provide
some
reasonable limits.)
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Fermi Acceleration
The act of measuring requires one to impart some energy (photons or other) or matter upon the particle. Upon the object being measured, the object may instantly increase in mass or change velocity. Over time this energy will be transferred back to its environment as it evaporates... On Saturday, August 18, 2012, Harry Veeder wrote: BTW, I appear to contradict myself when I said measuring cannot increase the energy of the particle vs I agree with the claim that measuring can concentrate energy in a system. In the former, I mean I don't accept the idea that measuring can somehow increase the energy the particle without the transfer of energy from somewhere else. Harry On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Hi LP, I haven't read the paper, but I don't disagree with claim. In fact it should not be unexpected. Even in a macroscopic system a concentration energy can come about as a result of energy being transferred from the measuring system to the system being measured. Of course, such a measuring system would be considered defective because it provides a distorted picture of the energy content of system being measured. However, classical mechanics says a measuring system can be designed in theory to have an arbitrarily small distorting effect, whereas quantum mechanics says this is not possible in theory. Harry On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:44 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Hello Harry, To be really precise, though, an energy measurement of a particle in a superposition of energy eigenstates might find it in one of the states higher than the weighted average energy of its wavefunction. So, you might say that the measurement increased its energy, but over many such measurements would just produce the mean energy of the wavefunction. While I am not convinced they are correct, the authors of the paper I referenced end with the conclusion - From a general perspective a phenomenon like the energy concentration in a composite quantum system can indeed be motivated physically. There exist processes, where there is a redistribution of energy among different system degrees of freedom making possible some amounts of system self-organization. In particular, one could examine the possibility of concentrating the total energy of the system into a subset of degrees of freedom producing a decrease of its entropy, which in order to avoid a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, would compel the release of energy to the environment, thus keeping the free energy constant. This is possible only if the system is open... Concentrating Energy by Measurement http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5868 Interesting theory. -- LP Harry Veeder wrote: Actually, I tend agree with Robin that measuring cannot increase the energy of the particle. My question reflects my own attempt to understand why it is so. Now that I have thought about it, it is because one doesn't measure energy per se. Most measurements are really the result of calculations based on measurements of length and time plugged into a formula. BTW, the same is true of measurements of momentum. The modern physicists habit of refering to energy and momentum as observables is a perscription for phenomenological confusion. The resulting measures of length and time are only consistent with the supposed law-like properties of energy and momemtum on a statiscal level. Harry On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Hello Harry, You asked -- So, the measuring instrument itself will produce energy, if it is used to precisely measure the energy of a particle? Probably not. But maybe there are subtleties that obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but allow for some counterintuitive effects. For example, refer to -- Concentrating Energy by Measurement http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5868 -- LP Harry Veeder wrote: On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:57 PM,
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
I have been using black hole and singularity interchangeably and that is confusing and inconsistent. I will refer to it as a quantum black hole that obeys quantum mechanics: In quantum mechanics, the black hole emits Hawking radiationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation, and so can come to thermal equilibriumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium with a gas of radiation. Since a thermal equilibrium state is time reversal invariant, Stephen Hawking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking argued that the time reverse of a black hole in thermal equilibrium is again a black hole in thermal equilibrium.[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole#cite_note-1 This implies that black holes and white holes are the same object. The Hawking radiation from an ordinary black hole is then identified with the white hole emission. Hawking's semi-classical argument is reproduced in a quantum mechanical AdS/CFT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT treatment,[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole#cite_note-2 where a black hole in anti-de Sitter spacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-de_Sitter_space is described by a thermal gas in a gauge theory, whose time reversal is the same as itself. In the Rohner video, i believe that the phenomena he describes fits the above description. I believe quantum black hole(s) from collapsed helium have built up on the inside of that one coil and are acting as a bridge that is collapsing matter (gas) and radiating energy through the coil to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium in its surroundings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0IPWmm7GDcfeature=youtube_gdata_player Collapsed matter acts like a quantum heat pump, which is useful. Downside is that it is a bad actor. When not in equilibrium it tends to devour matter releasing radiation and creating uncertainty, which is very hard on equipment and people. On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Axil Axil wrote: Once matter collapses it will still obey quantum mechanic and thermodynamic laws. I am going to do some calculations and see what I come up with. Once matter collapses, it is no longer part of this unicerse, and as such, no longer obeys quantum mexhanics and thermodynamic laws. A *gravitational singularity* or *spacetime singularity* is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitationalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitationalfield become infinite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature_of_Riemannian_manifoldsof spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter. According to general relativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity, the initial state of the universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang, was a singularity. Both general relativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativityand quantum mechanics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang, but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black holehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole: any star http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star collapsing beyond a certain point (the Schwarzschild radiushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius) would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point (or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating). This is again according to general relativity without quantum mechanics, which forbids wavelike particles entering a space smaller than their wavelength. These hypothetical singularities are also known as curvature singularities. If a singularity would ever form on earth, that would be the end of earth in this universe. Cheers:Axil On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:36 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: I agree. Basically I am talking about collapsed matter as the primary trigger for all of the secoondary reactions which Abd is working on figuring out. In quantum mechanics this is effected by the strength of quantum scale gravity and also the hoop effect caused by a void. Once matter collapses it will still obey quantum mechanic and thermodynamic laws. I am going to do some calculations and see what I come up with. I see a similarity in what Axil is calling ultra high density inverted rydberg matter and what I am talking about. I of course have done a top down approach. The thing I am also concerned with now is does any of this stuff stay around in the environment and not evaporate or decay completely which I think would be very bad for the surroundings, including people. I just put
[Vo]:Papp demo and explosions, the end game, and John Rohner
Abd, Just a thought... Papp may have known that the containment coil needed to remain energized in order to collect and contain charged, collapsed matter particles at the coil's inside surface that was being produced at each cycle. Possibly when Dr. Feynman unplugged the power the collapsed matter began devouring the walls of the cylinder leading to vessel failure from embrittlement and excess heat. I will make an analogy which I am sure will gather consternation: do you remember in ghostbusters when they closed the breaker on the containment device housing the...gremlins? On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Subject was: Re: [Vo]:Re: ProdEngAssemble.avi At 03:11 PM 8/17/2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: If you just sell plans for poppers, electronic circuit boards and licenses for the technology, then all of the liability rests with the OEM's they drag in. They probably give them a short demo in the shop before the thing malfunctions. I notice everytime I see a demo it is behind explosion proof glass. Oddity and UNCERTAINTY There was one explosion of a Papp engine, as such, AFAIK. That's the one where Feynman turned off the control electronics by pulling the plug. He expected the engine to run down, and he held on to the plug while Papp frantically tried to get it from him and plug it back in. The incident demonstrates that a Papp engine can be dangerous. Papp did a demonstration where an explosion was deliberately caused, that was filmed. That was not an engine, it was a cannon. Really, a big popper. I'm not aware of other explosions, but I've only begun to read in this area. Running Papp engines were witnessed and measurements were made with a dynamometer. This is not some marginal effect. It radically violates our expectations of what a noble gas mixture could do. I see only two possibilities: 1. Sophisticated fraud, begun by Papp and continued after his death by others. A sophisticated fraud can convince expert witnesses; this is why we demand independent verification; while collusion can exist between multiple parties, it is rare and the rarity increases with the number and variety of independent verifications. 2. An anomaly of vast implications, deserving of urgent investigation, with all deliberate speed. In science, ordinarily, one independent verification is enough to establish even an unusual result as valid. Cold fusion is a remarkable case where hundreds of independent verifications have been considered inadequate by some. My claim is, generally, that some are practicing cargo cult science. That goes back to what Jed recently mentioned: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/**RothwellJhownaturer.pdfhttp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf http:/**/lenr-canr.org/acrobat/**RothwellJhownaturer.pdfhttp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf-- this interchange between Noninsky and David Lindley, an editor at Nature, including commentary by Nathan Lewis, lead author of the Cal Tech negative replication report that Nature had published, is utterly shocking as an example of misbehavior by one whom we would expect to be a guardian of scientific neutrality and objectivity. Taken together with the Lindsey's Nature editorial, http://newenergytimes.com/v2/**inthenews/1990/Nature-** Embarassment.shtmlhttp://newenergytimes.com/v2/inthenews/1990/Nature-Embarassment.shtml, we can see how the Scientific Fiasco of the Century (Huizenga's language) was set up. Huizenga only knew the half of it. I'll write separately on this. Here, it is clear, the apparent impossibility of the Papp engine can be seen as a primary reason why the Papp Effect, I'm calling it, has not been deeply investigated. There is another reason, equally important. Papp kept his methods secret, fearing loss of them to other interests. Others, with more or less access to the secrets, have likewise kept them hidden. So, until now, independent verification was difficult or impossible. Because of his history and apparent imbalance, John Rohner cannot be easily trusted, but if his recent offer of demonstration kits is real, we will soon have some independent testimony regarding the Papp Effect. For the first time, investigation will be divorced from the demand for a full-out engine, and can be focused on the Effect itself. John Rohner is making an implied claim that the original Papp formula for the fuel, from the patent, works. The only secret, then, would be the nature of the stimulation, and that's what Rohner is offering to sell, in the form of the electronics that provide it, together with the custom coils and electrodes, with complete specifications for everything else. I presume that he knows that it will not be long before the stimulation will be known in exact detail, even if he hasn't provided that information, through examination of what his circuit board and the coils do. We have seen public demonstration of a popper, by Bob
Re: [Vo]:
Peter, Very nice post. As you know, I believe this reaction might have a bit of heaven and hell locked within it. On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The second part is inspired by Defkalion's technology but also by my impressions of ICCF-17 and to these I have added an overdose of wishful thinking. And a good deal of poetry to the prose. Very good. T
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Fermi Acceleration
I agree with that. Either way you have changed the measured. On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Harry Veeder wrote: The measuring system can either transfer energy from itself to the system being measured or do the reverse and transfer energy from the system being measured to itself. harry On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:58 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: The act of measuring requires one to impart some energy (photons or other) or matter upon the particle. Upon the object being measured, the object may instantly increase in mass or change velocity. Over time this energy will be transferred back to its environment as it evaporates... On Saturday, August 18, 2012, Harry Veeder wrote: BTW, I appear to contradict myself when I said measuring cannot increase the energy of the particle vs I agree with the claim that measuring can concentrate energy in a system. In the former, I mean I don't accept the idea that measuring can somehow increase the energy the particle without the transfer of energy from somewhere else. Harry On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Hi LP, I haven't read the paper, but I don't disagree with claim. In fact it should not be unexpected. Even in a macroscopic system a concentration energy can come about as a result of energy being transferred from the measuring system to the system being measured. Of course, such a measuring system would be considered defective because it provides a distorted picture of the energy content of system being measured. However, classical mechanics says a measuring system can be designed in theory to have an arbitrarily small distorting effect, whereas quantum mechanics says this is not possible in theory. Harry On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:44 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Hello Harry, To be really precise, though, an energy measurement of a particle in a superposition of energy eigenstates might find it in one of the states higher than the weighted average energy of its wavefunction. So, you might say that the measurement increased its energy, but over many such measurements would just produce the mean energy of the wavefunction. While I am not convinced they are correct, the authors of the paper I referenced end with the conclusion - From a general perspective a phenomenon like the energy concentration in a composite quantum system can indeed be motivated physically. There exist processes, where there is a redistribution of energy among different system degrees of freedom making possible some amounts of system self-organization. In particular, one could examine the possibility of concentrating the total energy of the system into a subset of degrees of freedom producing a decrease of its entropy, which in order to avoid a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, would compel the release of energy to the environment, thus keeping the free energy constant. This is possible only if the system is open... Concentrating Energy by Measurement http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5868 Interesting theory. -- LP Harry Veeder wrote: Actually, I tend agree with Robin that measuring cannot increase the energy of the particle. My question reflects my own attempt to understand why it is so. Now that I have thought about it, it is because one doesn't measure energy per se. Most measurements are really the result of calculations based on measurements of length and time plugged into a formula
[Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
Mark, I absolutely agree that they will want to fall to earth, i just do not agree that micro black holes will necessarily zoom directly thru the earth. At 23 micrograms, about like a grain of sand, the smallest predicted mass of one at a planck length, I more pictured it acting like ball lighting while it is in the air. In addition to the acceleration due to gravity, i envisioned it might be also be subject to thermal currents and magnetic fields causing it to drift some on its way down. I envisioned it might get lodged in matter such as rocks and metal lattices in the ground. Over time it should make its way to the center, triggering local fusion and fission reactions in local matter on its way to the core, safetly away from life. I think the only safe place for this stuff might be the center of the earth. 1/3 of the heat at the center of the earth is thought to be from radiation of some kind. Jupiter and Saturn are also thought to have something generating excess heat at their core. On Sunday, August 19, 2012, wrote: In reply to MarkI-ZeroPoint's message of Sat, 18 Aug 2012 22:50:51 -0700: Hi, [snip] Robin stated, Other factors to take into consideration are that a neutral black hole would oscillate back and forth through the planet Funny, that's exactly how electrons behave in my physical model... with the electron 'hole' being the other half of the electron. So whatever is oscillating is constantly traversing the nucleus, only it is traveling so fast that it is only 'inside' the nuclear volume for a very short time (10^-30s). Robin, do you have a ref for your above statement? -Mark Not necessary. If you drop a brick it will land on your toes. ;) If you drop a black hole it's density is such that nothing will stop it. It will keep on going, building in speed and mass till it reaches the core of the planet, then start slowing down as it comes out the other side. Eventually it will come to a stop, then start falling back again. Well that's what I originally thought. ;) However it's actually quite a bit more complicated. Everything on the surface has angular momentum due to the rotation of the planet. Conservation of angular momentum means that as the radius decreases, the tangential momentum must increase. Since the latter comprises both mass and velocity, there will be some velocity increase in the West to East direction, which may mean that eventually it may go into an orbit at some depth. This is complicated by the fact that the mass changes over time, both due to Hawking radiation, and due to the fact that gremlins get hungrier as they grow, so whether the mass increases or decreases depends on which process dominates. Neither process has a constant rate, as both rates depend on the momentary size of the gremlin. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Just more UNCERTAINTY On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 12:15 PM 8/18/2012, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto: a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this is the opposite of the intention of a patent More importantly, as I have already stated in this forum, it vitiates the patent in all countries. Moreover in all countries but the US, which is first to invent rather than first to file, it opens the door to a valid patent filing in the present by those who decipher the prior patent. In other words, the noble gas engine has never been in the public domain because its patent disclosure did not, in fact, disclose in such a way that those skilled in the art (what art?) could reproduce the benefit of the invention. Whether or not this is so depends on the exact language of the patent. Probably so. But I'd check with a lawyer before depending on new patentability. John Rohner, or one of his companies, which he might or might not still control -- this whole thing is too complicated for the average bear -- obtained a new patent fairly recently, which might or might not cover current work. I haven't read it. Not planning to. Beware of investing in the Papp Engine at this point. The whole situation is a tangled mess. If interested, building a popper would be in order. If Bob Rohner has any sense, he'll encourage people to buy a popper from him, since he's actually demonstrated it. He could easily provide plans for it, with a license to build one, for cheap, and at a decent profit. John's going to eat his lunch if he doesn't. Unless John doesn't really have a popper and is just bluffing See what I mean about mess? Don't risk your life savings just because someone talks a good line. Even if they have a running engine, it could turn out that they don't own the technology, they will lose their shirts, and you along with them. Be careful!
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
I do not believe this engine will ever make it to market. When it is
working as designed it is destroying itself, much in the way that a wire
that shows the anomalous heat effect is considered a successful result just
before the wire becomes embrittled and breaks apart.
On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Eric Walker wrote:
Le Aug 19, 2012 à 6:20 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'janap...@gmail.com');
a écrit :
http://pesn.com/2012/08/18/9602162_My_Visit_to_Inteligentry/
Is it normal to mount the electronics on the engine block like that? Even
though it not understood to heat up like a normal engine, I understand that
it still gets hot. I do not imagine that it is necessary to place the
controllers on the engine like that; or am I mistaken?
Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Wakes Up
It is assumed that the brain is the closest thing in life to a quantum
mechanical device or at a minimum requires precise calculations. It makes
sense that those working around these devices unprotected succumb to
strange behavior and ill health.
On Monday, August 20, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I haven't verified that Rossi actually wrote this. If he did, That is
lamer than anything I've ever seen from Rossi. He may be completely losing
it. So to speak, the clowns have empty boxes, they will fill with our
small e-cats. Therefore we won't sell small e-cats. That'll show them!
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 19, 2012, at 2:56 PM, ny@aol.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'ny@aol.com'); wrote:
Wise:
Andrea Rossi
August 19th, 2012 at 2:16
AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695cpage=3#comment-304856
1.
Dear ivan:
We have decided, so far, to limit our sales to the 1 MW plants because
this dimension is the one that gives to Leonardo Corp. the maximum economic
momentum, considering our present structure. We foresee, anyway, to lower,
in future, the power of the products for sale. In this monent there is also
a pending situation regarding the Intellectual Property and there are
around clowns ( think to the ones that claim to have been able to copy us)
that have just mock ups (empty boxes) which they will inmmediately fill up
with our technology as soon as cheap E-Cats will be in the market: this has
been their strategy from the beginning. Marketing only the 1 MW plants we
can select our Customers. When the domestic Ecats will be certified the
numbers will be enough big to allow us a big scale production, so that our
prices will be enough low to defeat the competition even after they will be
able to copy us. About the chance of our competitors to reach us and
compete with us, without copying us, from what I saw recently, they all are
lightyears far from being able to produce something able to produce real
energy: they are making paper aeroplanes, we are manufacturing Boeing 707.
With all respect.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Quickly
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
Super Atom or ultra dense atomic clusters: It can be expected that any
radiation escaping this super atom will be reshifted to lower frequencies
and energy levels and that any particles approaching this super atom will
be blueshifted to extremely high frequencies and energy levels. Very
disruptive to ANYTHING in nature
On Monday, August 20, 2012, Axil Axil wrote:
The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled
particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic
clustering fits into the LENR+ process.
see
*www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt*
**
**
*Cheers: Axil*
**
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil
janap...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'janap...@gmail.com');
wrote:
According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier. The
paper you reference in thiis post sites this as a cause of coulomb
barrier lowering.
Cheers: Axil
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz
pdx...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'pdx...@gmail.com');
wrote:
I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential
peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical
Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/
It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier
drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If
true, that would be ... big.
Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for
variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI
background in the vicinity of the experiment?
Jeff
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher
a...@well.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'a...@well.com');
wrote:
From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'pdx...@gmail.com');
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device
If you open this link:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf
It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR
papers stuck together end to end.
The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the
peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies.
Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4
Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF
stimulator (any more?)
