[Vo]: Slashdot story about NASA basement reactor
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/02/22/0219216/nasas-basement-nuclear-reactor I guess we can expect many inquisitive minds will start looking around for more information on this topic.
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
could actually keep secret a project that was on the order of a few tens of billions of dollars -- but there are reasons to believe this level of secrecy is within the capability of the military. Right, your theory is locked within secret government documents. Mine is open to falsify, with some fairly outrageous claims. Label it trolling or whatever you would like. Many on vortex are making non-peer reviewed claims, many with merit. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Clearly the generator at the back end is meant to carry clubs. http://ut-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/msl.jpg On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Curiosity serves as his robotic caddy. On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?
Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach
Hello, As far as I know because of the low heat production ( 25-50W for 5 km nickle tubing as an kathode) and the saftely risk of developing this boilersystem (it can explode) thermacore shifted the interest to heatpipe cooling systems for computers. Peter v Noorden - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Violante and others are trying the engineering approach Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Somewhat amazing that no major lab has taken the initiative to replicate (or debunk), after all these years... Srinivasan thought he replicated this at BARC. He got heat and tritium. Then he spent 6 months at SRI trying to do it again. He finally concluded that his results were caused by recombination. That was a noble effort. He went back to India and tried again, looking for tritium only, with no calorimetry. They saw some tritium this time, but not as much. I recall some other people tried to replicate, without success. The results were not encouraging. I do not understand why Thermacore abandoned this. It is one of many discouraging failures. The failure to follow through. - Jed
[Vo]:Never mind the stench
http://inhabitat.com/four-african-teens-create-pee-powered-energy-generator/ All vorticians are encouraged to invest. An email will soon arrive from Barrister Wumi Keppe, instructing you where to send your generous funds (cash only). Cough... cough... maybe it's not P.C. to sound a bit skeptical of these girl's valiant efforts at self-sufficiency ... but the LP tank could be a clue. Actually, this was done successfully years ago, and can work to cover most of the electrolysis losses - and even give some excess power when 'boosted', since one usually needs added urea or something else to 'close the loop' - thus the LP tank. http://www.suttonfruit.com/pics/urea_electrolysis.pdf Makes a nice story though ... at least until the Nigerian email scammers get wind of it ... attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
As I previously commented I'm trying to set up a system for quickly testing various materials, simulations etc in a dry gas cell. Dr Storms seems pretty confident that whatever LENR is happening in Ni-H systems emits detectable radiation ... IE something easily detected with a sensitive Geiger Muller Tube.. How strong is the evidence for excess enthalphy and radiation emissions being correlated in Ni-H systems?
Re: [Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
see http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CDcQFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Flibrary%2F2004%2F2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdfei=Xp8nUZnbG-aJ0QGivICADwusg=AFQjCNHu3w5dimV_JIaouNutOQePoXu2Pgsig2=wKKTan2la6pfDqQbEQiXqg On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: As I previously commented I'm trying to set up a system for quickly testing various materials, simulations etc in a dry gas cell. Dr Storms seems pretty confident that whatever LENR is happening in Ni-H systems emits detectable radiation ... IE something easily detected with a sensitive Geiger Muller Tube.. How strong is the evidence for excess enthalphy and radiation emissions being correlated in Ni-H systems?
