Ed,
I suggested two analogies with the videos
1) alphas trigger the reaction like a spark triggering a fire.
As you point out this analogy is difficult to square with observations.
2) alphas are like smoke accompanying a fire. Depending on the
conditions there can be lots of smoke with little
Harry, it is impossible to apply energy to an alpha unless another
particle is involved. You can not propose having energetic alpha
emission without also identifying this other particle. Basic laws can
not be ignored just because CF is a strange phenomenon.
An alpha is normally emitted
From: Edmund Storms
Takahashi proposes to form Be8 that fragments after emitting the extra
energy as gamma. However, this idea has no experimental support. The other
theories do not propose energetic helium is produced. If you want to make a
contribution, you need to take these facts
On May 11, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
From: Edmund Storms
Takahashi proposes to form Be8 that fragments after emitting the
extra energy as gamma. However, this idea has no experimental
support. The other theories do not propose energetic helium is
produced. If you want to
From: Edmund Storms
I find that all theories are based on a series of assumptions, but some of
these assumptions violate basic laws, yet the theory is accepted because the
other assumptions are accepted. This is like recommending a road on which
the bridge is missing just because the
Jones, you interpretation of what I claim is not correct. My theory
and most others try to find a way for the mass-energy to leave the
nucleus in units to small be detected. Hagelstein's theory has these
units being phonons generated by a process that can only be described
by a complex
From: Edmund Storms
It would help if you used the definition of gamma ray correctly.
Ed, I'm afraid that it us you who is not up to date on the semantics of
gamma radiation.
Gamma radiation these days is independent of origin, and is merely high
energy per photon. Apparently,
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 10 May 2013 17:05:05 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
In the situation you describe, there are going to be lots of spallation
neutrons, because you only need 2.2 MeV to break a deuterium nucleus into a
proton and a neutron, and heavy water is all deuterium. It's going
Ok Jones, but we now have a problem with communication. If the word
gamma only describes a high energy range, than none of the radiation
resulting from LENR can be called gamma. But, how do we describe the
source of photons? Must we now give the source in so many words every
time? And
Very interesting discussion. If can summarize the main points in my own
words, it would be something like this -- for a hypothetical heavy water
electrolytic system in which watts of prompt alphas are being produced in a
palladium cathode by way of a hypothetical d+d+Pd→4He+Pd + Q (22.9 MeV
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 11 May 2013 18:04:19 -0700:
Hi Eric,
I think your summation is quite good.
Very interesting discussion. If can summarize the main points in my own
words, it would be something like this -- for a hypothetical heavy water
electrolytic system in which
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Thu, 9 May 2013 20:49:04 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:47 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 6 May 2013 18:21:16 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
If that fails, because, for example, Robin shows
overwhelming evidence
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:21 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In short, very roughly, a 1 W unshielded power source would double the
background rate.
Thank you for the numbers. Twice background doesn't sound like all that
much; presumably this is near the threshold of detection, and a signal
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 6 May 2013 18:21:16 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
If that fails, because, for example, Robin shows
overwhelming evidence that the experimenter would be harmed by secondary
EMF if there were watts of 4He's being generated (setting neutrons aside),
I will feel
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:47 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 6 May 2013 18:21:16 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
If that fails, because, for example, Robin shows
overwhelming evidence that the experimenter would be harmed by secondary
EMF if there were watts of
No, Eric, this is not tiresome to us poor unwashed voorts. Except when it
occassionaly degenerates into a pissing contest, it is entirely interesting
to see ideas (many immediately shot down) spin out. It seems to me that
eventually some new useful insight, or synthesis might give either a
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
But if there was no clear excess heat, we have little reason to conclude
we have learned anything from the CR-39 experiments about the alpha
particle flux when there is excess heat.
I do not think they did calorimetry in most of these experiments. We
Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear
reaction. Therefore, heat was generated. However, the rate of the
reaction was too small to make detectable heat from this reaction. The
only unknown is whether heat from a different reaction can occur.
We know that
Ed Storms states:
*“We know that when large amounts of heat are detected, alpha emission at a
comparable rate does not occur. Clearly, large heat production and alpha
emission are not related.”*
This could be a false assumption as follows:
When a thermalization mechanism that transfers nuclear
Of course, no statement can be made about any subject that does not
invite a counter argument. No idea about CF can be suggested that
cannot be shown to be false. Clearly, unless some triage is used to
sort through the arguments and some common sense is applied, the
effect will be
One of the advantages of Nanoplasmonics is that an experimental methodology
and associated tools have been developed that might impact on this sort of
experimental ambiguity.