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
Let's assume these Super Atoms or Super Atom Clusters obey the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle as do other particles. On one hand they can reward you with redshifted lower energy radiation usable as heat but on the other hand they consume and destroy all matter within their gravitational reach. They bust up coloumb barriers due to the extremely high frequencies they can generate through blueshifting near their center. They magnify uncertainty within their surroundings much more than typical particles due to their size or quantities. They can also collapse into each other creating Super Duper Atoms... On Monday, August 20, 2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: Super Atom or ultra dense atomic clusters: It can be expected that any radiation escaping this super atom will be reshifted to lower frequencies and energy levels and that any particles approaching this super atom will be blueshifted to extremely high frequencies and energy levels. Very disruptive to ANYTHING in nature On Monday, August 20, 2012, Axil Axil wrote: The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic clustering fits into the LENR+ process. see *www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt* ** ** *Cheers: Axil* ** On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier. The paper you reference in thiis post sites this as a cause of coulomb barrier lowering. Cheers: Axil http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.comwrote: I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI background in the vicinity of the experiment? Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
Quantum gravity blueshifts the incoming particles/radiation to ultrahigh frequencies and ultrahigh energy levels right near its surface. It is this high energy level which busts up the coloumb barrier of atoms pulled close. It is the same effect in reverse which makes any energy leaving this collapsed matter to be of low energy level/frequencies redshifted and less harmful Red Shift Blue ShiftA light source moving *away* from the listener (*v* is positive) would provide an *fL* that is less than *fS*. In the visible light spectrum http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/vislightspec.htm, this causes a shift toward the red end of the light spectrum, so it is called a *red shift*. When the light source is moving *toward* the listener (*v* is negative), then *fL* is greater than *fS*. In the visible light spectrum http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/vislightspec.htm, this causes a shift toward the high-frequency end of the light spectrum. For some reason, violet got the short end of the stick and such frequency shift is actually called a *blue shift*. Obviously, in the area of theelectromagnetic spectrum http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/electrspectrum.htm outside of the visible light spectrum, these shifts might not actually be toward red and blue. If you're in the infrared, for example, you're ironically shifting *away*from red when you experience a red shift. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, perhaps there is something going on that results in the lowering of the barrier. I have to ask where the additional energy comes from to satisfy the actual energy needed? If it is taken from other particles that might make sense, otherwise it sounds like a free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 2:20 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic clustering fits into the LENR+ process. see *www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt* ** ** *Cheers: Axil* ** On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier. The paper you reference in thiis post sites this as a cause of coulomb barrier lowering. Cheers: Axil http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI background in the vicinity of the experiment? Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine?
I think Papp knew that the charged particles generated from his devices were bad actors and needed to be contained as much as possible, thus his containment coil. I am of the opinion, that the only way to safetly confine this collapsed matter(gremlin) is some type of magnetic/inertial/gravitational confinement field once you have created the collapsed matter. After that you need to feed the suspended gremlin hydrogen to minimize harmful radiation and remove the heat and do not feed him too much too fast (although I think he is so hot that it would be hard to grow him in size very quickly) If I knew collapsed matter evaporated I would feel better. Results from Celani and that Papp video tend to make me believe it sticks around for awhile on its way ultimately to the center of the earth. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: You're right about the wire size calculations but during the test with Feynman, the Papp engine was not connected to a dyno. Wasn't it just free spinning? Somebody correct me. If it was just free spinning without a load, a single battery would have suffice for a long time. If you are talking about the dyno test with the affidavit from 2 men, I guess it all boils down the veracity of those two men. But the obvious question is, why don't we have a working Papp engine by now. If the patent is public domain, surely someone close to Papp would have realized the potential of this engine and recreated it. The Rohner boys would have been in such a position and yet, after 30 years, all they have are kits and demo poppers. Jojo - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine? From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com\ Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 4:46:13 PM While you're at it, calculate the diameter of the 3-wire extension cord needed to power it from the mains! 107 hp = 78.7 KW / 120 V = 655 Amps https://wiktel.com/standards/**ampacit.htmhttps://wiktel.com/standards/ampacit.htm Highest gauge listed = = 260A (in insulated 3-wire cable) http://www.powerstream.com/**Wire_Size.htmhttp://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm = Diameter 0.46 (1.6mm). Allowing for insulation, that makes a bundle of about 1 inch diameter. To carry 655 amps you need 2.5 of them -- round up to 3 So, Feynman would have needed to yank out 3 1-inch diameter extension cords.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
I agree. I also believe this army is wearing blue uniforms. These are all blue-shifted high energy particle/waves working together as a concentrated and cohesive force at the location of the battle (horizon). Nothing can stop them, neither matter or energy as they consume both. You might be able to contain this army in some type of magnetic field or inertial confinement, but they are elusive by nature. They magnify the Uncertainty Principle many times over. Best though to keep them isolated as best you can. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If you can think of the coulomb barrier as a soldier, a very good and strong one, this hero, can defeat any individual soldier of the opposing army. Even if the opposing army attacks our hero one fighter at a time the hero can resist the attack since the attack is uncoordinated. But when the opposing army gets its act together and acts a cohesive unit the hero is overcome by the combined and additive strength of the combined and coordinated action of the army. The bigger that the coordinated army is, the more soundly that the hero is defeated. Since electrons and protons are waves also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_interference Cheers:Axil On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Axil, perhaps there is something going on that results in the lowering of the barrier. I have to ask where the additional energy comes from to satisfy the actual energy needed? If it is taken from other particles that might make sense, otherwise it sounds like a free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 2:20 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic clustering fits into the LENR+ process. see *www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt* ** ** *Cheers: Axil* ** On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier. The paper you reference in thiis post sites this as a cause of coulomb barrier lowering. Cheers: Axil http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.comwrote: I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI background in the vicinity of the experiment? Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine?
Collapsed Matter. No fraud. No conspiracy theories. Call it Inverted Rydberg Matter, call them Super Atoms, they create blueshifted, high frequency radiation at their surface able to rip apart any matter in their vicinity. They all behave the same way. Papp knew the coil needed to stay energized to collect these charged particles else the machine may quickly self-destruct - that is the secret only he knew. They consume matter and energy and release energy. They can grow and shrink resulting in temporary inversions. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:59 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There are no good explanations for the Papp phenomenon. One isn't simply talking about the veracity of two men signing an affidavit but of world-class experts in high power machinery who actually fabricated the device attested by the two men. We can ignore, for the sake of argument, all of the midwestern investors who were from a long tradition of agrarian self-sufficiency which featured a great deal of on-the-spot fabrication of make-shift inventions to get the job done without the support of urban infrastructure. Let's just talk about these 5 people (excluding, of course, Papp himeself). One might be convinced that the Rohner brothers were in some kind of conspiracy to defraud with Rohner but one cannot be convinced that Rohner Machine Works was so inept as to mistake negative net work from one of their own machines for 100 horsepower. So let's run with the Rohner conspiracy theory: The two highest-likelihood conditional hypotheses involving the Joint Affidavit signed by George J. Nolan, PhD and Dennis Hodges are, again, ineptitude in mistaking net negative work for 100hp -- or collusion in the Rohner conspiracy. Do we have any reason to believe that either of Nolan or Hodges had any prior connection with Papp or the Rohners or that Nolan or Hodges had a background of suspected fraud? It seems ineptitude is more likely since neither Nolan nor Hodges could be considered in the same class as the Rohners when it comes to high power machinery. So let's run with that branch in the conditional hypotheses tree: The geographically remote Papp and the Rohners entered into a conspiracy to defraud the public and sought out, as dupes in their scheme, a PhD in chemistry and the owner of an independent diesel service, also geographically remote from Papp and the Rohners. Papp and the Rohners then presented their dupes with a form in which the dupes were to place numbers and signatures. Papp then managed to make it appear that 100hp came out of his fraudulent device for an hour to the satisfaction of the dupes, so that they would sign the affidavit. Papp took the secret to his grave and the Rohners continued in their efforts to defraud to the present day (we can, I suppose, explain the rancor between the brothers Rohner as a continuation of the fraud taking the form of two fraud artists competing for the same pool of marks). Does that about sum up the best alternative to For some mysterious reason no one has been able to get this thing to work for decades but its real. hypothesis? On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: You're right about the wire size calculations but during the test with Feynman, the Papp engine was not connected to a dyno. Wasn't it just free spinning? Somebody correct me. If it was just free spinning without a load, a single battery would have suffice for a long time. If you are talking about the dyno test with the affidavit from 2 men, I guess it all boils down the veracity of those two men. But the obvious question is, why don't we have a working Papp engine by now. If the patent is public domain, surely someone close to Papp would have realized the potential of this engine and recreated it. The Rohner boys would have been in such a position and yet, after 30 years, all they have are kits and demo poppers. Jojo - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:110 automobile batteries to power the Oklahoma Noble Gas Engine? From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com\ Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 4:46:13 PM While you're at it, calculate the diameter of the 3-wire extension cord needed to power it from the mains! 107 hp = 78.7 KW / 120 V = 655 Amps https://wiktel.com/standards/**ampacit.htmhttps://wiktel.com/standards/ampacit.htm Highest gauge listed = = 260A (in insulated 3-wire cable) http://www.powerstream.com/**Wire_Size.htmhttp://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm = Diameter 0.46 (1.6mm). Allowing for insulation, that makes a bundle of about 1 inch diameter. To carry 655 amps you need 2.5 of them -- round up to 3 So, Feynman would have needed to yank out 3 1-inch diameter extension cords.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
David, Yes, it is borrowing the energy from the red-shifted low energy radiation leaving the surface and focusing it with the blueshifted high energy radiation at the point of battle at the surface. Total energy stays the same, perfect conservation. Velocity of all particles stay the same, just cohesive shifts in frequency and lambda all maximizing energy at a point near the surface guided in by quantum gravity. No atom stands a chance. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Yeah, the group can defeat the guy soundly! I also believe that there is some form of coordinated effort that overcomes the coulomb barrier. I am merely searching for the lost energy that is required and attempting to see from where it originates. My suspicion is that the surrounding atoms become a bit cooler as the energy is borrowed from them. Once the fusion occurs, all of the borrowed energy would of course be paid back. The net effect is the same, but then there would be no free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 12:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper If you can think of the coulomb barrier as a soldier, a very good and strong one, this hero, can defeat any individual soldier of the opposing army. Even if the opposing army attacks our hero one fighter at a time the hero can resist the attack since the attack is uncoordinated. But when the opposing army gets its act together and acts a cohesive unit the hero is overcome by the combined and additive strength of the combined and coordinated action of the army. The bigger that the coordinated army is, the more soundly that the hero is defeated. Since electrons and protons are waves also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_interference Cheers:Axil On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Axil, perhaps there is something going on that results in the lowering of the barrier. I have to ask where the additional energy comes from to satisfy the actual energy needed? If it is taken from other particles that might make sense, otherwise it sounds like a free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 2:20 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic clustering fits into the LENR+ process. see *www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt* ** ** *Cheers: Axil* ** On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier. The paper you reference in thiis post sites this as a cause of coulomb barrier lowering. Cheers: Axil http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.comwrote: I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI background in the vicinity of the experiment? Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
Re: [Vo]:Stronghold argument and Feynman (was:Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion)
They were probably both guilty of ignorance of what the reaction actually was/is and its potential although Papp had an idea. Unfortunately more injury may result until the reaction(s) are nailed down. There is a reason Plasmerg/Rohners maintain Lexan bullet proof glass around their devices, they have no %^%! idea how to control it from self-destructing the devices. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Let's cut thru this cloud of confusion, shall we? In historical warfare, opposing armies would build Strongholds. A stronghold is a fortified position from which an army could launch offensive strikes or retreat to for defense. A typical example would be a walled city and/or a tower in such a wall. A typical charateristic of a Stronghold is that it takes considerably less resources and manpower to defend a stronghold than to overcome it. Such a stronghold is very hard to overcome. It would take considerable effort, energy and resources to overcome a well fortified stronghold. Any action of the opposing army for any other tactical goal becomes less important as long as the stronghold remains intact - in fact, they are irrelevant. Any tactical goal achieved by the opponent will quickly be overcomed by offensive actions launched from a stronghold. This operating base doctrine is still applicable today, of which our concept of a carrier battle group is based on. (Why do you think other countries like China are so concerned about our carriers?) Overcoming a stronghold requires an overwhelming majority of forces and resources. In fact, the outcome of the battle is always determined on whether such a stronghold holds or is overrun. In ancient times, the capital of the Assyrian Empire Nineveh was surrounded by an inner and outer wall over 60 feet high. The walls enclosed an area with enough planting land to sustain a population of over 600,000. Such a stronghold is very difficult to overcome as any tactical gains achieved by the enemy can quickly be recovered with offensive stikes launched from such a stronghold. In fact, it took the combined resources of 3 rival kingdoms (Babylonians, Medes and Scythians) to finally overcome Nineveh. With this background, I would like to introduce my way of thinking, to help me cut thru the cloud of wrong information, confusing statements, and incomplete facts, I always like to identify what I call Stronghold arguments that are very hard to demolish. Every argument point or logic by the opponent is less important and even irrelevant until he can satisfactorily address and overcome the Stronghold Argument. Let me illustrate a couple of actual examples of a Stronghold argument. 1. In the case of Darwinian Evolution, there are over a dozen Stronghold arguments. These include: Abiogenesis, Genetic Improbabality, Specified Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, Biological Chirality and others. Until such time as proponents of DE can address these concerns, any other argument they make is irrelevant. For example, proponents can introduce clever arguments like Punctuated Evolution, but until they can address how life arose out of non-life chemicals, all their Punctuated Evolution arguments are irrelevent. Now, I am only mentioning this to illustrate my point. I am not necessarily inclined to reopen the DE vs Intelligent Design argument. 2. With the Brither issue, the Stronghold argument is Why Obama still has a gag order in place for access to his vault Birth Certificate. College dropouts can argue with all their verbose eloquence that the BC presented was real, etc. etc., but until they can answer why Obama is still restricting access to this most basic of all documents, all their other arguments are irrelevant. 3. In the case of this Papp engine. The stronghold argument consists of asking why after 30 years, is there still no viable Papp engine we can buy. We can argue about whether confinement, gremlins, Rydberg matter or plasma is the source of the power, but until we can answer this simple question, all those arguments are irrelevant. 4. In the case of Rossi and his cats, I have not identified a stronghold argument, that is why I am still undecided. His lying and misbehaviour can be explained as part of his business strategy. 5. In the case of DGT, the stronghold argument may consist of recognizing why DGT has not released the data from half a dozen third party testers. This glaring and deliberate omission is a very strong argument for recognizing whether DGT has something or nothing. 6. In the case of whether Feynman or Papp was at fault for manslaugther, well, let's examine a few facts and I will present my stronghold argument. First, Papp sued Feynman. The University defended their star professor. A settlement was reached. The stronghold argument consists of recognizing that the University would not settle unless Feynman was guilty. A
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper
Well, now that I think about it, I am not really sure they need to borrow any energy, the Blue-shifting of the incoming particle waves diverging upon the same point in space might be enough to do it by themselves. Need to break out the calculator. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:50 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: David, Yes, it is borrowing the energy from the red-shifted low energy radiation leaving the surface and focusing it with the blueshifted high energy radiation at the point of battle at the surface. Total energy stays the same, perfect conservation. Velocity of all particles stay the same, just cohesive shifts in frequency and lambda all maximizing energy at a point near the surface guided in by quantum gravity. No atom stands a chance. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Yeah, the group can defeat the guy soundly! I also believe that there is some form of coordinated effort that overcomes the coulomb barrier. I am merely searching for the lost energy that is required and attempting to see from where it originates. My suspicion is that the surrounding atoms become a bit cooler as the energy is borrowed from them. Once the fusion occurs, all of the borrowed energy would of course be paid back. The net effect is the same, but then there would be no free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 12:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper If you can think of the coulomb barrier as a soldier, a very good and strong one, this hero, can defeat any individual soldier of the opposing army. Even if the opposing army attacks our hero one fighter at a time the hero can resist the attack since the attack is uncoordinated. But when the opposing army gets its act together and acts a cohesive unit the hero is overcome by the combined and additive strength of the combined and coordinated action of the army. The bigger that the coordinated army is, the more soundly that the hero is defeated. Since electrons and protons are waves also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_interference Cheers:Axil On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Axil, perhaps there is something going on that results in the lowering of the barrier. I have to ask where the additional energy comes from to satisfy the actual energy needed? If it is taken from other particles that might make sense, otherwise it sounds like a free lunch. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 2:20 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device -- Third paper The super-atom produced as a large collection of coherent and entangled particles can completely lowers the Coulomb barrier. This is how atomic clustering fits into the LENR+ process. see *www.iscmns.org/work10/VysotskiiVapplicatio.ppt* ** ** *Cheers: Axil* ** On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: According to this paper, clusters of atoms drop the coulomb barrier. The paper you reference in thiis post sites this as a cause of coulomb barrier lowering. Cheers: Axil http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Features-and-Giant-Acceleration.pdf On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.comwrote: I read it too. The work has also been published in an influential peer-reviewed journal, JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics), a leading Russian journal also published in English: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rup025083t105q83/ It is hard to know what to make of this. It says the Coulomb barrier drops away to low levels under conditions we can in principle control. If true, that would be ... big. Wouldn't it be amusing if the uncontrolled variable that accounts for variation of results over the last 23 years turned out to be the RFI background in the vicinity of the experiment? Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:08:15 PM Subject: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device If you open this link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers stuck together end to end. The third paper is worth reading ... Harmonic oscillator explains the peaks in Hagelstein/Letts/Craven laser beat frequencies. Ni+p = Cu+v reaction rate goes from 10^-1000 to 10^-4 Says it explains Rossi-Focardi ... except that they don't use a RF stimulator (any more?)