Re: [Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
Dear Paul, Do you know: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/piantelli-taxonomy_15.html ? Piantelli is the discoverer and developer, and long runner (solitary) of the NiH system. The tests were made at the Sienna Univ. the anlytical part at the Bologna u, (Sergio Focardi et al) Peter On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: As I previously commented I'm trying to set up a system for quickly testing various materials, simulations etc in a dry gas cell. Dr Storms seems pretty confident that whatever LENR is happening in Ni-H systems emits detectable radiation ... IE something easily detected with a sensitive Geiger Muller Tube.. How strong is the evidence for excess enthalphy and radiation emissions being correlated in Ni-H systems? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
The science, technology and even economics are all published in AIAA peer reviewed journals in papers whose arithmetic has withstood the test of decades. Limited by intellectual property rights, they are now openly advertised in the prospectus for Planetary Resources. What I'm talking about isn't even as secret as was the Manhattan project, where significant technical problems involving isotope separation, critical mass and implosion systems had to be developed in secret. The military value of asteroid husbandry is at least as great as the military value of nuclear weaponry. You, on the other hand, have shown no homework. Only oracular rhetoric regarding everything from hurricanes to sinkholes -- and let us not forget that you intersperse these comments with joking asides regarding a variety of other phenomena that are as substantiated as your serious claims, so that it appears your entire presence here may be one big joke on vortex-l. Is it? On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:16 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: could actually keep secret a project that was on the order of a few tens of billions of dollars -- but there are reasons to believe this level of secrecy is within the capability of the military. Right, your theory is locked within secret government documents. Mine is open to falsify, with some fairly outrageous claims. Label it trolling or whatever you would like. Many on vortex are making non-peer reviewed claims, many with merit. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: Clearly the generator at the back end is meant to carry clubs. http://ut-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/msl.jpg On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Curiosity serves as his robotic caddy. On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?
Re: [Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
Thanks for the references... there is so much info to absorb in this space.. As I suspected Piantelli is seeing heat, OR he is seeing radiation, they do not seem to be corelated. IE gammas are not a good stand in for heat production... Paul On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Paul, Do you know: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/piantelli-taxonomy_15.html ? Piantelli is the discoverer and developer, and long runner (solitary) of the NiH system. The tests were made at the Sienna Univ. the anlytical part at the Bologna u, (Sergio Focardi et al) Peter On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: As I previously commented I'm trying to set up a system for quickly testing various materials, simulations etc in a dry gas cell. Dr Storms seems pretty confident that whatever LENR is happening in Ni-H systems emits detectable radiation ... IE something easily detected with a sensitive Geiger Muller Tube.. How strong is the evidence for excess enthalphy and radiation emissions being correlated in Ni-H systems? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:explaining LENR -III
I periodically have to start over with this discussion because the response provided by Abd becomes so long and complex that making clear conclusions are no longer possible. In addition, a clearer understanding results from these discussions and this needs to be examined without the distraction created by the earlier discussion. The phenomenon called LENR has several basic features that have to guide a model and were, ironically, the cause of its rejection. These features are: 1. The mass-energy is released in small quanta rather than as energetic particles, as is the normal case by nuclear reactions and hot fusion in particular. 2. The phenomenon is very rare on a geological time scale and difficult to replicate in the laboratory. 3. The nuclear products are not the expected ones based on experience with the hot fusion process. 4. The process only occurs in condensed matter, especially in certain solids. 5. The process does not require applied energy to be initiated although extra energy will increase its rate. These features do not need additional demonstration or experimental detail to be accepted as real by a knowledgeable observer. The challenge is to create a logically consistent model that does not conflict with what is known about conventional nuclear reactions and is consistent with what is observed. The need for such an explanation, even thought it is incomplete, flows from the fact that this phenomenon is too complex to investigate successfully using trial and error. In fact, all experiments in science are guided at some level by an explanation, which is sometimes informal and based on current observed behavior but more often is based on established laws of Nature. The best model is the one that is consistent with the largest number of observations and makes accurate predictions about previously unseen behavior. These models are not designed to or are required to justify belief that the phenomenon called LENR is real. They are required to guide effective research that might eventually provide the required justification for acceptance. To do this, a few assumptions are required. These assumptions must be consistent with the laws or rules known to apply to the chemical systems in which the LENR effect occurs. Agreeing on which assumptions are consistent with the required rules (laws) and which are not has been the basic cause of conflict and argument about the proposed models. Before listing the assumptions, we need to acknowledge that several nuclear processes and reactions can occur in a material at the same time. For the discussion to be clear, we need to focus on only one reaction at a time. Initially the discussion will focus on the most active reaction