This is why I recommend this science to you.
The recently referenced experiment on the acceleration of alpha decay shows
The alpha particles could be a precursor of the new fire.
Once the fire the starts less smoke is produced.
starting a fire with hand drill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF9GiK_T4PA
Or maybe alphas are like sparks for the starting the new fire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35kxuwjcTs
Harry
Ed Storms stated:
“ We need to consider ideas that are consistent with all that is known
about materials and about how CF behaves? Unless you can show some
consistency with what is known and observed, the ideas are a waste of time.
So, put your thinking cap back on.”
In the last few years,
I agree. In fact, I believe once gaps of a critical width can be made
on purpose in any material, CF will become totally reproducible.
Nevertheless, these gaps have to be made using the known laws even
though once created, a new phenomenon is initiated. This requirement
also applies to
The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These renewable
cracks are defined by sub nanometer contact points in unlimited numbers in
the metal lattice. These drops are self-renewing and totally recyclable in
the same way that rain renews water in a puddle.
I believe this is what
OK Axil, this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these
gaps are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a
material. The stress can be caused by impurities, concentration
gradients, or temperature gradients. Regardless of the cause, the
process is totally
pockets? You definitely seem to be on to
something and would love to see you put the pieces together.
Fran
From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:33 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
The solution is to grow cracks in real time
together.
Fran
** **
*From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, May 06, 2013 5:33 PM
*To:* vortex-l
*Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
** **
The solution is to grow cracks in real time continuously. These renewable
cracks are defined
and would love
to see you put the pieces together.
Fran
** **
*From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, May 06, 2013 5:33 PM
*To:* vortex-l
*Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
** **
The solution is to grow cracks in real time
...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 6:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
OK Axil, this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these gaps are
produced by stress relief in the surface region of a material. The stress
also lend some support
to Rossi’s seeming oversized particle choice and tubule shapes.
Fran
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 6:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
OK Axil
particle choice and tubule shapes.
Fran
** **
** **
** **
*From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com
]
*Sent:* Monday, May 06, 2013 6:31 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Cc:* Edmund Storms
*Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
, May 06, 2013 6:31 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Cc:* Edmund Storms
*Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
** **
OK Axil, this is not how I view the role of cracks. Presently these gaps
are produced by stress relief in the surface region of a material. The
stress can
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a nuclear
reaction. Therefore, heat was generated.
Ha. Yes, I stand corrected. I think I had excess heat in mind. Also,
Jed brings up a good point about
** **
** **
** **
*From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com
]
*Sent:* Monday, May 06, 2013 6:31 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Cc:* Edmund Storms
*Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
** **
OK Axil, this is not how I view the role
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM, ken deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote:
No, Eric, this is not tiresome to us poor unwashed voorts. Except when it
occassionaly degenerates into a pissing contest, it is entirely interesting
to see ideas (many immediately shot down) spin out.
I don't think the
I wrote:
Until I have convinced myself that this is correct on the basis of
something other than your assertion, I won't be able to follow you to your
conclusion of slow helium formation.
I should be more specific. What I'm hoping to do is come up with a
plausible case that we have not
I wrote:
1. The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that
Hoffman suggests, and although there is a nuclear reaction of some kind, it
is not 4He but something else -- perhaps f/H in connection with tunneling.
2. The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the
On May 6, 2013, at 6:49 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Eric, ALL nuclear reactions generate heat. Alpha emission is a
nuclear reaction. Therefore, heat was generated.
Ha. Yes, I stand corrected. I think I had excess
I wrote:
Eric, you need to consider some basic requirements. If an energetic
particle is produced, such as an alpha, a second particle must be present
to carry away the momentum.
Yes -- we are in agreement here. There are various ways to accomplish this
apart from the Hydroton. There is an
From: Eric Walker
The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along the lines that Hoffman suggests,
and although there is a nuclear reaction of some kind, it is not 4He but
something else -- perhaps f/H in connection with tunneling.
1. The 4He evidence has been misinterpreted along
On May 6, 2013, at 8:09 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
I wrote:
Eric, you need to consider some basic requirements. If an energetic
particle is produced, such as an alpha, a second particle must be
present to carry away the momentum.