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
You are describing a horny gremlin... On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: ** Gang, There has been a lot of discussion about various LENR results lately. In these discussions, I think a consensus is building up that the key to successful LENR is topology. There has been flurry of discussions about ICCF papers that we keep on forgetting that ICCF results like Celani's are the old ways. Even if Celani perfects his technology, it would still be a far cry from beng commercializable. I say we take it a notch further. I say we moved from LENR (FP, Celani) to LENR+ (Rossi) to LENR2 (Carbon nanostructures). I say we move from Pd and Nickel lattice to a topology that can be easily engineered and created. With new capability to engineer a specific topology, we can create topologies of various sizes and experiment on them. I am talking about carbon nanotubes to be exact. Oxidized Carbon nanotubes (Carbon Nanohorns) to be specific. Let me elaborate. Recent studies indicate that vertically aligned CNTs can be created in a straightforward and repeatable process. The diameters of these CNTs can be adjusted by adjusting catalyst deposition rates (Hence particle size), catalyst kind and many other experimental conditions. SWNTs from 0.4 nm up to 100 nm MWNTs can be easily synthesized on various substrates like Nickel, steel and stainless steel. CNT heights up to 7 mm has been achieved. (That's right, 7 millimeters, not micrometers) The tops of such CNT forest can then be chopped off by high temperature oxidation in air or some mild acid. With that, we are left with a mat of CNTs with open tops of various sizes. These open Carbon nanohorns would have a variety of void sizes ranging from 0.4 nm to maybe 50 nm. With a plurarity of void sizes, one void ought to be the perfect size for LENR Such mats are ideal topologies to hunt for the size of the ideal NAE structure. We then pump an electrostatic field on the tips of these CNTs to allow for charge accumulation and field emission on the tips. The huge Charge accumulation would provide an environment where the Coulomb Barrier is screened. Any H+ ion who happens to drift by this huge charge environment would be greatly at risk of being fused with a similarly screened ion. The open voids of the Carbon nanohorns would further enhance such effects. This is of course the envronment we are aiming for based on our current understanding of how LENR proceeds. When we achieve LENR/Cold fusion on such a void, it would then be a matter of narrowing the search for the best void size to improve efficiency and output. And Carbon Nanohorns enable us to do this with known and repeatable processess to engineer these voids of specific sizes. Carbon nanohorns give us this unprecedented capability that metal lattice can not afford. Metal lattice cracks and voids can not be easily engineered and are quite susceptible to metal diffusion, metal migration, sintering and melting. This complicates the search. Carbon nanohorn voids are chemically and thermally stable lending itself to more repeatable experiments. And the nice thing about this, is that all the parameters are adjustable - such as void size, CNT height, electrostatic field strength, ion concentration via pressure adjustments, temps etc. Such environments affords us a good platform to hunt for the right voids. Axil contends that Ed Storms introduced this idea of topology as key, but I say, he also recognized the huge potential of Carbon Nanotubes as possible NAEs. I say we move past LENR and even LENR+ and concentrate on hunting for the right topology using Carbon Nanohorn mats. Jojo PS. In the spirit of scientific openness that gave us gremlins and Chameleons, I dub this new idea of mine as the Horny Theory of LENR
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
I realize Axil has been harping on Rydberg matter for months. Inverted Rydberg matter sounds even more interesting to me. Miley states that once the D(-1) inverted state is created in voids it may reside permanently. I also wonder what happens if it resides in a void and that void closes/compresses on it when heated and with electrical stimulation creating further collapse. I wonder at what point its ultrahigh density is able to blueshift particle waves around it such that the extremely high local energies along with its gravitational pull are able to strip atoms apart that are nearby. At this point it might also take on all of the quantum mechanical properties I have been discussing. Also, if this inverted matter hangs around in nature and is reactive it cannot be very good for biological organisms. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/MileyClusterRydbLPBsing.pdf Rydberg Matter is a long-lived form of matter, and the lowest possible excitation level D(1) or H(1) exists more or less permanently in the experiments (Badiei et al 2009). The clusters are not formed transiently. There is no indication that the phase D(-1) is not formed almost permanently. In the experiments both forms D(1) and D(-1) were observed simultaneously. The experiments indicate that the material changes rapidly with almost no energy difference states D(1) and D(-1). On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: You are describing a horny gremlin... On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: ** Gang, There has been a lot of discussion about various LENR results lately. In these discussions, I think a consensus is building up that the key to successful LENR is topology. There has been flurry of discussions about ICCF papers that we keep on forgetting that ICCF results like Celani's are the old ways. Even if Celani perfects his technology, it would still be a far cry from beng commercializable. I say we take it a notch further. I say we moved from LENR (FP, Celani) to LENR+ (Rossi) to LENR2 (Carbon nanostructures). I say we move from Pd and Nickel lattice to a topology that can be easily engineered and created. With new capability to engineer a specific topology, we can create topologies of various sizes and experiment on them. I am talking about carbon nanotubes to be exact. Oxidized Carbon nanotubes (Carbon Nanohorns) to be specific. Let me elaborate. Recent studies indicate that vertically aligned CNTs can be created in a straightforward and repeatable process. The diameters of these CNTs can be adjusted by adjusting catalyst deposition rates (Hence particle size), catalyst kind and many other experimental conditions. SWNTs from 0.4 nm up to 100 nm MWNTs can be easily synthesized on various substrates like Nickel, steel and stainless steel. CNT heights up to 7 mm has been achieved. (That's right, 7 millimeters, not micrometers) The tops of such CNT forest can then be chopped off by high temperature oxidation in air or some mild acid. With that, we are left with a mat of CNTs with open tops of various sizes. These open Carbon nanohorns would have a variety of void sizes ranging from 0.4 nm to maybe 50 nm. With a plurarity of void sizes, one void ought to be the perfect size for LENR Such mats are ideal topologies to hunt for the size of the ideal NAE structure. We then pump an electrostatic field on the tips of these CNTs to allow for charge accumulation and field emission on the tips. The huge Charge accumulation would provide an environment where the Coulomb Barrier is screened. Any H+ ion who happens to drift by this huge charge environment would be greatly at risk of being fused with a similarly screened ion. The open voids of the Carbon nanohorns would further enhance such effects. This is of course the envronment we are aiming for based on our current understanding of how LENR proceeds. When we achieve LENR/Cold fusion on such a void, it would then be a matter of narrowing the search for the best void size to improve efficiency and output. And Carbon Nanohorns enable us to do this with known and repeatable processess to engineer these voids of specific sizes. Carbon nanohorns give us this unprecedented capability that metal lattice can not afford. Metal lattice cracks and voids can not be easily engineered and are quite susceptible to metal diffusion, metal migration, sintering and melting. This complicates the search. Carbon nanohorn voids are chemically and thermally stable lending itself to more repeatable experiments. And the nice thing about this, is that all the parameters are adjustable - such as void size, CNT height, electrostatic field strength, ion concentration via pressure adjustments, temps etc. Such environments affords us a good platform to hunt for the right voids. Axil contends that Ed Storms introduced this idea of topology as key, but I say, he also recognized the huge
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
I agree with most of that although i expect carbon nanotubes to remain
rigid while heated. I think having a metallic lattice crack/void
completely filled inverted irydberg matter and then having that voild
collapse arond it when it thermally expands due to heating and electrical
stimulation is what triggers/ignites the magic.
On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
**
Let me ellucidate another reason why I believe in Carbon Nanohorns is the
right NAE.
Understand that a Carbon Nanohorn is essentially a long long pipe with an
open end on one end. H2 in molecular form can diffuse into the carbon
nanohorn or pass thru from the open end and accumulate inside the pipe.
This is a known phenomena as CNTs have been investigated as possible
hydrogen storage media for fuel cells and hydrogen cars.
Now, imagine a long pipe and you pass a high voltage spark along this
pipe. What would happen is you would ionize the H2 molecules inside this
pipe by virtue of the high temps. Then you would have an environment with
huge electrostatic potential and charge accumulation. An environment where
the coulomb barrier is screened. So what will the H+ ions do? Invariably,
they now have a strong tendency to fuse into He instead of chemically
reacting back to H2. When H2 becomes H+, the H+ ions are especially
confined inside the nanohorn due positive charge repulsion from the carbon
atoms making up the Carbon nanohorn walls. Once H2 ionizes, it is
essentially trapped inside the nanohorn wall cage. This, together with
compression due to pressure, charge repulsion towards the center of the
nanohorn, coulomb barrier screening due to charge accumulation and thermal
collisions should increase H+ chances of fusing.
This is the environment I am endeavoring to achieve and I believe it has
great potential.
Jojo
- Original Message -
*From:* Jojo Jaro javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'jth...@hotmail.com');
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:14 PM
*Subject:* [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Gang, There has been a lot of discussion about various LENR results
lately. In these discussions, I think a consensus is building up that the
key to successful LENR is topology.
There has been flurry of discussions about ICCF papers that we keep on
forgetting that ICCF results like Celani's are the old ways. Even if
Celani perfects his technology, it would still be a far cry from beng
commercializable.
I say we take it a notch further. I say we moved from LENR (FP, Celani)
to LENR+ (Rossi) to LENR2 (Carbon nanostructures). I say we move from Pd
and Nickel lattice to a topology that can be easily engineered and
created. With new capability to engineer a specific topology, we can
create topologies of various sizes and experiment on them.
I am talking about carbon nanotubes to be exact. Oxidized Carbon
nanotubes (Carbon Nanohorns) to be specific.
Let me elaborate.
Recent studies indicate that vertically aligned CNTs can be created in a
straightforward and repeatable process. The diameters of these CNTs can be
adjusted by adjusting catalyst deposition rates (Hence particle size),
catalyst kind and many other experimental conditions. SWNTs from 0.4 nm up
to 100 nm MWNTs can be easily synthesized on various substrates like
Nickel, steel and stainless steel. CNT heights up to 7 mm has been
achieved. (That's right, 7 millimeters, not micrometers) The tops of such
CNT forest can then be chopped off by high temperature oxidation in air
or some mild acid. With that, we are left with a mat of CNTs with open
tops of various sizes. These open Carbon nanohorns would have a variety of
void sizes ranging from 0.4 nm to maybe 50 nm. With a plurarity of void
sizes, one void ought to be the perfect size for LENR Such mats are ideal
topologies to hunt for the size of the ideal NAE structure.
We then pump an electrostatic field on the tips of these CNTs to allow
for charge accumulation and field emission on the tips. The huge Charge
accumulation would provide an environment where the Coulomb Barrier is
screened. Any H+ ion who happens to drift by this huge charge environment
would be greatly at risk of being fused with a similarly screened ion. The
open voids of the Carbon nanohorns would further enhance such effects.
This is of course the envronment we are aiming for based on our current
understanding of how LENR proceeds.
When we achieve LENR/Cold fusion on such a void, it would then be a matter
of narrowing the search for the best void size to improve efficiency and
output. And Carbon Nanohorns enable us to do this with known and
repeatable processess to engineer these voids of specific sizes. Carbon
nanohorns give us this unprecedented capability that metal lattice can not
afford. Metal lattice cracks and voids can not be easily engineered and
are
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
If that Hydrogen exists in the voids as Inverted Rydberg Matter I am not so sure... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** I believe you are incorrect with this hypothesis. The walls of a metal crack or void are not solid. They are porous such that a hydrogen ion can easily slip pass and diffuse in between the inter-atomic gaps. I don't believe a collapse of the void will compress the H+ ions in it enough for it to fuse. I believe this hypothesis of yours is similar in concept to cavitation collapse fusion. Which I believe is generally considered Hot fusion. What you need is an environment that screens the coulomb barrier repulsion to allow these ions a chance to fuse. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:49 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King I agree with most of that although i expect carbon nanotubes to remain rigid while heated. I think having a metallic lattice crack/void completely filled inverted irydberg matter and then having that voild collapse arond it when it thermally expands due to heating and electrical stimulation is what triggers/ignites the magic. On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: ** Let me ellucidate another reason why I believe in Carbon Nanohorns is the right NAE. Understand that a Carbon Nanohorn is essentially a long long pipe with an open end on one end. H2 in molecular form can diffuse into the carbon nanohorn or pass thru from the open end and accumulate inside the pipe. This is a known phenomena as CNTs have been investigated as possible hydrogen storage media for fuel cells and hydrogen cars. Now, imagine a long pipe and you pass a high voltage spark along this pipe. What would happen is you would ionize the H2 molecules inside this pipe by virtue of the high temps. Then you would have an environment with huge electrostatic potential and charge accumulation. An environment where the coulomb barrier is screened. So what will the H+ ions do? Invariably, they now have a strong tendency to fuse into He instead of chemically reacting back to H2. When H2 becomes H+, the H+ ions are especially confined inside the nanohorn due positive charge repulsion from the carbon atoms making up the Carbon nanohorn walls. Once H2 ionizes, it is essentially trapped inside the nanohorn wall cage. This, together with compression due to pressure, charge repulsion towards the center of the nanohorn, coulomb barrier screening due to charge accumulation and thermal collisions should increase H+ chances of fusing. This is the environment I am endeavoring to achieve and I believe it has great potential. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Jojo Jaro *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:14 PM *Subject:* [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King Gang, There has been a lot of discussion about various LENR results lately. In these discussions, I think a consensus is building up that the key to successful LENR is topology. There has been flurry of discussions about ICCF papers that we keep on forgetting that ICCF results like Celani's are the old ways. Even if Celani perfects his technology, it would still be a far cry from beng commercializable. I say we take it a notch further. I say we moved from LENR (FP, Celani) to LENR+ (Rossi) to LENR2 (Carbon nanostructures). I say we move from Pd and Nickel lattice to a topology that can be easily engineered and created. With new capability to engineer a specific topology, we can create topologies of various sizes and experiment on them. I am talking about carbon nanotubes to be exact. Oxidized Carbon nanotubes (Carbon Nanohorns) to be specific. Let me elaborate. Recent studies indicate that vertically aligned CNTs can be created in a straightforward and repeatable process. The diameters of these CNTs can be adjusted by adjusting catalyst deposition rates (Hence particle size), catalyst kind and many other experimental conditions. SWNTs from 0.4 nm up to 100 nm MWNTs can be easily synthesized on various substrates like Nickel, steel and stainless steel. CNT heights up to 7 mm has been achieved. (That's right, 7 millimeters, not micrometers) The tops of such CNT forest can then be chopped off by high temperature oxidation in air or some mild acid. With that, we are left with a mat of CNTs with open tops of various sizes. These open Carbon nanohorns would have a variety of void sizes ranging from 0.4 nm to maybe 50 nm. With a plurarity of void sizes, one void ought to be the perfect size for LENR Such mats are ideal topologies to hunt for the size of the ideal NAE structure. We then pump an electrostatic field on the tips of these CNTs to allow for charge accumulation and field emission on the tips. The huge
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
As I mentioned before, quantum gravity pull has a few advantages: 1) It acts as a guiding beacon for incoming particle waves, aligning them on the way in. 2) If you consider the particles as waves the incoming blueshift gives you high power right where you need it at the point of collapse. 3) Conversely, any radiation leaving is redshifted leaving only low power radiation to the outside observers, you and I. On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 04:55 PM 8/20/2012, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:27:41 -0400 (EDT): Hi, That would be consistent with my suggestion below. I have always wondered exactly what happens to matter that is heading directly toward the singularity. Doesn't time for the matter slow down due to the intense gravity to such a degree that it appears to stop in mid path at the horizon from our observation perspective? Well, I suppose it's too much to expect for the average Vortician to understand relativity. Time does not slow down in any inertial reference frame. Like ours. If matter is attracted by gravity, it accelerates according to the gravitational field. It will not appear to stop as it approaches any point. However, its velocity is limited by the speed of light. As I understand this, it will be sweallowed by the black hole. It will not stop at the event horizon. Its momentum will become part of the momentum of the black hole. (Momentum is conserved, and so is energy.) Time dilation means something else. If the matter falling in is radioactive, for example, with a certain half-life, as the matter is gravitationally accelerated, the decay rate, to us, would appear to slow down. As the matter approaches the speed of light, the decays we could see would slow toward a rate of zero. I don't want to make up more than that at the moment. Putting together the relativistic effects of gravity with those purely resulting from relative velocity hurts my head. (Time dilation is actually easy to understand, if one accepts that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant in all frames of reference, no matter what their relative velocity. It falls out easily from that.)
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
facts that support this bright idea? It is possible that I am not well informed, in this case I apologize for my ignorance. Peter On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:45 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You are describing a horny gremlin... On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: Gang, There has been a lot of discussion about various LENR results lately. In these discussions, I think a consensus is building up that the key to successful LENR is topology. There has been flurry of discussions about ICCF papers that we keep on forgetting that ICCF results like Celani's are the old ways. Even if Celani perfects his technology, it would still be a far cry from beng commercializable. I say we take it a notch further. I say we moved from LENR (FP, Celani) to LENR+ (Rossi) to LENR2 (Carbon nanostructures). I say we move from Pd and Nickel lattice to a topology that can be easily engineered and created. With new capability to engineer a specific topology, we can create topologies of various sizes and experiment on them. I am talking about carbon nanotubes to be exact. Oxidized Carbon nanotubes (Carbon Nanohorns) to be specific. Let me elaborate. Recent studies indicate that vertically aligned CNTs can be created in a straightforward and repeatable process. The diameters of these CNTs can be adjusted by adjusting catalyst deposition rates (Hence particle size), catalyst kind and many other experimental conditions. SWNTs from 0.4 nm up to 100 nm MWNTs can be easily synthesized on various substrates like Nickel, steel and stainless steel. CNT heights up to 7 mm has been achieved. (That's right, 7 millimeters, not micrometers) The tops of such CNT forest can then be chopped off by high temperature oxidation in air or some mild acid. With that, we are left with a mat of CNTs with open tops of various sizes. These open Carbon nanohorns would have a variety of void sizes ranging from 0.4 nm to maybe 50 nm. With a plurarity of void sizes, one void ought to be the perfect size for LENR Such mats are ideal topologies to hunt for the size of the ideal NAE structure. We then pump an electrostatic field on the tips of these CNTs to allow for charge accumulation and field emission on the tips. The huge Charge accumulation would provide an environment where the Coulomb Barrier is screened. Any H+ ion who happens to drift by this huge charge environment would be greatly at risk of being fused with a similarly screened ion. The open voids of the Carbon nanohorns would further enhance such effects.This is of course the envronment we are aiming for based on our current understanding of how LENR proceeds. When we achieve LENR/Cold fusion on such a void, it would then be a matter of narrowing the search for the best void size to improve efficiency and output. And Carbon Nanohorns enable us to do this with known and repeatable processess to engineer these voids of specific sizes. Carbon nanohorns give us this unprecedented capability that metal lattice can not afford. Metal lattice cracks and voids can not be easily engineered and are quite susceptible to metal diffusion, metal migration, sintering and melting. This complicates the search. Carbon nanohorn voids are chemically and thermally stable lending itself to more repeatable experiments. And the nice thing about this, is that all the parameters are adjustable - such as void size, CNT height, electrostatic field strength, ion concentration via pressure adjustments, temps etc. Such environments affords us a good platform to hunt for the right voids. Axil contends that Ed Storms introduced this idea of topology as key, but I say, he also recognized the huge potential of Carbon Nanotubes as possible NAEs. I say we move past LENR and even LENR+ and concentrate on hunting for the right topology using Carbon Nanohorn mats. Jojo PS. In the spirit of scientific openness that gave us gremlins and Chameleons, I dub this new idea of mine as the Horny Theory of LENR -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
Abd, The micro black hole would begin life without momentum, so it would not immediately zip off through the earth. A 22 microgram black hole would not consume the earth, read up, lots of recent studies. A micro black hole with the mass of a mountain only exerts one gram of force on its surroundings. It would be acted on by gravity just like any other 22 microgram particle, such as a grain of sand. Over time I could see these destroying most pieces of equipment they are created in. Yes, I could see the charge changing as it consumes different particles and at times they might even act stable. A micro black hole will behave just as any other particle with mass, angular momentum and charge and at times the charge can be neutral. High Power at the surface will help it break up other particles - collective energy. All of the LHC Cern studies I referenced predicted a micro black hole would either 1)evaporate down to stable remanants or 2) evaporate completely almost instantly. I realize you have been too busy profusely chatting AbdOgabble to read any of them... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 12:14 PM 8/21/2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: As I mentioned before, quantum gravity pull has a few advantages: 1) It acts as a guiding beacon for incoming particle waves, aligning them on the way in. 2) If you consider the particles as waves the incoming blueshift gives you high power right where you need it at the point of collapse. 3) Conversely, any radiation leaving is redshifted leaving only low power radiation to the outside observers, you and I. That's a convenient set of assumptions. What high power is needed? Consider this: if a particle is in a region where the gravity of a black hole attracts it, so too would be attracted all other particles in the same region; as well, the black hole will be attracted to them. That is, it's unlikely that inbound accelerated particles will be impacting anything. Outbound particles (generated by what?) would be redshifted, but that is, from any position, a fixed shift. That is, from any position there is an escape velocity. If the outbound particle has less than the escape velocity, it will be slowed and then reversed. If it has exactly the escape velocity, it will indeed escape, but in the process will be slowed to a very low level. However, there is no limit to the level of energy of outbound particles, it depends on how close they are to the black hole at generation. Their velocity will be reduced by the escape velocity at that specific point. If the points of generation of high-energy radiation are *extremely close* to the black hole, then the radiation would not escape at all. However, all the products of the reaction, and anything else in that region, would be sucked in by gravity (or the hole will travel to suck them in). Mostly, though, the hole will be affected by the earth's gravity. It will fall through the material -- through any material. It cannot be contained by materials. If it has a charge, it may be contained by electrostatic fields, that's about it. What do you need high power for? At the point of collapse, matter simply falls (gravity) into the hole, it disappears. Not really, the hole's mass and charge and energy and momentum increase as needed for conservation laws. But it all gets placed at the singularity. That's how I'd expect a black hole to behave. Gravity would pull it out of the matrix, quickly, unless it was very small and the electrostatic forces were greater. Suppose it starts as with the conversion of a proton at a cubic lattice position, into the hole. Assuming no other charge, the black hole would prefer to remain at the same site, that's what electrostatic forces will do. It will behave like a proton. The charge will repel other protons But the thing might eat an electron. Charge neutral now. A proton could come along and be eaten. Positive charge. Same sequence. Rapidly the mass would grow, until gravitational forces pull the gremlin out of position and it falls through the lattice, eating whatever it encounters, and then through the lab table, the floor of the lab, and the earth. It could get quite massive and not leave visible holes. However ... if it keeps growing, there goes the planet. It was a nice idea, eh? Planet, life, you know. All that. What has not been done here is to look at details such as lifetime, minimum mass, etc. If a very small black hole forms, how long does it live? Does it live long enough to capture particles? It's been pointed out that this theory attempts to explain cold fusion by introducing another unknown phenomenon. It might be simpler to just say that cold fusion is caused by gremlins. Any kind of gremlin, except that they are very small, or operate in a parallel dimension, and they can do anything they choose to do, they are very smart, have what we think of here
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
That was just an example of a perfect sphere. A crack or cylinder that winds it way would of course be smaller diameter. It was just a first pass and did not rely on any other effects that might reduce the volume requirements. For example if quantum gravitation effects are higher than predicted, it may take much less volume/mass for collapse. I would consider that sphere radius a maximum. On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Hmmm, you're saying that the right void radius dimension is 37.35221 micrometers? At first glance, that seems too large to me. I think a better way would be to imagine a cylinder (a nanohorn) and calculate the charge repulsion exerted on an H+ ion inside that cylinder such that if it is the right radius, the charge repulsion from the nanohorn walls would confine the H+ ions into a cluster in the middle or even in a line along the axis of the nanohorn. This would involve calculating the kinetic movement of the H+ ion, it's mutual repulsion against each other and the charge repulsion from the nanohorn walls, based on sp2 bonded structure of the carbon nanohorn. We know that the interlayer distance of a MWNT is around 0.3 nm. This is the distance that a layer would repel another layer. So I suspect that this may be close to the ideal void radius with the conditions I've outlined in my previous post. I would do the calculation myself but alas, having not taken a class under Feynman, I don't know how to do this. I hope those experts who are lucky enough to have taken a class under Feynman would know how to do this. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:29 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King Just as a first pass I calculated a minimum crack/void volume if you were filling the crack/void with inverted Rydberg Matter and then collapsing it to a micro black hole... If anybody is strange and wants to kill time like me you can check my calcs... Inverted Rydberg Matter Density 1.00E+29 ions/cm3 Hydrogen Ion Weight 1.01E-27 kg Hydrogen Ion Weight 1.01E-24 g Planck Mass(Minimum Mass Required) 2.20E-02 g Number of hydrogen Ions 2.18E+22 ions Void/Crack Volume 2.18E-07 cm3 Void radius (spherical) 0.003735221 cm Planck Length 1.62E-35 m Planck Length 1.6162E-33 cm Schwarzschild radius=Planck Radius 3.26E-29 cm The trick is getting it to collapse upon itself. What you have going for you: Quantum Gravity, Hoop Effect, Charge across void. Thermal compression of lattice as it is heating. On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:45 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Jojo, This may be a good area to do further carbon-LENR experimentation. You can find some experimental data, albeit not exactly what you propose, by doing a web search on LENR carbon. Also, don't forget that some carbon nanostructures are excellent ballistic- and/or super-conductors - even at high temperatures. It would be interesting to know how high voltage gradients can develop at the tip of a carbon nano-filament. -- Lou Pagnucco Jojo Jaro wrote: Peter, No experimental facts yet. I am working from a theoritical top-down approach. However, I believe it shouldn't take long to get some kind of proof of concept, which I should be able to do when I am able to get back to the States. A go or no go decision can easily be reached, IMO. Expected amount of investment in actual reactors is less than $100. CVD equipment about $4000. SEM and TEM around $10,000 - $20,000. All in all, a very modest investment considering the potential benefits to humankind. My posts and my belief in Carbon Nanohorns structures is due to recognizing the prevalent shortcomings in our current experimental approach. This is due to limitations of our chosen platform. Let me elaborate: First, we need to recognize that Topology is Key. In essense, hunting for the right LENR process is essentially a hunt for the right topology. There are many problems with our current approach with metal lattice. Second, Reproducibility is very low in our experiments. I believe this is inherently due to the shortcomings of the metal lattice we are working with. As mentioned, metal lattice have a tendency to mutate due to metal migration, diffusion, sintering and melting. Hence, they are essentially one shot structures. A single fusion event essentially destroys your NAE. With a destroyed NAE, we can not examine what is the exact size and structure of that NAE that was successful. With Carbon Nanohorns on the other hand, a fusion event simply burns the top off the CNT, making it shorter but still has the right topological size and structure to host a subsequent fusion reaction, which it surely will, since it is the right size and structure. With lengths in the 7 mm range
Re: [Vo]:Not simply a surface effect
I am sure some of you are already aware of this Dissimilar metals and alloys have different electrode potentialshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrode_potential and when two or more come into contact in an electrolyte a galvanic couple is set up, one metal acting as anode and the other as cathode On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jones Beene wrote: For to record ... and to correct potential disinformation. Excess heat as seen recently in Celani/Technova etc. is NOT simply a surface morphology effect, according to Ahern's EPRI report. Rather, excess heat depends on both nano-geometry and the proper alloy being found together in the same powder. Unfortunately, EPRI have not yet published this report, but the experiments showed clearly that identical nano-geometry, in a variety of metal powders, have massively different thermal effects, dependent on the alloy. The original Copper-Nickel alloy which inspired Celani to do this recent work came from Ahern, and showed the excellent predicted results, much better than palladium, which corroborated the Romanowski paper. That paper was based on simulation, not experiment; and Ahern's work offered the first important corroboration. He chose the alloy (which was supplied by Ames Labs) specifically from the Romanowski data (details of which Celani curiously misquoted in his paper). BTW - with titanium-nickel alloys (both metals implicated in prior LENR experiments) - there was NO excess heat, despite having good nano-features. That pretty much tells you that it is completely incorrect to label this as a surface morphology effect only. Pure nano-nickel is poor, pure nano-palladium is poor but an alloy of 90% Pd and 10% Ni is excellent (though not as good as the Cu-Ni alloys). The differences are not small. For excess heating, according to Ahern - you must have the 2-12 nm surface features and you must ALSO have the proper spillover alloy, which Romanowski essentially nailed. Hopefully EPRI will publish the study soon. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
a few atoms missing here and there. Now think what that will do over time to any piece of equipment or biological process which relies on any degree of certainty and repeatability to function. As opposed to assuming fraud with all of these companies I would like to believe they are all having one hell of a time controlling the reaction and maintaining equipment once it gets started. Collapsed matter might very well evaporate instantly releasing a burst of energy or collapse instantly in a burst of energy down to a stable stated known as a WIMP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particles From what I read, inverted Rydberg matter is a good indication of how reactive ultra high density or collapsed matter can be based upon Miley's studies. Even if it does not collapse down to the point of a micro black hole absorbing light, it will still trigger chaos in its surroundings and may hang around for a long time. On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 02:05 PM 8/21/2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: Abd, The micro black hole would begin life without momentum, so it would not immediately zip off through the earth. I didn't say it would. Not immediately. If it's born very small, it will, every time it eats a proton, accumulate a positive charge, and every time it eats an electron a negative charge. Initially, charge attraction/repulsion effects would dominate. A 22 microgram black hole would not consume the earth, read up, lots of recent studies. Nah, too much work. A micro black hole with the mass of a mountain only exerts one gram of force on its surroundings. Ahem. A micro black hole would exert that force at what distance? Inverse square law, last I looked. The earth would not go to the mountain, so the mountain would go to the earth, which would exert a force equal to the weight of the mountain on that black hole. It would fall, with the accleration of gravity. Nothing could stop it. Period. It would be acted on by gravity just like any other 22 microgram particle, such as a grain of sand. Over time I could see these destroying most pieces of equipment they are created in. Indeed. This back to the 22 microgram BH. A grain of sand will fall. The only way to stop it would be to charge it and repel that charge. Absent significant charge repulsion, this thing would likewise fall through whatever, leaving a tiny hole. Very tiny. I don't know the size of such a black hole, but the thing would pass through matter sort of like a neutron, if it is neutral. Unlike a neutron, it would not bounce off of stuff. More likely, it would have a small charge imbalance, so it would behave a bit like charged particle radiation, I'd expect. It would disrupt. However, because of its mass, it wouldn't be much diverted by atomic repulsion, the force is too small. It would just go straight, eating whatever it encounters, but, as long as it is very small, the hole* would be small. A few atoms missing here and there, not many. But this process would continue as it fell through the earth. This neglects evaporation of the hole, and I'm not seeing any analysis of that. The problem is gravitational attraction of the hole by the earth. Once that force becomes significant, the hole will travel toward the center of the earth. Yes, I could see the charge changing as it consumes different particles and at times they might even act stable. A micro black hole will behave just as any other particle with mass, angular momentum and charge and at times the charge can be neutral. High Power at the surface will help it break up other particles - collective energy. All of the LHC Cern studies I referenced predicted a micro black hole would either 1)evaporate down to stable remanants or 2) evaporate completely almost instantly. I realize you have been too busy profusely chatting AbdOgabble to read any of them... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto: a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 12:14 PM 8/21/2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: As I mentioned before, quantum gravity pull has a few advantages: 1) It acts as a guiding beacon for incoming particle waves, aligning them on the way in. 2) If you consider the particles as waves the incoming blueshift gives you high power right where you need it at the point of collapse. 3) Conversely, any radiation leaving is redshifted leaving only low power radiation to the outside observers, you and I. That's a convenient set of assumptions. What high power is needed? Consider this: if a particle is in a region where the gravity of a black hole attracts it, so too would be attracted all other particles in the same region; as well, the black hole will be attracted to them. That is, it's unlikely that inbound accelerated particles will be impacting anything. Outbound particles (generated by what?) would be redshifted, but that is, from
Re: [Vo]:Dark Matter around the Sun
Now, read the Encyclopedia Brittanica and report back to me...We will reserve your temporary allotment of unused bandwidth while you are occupied and the mail servers cool down. Hey i just found out they have an online version! On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 04:51 PM 8/21/2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: http://www.science20.com/**news_articles/lots_dark_** matter_near_sun_says_computer_**model-92910http://www.science20.com/news_articles/lots_dark_matter_near_sun_says_computer_model-92910 http://www.**science20.com/news_articles/**lots_dark_matter_near_sun_** says_computer_model-92910http://www.science20.com/news_articles/lots_dark_matter_near_sun_says_computer_model-92910 Waiting for Abd to confirm what this is or isn't... Okay, I looked. I confirm that this is an article on Science 2.0, containing speculative interpretation of a computer model. The model was based on study of the motion of thousands of (stated in one paragraph) or more than 400 (stated in another) orange K dwarf stars in the vicinity of the Sun. From this, it appears to me that they inferred the total mass in the vicinity of the sun. The article is incoherent, parts seem unintelligible or self-contradictory. It's hard to find good help. Dark matter is a name for stuff we don't know about. The reearchers are reportedly saying that they are 99% confident that there is dark matter near the sun, but then the text manages to confuse this totally. Then the article explains that one of the coauthors of the study said, If dark matter is a fundamental particle, billions of these particles will have passed through your body by the time your finish reading this article. What if I'm a speed reader? What if I'm not reading the article? What if I'm so offended by your finish reading that I never finish, I pass away in a fit of grammar frenzy? Ah, what if dark matter is really tiny so that there are trillions and trillions of them. However, quoting the same source, we are told: Knowing the local properties of dark matter is the key to revealing just what kind of particle it consists of. I couldn't have guessed that knowing the properties of a thing would help reveal what it is. It *really is hard* to find good help. Next question?
Re: [Vo]:Stronghold argument and Feynman (was:Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion)
I wonder how many pops it takes to knock out enough brain cell atoms so that you either forget why you bought the popper or at a minimum start acting like Rossi...Wierd Science. On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:31:18 -0500: Hi, [snip] I don't think anyone knows what the reaction is, if it's real. The work has not been done. However, Bob Rohner demonstrated his popper behind that glass. He doesn't use it in his own shop/lab, see the video. The popper is highly unlikely to explode, unless one runs it outside the known safe envelope. If someone is building the Plasmerg popper, I'd suggest building it so that if a reaction results in unexpectedly high pressure, it will fail in a specific way, such as blowing a large relief valve. If the piston is plastic, score the plastic so that high pressure will blow the side off the piston in a certain direction, away from the operator/observer. It's not likely. Isn't there a balloon attached to the end of the popper? (Which would automatically function as a safety valve). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Stronghold argument and Feynman (was:Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion)
Abd, I size pressure safety relief devices all the time. Typically you select a PSV relief orifice size to handle the maximum instantaneous relief flow required to keep the vessel with 10% of its ASME design pressure. You usually do not let the device/vessel crack or explode. In deflagration events you sometimes will design an explosion hatch (like on a grain silo) or enclosed tank with volatile gasses to prevent complete vessel failure, shrapnel and high replacement costs Of course if you are dealing with an unknown, somewhat uncontrollabe nuclear type reaction it will be virtually impossible to size a relief device to insure safety until the reaction kinetics are understood. On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 09:23 PM 8/21/2012, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Isn't there a balloon attached to the end of the popper? (Which would automatically function as a safety valve). No, if there really were a rapid increase in pressure, rapid enough, the balloon fitting would not pass the gas fast enough and the cylinder could rupture, pieces flying. That's why I suggested, in one post, scoring the cylinder so that it would break in a predictable way, immediately relieving the pressure and sending a large piece in particular direction. Just an idea.
Re: [Vo]:Stronghold argument and Feynman (was:Feynman on the Papp engine and explosion)
David,
I agree. I have the best hope for these reaction(s). They need to be
understood before products hit the market to insure public safety. At
times they appear safe, at other times I am not so sure.
On Wednesday, August 22, 2012, David Roberson wrote:
Let's hope that this does not come to pass. I would rather find out that
the device operates with more or less standard physics instead of something
sinister.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cheme...@gmail.com');
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
Sent: Tue, Aug 21, 2012 10:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Stronghold argument and Feynman (was:Feynman on the Papp
engine and explosion)
I wonder how many pops it takes to knock out enough brain cell atoms so
that you either forget why you bought the popper or at a minimum start
acting like Rossi...Wierd Science.
On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, wrote:
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:31:18
-0500:
Hi,
[snip]
I don't think anyone knows what the reaction is, if it's real. The
work has not been done. However, Bob Rohner demonstrated his popper
behind that glass. He doesn't use it in his own shop/lab, see the
video. The popper is highly unlikely to explode, unless one runs it
outside the known safe envelope.
If someone is building the Plasmerg popper, I'd suggest building it
so that if a reaction results in unexpectedly high pressure, it will
fail in a specific way, such as blowing a large relief valve. If the
piston is plastic, score the plastic so that high pressure will blow
the side off the piston in a certain direction, away from the
operator/observer. It's not likely.
Isn't there a balloon attached to the end of the popper? (Which would
automatically function as a safety valve).
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Dark Matter around the Sun
You Da Man! On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 09:34 PM 8/21/2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: Now, read the Encyclopedia Brittanica and report back to me...We will reserve your temporary allotment of unused bandwidth while you are occupied and the mail servers cool down. Done. Whew! Now, what do you wish a report on?
Re: [Vo]:IRH = DDL = Dark Matter
Jones, I agree. I believe this reaction starts with a collapse of matter compressed within a crack or void. As in the macro scale universe, the degree of collapse may vary all the way down to a micro black hole, which is the extreme case. Any collapse should be instantly followed by a burst of energy, as observed. It makes sense that Rydberg or inverted Rydberg matter should be more reactive since you can cram more mass into a given size void due to its ultra-high densities. Add electrical charge, compression and the repulsion from the walls of the crack/void and you get the correct environment for a further collapse of matter. If the collapsed matter hangs around it should have extreme localized blue-shifted radiation near it's surface to trigger fission and fusion events with other atoms near its surface. It may or may not evaporate completely and in my opinion would be a bad actor if it hangs around. It would also create magnified quantum mechanical/uncertainty events in its surroundings if it does hang around and behave like a super atom. On Wednesday, August 22, 2012, Jones Beene wrote: The Rice/Kim paper below gives a pretty good introduction to the DDL or Deep Dirac Layer (put forth by Maly and Va'vra in Fusion Technology). Rice/Kim et al make a valiant effort to disprove, or at least cast doubt on the reality of the DDL, but the underlying assumptions in eq. 9,10,11 have problems of their own. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf Curiously Rice/Kim et al do not mention Miley Holmlid's conception of IRH, or Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen. But they do mention Mills conception of deeply redundant ground states, but not accurately. At any rate - the main point of all this is the similarity of Mills, Miley Holmlid and Maly Va'vra - at least when all of their suggestions are taken together and mashed, so to speak; making a putative case for the identity of so-called dark matter. Perhaps one must cherry-pick amongst them to get the best details, but there seems to be something very intuitive in this correlation of dense-hydrogen to dark matter. All of them, and Mills is first in the chronology IIRC, suggest that this dense state of hydrogen can be the ash of reactions such as those which occur in the corona of our sun and most other starts, and which the end product consists of tightly bound hydrogen atoms with an extremely tight orbital. This has appeal in being the best way to account for the missing mass (dark matter) of the universe, since that mass is really nothing new at all, but is in effect another form of hydrogen. The electron orbit radius of the DDL is only ~ 5 fm. I mention this today since the group has been graced by the presence of the honorable Mark Gibbs, who may be looking for every science journalist's dream story - to not just report the little incremental advances in science - but to pick a winner of major importance and deep significance. A game changer. Jones
Re: [Vo]:IRH = DDL = Dark Matter
Gremlins come in different colors: Brown dwarf ~ Brown Gremlin White dwarf ~ White Gremiln Black hole ~.Black Gremlin Micro black hole ~ Invisible Gremlin The smaller they are the more elusive and more trouble they cause in their surroundings. On Thursday, August 23, 2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: Jones, I agree. I believe this reaction starts with a collapse of matter compressed within a crack or void. As in the macro scale universe, the degree of collapse may vary all the way down to a micro black hole, which is the extreme case. Any collapse should be instantly followed by a burst of energy, as observed. It makes sense that Rydberg or inverted Rydberg matter should be more reactive since you can cram more mass into a given size void due to its ultra-high densities. Add electrical charge, compression and the repulsion from the walls of the crack/void and you get the correct environment for a further collapse of matter. If the collapsed matter hangs around it should have extreme localized blue-shifted radiation near it's surface to trigger fission and fusion events with other atoms near its surface. It may or may not evaporate completely and in my opinion would be a bad actor if it hangs around. It would also create magnified quantum mechanical/uncertainty events in its surroundings if it does hang around and behave like a super atom. On Wednesday, August 22, 2012, Jones Beene wrote: The Rice/Kim paper below gives a pretty good introduction to the DDL or Deep Dirac Layer (put forth by Maly and Va'vra in Fusion Technology). Rice/Kim et al make a valiant effort to disprove, or at least cast doubt on the reality of the DDL, but the underlying assumptions in eq. 9,10,11 have problems of their own. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf Curiously Rice/Kim et al do not mention Miley Holmlid's conception of IRH, or Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen. But they do mention Mills conception of deeply redundant ground states, but not accurately. At any rate - the main point of all this is the similarity of Mills, Miley Holmlid and Maly Va'vra - at least when all of their suggestions are taken together and mashed, so to speak; making a putative case for the identity of so-called dark matter. Perhaps one must cherry-pick amongst them to get the best details, but there seems to be something very intuitive in this correlation of dense-hydrogen to dark matter. All of them, and Mills is first in the chronology IIRC, suggest that this dense state of hydrogen can be the ash of reactions such as those which occur in the corona of our sun and most other starts, and which the end product consists of tightly bound hydrogen atoms with an extremely tight orbital. This has appeal in being the best way to account for the missing mass (dark matter) of the universe, since that mass is really nothing new at all, but is in effect another form of hydrogen. The electron orbit radius of the DDL is only ~ 5 fm. I mention this today since the group has been graced by the presence of the honorable Mark Gibbs, who may be looking for every science journalist's dream story - to not just report the little incremental advances in science - but to pick a winner of major importance and deep significance. A game changer. Jones
Re: [Vo]:IRH = DDL = Dark Matter
I will also suggest that the dark matter around the sun is consuming hydrogen and radiating heat at up to 5.6×1032K Dark Matter = Dark Gremlin They come in different shades and sizes. On earth as near the sun, best to feed them a steady diet of hydrogen else you will end up with a mess of fission and fusion products along with quantum goo On Thursday, August 23, 2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: Gremlins come in different colors: Brown dwarf ~ Brown Gremlin White dwarf ~ White Gremiln Black hole ~.Black Gremlin Micro black hole ~ Invisible Gremlin The smaller they are the more elusive and more trouble they cause in their surroundings. On Thursday, August 23, 2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: Jones, I agree. I believe this reaction starts with a collapse of matter compressed within a crack or void. As in the macro scale universe, the degree of collapse may vary all the way down to a micro black hole, which is the extreme case. Any collapse should be instantly followed by a burst of energy, as observed. It makes sense that Rydberg or inverted Rydberg matter should be more reactive since you can cram more mass into a given size void due to its ultra-high densities. Add electrical charge, compression and the repulsion from the walls of the crack/void and you get the correct environment for a further collapse of matter. If the collapsed matter hangs around it should have extreme localized blue-shifted radiation near it's surface to trigger fission and fusion events with other atoms near its surface. It may or may not evaporate completely and in my opinion would be a bad actor if it hangs around. It would also create magnified quantum mechanical/uncertainty events in its surroundings if it does hang around and behave like a super atom. On Wednesday, August 22, 2012, Jones Beene wrote: The Rice/Kim paper below gives a pretty good introduction to the DDL or Deep Dirac Layer (put forth by Maly and Va'vra in Fusion Technology). Rice/Kim et al make a valiant effort to disprove, or at least cast doubt on the reality of the DDL, but the underlying assumptions in eq. 9,10,11 have problems of their own. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf Curiously Rice/Kim et al do not mention Miley Holmlid's conception of IRH, or Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen. But they do mention Mills conception of deeply redundant ground states, but not accurately. At any rate - the main point of all this is the similarity of Mills, Miley Holmlid and Maly Va'vra - at least when all of their suggestions are taken together and mashed, so to speak; making a putative case for the identity of so-called dark matter. Perhaps one must cherry-pick amongst them to get the best details, but there seems to be something very intuitive in this correlation of dense-hydrogen to dark matter. All of them, and Mills is first in the chronology IIRC, suggest that this dense state of hydrogen can be the ash of reactions such as those which occur in the corona of our sun and most other starts, and which the end product consists of tightly bound hydrogen atoms with an extremely tight orbital. This has appeal in being the best way to account for the missing mass (dark matter) of the universe, since that mass is really nothing new at all, but is in effect another form of hydrogen. The electron orbit radius of the DDL is only ~ 5 fm. I mention this today since the group has been graced by the presence of the honorable Mark Gibbs, who may be looking for every science journalist's dream story - to not just report the little incremental advances in science - but to pick a winner of major importance and deep significance. A game changer. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
James, Agreed. So far I have just been revising my document as I go instead of posting new announcements, etc. I am very new to blogging. I also cannot figure out how to automatically add a signature/link to my blog automatically to the bottom of my Gmail emails. I am boldfacing any changes to my document as I go with each revision. I am on revision 11 and have made 25 predictions based upon my theory. In the CMNS newsgroup the largest opposition has been to my humor. Their is some consensus on differing degrees of collapsed states of matter due to DDL, hydrinos, Rydberg, etc but there are also plenty of fusion related theories. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:43 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:44 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I am thinking about a new newsgroup for Evaporative Matter Nuclear Science. To help increase the signal-to-noise ratio of your contributions to vortex-l I suggest you post here in two modes: 1) As a regular participant but with your signature hyperlinking to your best explanation of your gremlin theory AND hyperlinking to your newsgroup. 2) As an _occasional_ poster on significant advances/changes in the content of your current best explanation of your gremlin theory.