Yes -- we are in agreement here. There are various ways to
From: Terry Blanton
If - in fact it turns out that Rossi is using this particular nickel
isotope, and from the Kurchatov source, there is a good chance the above
scenario is a fairly accurate portrayal of what is happening.
Any comment on the net energy balance?
Terry - In a naïve
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Whereas Hagelstein’s model, when all is said and done, is an invention
created to match an experimental outcome (which it does) but with no
precedent in physical reality.
I think such models are called phenomenological
On May 5, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
wrote:
Whereas Hagelstein’s model, when all is said and done, is an
invention created to match an experimental outcome (which it does)
but with no precedent in physical reality.
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
The very small number of alpha and neutrons can be explained without
assuming CF is the cause.
I guess this is the conclusion I'm trying to better understand -- I
understand the part about neutrons. It is the very
http://io9.com/5499139/an-interview-with-peter-hagelstein
An Interview With Peter
Hagelsteinhttp://io9.com/5499139/an-interview-with-peter-hagelstein
MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows:
So after a lot of years of work on it, about 10 years ago we found a model
Thank you, Spock.
Eric
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
http://io9.com/5499139/an-interview-with-peter-hagelstein
An Interview With Peter
Hagelsteinhttp://io9.com/5499139/an-interview-with-peter-hagelstein
MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an
Eric, I assume that a single mechanism causes CF. This mechanism does
not produce energetic particles because if it did, they or their
secondaries would be easily detectable when multiple watts are
produced, as occasionally happens. Therefore, I reject any energetic
emission as being
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Eric, I assume that a single mechanism causes CF.
I am probably missing something important, but I don't see how the
statement below follows from the one above -- perhaps you are just
mentioning it and do not intend it
Ed Storms states:
In other words, the cracks make CF when they grow only to a small gap, but
can cause fractofusion if they grow large rapidly.
Axil begins:
In regard to experimental observation of crack dynamics as follows:
On May 5, 2013, at 1:33 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Eric, I assume that a single mechanism causes CF.
I am probably missing something important, but I don't see how the
statement below follows from the one above --
Thank you. I now have a better understanding the logic that has led you to
the slow-helium formation assumption.
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
The CR-39 measurements were not made when calorimetry was done. Therefore,
we do not know if the alpha
If this theory from Ed Storms is to be considered universally applicable,
experimental results from DGT cannot be ignored.
DGT has published their ash assays from their reaction test. They see both
fission and fusion reactions in these results. IMHO, the primary causation
of these LENR reactions
On May 5, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
Thank you. I now have a better understanding the logic that has led
you to the slow-helium formation assumption.
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
The CR-39 measurements were not made when
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
If this theory from Ed Storms is to be considered universally applicable,
experimental results from DGT cannot be ignored.
These results have to be published in detail and then independently
replicated before we can have confidence they are real. There are
I recently posted to Ed Storms this opinion of LENR experimentation which
show results consistent with what DGT is seeing.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/isotope-table-lenr-tool/
Several medium and heavy elements like calcium, titanium, chromium,
manganese, iron, cobalt, copper and
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6id5Hf-xMWOYXVjekJCN1ZkQk0/edit?pli=1
Results from Piantelli
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
I recently posted to Ed Storms this opinion of LENR experimentation which
show results consistent with what DGT is seeing.
another one
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1996/1996Mizuno-IsotopicDistribution-ICCF6.pdf
ISOTOPIC DISTRIBUTION FOR THE ELEMENTS EVOLYED IN PALLADIUM CATHODE AFTER
ELECTROLYSIS IN D2O SOLUTION
T. Mizuno, 'T.Ohmori*, T.Akimoto, K.Kurokawa, M.Kitaichi,
K.1noda, K.Azumi, S.Simokawa and M.
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Eric, you need to do some calculations. The CR-39 is an accumulator. The
flux, which determines power , is very small during these studies even
though the final result looks large. At no time could heat be detected
Note that the enrichment process for Ni-62, invented by the Russians at
Kurchatov (after it became a capitalist tool) gives an 80% enrichment,
using the same kind of ultracentrifuge device employed in similar enrichment
activities. If the following explanation is accurate, Forbes and other
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
If - in fact it turns out that Rossi is using this particular nickel
isotope, and from the Kurchatov source, there is a good chance the above
scenario is a fairly accurate portrayal of what is happening.
Any comment on
62 matches
Mail list logo