Re: [Vo]:Giovanni Caproni compared to Rossi
I agree with Jed on safety. In the US these devices would need to pass ASME, NFPA, OSHA, UL certifications as well as NRC guidelines which I have no familiarity with but I am sure will apply based upon the preliminary results DGT is showing of transmutations, low level radiation, heat operating pressures and temperatures. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery has it wrong. I am not actually making fun of Caproni and his Ca-60 Transaereo. This was tragic case. Caproni was a gifted aircraft designer. During WWI he made over 400 heavy bombers; the largest aircraft outside of Russia. The biggest one was the Ca-43 triplane, 7 tons, 100 foot wingspan. The thing is, with the Ca-60 he overreached. He did not know his own limitations, or the limitations of the technology in 1918. As Bill Yenne wrote: It was a true case of an airplane company that clearly should have known better . . . There is a lesson here, and in other grandiose projects such as IBM's ill-fated Future Systems initiative in the 1970s. Don't overreach! Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl wrote: Where you say: equally close to commercialization, this of course is not true. The 1 MW reactor is for sale now and has industrial certification. I did not know it has industrial certification. I regard this as gross negligence on the part of the authorities who issued the certificate. I would not *think* of certifying that machine without 10,000 hours of intense testing in several different independent safety labs. I think it is lunacy to start using a nuclear fusion reactor that works by unknown principles without first testing it extensively. Anyway, the fact that it is for sale does not mean much, because evidently no one has bought it. (unless -- the usual caveat -- it is all a lie. Even if it is the truth, I regard this product as a useless white elephant that no sane customer would buy except to reverse engineer. The comparision with the Caproni Ca-60 Transaereo is unfair. That was an early attempt to scale up a working product. It was an inept attempt. Totally hopeless. It contributed nothing to progress in aviation. If it had been done by amateurs it would be forgivable, but Caproni and his colleagues at the company had a track record of success. They were experts. They built 400 successful airplanes! Aviation was advanced enough by 1918 that any expert should have been able to look at that design and see it would not work. Rossi's attempt to scale up did not fail, too. It is a pretty sound, safe and useful idea to scale up energy devices by running my of them in parallel. I disagree! This idea helped him to (1) lend more credibility to his invention; . . . How can that be?!? No one has any idea whether the thing actually worked or not! He did not allow anyone to make independent measurements. For all we know it was a lot of noise and hot water from the generator. (2) come up with a useful product for the market which can be tapped soonest, because of lighter certification requirements. This is about as far from a useful product as the Ca-60 Transaereo was. Lighter certification for any cold fusion device would 9,800 hours of intense testing in 50 laboratories, instead of 10,000 hours in 60 laboratories. In my opinion we should not even consider using cold fusion for commercial or practical purposes before we are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN it can be fully controlled, and it does not produce dangerous radiation. Not at start up, not in an accident, not ever. Until that has been PROVED by hundreds of experts it would be crazy to sell reactors. What will happen if a reactor blows up, or irradiates someone? It could set back the field for years. An accident might even lead overzealous regulators and people opposed to technology to ban the use of cold fusion. And for what?!? What possible benefit could there be to selling the thing now? If Rossi needs money, I am sure I could raise a hundred million dollars for him practically overnight. All he has to do is start acting like a sane businessman. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0112178.pdf On Thursday, August 23, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: ** Does anyone have access to this paper? Charge screening effect in metallic carbon nanotubes. I think this paper may hold the key to engineering the right size carbon nanotube. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
I agree with Frank. I will only add that a local STRONG QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL FORCE can also red-shift any energy that escapes its grasp, resulting in weak radiation to outside observers. It also has the advantage of creating collective, high energy blue-shifted radiation near the SOURCE of quantum gravity that can take down local coulomb barriers of atoms that happen by. This is number 7 on my list of predictions from revision 12 of my theory. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:57 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Ed's theory can not explain the lack of radiation. The ONLY way a nuclear reaction can proceed without producing radiation is in the case where the range of the strong nuclear force exceeds that of the coulombic. Ed start by assuming that the range of the force fields is not a conserved property. Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: Ruby r...@hush.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 24, 2012 12:40 am Subject: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms I have uploaded an interview with Edmund Storms on his new theory of what starts the cold fusion reaction. http://coldfusionnow.org/an-explanation-of-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-by-edmund-storms/ I'll be on the road, in my truck, headed to the Bay area (San Francisco California region for you non-left-coasters) for another interview, then up to Humboldt County to visit my storage unit (next to Hiro's), camp out in the Redwoods and edit lots more video. As such, I won't be monitoring comments on Cold Fusion Now, and I'm going to send any individuals interested in discussing the work here to this thread. Is that illegal on Vortex? I am having alot of fun making these videos. Especially now that I've discovered the Zoom text on iMovie. Enjoy! -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:If You Liked Segway
I guess even though it might me simpler just having three wheels, a tricycle will not attract babes like at the end of the video... On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: You will love Lit: http://litmotors.com/ albeit, a bit more expensive. T Stewart
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Model with Interesting Correlations
Dave, I started my career with Honeywell in industrial controls so I understand your viewpoint and agree. The bugger becomes that if this reaction is triggering local fission, fusion and high temperature chemical events (as it appears to be from a wide range of data) it will most likely degrade and collapse over time any lattice material/matter within its local environment. Thus the RELIABILITY and STABILITY issue. I predict any local collapse within a void/crack/lattice may instantly shift the reactions to a new thermodynamic equilibrium point. I am not sure there is ANY material in the universe that can withstand this combination of reactions over time. If the energy source happens to be related to collapsed matter we should learn from nature, isolate it within magnetic and gravitational fields and feed it a steady dose of hydrogen and you will get a steady source of high temperature red-shifted black-body type radiation out. Sounds easy.. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, I played a bit more with the model to see if this sort of behavior was demonstrated. Actually it was relatively easy to incorporate a mechanism that did the trick. I reviewed the picture of the Rossi test cylinder and realized that the surface of the device was radiating the heat that was being generated within. This implied a forth order energy release mechanism due to the blackbody radiation equation. I added a heat energy sink that absorbed the output in proportion to the forth power of the absolute temperature and adjusted the second order term that I had established earlier in the model to compensate for interaction and things got interesting. First of all, there remains performance as before where a well defined self sustaining temperature is reached. If the drive is of my original description, where the temperature is driven to within 90 % of the critical run away value, then it can be totally controlled by duty cycle of the drive mechanism. This makes perfect sense since operation is below the critical region. If the input is allowed to remain for long enough in the drive mode, the device temperature will reach the self sustaining trigger point. From this point onward, the output heat energy increases exponentially due to the positive feedback that we are so familiar with until an output level is reached that remains stationary. The stationary level is established at the temperature where the forth order radiation energy sink exactly matches the second order (in this model) energy release source. Of course the drive signal is taken away at some point in the procedure just to demonstrate that the device operates in a self sustaining mode. This effect is consistent with the real world ECAT as described by Rossi. So, to design a device such as the ECAT, one needs to have a curve that defines the internally generated heat energy as a function of the device temperature. He then must establish an operating temperature such as 1000 C that is determined by the requirements for the unit. At this time, the blackbody radiation rules will lead to a calculatible energy density being removed from the surface. Next, you adjust the surface area that is to be set at 1000 C by working on the dimensions of the device until a match is achieved. I believe that this process could be used to establish the amount of active material that contributes to the desired energy release. One could adjust the inside hole dimensions as a method of reducing the nickel mixture until exactly the correct amount of material is reached. A secondary use for the hole is to allow introduction of gas heating to initialize the reaction. Please recall that my model is very speculative and an interesting exercise. I do not imply that it is accurate in any way, but the correlation to the real world behavior of ECAT devices might have significance. Enjoy, Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 23, 2012 9:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Model with Interesting Correlations Nice model Dave. Now, try it if the output temperature remains steady at 1200C as Rossi claims. This implies very little positive feedback. What COP would he achieve? Jojo - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2012 7:54 AM *Subject:* [Vo]:ECAT Model with Interesting Correlations I have been fiddling with one of my models of the ECAT and just wanted to let the group have a peek. Rossi has been active on his journal and suggested that his device has certain characteristics which my model tends to support. It should be noted that any model of Rossi's device is going to be lacking at this point in time since very little reliable information is available.
Re: [Vo]:IRH = DDL = Dark Matter
It depends upon your calculation of the strength of quantum gravity and the number of additional dimensions of spacetime it acts upon. The blue-shifted collective radiation surrounding the surface of the collapsed matter will be more than enough to take down a nearby coulomb barrier. A 22 microgram black hole is predicted to have a local temperature as high as 5.6×1032 K . It only takes 40 million degrees to trigger fusion, not a problem for one of these guys. You definitely would not want to lock horns with one of these buggers if they do not evaporate completely. On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:36 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to ChemE Stewart's message of Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:22:57 -0400: Hi, [snip] Gremlins come in different colors: Brown dwarf ~ Brown Gremlin White dwarf ~ White Gremiln Black hole ~.Black Gremlin Micro black hole ~ Invisible Gremlin The smaller they are the more elusive and more trouble they cause in their surroundings. For the gravitational field of an Invisible Gremlin with a single positive charge to be strong enough to attract another proton against the repulsive Coulomb force, it would need to have a mass in excess of 2 billion kg. Such a gremlin would have a Schwarzschild radius = 3E-3 fm (hundreds of times smaller than a proton), exerting a pressure of 2 billion kgf / Pi*SR^2 = 1E41 psi on the containment. Perhaps needless to say, it's going to be impossible to hang on to one. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms
Great, and how much of the environment did we just irradiate with high level gammas? On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 24 Aug 2012 02:13:37 -0400: Hi, [snip] The Nuclear reactions that ED Storms thinks is happening is not consistent to what Rossi and Piantelli see as nuclear reaction products. These reaction products include copper, cobalt, zinc, iron, calcium, and so on, together with a mix of the first 19 of the lightest elements. Yes, Rossi's info is questionable by Piantelli info is solid. PS: a top of the line presentation. 1H+1H+58Ni = 60Zn + 8.538 MeV 1H+1H+58Ni = 59Cu + 1H + 3.419 MeV 1H+1H+58Ni = 56Ni + 4He + 5.829 MeV 1H+1H+58Ni = 32S + 28Si + 1.859 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 62Zn + 11.277 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 61Cu + 1H + 4.801 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 58Ni + 4He + 7.909 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 4He + 4He + 54Fe + 1.417 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 50Cr + 12C + 0.365 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 32S + 30Si + 0.555 MeV 1H+1H+60Ni = 34S + 28Si + 1.530 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 62Zn + n + 3.457 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 63Zn + 12.570 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 62Cu + 1H + 5.866 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 59Ni + 4He + 9.088 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 4He + 4He + 55Fe + 2.895 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 51Cr + 12C + 1.806 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 47Ti + 16O + 0.026 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 33S + 30Si + 1.376 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 34S + 29Si + 2.184 MeV 1H+1H+61Ni = 35S + 28Si + 0.696 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 64Zn + 13.835 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 65Zn + n + 5.319 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 66Zn + 16.378 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 65Cu + 1H + 7.453 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 62Ni + 4He + 11.800 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 4He + 4He + 58Fe + 4.690 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 54Cr + 12C + 4.411 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 50Ti + 16O + 3.642 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 34S + 32Si + 1.491 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 36S + 30Si + 2.576 MeV 1H+1H+64Ni = 33P + 33P + 0.154 MeV Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
micro black holes have a balding phase like I did at age 40 On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: encrusted protons? Hairy protons, Harry. Shaved for energy. T
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
Nuclear fusion-fission hybrid In contrast to current commercial fission reactors, hybrid reactors potentially demonstrate what is considered inherently safehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherently_safe behavior because they remain deeply subcriticalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcritical under all conditions and decay heat removal is possible via passive mechanisms. The fission is driven by neutrons provided by fusion ignition events, and is consequently not self-sustaining. If the fusion process is deliberately shut off or the process is disrupted by a mechanical failure, the fission damps out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping and stops nearly instantly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion-fission_hybrid On Saturday, August 25, 2012, Harry Veeder wrote: On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comjavascript:; wrote: On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comjavascript:; wrote: encrusted protons? Hairy protons, Harry. Shaved for energy. T things you can do with a beard http://youtu.be/u2vZUsL6OOA harry
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
*Two-stage thermonuclear weaponshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller%E2%80%93Ulam_design * are essentially a chain of fusion-boosted fission weapons... On Saturday, August 25, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 7:16 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:; wrote: Nuclear fusion-fission hybrid Didn't we make a bomb like that? -Hohlraum
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
Latest photo of Rossi fat_cat_man... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Fat_man.jpg On Saturday, August 25, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 7:43 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:; wrote: Two-stage thermonuclear weapons are essentially a chain of fusion-boosted fission weapons... Hybrid cars are essentially electrically-boosted gasoline vehicles. I think of thermonukes as fission-triggered fusion weapons, at least in the Teller-Ulam design. Who knows what's really out there. T
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
If anybody asks that is a fan on the back blowing the heat away. He is still working on some stability criticality issues... On Saturday, August 25, 2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: Latest photo of Rossi fat_cat_man... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Fat_man.jpg On Saturday, August 25, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 7:43 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Two-stage thermonuclear weapons are essentially a chain of fusion-boosted fission weapons... Hybrid cars are essentially electrically-boosted gasoline vehicles. I think of thermonukes as fission-triggered fusion weapons, at least in the Teller-Ulam design. Who knows what's really out there. T
Re: [Vo]:It's fission
So the plasma engine is a rail gun? http://pesn.com/2012/08/24/9602167_Noble_Gas_Plasma_or_Aluminum_Ring_Electromagnet/ On Saturday, August 25, 2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: If anybody asks that is a fan on the back blowing the heat away. He is still working on some stability criticality issues... On Saturday, August 25, 2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: Latest photo of Rossi fat_cat_man... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Fat_man.jpg On Saturday, August 25, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 7:43 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Two-stage thermonuclear weapons are essentially a chain of fusion-boosted fission weapons... Hybrid cars are essentially electrically-boosted gasoline vehicles. I think of thermonukes as fission-triggered fusion weapons, at least in the Teller-Ulam design. Who knows what's really out there. T
Re: [Vo]:Superatoms
Hey, if you can build superatoms why not make the collapse and explode, triggering secondary fusion and fission reactions. I'm just say'n... *Form Of Matter Shows Ability To Collapse Explode* Led by CU-Boulder Distinguished Physics Professor Carl Wieman and NIST Senior Scientist Eric Cornell, the team created a material that shared a quantum state and behaved like a single superatom. JILA is a joint institute of CU-Boulder and NIST headquartered on campus. By tinkering with the magnetic fields, the researchers have been able to shrink the condensate, which is followed by a tiny explosion -- similar in some ways to a microscopic supernova explosion and which Wieman's team has dubbed a Bosenova. About half of the original atoms appear to vanish during the process, he said. He said Donley and the team have been able to thoroughly investigate the condensate behavior when the interactions suddenly are changed from being repulsive to strongly attractive. This is a particularly interesting regime because the physics equations that describe the condensate do not have stable solutions under these conditions, said Wieman. He likened the situation to the way the equations of gravity cannot be solved under the conditions where the gravitational attraction is so large that a black hole can form. In this paper, we report the first measurements of what happens to a condensate when the interactions suddenly are made attractive. The unexpected behavior included parts of the condensate shrinking down into small clumps and a sudden explosion of atoms flying out of the condensate, spewing more energy in one direction than another. Other observations included a fraction of the atoms simply disappearing from sight and a small, quivering condensate left behind as a result of the collapse, he said. http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20010619233230data_trunc_sys.shtml On Sunday, August 26, 2012, Axil Axil wrote: Gold can come in many colors. Since ancient times, glass artists and alchemists alike have known how to grind the metal into fine particles that would take on hues such as red or mauve. Carbon nanotubes are the same, different sizes shade water in different colors. At scales even smaller, clusters of just a few dozen atoms display even more outlandish behavior. Gold and other transition metals when combined with certain other atoms often tend to aggregate in specific numbers and highly symmetrical geometries, and sometimes these clusters can mimic the chemistry of single atoms of a completely different element. They become, as some researchers say, superatoms. Recently researchers have reported successes in creating new superatoms and deciphering their structures. In certain conditions, even familiar molecules such as buckyballs--the soccer-ball-shaped cages made of 60 carbon atoms—can unexpectedly turn into superatoms. Today at the cutting edge of science, researchers are already studying how superatoms bind to each other and to organic molecules. Tracking superatoms can help researchers learn how biological molecules move inside cells and tissues, or determine the structure of those molecules precisely using electron microscopes. And by assembling superatoms of elements such as gold, carbon, aluminum, titanium and tungsten researchers may soon be able to create entirely new materials. Such materials could store hydrogen fuel in solid form at room temperature, make more powerful rocket fuels or lead to computer chips with molecule-sized features. Designer materials made of superatoms could have combinations of physical properties that don't exist in nature. As Kit Bowen, a chemical physicist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, puts it, it's as if you felt like eating something hot and something cold at the same time, and could have it both ways. Like a hot-fudge sundae. Small numbers of atoms often form structures as symmetrical, and almost as intricate, as those of snowflakes. But while no two snowflakes, even if they have the same number of water molecules, are identical, a small, specific number of atoms of the same element typically will assemble into the same, specific shape. The quintessential example is how 60 carbon atoms form buckyballs. The strange behavior of atoms in small groupings has been known for a long time, though only recently have scientists begun to understand it in detail. The whole idea is that small is different, The physical properties of a material, such as hardness and color, are the same for a l-pound lump of the stuff as they are for a 100-ton chunk. But when you get to specks made of a few million atoms or less, properties usually begin to change. *A job for superatoms* For larger clusters, it's not always clear when atoms will aggregate into regular structures or into shapeless blobs with any number of atoms. For example, in clusters of gold atoms each cluster member donates an electron to the cluster, just as inside
Re: [Vo]:Superatoms
Jones, I like your description. I liken it to a hot condensate under extreme pressure and temperature within a void) If you relieve pressure quickly (structural failure of the lattice containing it) it might flash matter to achieve a new equilibrium. Just food for thought. On Sunday, August 26, 2012, Jones Beene wrote: Before getting too worked up over the superatom, remember that it may be a good metaphor for energy gain in condensed matter systems – but the superatom simply cannot be involved in the Rohner scam. ** ** BTW - even Stirling Allan is covering his backside on this scam and apparently now believes that the “pop” effect is due to strong eddy repulsion in a hidden aluminum ring. The plastic piston does not work without the ring, and you get the same pop without or without the special gas. Clever showmanship, but not gainful. ** ** Anyway – moving on to real physical anomalies – in order to create the required BEC phenomenon, these researchers cooled atoms to what is essentially absolute zero, and saw the lowest temperature ever achieved.** ** ** ** If they could have done it at higher temperature, they would have. ** ** It is also worth noting, in looking for correlates in the real world of energy systems, that although each hydrogen atom has spin ½, when they are a bound-pair in a Casimir cavity, they can act as a composite boson. Other factors in quantum magnetic alignment would indicate that a bound pair of protons is much easier to take to a “bosenova” state. IIRC, we on vortex coined that neologism long before these guys. Check the archives. ** ** Having said that – it is worth mentioning again in this context - the concept of “comperature” (introduced by F. Grimer). Comperature is a single variable which is an amalgam of pressure and temperature at the atomic level. These two properties should not be separated in the practical sense, as Boyle observed many years ago – and perhaps they cannot be truly separated at all. ** ** Hydrogen, which has been captured in the Casimir pores of a ferromagnetic metal at ambient - can experience the equivalent of absolute zero by having high effective over-voltage which is the same as extreme compression. At a loading of 1:1 in a metal matrix, the effective pressure is well over 10,000 bar, and the comperature would have an effective temperature equivalent to near absolute zero, even at ambient ‘normal’ temperature. It is not known how high the normal temperature can go to maintain Bose statistics in the bound and aligned pair. ** ** Jones
[Vo]:Superatoms
I agree, just one micro void collapse triggering a flash of ultra hot radiation as the condensate restabilizes or evaporates completely. The more voids of the correct size the more the effect is seen. The up pumping could be the added energy from quantum scale gravity further collapsing the Rydberg or other condensed matter in the void until their is a local void collapse to release the energy. We use gravity in the macro world as a pump for power generation, why not quantum gravity. In the macro world anytime you pump pressurized, hot condensate through an orifice you will flash heat on the low pressure side. The hot BEC/super atoms/matter might be flashing matter to radiation(hawking or similar) whenever the hot, compressed and collapsed BEC condensate within the enclosed void sees a drop in pressure/temp In order to trigger fusion you need intense radiation/heat in the millions of degrees. Evaporation of collapsed matter is one of the only ways of getting you there... Stewart On Sunday, August 26, 2012, Jones Beene wrote: Yes, Stewart – good point - and it does not have to be complete structural failure of the cavity. ** ** A former contributor here, Michel Julian, notoriously described this mechanism “the sphincter effect” … which is decidedly not food for thought. Whatever happened to Michel anyway? ** ** When a regular and insightful poster here drops out of view, one often wonders if they have caught a glimpse of the “grail” and are not ready to share it yet. ** ** Anyway – two protons in a Casimir cavity can get pumped up in some not-exactly nuclear fashion (time distortion, ZPE, or superatom repulsion, or whatever) and then when pushed through a pore wall, there will be a greatly enhanced acceleration gradient which is thermalized as the OU heat. ** ** Elegant … err … if we drop Michel’s descriptive terminology J ** ** ** ** *From:* ChemE Stewart ** ** Jones, ** ** I like your description. I liken it to a hot condensate under extreme pressure and temperature within a void) If you relieve pressure quickly (structural failure of the lattice containing it) it might flash matter to achieve a new equilibrium. Just food for thought. On Sunday, August 26, 2012, Jones Beene wrote: Before getting too worked up over the superatom, remember that it may be a good metaphor for energy gain in condensed matter systems – but the superatom simply cannot be involved in the Rohner scam. BTW - even Stirling Allan is covering his backside on this scam and apparently now believes that the “pop” effect is due to strong eddy repulsion in a hidden aluminum ring. The plastic piston does not work without the ring, and you get the same pop without or without the special gas. Clever showmanship, but not gainful. Anyway – moving on to real physical anomalies – in order to create the required BEC phenomenon, these researchers cooled atoms to what is essentially absolute zero, and saw the lowest temperature ever achieved.** ** If they could have done it at higher temperature, they would have. It is also worth noting, in looking for correlates in the real world of energy systems, that although each hydrogen atom has spin ½, when they are a bound-pair in a Casimir cavity, they can act as a composite boson. Other factors in quantum magnetic alignment would indicate that a bound pair of protons is much easier to take to a “bosenova” state. IIRC, we on vortex coined that neologism long before these guys. Check the archives. Having said that – it is worth mentioning again in this context - the concept of “comperature” (introduced by F. Grimer). Comperature is a single variable which is an amalgam of pressure and temperature at the atomic level. These two properties should not be separated in the practical sense, as Boyle observed many years ago – and perhaps they cannot be truly separated at all.
[Vo]:Superatoms
I agree, just one micro void collapse triggering a flash of ultra hot radiation as the condensate restabilizes or evaporates completely. The more voids of the correct size the more the effect is seen. The up pumping could be the added energy from quantum scale gravity further collapsing the Rydberg or other condensed matter in the void until their is a local void collapse to release the energy. We use gravity in the macro world as a pump for power generation, why not quantum gravity. In the macro world anytime you pump pressurized, hot condensate through an orifice you will flash heat on the low pressure side. The hot BEC/super atoms/matter might be flashing matter to radiation(hawking or similar) whenever the hot, compressed and collapsed BEC condensate within the enclosed void sees a drop in pressure/temp In order to trigger fusion you need intense radiation/heat in the millions of degrees. Evaporation of collapsed matter is one of the only ways of getting you there... On Sunday, August 26, 2012, Jones Beene wrote: Yes, Stewart – good point - and it does not have to be complete structural failure of the cavity. ** ** A former contributor here, Michel Julian, notoriously described this mechanism “the sphincter effect” … which is decidedly not food for thought. Whatever happened to Michel anyway? ** ** When a regular and insightful poster here drops out of view, one often wonders if they have caught a glimpse of the “grail” and are not ready to share it yet. ** ** Anyway – two protons in a Casimir cavity can get pumped up in some not-exactly nuclear fashion (time distortion, ZPE, or superatom repulsion, or whatever) and then when pushed through a pore wall, there will be a greatly enhanced acceleration gradient which is thermalized as the OU heat. ** ** Elegant … err … if we drop Michel’s descriptive terminology J ** ** ** ** *From:* ChemE Stewart ** ** Jones, ** ** I like your description. I liken it to a hot condensate under extreme pressure and temperature within a void) If you relieve pressure quickly (structural failure of the lattice containing it) it might flash matter to achieve a new equilibrium. Just food for thought. On Sunday, August 26, 2012, Jones Beene wrote: Before getting too worked up over the superatom, remember that it may be a good metaphor for energy gain in condensed matter systems – but the superatom simply cannot be involved in the Rohner scam. BTW - even Stirling Allan is covering his backside on this scam and apparently now believes that the “pop” effect is due to strong eddy repulsion in a hidden aluminum ring. The plastic piston does not work without the ring, and you get the same pop without or without the special gas. Clever showmanship, but not gainful. Anyway – moving on to real physical anomalies – in order to create the required BEC phenomenon, these researchers cooled atoms to what is essentially absolute zero, and saw the lowest temperature ever achieved.** ** If they could have done it at higher temperature, they would have. It is also worth noting, in looking for correlates in the real world of energy systems, that although each hydrogen atom has spin ½, when they are a bound-pair in a Casimir cavity, they can act as a composite boson. Other factors in quantum magnetic alignment would indicate that a bound pair of protons is much easier to take to a “bosenova” state. IIRC, we on vortex coined that neologism long before these guys. Check the archives. Having said that – it is worth mentioning again in this context - the concept of “comperature” (introduced by F. Grimer). Comperature is a single variable which is an amalgam of pressure and temperature at the atomic level. These two properties should not be separated in the practical sense, as Boyle observed many years ago – and perhaps they cannot be truly separated at all.
Re: [Vo]:Superatoms
The experiments led by Randall Hulet at Rice University from 1995 through 2000 showed that lithium condensates with attractive interactions could stably exist, but only up to a certain critical atom number. Beyond this critical number, the attraction overwhelmed the zero-point energy of the harmonic confining potential, causing the condensate to collapse in a burst reminiscent of a supernova explosion where an explosion is preceded by an implosion. By quench cooling the gas of lithium atoms, they observed the condensate to first grow, and subsequently collapse when the critical number was exceeded. When the JILA team raised the magnetic field strength still further, the condensate suddenly reverted back to attraction, imploded and shrank beyond detection, and then exploded, expelling off about two-thirds of its 10,000 or so atoms. About half of the atoms in the condensate seemed to have disappeared from the experiment altogether, not being seen either in the cold remnant or the expanding gas cloud.[13]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate#cite_note-nobel-12 Carl Wieman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wieman explained that under current atomic theory this characteristic of Bose–Einstein condensate could not be explained because the energy state of an atom near absolute zero should not be enough to cause an implosion; however, subsequent mean field theories have been proposed to explain it. The atoms that seem to have disappeared almost certainly still exist in some form, just not in a form that could be accounted for in that experiment. Most likely they formed molecules consisting of two bonded rubidium atoms.[20]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate#cite_note-19 The energy gained by making this transition imparts a velocity sufficient for them to leave the trap without being detected. Quantum gravitational triggered explosion/evaporation of matter triggering intense supernova level heat triggering secondary fusion and fission events in nearby matter? I realize temperatures are much lower but within a compressed void the external pressures are much higher... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose–Einstein_condensate On Sunday, August 26, 2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: I agree, just one micro void collapse triggering a flash of ultra hot radiation as the condensate restabilizes or evaporates completely. The more voids of the correct size the more the effect is seen. The up pumping could be the added energy from quantum scale gravity further collapsing the Rydberg or other condensed matter in the void until their is a local void collapse to release the energy. We use gravity in the macro world as a pump for power generation, why not quantum gravity. In the macro world anytime you pump pressurized, hot condensate through an orifice you will flash heat on the low pressure side. The hot BEC/super atoms/matter might be flashing matter to radiation(hawking or similar) whenever the hot, compressed and collapsed BEC condensate within the enclosed void sees a drop in pressure/temp In order to trigger fusion you need intense radiation/heat in the millions of degrees. Evaporation of collapsed matter is one of the only ways of getting you there... Stewart On Sunday, August 26, 2012, Jones Beene wrote: Yes, Stewart – good point - and it does not have to be complete structural failure of the cavity. ** ** A former contributor here, Michel Julian, notoriously described this mechanism “the sphincter effect” … which is decidedly not food for thought. Whatever happened to Michel anyway? ** ** When a regular and insightful poster here drops out of view, one often wonders if they have caught a glimpse of the “grail” and are not ready to share it yet. ** ** Anyway – two protons in a Casimir cavity can get pumped up in some not-exactly nuclear fashion (time distortion, ZPE, or superatom repulsion, or whatever) and then when pushed through a pore wall, there will be a greatly enhanced acceleration gradient which is thermalized as the OU heat. ** ** Elegant … err … if we drop Michel’s descriptive terminology J ** ** ** ** *From:* ChemE Stewart ** ** Jones, ** ** I like your description. I liken it to a hot condensate under extreme pressure and temperature within a void) If you relieve pressure quickly (structural failure of the lattice containing it) it might flash matter to achieve a new equilibrium. Just food for thought. On Sunday, August 26, 2012, Jones Beene wrote: Before getting too worked up over the superatom, remember that it may be a good metaphor for energy gain in condensed matter systems – but the superatom simply cannot be involved in the Rohner scam.
Re: [Vo]:Superatoms
Yeah nice animations. To me it explains the higher reactivity of packing superatoms like Rydberg matter into voids that then behave like a Bose Einstein Condensate only at higher temperatures to create the amplified reactions seen in LENR+. My first swag at a calculation on my blog show that within a void of volume 2.18E-07 cm3 you can pack enough ultra high density Rydberg matter to satisfy the requirements for a micro-black hole at Planck mass. I think collapses can happen at lesser volumes/masses and do not necessarily need to end up as a micro black hole, just as a form of collapsed matter which then basically evaporates into one of these Bosanovas. The Rydberg or inverted Rydberg matter might continue to stick around in the void waiting for another collapse to be triggered as well as pulling in new atoms/participants. Of course you need to believe you can trigger the collapse within the void which should be coerced based upon alignment/concentration of charge (and possible resulting magnetic fields created within the voids) and diameter of the voids (hoop conjecture effect due to void radius) and the repulsion of the atoms within the lattice. I tend to believe the Zero Point Field is basically the result of quantum gravity collapsing matter and releasing radiation/heat - a quantum heat pump per se. Some of that radiation may not even be detectable as heat, ie. quarks, gluons, neutrinoes, etc. as the atoms are vaporized. So a heat/mass balance would be tricky.. Collapsed matter/micro-black holes can take in matter or energy in (they are not that selective) and always give you energy back in the form of radiation, just like their big brothers... Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/bosenova.cfm Vid on the sidebar. T
Re: [Vo]:Superatoms
Terry, It should. Steven Spielberg produced GREMLINS (I could not resist that) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gremlins See, everything in the universe is making more sense now... Also, as I state in prediction #22 on my blog, the effect of this reaction creating bosanovas and lost Bosons at relatively normal earthly conditions is in fact Nature's way of evaporating all matter over time which also explains why the universe is expanding more rapidly since f=ma and matter is slowly vaporizing... Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This hypothesis of the lost bosons Sounds like the latest Spielberg production. T
Re: [Vo]:Terawatt.com, magnetic-based power production device
Looks like it to me. Approx. 5:1 gain @ 20 hz. Looks like gain may continue rising steeply past 20 hz. Wonder what it will do @ 60? At least their website is nicer than the Rohner bros... Lots of x men in black listed on the staff On Tuesday, August 28, 2012, Harry Veeder wrote: This is a magnetic overunity device? Harry On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:54 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netjavascript:; wrote: Serendipitously came across this company… anyone familiar with them? http://terawatt.com/ecm1/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=17Itemid=187 They have a very impressive group of people working for them, and third-party testing. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Obscure possible LENR explosion
http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/fisker-karma-owner-blames-house-fire-car-offended-204708241.html http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/21/business/la-fi-autos-volt-20120121 On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-ballotechnics.htm ** ** this is a lame article, and most of the field has blacklisted, but have a go… ** ** *From:* David Roberson ** ** This thread leaves me wondering about the manifestations of other LENR accidents of the past that were not understood. Do any of our vort members recall references to similar occurrences that were merely brushed aside as unknown? I am searching for incidents where an obviously large amount of energy was released in a short period of time that exceeded anything expected of a chemical reaction. ** **
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
I believe unless you remove energy from the condensate, the energy radiated from the collapse of matter will instantly heat the condensate and quench further collapse since you reach new thermodynamic stability. Possibly the only way to counteract that (beyond removing heat) is a stronger magnetic field or further compression within the lattice. On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:48 PM, helloke...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Hello Jojo: One thing to consider is the opposite of high speed kinetic movement. K. P. Sinha induced LENR by using a laser and REMOVING energy from the system. And Kim theorizes that Bose-Einstein Condensates are the primary cause, which points again to a REMOVAL of energy from the system. If you slow those Deuterium atoms down enough, they become attracted to each other. So if you do end up with a mat of these carbon nanohorns, you might try a laser operating at the frequency KP Sinha published instead of inducing current. --- On *Thu, 8/23/12, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com* wrote: Now, given that you've just jolted these H+ into high speed kinetic movement due to the high temperature you just applied with your spark, add the fact that they are screened, meaning they don't have the coulomb repulsion anymore; guess what would happen when 2 of these H+ ions collide. Instant p + p fusion. Success!!!
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
I agree. I believe a metallic lattice is probably a crude first attempt at harnessing this effect but will be discarded quickly once other types of engineered confinement and/or isolation is designed. I also can't stop thinking about what TerraWatt and the original Papp Engine are/were possibly doing and wonder if a strongly focused electrical/magnetic pulse might be triggering a similar instantaneous collapse/energy emission effect and would possibly be a cleaner approach to energy generation. BTW terrawattdotcom put up some new pictures on their website today. (Their legal docs said you could not link directly to them without permission) On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On the face of it, there seems to be an engineering dilemma associated with the concept of removing kinetic energy from atoms in designing a mechanism to produce power from heat. But we can do what we want to do if we take another tack. At the end of the day, the formation of an entangled ensemble of particles is a great multiplier of LENR subatomic manipulation. But at the most fundamental level, it’s all about control of electrons. At the broadest level of explanation, cold fusion is a result of the heavy compression of electrons to such a high level that their mutually repulsive forces overlap causing the various quantum constituents to disaggregate into separated piles of quantum waves: charge, spin, orbit(aka, angular momentum). Electric charge is stripped en mass from the rest and the location and activity of these waves are distinct and removed to a distance from their originating particles. This compression of such an energetic and chaotic electron fluid is not easy to do because the electrons are so small and slippery. In an analogy, both water and CO2 can be maintained in a liquid state if it is confined and constrained by enough pressure within a pressure vessel with thick steel walls.. Confining electrons together to prohibit the electrons following their usual state of free motion requires special materials configured in just the right way. When this chaotic electron fluid is tamed in this way, coherent waves of charge will form. It is this pressure exerted on electrons that cause their charge to disaggregate and dislocate from liked charge particles. And it is the concentrated action of these waves of charge that take down the coulomb barrier. But it's not easy to squeeze the energetic electrons together, because these tiny particles can leak away into even the tiniest holes of a lattice of atoms. And even under pressure, the electrons must also be able to move. They cannot be frozen solid in place as happens in a Mott insulator. To engineer a situation where electron movement is strongly restricted in just the right way, one must look toward the newly evolving field of materials engineering: topological materials. The chemical organization of topological materials, their size and shape of certain combinations of atoms and their positions relative to each other will project electromagnetic force to break apart electrons and protons into their most elemental quantum mechanical parts. Just in the last few years, one and two dimensional materials have been discovered and strange new classes of matter are being formed. These designer materials can produce factional angular momentum, the magnetic monopole and the Majorana particle…A particle that is its own antiparticle and thus capable of self – annihilation…but these new creations can only exist in their own very special atomic topological neighborhood. Designer materials made of superatoms and long atomic strings could have combinations of physical properties that don't exist in nature. We can produce an ultra-cold condensate at 700C, As Kit Bowen, a chemical physicist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, puts it, it's as if you felt like eating something hot and something cold at the same time, and could have it both ways. Like a hot-fudge sundae. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:48 PM, helloke...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Hello Jojo: One thing to consider is the opposite of high speed kinetic movement. K. P. Sinha induced LENR by using a laser and REMOVING energy from the system. And Kim theorizes that Bose-Einstein Condensates are the primary cause, which points again to a REMOVAL of energy from the system. If you slow those Deuterium atoms down enough, they become attracted to each other. So if you do end up with a mat of these carbon nanohorns, you might try a laser operating at the frequency KP Sinha published instead of inducing current. --- On *Thu, 8/23/12, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com* wrote: Now, given that you've just jolted these H+ into high speed kinetic movement due to the high temperature you just applied with your spark, add the fact that they are screened, meaning they don't have the coulomb repulsion anymore;
Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
They appear more legit to me and with alot of big names on the board, for what that is worth. I am going to guess if that device sees wear and tear and premature failures, they will occur between the surfaces of those magnets on the magnetic oscillator where all of the uncertainty takes place... Both the TUV and UL testing was first done in 2008. This device does not appear that complicated. Must be a reliability or safety issue keeping it off the market. On Tuesday, August 28, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: Terawatt.com sure reminds me of Steorn.com T
[Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
Yeah, anytime you are creating collapsed matter you are creating uncertainty - money, markets, equipment, possibly health do not thrive in that environment. I hope it all evaporates. Best to keep volumes below that which will contain a Planck mass of ultra dense matter. Life imitating science... Just my take on it. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Tuesday, August 28, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 9:52 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: They appear more legit to me and with alot of big names on the board, for what that is worth. Yeah, but what is their involvement. I know lots of people who sit on boards if companies who have no idea of why they are there. Stoern had well machined devices: How Free Energy Workshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAk3tiaOewofeature=related Blew several millions of investors' bucks. T
Re: [Vo]:Another View-Understanding of eCat working
To further that thought... Massive black holes are the ultimate sub-woofer and micro black holes the ultimate high-range tweeter. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-06/black-holes-jam-on-bass-to-accompany-star-creation.html Yes, I believe cold fusion is nothing but the effects of quantum gravity making its presence felt in the macro world. This goes for SonoFusion, Bubble Fusion, ColdFusion, PappFusion, TerraWattFusion, LightningBallFusion, PattersonBeadFusion, MileyVoidFusion, DGTMicroFusion, CelaniWireFusion and RossiMediaCircusFusion. Matter or Energy In Energy Out Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Compose Music composemu...@inbox.lvwrote: For Musicians, Artists, Fat Bureaucrats Others Unwilling to Examine a New Beat, Take off the blinders and at least investigate this concept: Found in Rossi's Journal --- This means that all the theories based on current Theoretical Physics, (*as for instance the attempts made by Peter Hagelstein, Widom-Larsen, Edmund Storms, etc.*), actually are very far away from the true explanation for cold fusion, and they are wasting their time trying to understand cold fusion with their surpassed understanding on Nuclear Physics. So, there is need, indeed, a New Physics, with new foundations. Perhaps Rossi is using the flyback suggested by me in May-2012: *Is Rossi’s New Solid State e-Cat a gravity device ? (Score: 1)* http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=3385mode=nestedorder=0thold=0#14765 If yes, then Rossi’s new Hot e-Cat is indeed a gravity device. Regards WLAD End of paste. Left click that Blue line hyperlink if you dare. Harmonize The Thought to a 3/4 Waltz
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
Terry, His progress seems fast to you because he has figured how to warp time with his not yet disclosed T-cat device. To him he has been working on it for 50 years . That is approx 25:1 time dilation... If you watch his hair grow closely you can tell. :) On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: I find it extremely difficult to take anything AR says seriously. His research seems to be advancing too fast even if he does have assistance from the NRL, which I doubt would be taking place in a warehouse in Italy. Just my opinion. I could be wrong. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
Of course I agree with Jed. This is the same plague that effects all of these devices. Uncertainty? Instability? Unreliability? Collapsed matter? Life imitating science? I also worry about health effects unless properly shielded and isolated. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: To bet in what sense? That he has a work able device or that he has anything at all? Everything that Rossi does says is in a state of Quantum Indeterminacy. The act of betting may tilt events one way or the other. It is best not to go there. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
Only I think in the case of these devices the cat can also jump thru the box or consume the box if he/she is large and hungry enough... On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/8/30 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: To bet in what sense? That he has a work able device or that he has anything at all? Everything that Rossi does says is in a state of Quantum Indeterminacy. The act of betting may tilt events one way or the other. It is best not to go there. Shrodinger's cat had only 2 states once the box was opened: dead or alive. Rossi's E-cat keeps staying in multiple states because the box can't be opened. One may wonder if there's a cat after all... mic
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
I agree, I think Rossi has come upon anomalous heat/energy like many others including SRI, DGT, etc. You are right, the smaller the scale, the more the reliability/less uncertainty. Nature keeps atoms, electrons and protons small because by themselves, they are uncertain. Orbits due to gravity/repulsion maintain some level of certainty. Magnify atoms into superatoms and collapsed matter and you increase uncertainty/unreliability. Many of the researchers that have passed, some untimely, and have taken their knowledge with them. Reding, De Palma, Patterson, Fox, etc. but the effect remains. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Of course I agree with Jed. This is the same plague that effects all of these devices. Well, not the small scale cold fusion devices at places like SRI, thank goodness. They are established beyond any rational doubt. If I may be a little more serious about Rossi . . . It is clear to me that his policy is the same as Patterson's was. He does not want credibility. He *does not want* people to know for sure that his device is real -- or that it is fake. (I assume it is real, mainly because there are a growing number of credible nanoparticle Ni-H results.) Rossi has repeatedly gone out of his way to prevent people from independently confirming his claims. People including me. I could have verified it to a far greater extent than it has been so far. I could have done this easily in a few hours. He knows I could have. He put his foot down. Let me repeat with emphasis, and let me make this clear: he told me and he told several other people that *he will he will never allow independent public testing*. I and many others have proposed such tests. We could arrange them in a few days. He says no tests! He means it. He only allows tests that will remain secret under NDAs. As I have said here before, I know of some secret tests. I never publish things without permission. The last thing I need is to have researchers upset with me. I get in enough trouble with Rossi and others when I say the sort of thing I am saying here, in this message. I assume Rossi cultivates this ambiguity for the same reason Patterson did. I doubt it is because he is trying to cover up a fraud, and I can't think of any other reasons. Patterson and Reding both told me they wanted most people to think they were wrong, or crazy, or frauds, because that gave them 100% market share. I told him Patterson he would end up with 100% of nothing. Needless to say, he took his technology and his market share to the grave with him. I predicted he would. I predict Rossi will do the same thing if he persists with this strategy. There is no chance you can keep this secret to the extent he is trying to do yet also achieve commercial success. Rossi and Patterson also shunned mass media exposure. No kidding. They went out of their way to make themselves look bad in the mass media. This is a business strategy, not lunacy. It is a lousy strategy, in my opinion. It usually fails. Defkalion has done the same thing, by the way. Last January they said they wanted tests with the results made public. Apparently they changed their minds, or they changed the schedule. As far as I know, all tests done since then have been under restrictive NDAs. I do not know if any of these NDAs have a time limit. A little information has leaked out despite the NDAs. As far as I can tell the tests have been unimpressive. But who knows? Until they publish a complete independent data set, you don't know whether their claims are valid. I see no point to speculating. It is a waste of time trying to suss out information people do not want you to have. Generally speaking, in my experience, the value of a technical claim is inversely proportional to the level of secrecy applied to it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
Those are pretty tough questions for a device that is generating fission, fusion, chemical and possibly some forms of collapsed matter, all with different reaction kinetics, time constants and instabilities...I would think it would be very hard to wrestle that pig to the ground (I grew up on a farm)... On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Great stuff Dave. On the face of it, this Rossi reaction control mechanism seems primitive and problematic. Do you have additional details? When the reaction is operating at 1200C, what level of temperature spike is required to reverse a dropping reaction temperature profile? Does the maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above 1450C at any point? How long does the reaction take to respond to the temperature spike? What causes the reaction temperature to fall? How long does the reaction take to regain stability? How much power does the external temperature impulse consume in a 10 KW system? How much heat loss from pore insolation can the reactor tolerate? Cheers: Axil On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I performed additional analysis and have a couple of items to add to the simulation results. The first one is that it is obvious that the Rossi controlled devices operate within the thermal run away region to achieve a COP of 6. In these cases, the positive feedback is responsible for the gain and also set the time constants required to keep the units stable with drive. Other implicit components that effect the time constant are the thermal capacitance of the core and thermal resistance through which the heat energy flows. One consequence of operation within the unstable region is that a strong shock is required to force the rising temperature function of the device to reverse direction. Once reversed, the temperature will head toward zero and stable operation unless another external positive heating shock occurs at an important time. This behavior might well explain why Rossi continues to insist that he can not use the heat output of an ECAT to drive additional ones. The slow response time of the ECAT driver would not constitute a thermal shock that could control the operation of its brothers. An electric or gas heater can respond rapidly enough to achieve the desired results. Perhaps I sound like a Rossi fan by continuing to support his claims while many of the other vorts seem to question them. I guess my confidence in many of his statements is that they tend to be confirmable by my model performance. If he were totally full of *** then why insist upon a COP that is reasonable, but low, when claiming a higher value would be advantageous? How would extending this claim make him more of a dud? Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 4:50 pm Subject: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency Earlier I posted information obtained by simulating the ECAT device. The last version assumed that the ECAT internal LENR energy generation mechanism depended upon the core temperature as a second order function. The latest trial runs were obtained by using a model that allowed this temperature dependency to be of the third power. I was curious as to how much more critical the system would behave at this higher power and gave it a test run. I was able to obtain a COP of almost 18 if I pushed the operation of the core to the brink of critical run away temperature. This would not be acceptable unless an active cooling method was also available that could extract heat rapidly from the core if its temperature became too great. Rossi may have something of this nature in his latest design, but it is not evident. The power drive duty cycle was required to be approxiamtely 10% during this test run. If I operated the device within a conservative mode where I kept the temperature at 90% of the run away value I only obtained a COP of 3.61. I noted that the duty cycle of the drive was 50% which is as Rossi has stated within his journal. With these two independent runs available for reference it is clear that I could obtain the expected COP of 6 if I carefully chose the peak temperature excursion of the device. In the earlier experiment with the temperature dependency of second order the matching seemed to be easier and I achieved a good level with the first attempt. The implication of my modeling is that it is likely that Rossi or anyone who has a device that follows this general rule would be capable of making the COP of 6.0 if the design contains a reasonable geometry and has the internal thermal resistances properly adjusted. If anyone is aware of the power output-temperature functional relationship of Rossi's device please direct me to that data so that I can adjust the model to match the
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
Nanopowder typically melts at lower temperatures than its equivalent solid. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Does the maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above 1450C at any point? Ah. Google tells me that is the melting point of Ni . . . Actually, you cannot get close to a melting point without bad stuff happening. Sintering and local melting. The temperature is not likely to be uniform. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Important claims are patented or published as quickly as possible
I think the Papp engine is electric charge accumulation, magnetic alignment, compression and collapse followed by an instant energy burst. Same thing happening in the voids/cracks of the lattice each pop of DGT's spark plugs. I think we saw yesterday that TerraWatt Research LLC also has a patent for their magnetic motor. That electric motor is spinning those magnets and creating a magnetic impulse/alignment and possible compression within the gap between them at 20 times/sec. Electric charge also builds in the gap over time since the burst of matter should release charged particles. It is all the same effect aided by quantum level gravitational attraction finishing the collapse. I am going to continue pounding that thought into everyone's collective brains. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The Papp engine is the only LENR device that has ever been patented. What makes you think it is LENR? I guess in the broader sense it probably is, but I doubt it has anything to do with hydride cold fusion (the F-P effect). But, who knows?! Until it is independently reincarnated and tested I will have little confidence it is real, even if it convinced the Patent Office. I do not dismiss it. - Jed
[Vo]:Important claims are patented or published as quickly as possible
Papp/rohners mentioned it starts overheating above 2800 rpm. If the effect releases a large spectrum of radiation/charged particles only a portion might get absorbed locally resulting in heat. The rest might pass right out of the device after also propelling the piston On Thursday, August 30, 2012, David Roberson wrote: Sounds like a pretty effective test. It is apparent that the Papp device, if real, is not a heat engine due to the cool touch. I suspect LENR activity working in conjunction with some form of electric motor behavior. The axial magnetic field would give the ions a twist in direction that would induce a circulating current within the piston and opposing cap. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 6:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Important claims are patented or published as quickly as possible Correction: Rothmen logic should have been Jed Rothwell logic… as demonstrated in the touch test by an observer of a hot Rossi reactor to prove over unity and life after death during late stage of the demo conducted by Rossi just before the last public October demo/test conducted by/for the Government. Remember? This man jumped when he burnt his fingers after he touched a hot reactor surface. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Let’s use some Rothmen logic here. How can plasma be produced if the temperature of the engine is just warm to the touch? How can 500 HP be produced sustainably without the presence of huge external electrical feed that is easily detectable? Michael McKubre is a man of common sense; according to Mike, the internal power source is either LENR or derived from the vacuum. All that power coming from the vacuum would be hard to believe. How can 500,000 watts come from the vacuum? So most probably LENR is involved in powering the Papp engine. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 12:50 PM 8/30/2012, Axil Axil wrote: Michael McKubre said that the reason he believes completely in the reality of the Papp engine reaction for the last 14 years is that Papp ran a full demo of his engine in front of patent examiners to their total satisfaction using a dynamometer… it worked as advertised. On the strength of this demo, the patent office was forced to give Papp a patent on his engine. Is that documented anywhere? (googling doesn't give any quick, definitive links). Are patent office communications archived? The Papp engine is the only LENR device that has ever been patented. Since it depends on a plasma, I'd call it Hot fusion.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
Or it might be that after 3 years he does not yet have a stable reactor,
like DGT, Rohners, Terrawatt, etc. these things might last for a short
period of time for a demo but then break down in short order. They run
just long enough to show a patent officer or inspector or investor...
On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Axil Axil wrote:
Many viral infections are successful in infecting other hosts because
these pathogens delay symptoms until they have had an almost certain
opportunity to spread. Evolution has proven that such a delaying survival
tactic allows the pathogen to survive and prosper, ADS and influenza are
examples of the “kept it quiet” infection strategy.
Rossi is using this dormancy infection strategy to imbed his product
deeply in the marketplace before it can be stuffed out by a countering
competitive eradication procedure by another form of energy production. .
Cheers: Axil
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell
jedrothw...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'jedrothw...@gmail.com');
wrote:
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote:
Of course I agree with Jed. This is the same plague that effects all of
these devices.
Well, not the small scale cold fusion devices at places like SRI, thank
goodness. They are established beyond any rational doubt.
If I may be a little more serious about Rossi . . . It is clear to me
that his policy is the same as Patterson's was. He does not want
credibility. He *does not want* people to know for sure that his device
is real -- or that it is fake. (I assume it is real, mainly because there
are a growing number of credible nanoparticle Ni-H results.)
Rossi has repeatedly gone out of his way to prevent people from
independently confirming his claims. People including me. I could have
verified it to a far greater extent than it has been so far. I could have
done this easily in a few hours. He knows I could have. He put his foot
down. Let me repeat with emphasis, and let me make this clear: he told me
and he told several other people that *he will he will never allow
independent public testing*.
I and many others have proposed such tests. We could arrange them in a
few days. He says no tests! He means it. He only allows tests that will
remain secret under NDAs. As I have said here before, I know of some secret
tests. I never publish things without permission. The last thing I need is
to have researchers upset with me. I get in enough trouble with Rossi and
others when I say the sort of thing I am saying here, in this message.
I assume Rossi cultivates this ambiguity for the same reason Patterson
did. I doubt it is because he is trying to cover up a fraud, and I can't
think of any other reasons. Patterson and Reding both told me they wanted
most people to think they were wrong, or crazy, or frauds, because that
gave them 100% market share. I told him Patterson he would end up with
100% of nothing. Needless to say, he took his technology and his market
share to the grave with him. I predicted he would. I predict Rossi will do
the same thing if he persists with this strategy. There is no chance you
can keep this secret to the extent he is trying to do yet also achieve
commercial success.
Rossi and Patterson also shunned mass media exposure. No kidding. They
went out of their way to make themselves look bad in the mass media. This
is a business strategy, not lunacy. It is a lousy strategy, in my opinion.
It usually fails.
Defkalion has done the same thing, by the way. Last January they said
they wanted tests with the results made public. Apparently they changed
their minds, or they changed the schedule. As far as I know, all tests done
since then have been under restrictive NDAs. I do not know if any of these
NDAs have a time limit. A little information has leaked out despite the
NDAs. As far as I can tell the tests have been unimpressive. But who knows?
Until they publish a complete independent data set, you don't know whether
their claims are valid. I see no point to speculating. It is a waste of
time trying to suss out information people do not want you to have.
Generally speaking, in my experience, the value of a technical claim is
inversely proportional to the level of secrecy applied to it.
- Jed
[Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
Terry, That is a good paper that I need to reference. I see it more like alot of different research/results are pointing us in a common direction. I am trying to piece together alot of observations and other theories, some from astro physics and some from nuclear physics and some from just plain old engineering sense logic. Unexpectedly, I have also scared myself a bit by what I think the reaction might be, what it implies and how to make it safe when you scale it up. There is a reason that it is taking taking decades to produce a device that is stable. Many very smart people have built devices that worked at one time and yet they were not able to make it to market. I also see some health issues that concern me with some of the people most involved in the past. Interestingly, I came across an article from around the year 2000 or so that mentioned Jed and also mentioned Frank Z. telling Ed Storms he thought there was a link between cold fusion, superconductivity and gravity. I think Frank was right and Ed is still looking primarily at a nuclear fusion reaction. Sometimes I think scientists seem so bent on one theory that fits their discipline that they close their eyes to others. Just the way I see it. Stewart On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Those are pretty tough questions for a device that is generating fission, fusion, chemical and possibly some forms of collapsed matter, all with different reaction kinetics, time constants and instabilities... Someone is beating you to the draw: http://www.darksideofgravity.com/DG_neutrinos.pdf T
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
When I see/read something like the following
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosenova
I think that the magnetic fields created across a void/gap due to charge
concentrations must align the condensate atoms such that the repulsion
between atoms within the condensate is reduced further allowing quantum
gravity to then trigger a collapse and instant, intense radiation and heat
release. I think the effect is most likely enhanced by external
pressure/repulsion from the lattice on the condensate, ultra high densities
and total charge accumulation. I am a chemical guy so think less about
magnetic fields but that seems to an important parameter. Based on that
Papp engine and terrawatt engines I think a lattice is optional, magnetic
field induced across a metallic gap definitely.
Stewart
On Thursday, August 30, 2012, wrote:
Thanks Stewart,
Yes, I have been saying the same thing for quite a while. Miley showed
a long time ago that is was the fission of a compound nucleus.
Many nucleons acting as one. How can that be? The nucleus are of Fermi
meter dimensions and the inter nuclear spacing is in angstroms?
Once again the only way is if the range of the strong nuclear force is
extended. My analysis suggests that the spin orbit nuclear-magnetic effect
is the actor. I am an Electrical Engineer and I think in terms of fields
and forces. Nuclear physicists think in therms of particle like nucleons.
I know the magnetic force is not conserved. The spin orbit force must by
analogy also be non-conservative. The magnetic field is extend within soft
iron. I believe that the nuclear spin orbit force is extended within a
vibrating inverse Bose condensate. A condensate of protons. For some
reason over the last few days my book has started selling. The article on
IE produced no sales. I know not why.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8field-author=Frank%20Znidarsicie=UTF8search-alias=bookssort=relevancerank
The mathematics also produced the quantum condition and a unification of
Special Relativity and quantum physics.
I completed this stuff 10 years ago and adjusted a little since. My
experiments have not produced any anomalous energy by I will soon try again
with something different.
http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/913/Frank,%20Znidarsic%20(new)
Frank Znidarsic
Interestingly, I came across an article from around the year 2000 or so
that mentioned Jed and also mentioned Frank Z. telling Ed Storms he thought
there was a link between cold fusion, superconductivity and gravity. I
think Frank was right and Ed is still looking primarily at a nuclear fusion
reaction.
Sometimes I think scientists seem so bent on one theory that fits their
discipline that they close their eyes to others.
Just the way I see it.
Stewart
-Original Message-
From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cheme...@gmail.com');
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 8:22 pm
Subject: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
Terry,
That is a good paper that I need to reference. I see it more like alot
of different research/results are pointing us in a common direction. I am
trying to piece together alot of observations and other theories, some from
astro physics and some from nuclear physics and some from just plain old
engineering sense logic.
Unexpectedly, I have also scared myself a bit by what I think the
reaction might be, what it implies and how to make it safe when you scale
it up. There is a reason that it is taking taking decades to produce a
device that is stable. Many very smart people have built devices that
worked at one time and yet they were not able to make it to market. I also
see some health issues that concern me with some of the people most
involved in the past.
Interestingly, I came across an article from around the year 2000 or so
that mentioned Jed and also mentioned Frank Z. telling Ed Storms he thought
there was a link between cold fusion, superconductivity and gravity. I
think Frank was right and Ed is still looking primarily at a nuclear fusion
reaction.
Sometimes I think scientists seem so bent on one theory that fits their
discipline that they close their eyes to others.
Just the way I see it.
Stewart
On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
wrote:
Those are pretty tough questions for a device that is generating
fission,
fusion, chemical and possibly some forms of collapsed matter, all with
different reaction kinetics, time constants and instabilities...
Someone is beating you to the draw:
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/DG_neutrinos.pdf
T
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
Jed, I totally agree. Our firm designs industrial ASME certified vessels to handle high temperatures and pressures. These vessels also have to confirm to API and NFPA guidelines. If a customer came to us with a reactor design that they could not define what the exact reaction kinetics were along with emissions it would be impossible to design and certify an industrial product. Nuclear Regulations are a whole new level of certification and I am by no means qualified to comment on them. It is best that this technology be studied by as many experts as possible to nail down the reaction(s), kinetics and emissions. That is the only way to insure public safety. Who knows, maybe it is very benign/safe at a low levels but becomes more of a bad actor had higher level energy output. Stewart On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: This paragraph makes no sense to me: So, the LENR term is problematic due to such serious scientific reasons. But there is one more problematic effect from the use of such wrong definition: Certification of products based on such technologies when named “nuclear”, will result the involvement of lobbies dominating the present related Nuclear Authorities, that they will use any of their spades to delay any improvement out of their control or interest, when the area of interest and responsibility of such Authorities has nothing to do with the phenomena we are talking about! The phenomenon is what it is. It makes no difference what you call it: LENR, cold fusion or HENI-heat. It makes no difference what you claim the theoretical explanation is. The actual explanation will eventually emerge. It the effect is nuclear, then the present Nuclear Authorities must regulate it. They are obligated by law. If it is not nuclear, they will not regulate it. The opinions of the people at Defkalion -- and their theories, and what they choose to call it -- can play no role in the decision to regulate this, or not to regulate it. The decision is entirely out of their hands. As I said, the authorities are *obligated by law* to regulate a nuclear effect. Defkalion, or Rossi, cannot change regulations. The are not governments. They can lobby to have the law changed. They can appeal to the public to put pressure on governments. But they cannot magically change laws by using different terminology to describe their technology. The true nature of the technology will be established by having thousands of researchers examine the effects in laboratory tests worldwide. In my opinion, there is not the slightest chance this effect will be used in any end-user application until thousands of laboratories have replicated, confirmed that it is safe, determined whether it is nuclear or not, and developed a working model if not a complete theory to explain it. Society will not allow an unexplained, unknown source of energy that looks a lot like nuclear fusion to be used in thousands of houses, buildings and automobiles without regulation and without careful testing. Rossi -- and apparently Defkalion -- seem to be betting that they can slide in under the radar as it were, and start selling this profitably without first spending billions of dollars to ensure safety. I think that is preposterous. That is not how the world works in the 21st century. Some people think it is a shame that our society is heavily regulated. They prefer the 19th or early 20th century freedom to start selling things that have not been carefully vetted and approved. In the early 1900s, people sold water with lots of radium as a health drink. This killed the people who drank it. Many other dangerous products were allowed back then. We are never going to return to those freewheeling times. I agree that regulations slow down the pace of progress, and some regulations are absurd, but whether they are good or bad, I am sure they are not going away, and it is not possible for Defkalion to do an end-run around them by renaming the phenomenon. Some people hope that cold fusion will get its start in places like India, where regulators have little power. I doubt it. Regulators in India and China have lots of power. Far too much. They are corrupt and will demand more control and a larger kickback than they would in the U.S. They are not responsive to public pressure on the legislatures. This technology will be developed, certified safe and sold in the first world -- the U.S., Europe and Japan -- or it will not be developed at all. It will be developed like any other major innovation, with the full cooperation, involvement and compliance of government regulators and private regulators such as UL. Or it will not be developed at all. Something as big as this will not be secretly, gradually introduced. It will not be manufactured in cottage industry fashion, or bootstrapped by Rossi. This is wishful thinking. It is likely there will be opposition from
Re: [Vo]:Magnetic/Inertial Drive Motors: Important claims are patented or published as quickly as possible
I think I will send without an attachment Found this recent 2011 patent application for an inertial drive similar to the TerraWatt drive and attached the google patent version and another link http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2011044588 Filed by this guy: Joseph P. Firmage, 28, founded USWeb, a leading Internet consulting firm, in 1995. Like his previous ventures, the company prospered wildly. For fiscal 1998, USWeb posted revenue of $228 million - a 100% increase over the previous year. He referenced one of the early magnetic motor developers, Bruce De Palma MIT/Harvard grad (Brian's brother - Scarface Director). Bruce evidently had a working demo unit filed a patent application back in the 1990's before succumbing to stomach cancer and/or internal bleeding at age 52. The motor was never brought to market. http://www.scribd.com/doc/86710207/Bruce-Depalma-History http://www.brucedepalma.com/ Just food for thought. I wish some of these guys stayed healthier. Stewart On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: A patent is not the only way to protect an idea. In practice, trade secret law may be more important. This is particularly true when the idea to be protected is not the product itself, but the process used to produce it. Consider the high-K metal gate process used by Intel at the 45nm and 32nm nodes. Intel published a small amount of information about the process when they introduced it. And competitors have undoubtedly reverse engineered the results, determining the precise geometries and elemental makeup of the devices. But they do not know the process used to produce them. They are forced to hypothesize about the process technology and then test each hypothesis. Certainly, knowing the final result is a huge advantage over having to dream it up in the first place. But reverse engineering the manufacturing process is still daunting, even for engineers already skilled in the art. I think there may be analogies in LENR. Now frankly in the long run, I don't expect this fact to be especially significant. If this stuff plays out as some of us hope, the economic incentive will ensure that what can be done, will be done, and quickly. If it doesn't play out, there are no useful secrets to protect. But trade secrecy may have a large effect on the likelihood of people like me, a curious non-specialist, ever being able to satisfy my curiosity about what the heck is going on. Bummer. ;-) Jeff, speaking for myself. I have never been employed by Intel or had access to any Intel trade-secret information through NDA or anything like that. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I wrote: Generally speaking, in my experience, the value of a technical claim is inversely proportional to the level of secrecy applied to it. I am not being cynical. Well, not completely cynical. In technology, when you make an important claim you file a patent. A patent must reveal everything or it is invalid. In pure science, when you make an important breakthrough you rush to publish it as soon as possible to establish priority. Sometimes, foolish people make what they think is an important breakthrough and they try to keep it secret. These breakthroughs are usually mistakes or stuff that everyone knows already. Howard Aiken's dictum applies: Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Magnetic/Inertial Drive Motors: Important claims are patented or published as quickly as possible
Either (1) Medical Marijuana patient...(2) a surge of quarks/gluons to the synapses. Either one will trigger similar events On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I remember Joe Firmage from my MUFON days: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg192CjeuK4 Good thing it wasn't an Incubus. T
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:The energy of the vacuum causes the Bosenova
I agree with the condensation/ultra dense matter in the voids. We can agree to disagree about where the energy actually comes from for now. It would be nice to have a mass and energy balance around what is going on in a controlled lab setting, I am sure that is somewhat tricky. The Papp/Rohner/TerraWatt/DePalma/Firmage devices make me think you can charge/compress/magnetically pulse/shock matter and get a similar energy pop. I pulled this paragraph from a recent Caltech article: Recent work by Christian Beck at the University of London and Michael Mackey at McGill University may have resolved the 120 order of magnitude problem. In that case dark energy is nothing other than zero-point energy. In Measureability of vacuum fluctuations and dark energyhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605418 and Electromagnetic dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703364 they propose that a phase transition occurs so that zero-point photons below a frequency of about 1.7 THz are *gravitationally active* whereas above that they are not. If this is the case, then the dark energy problem is solved: *dark energy is the low frequency gravitationally active component of zero-point energy.* I am sure we can all google something that supports our ideas. That is the great thing about Google! My new motto is It's just gravity This will make cold fusion more palatable for everyone...or should I name my theory Gravifusion? Stewart On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, I think you are on the right track – it fits with MAHG, Mills, Rossi and even the compressing gases in Noble gas engine claims. Not saying it negates all the other theories but it sounds like a nice fit that minimizes the number of miracles needed and is based on observed facts. We all try to exploit HUP effect on gas in this confined environment but your focus on the condensate threshold rather than my focus on covalent bond threshold or Lamb pinch seems to ring truer. Very good theory my hat is off to you Fran ** ** *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 2:20 AM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: [Vo]:The energy of the vacuum causes the Bosenova ** ** The energy of the vacuum causes the Bosenova From: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0412041 *The collapsing condensate was observed to lose atoms until the atom number reduced to about the critical value below which a stable condensate can exist. The dependence of the number of remaining atoms on time since initiation of the collapse _evolve was measured for the case of an initial state with Ninit = 16000 atoms and repulsive interaction corresponding to ainit = +7a0, where a0 is the hydrogen Bohr radius. * *The onset of number loss is quite sudden, with milliseconds of very little loss followed by a rapid decay of condensate population (within 0.5 ms) after which the condensate stabilizes again. This behavior results from the scaling of the loss rate with the cube of the density, the peak value of which rises as 1/(tcollapse − t) near the collapse point. * *This allows a precise definition of the collapse time tcollapse, the time after initiation of the collapse up to which only negligible numbers of atoms are lost from the condensate. Another quantitative result of the experiment is the dependence of tcollapse on the magnitude of the attractive interaction that causes the collapse, parametrised by the (negative) scattering length acollapse. These measurements are performed from an initial state with Ninit = 6000 atoms in an ideal gas state (with interaction between them tuned to zero). The tcollapse datapoints presented in the original paper have undergone one revision of their acollapse values by a factor of 1.166(8) due to a more precisely determined background scattering length. * * Although the main focus of this paper shall be on the collapse time, we mention two other striking features of the experiment: the appearance of ’bursts’ and ’jets’. One fraction of the atoms that are lost during the collapse is expelled from the condensate at quite high energies (**∼100 nK to **∼400 nK, while the condensate temperature is 3 nK); this phenomenon was referred to as ’bursts’. Finally, when the collapse was interrupted during the period of number loss by a sudden jump in the scattering length, another atom ejection mechanism was observed: ’jets’ of atoms emerge, almost purely in the radial direction and with temperatures a lot lower than that of the bursts (a few nK)* My theory of the bosenova explosion When too many atoms are packed into too confined a space, the uncertainty principle comes into play. A confined space means an uncertain(aka high) kinetic energy. When confinement gets high enough, the associated increase in kinetic energy destabilizes the condensate and the
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... Domestic certification problem?
It is if you don't know what the reaction is! On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: A cold fusion nuclear reactor that that puts out as much energy and density as a common nuclear reactor cannot possibly be dangerous. 2012/8/31 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com More tea-leaf reading : problems with the domestic certification ? Andrea Rossi August 31st, 2012 at 9:34 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695cpage=6#comment-311191 Dear Koen Vandewalle: We have all the resources necessary for a development of our technology, based on our businessplant. I do not think we will have delays as for the industrial apparatuses. For the domestic ones, certification will be possible, I think, after the industrialplants will have produced enough statistics. Warm Regards, A.R. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
If a piece of metal/wire just sits there and generates long term anomalous heat while slooowly losing mass, which is what this is doing, let's just call it evaporation like we do with water, sounds soothing. We might even have RossiSauna franchises very soon. On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In the field of politics and public relations, the words that are used are tools to influence perceptions. Some words are good and some words are bad in forming impressions and connections in people’s minds. LENR and CANR are acronyms and contain bad words in themselves. These terms should not be used in conversations with the general public. It has the word nuclear associated with it. The acronym HENI is better but is restrictive to the element nickel. Nickel will be replaced by other elements as the future of LENR unfolds. The associations in the word HENI will be weaken over time and such a situation should be avoided. It’s better to get the right word up front like what has been done for LASER and RADAR. The advocates of LENR should stay away from association with physics and especially nuclear physics. We want to be associated with chemistry. Instead of using words like fission and fusion, we want to use a word like transmutation. It is transmutation of elements that provide energy. Transmutation is associated with alchemy, magic, and the conversion of lead into gold. So a name like Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction(CATR) is a tool to avoid the association with NUCLEAR, a very bad word indeed.Cheers: Axil . On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: This paragraph makes no sense to me: So, the LENR term is problematic due to such serious scientific reasons. But there is one more problematic effect from the use of such wrong definition: Certification of products based on such technologies when named “nuclear”, will result the involvement of lobbies dominating the present related Nuclear Authorities, that they will use any of their spades to delay any improvement out of their control or interest, when the area of interest and responsibility of such Authorities has nothing to do with the phenomena we are talking about! The phenomenon is what it is. It makes no difference what you call it: LENR, cold fusion or HENI-heat. It makes no difference what you claim the theoretical explanation is. The actual explanation will eventually emerge. It the effect is nuclear, then the present Nuclear Authorities must regulate it. They are obligated by law. If it is not nuclear, they will not regulate it. The opinions of the people at Defkalion -- and their theories, and what they choose to call it -- can play no role in the decision to regulate this, or not to regulate it. The decision is entirely out of their hands. As I said, the authorities are *obligated by law* to regulate a nuclear effect. Defkalion, or Rossi, cannot change regulations. The are not governments. They can lobby to have the law changed. They can appeal to the public to put pressure on governments. But they cannot magically change laws by using different terminology to describe their technology. The true nature of the technology will be established by having thousands of researchers examine the effects in laboratory tests worldwide. In my opinion, there is not the slightest chance this effect will be used in any end-user application until thousands of laboratories have replicated, confirmed that it is safe, determined whether it is nuclear or not, and developed a working model if not a complete theory to explain it. Society will not allow an unexplained, unknown source of energy that looks a lot like nuclear fusion to be used in thousands of houses, buildings and automobiles without regulation and without careful testing. Rossi -- and apparently Defkalion -- seem to be betting that they can slide in under the radar as it were, and start selling this profitably without first spending billions of dollars to ensure safety. I think that is preposterous. That is not how the world works in the 21st century. Some people think it is a shame that our society is heavily regulated. They prefer the 19th or early 20th century freedom to start selling things that have not been carefully vetted and approved. In the early 1900s, people sold water with lots of radium as a health drink. This killed the people who drank it. Many other dangerous products were allowed back then. We are never going to return to those freewheeling times. I agree that regulations slow down the pace of progress, and some regulations are absurd, but whether they are good or bad, I am sure they are not going away, and it is not possible for Defkalion to do an end-run around them by renaming the phenomenon. Some people hope that cold fusion will get its start in places like India, where regulators have little power. I doubt it.
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
Byproduct material http://www.nrc.gov/materials/byproduct-mat.html (material
that is made radioactive in a reactor, and residue from the milling of
uranium and thorium)
I would think that any byproducts, even only unstable for seconds, would
trigger this.
I am just guessing
On Friday, August 31, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'janap...@gmail.com'); wrote:
Chemical transmutation, is what is going on. The physics commumity must
come to terms with this reality.
They all have to agree with you. Because . . . Why exactly?
Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction (CATR) reactions are produced
through the action of electrons not neutrons.
The NRC regulates the use of neutrons not electrons.
If no neutrons are produced, there is no need for NRC regulation.
Two problems with this:
1. Celani did detect neutrons, so maybe they are produced. It will take a
lot more research to settle this issue.
2. Do you seriously expect that everyone in the scientific establishment,
every regulator, and every lawmaker will agree with you about this? Do you
think there will be no debate? No funds allocated to determine whether you
are right or wrong? Everyone will look at the present evidence, decide it
is sufficient, and instantly dismiss a large chunk of conventional nuclear
physics.
- Jed
[Vo]:Another View-Understanding of eCat working
And I am sure those are just the really big black holes we can see. They come in all masses depending upon age, location and how much matter initially collided/collapsed and many probably contain past solar systems and probably past civilizations. I'll bet they far far outnumber humans it is just that our minds have a hard time wrapping around them. They help create matter from the vacuum as well as consume and evaporate it. Its just gravity Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Friday, August 31, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:26 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: To further that thought... Massive black holes are the ultimate sub-woofer and micro black holes the ultimate high-range tweeter. WISE support: http://www.space.com/17359-black-holes-millions-found-nasa-space-telescope.html T
Re: [Vo]:Another View-Understanding of eCat working
I guess since massive black holes at the center of most galaxies warp spacetime you are probably right. Solar systems roll right around the drain into the hole. On Friday, August 31, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:53 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:; wrote: Its just gravity There is no such thing as gravity. The earth sucks. Sorry, I could not resist. Have you noticed how a spiral galaxy resembles a water drain? T
Re: [Vo]:Another View-Understanding of eCat working
Sorry about the small font Steven Hawking demonstrated with quantum mechanics that a black hole emits Hawking radiation http://www.universetoday.com/40856/hawking-radiation/ and can come to thermal equilibrium. That same thermal equilibrium stays unchanged in time reversal. So, according to Hawking the reverse of a black hole in thermal equilibrium is a black hole in thermal equilibrium; meaning that a hole, black or white, is the same thing. Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/53948/white-hole/#ixzz25B2faalV On Friday, August 31, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comjavascript:; wrote: Okay, that given, then explore the possibility that we might be dealing with a mirror world, a world of negative energy on the other side of absolute zero. This world might be populated with white holes which maintain the balance. (Credit to Don Hotson here.) World really means Universe. T