that results in the major amount of detected heat energy. Several models propose processes other than fusion. These models involve either creation of neutrons or their release from a stabilized form in the material. The resulting neutrons then interact with nuclei to form the observed nuclear products. This discussion is not focused on this claim other than to note that the observed behavior is not consistent with this process and many parts of the model conflict with basic laws of nature. Therefore, this path will not be explored here. The present discussion focuses only on fusion of hydrons as the process called LENR. Three basic processes have to occur at the same location and at the same time. No significant delay may separate these three events. These events are: A. Two or more hydrons must occupy the same location at the same time in the material. B. Two or more hydrons must overcome the Coulomb barrier separating them. C. The resulting reduction in mass-energy must be converted to heat- energy. The basic assumptions used here are: 1.The behavior involves only one basic mechanism that occurs at the same basic location in the active material being examined. 2. The nuclear process can involve any isotope of hydrogen. 3. The entire process must be consistent with all known laws of physics and chemistry, although gaps in knowledge are accepted. The above assumptions and observed behavior alone allow a useful model to be proposed. To start the process, the location of the nuclear process in the material must be identified. I call this location, the Nuclear Active Environment (NAE). Consequently, a new assumption is introduced that says: The NAE is a new physical structure having no connection through quantum mechanical processes or the laws of thermodynamics with the atoms that form the lattice structure. This assumption eliminates a number of proposed models from consideration, which is discussed later. I have explained previously why I propose that the nuclear reaction occurs in cracks of a critical size, so I will not repeat this argument here. Once
Re: [Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
Paul, you need to be careful how you describe correlation. A nuclear reaction must produce radiation in some form. This is the only way energy of the required magnitude can be released from a nuclear process. The only issue is how much of this radiation can be detected outside of the apparatus. Obviously, not much of this kind of energy escapes when CF occurs. Nevertheless, the radiation is useful to demonstrate that a novel nuclear reaction is occurring. The amount of radiation can only give a relative measure of the true rate, which is related to the heat being measured. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Paul Breed wrote: Thanks for the references... there is so much info to absorb in this space.. As I suspected Piantelli is seeing heat, OR he is seeing radiation, they do not seem to be corelated. IE gammas are not a good stand in for heat production... Paul On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Paul, Do you know: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/piantelli-taxonomy_15.html ? Piantelli is the discoverer and developer, and long runner (solitary) of the NiH system. The tests were made at the Sienna Univ. the anlytical part at the Bologna u, (Sergio Focardi et al) Peter On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: As I previously commented I'm trying to set up a system for quickly testing various materials, simulations etc in a dry gas cell. Dr Storms seems pretty confident that whatever LENR is happening in Ni-H systems emits detectable radiation ... IE something easily detected with a sensitive Geiger Muller Tube.. How strong is the evidence for excess enthalphy and radiation emissions being correlated in Ni-H systems? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
Actually I have 300 pages of homework and research on my blog, I just did not submit it to you. I am actually beginning to like your theory though, unfortunately the evidence is locked deep within the government vaults along with other evidenced files such as: The government killed Kennedy Obama's Real Birth Certificate Chemtrails HAARP induced weather and many others which can be found at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories So it is very hard for me to falsify your theory and as far as I can tell the only predictive use for it is to predict more government conspiracy theories. Love your creativity though man. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:22 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The science, technology and even economics are all published in AIAA peer reviewed journals in papers whose arithmetic has withstood the test of decades. Limited by intellectual property rights, they are now openly advertised in the prospectus for Planetary Resources. What I'm talking about isn't even as secret as was the Manhattan project, where significant technical problems involving isotope separation, critical mass and implosion systems had to be developed in secret. The military value of asteroid husbandry is at least as great as the military value of nuclear weaponry. You, on the other hand, have shown no homework. Only oracular rhetoric regarding everything from hurricanes to sinkholes -- and let us not forget that you intersperse these comments with joking asides regarding a variety of other phenomena that are as substantiated as your serious claims, so that it appears your entire presence here may be one big joke on vortex-l. Is it? On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:16 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: could actually keep secret a project that was on the order of a few tens of billions of dollars -- but there are reasons to believe this level of secrecy is within the capability of the military. Right, your theory is locked within secret government documents. Mine is open to falsify, with some fairly outrageous claims. Label it trolling or whatever you would like. Many on vortex are making non-peer reviewed claims, many with merit. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: Clearly the generator at the back end is meant to carry clubs. http://ut-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/msl.jpg On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Curiosity serves as his robotic caddy. On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Do you think Obama played a round of golf while visiting Mars?
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
Oh now this is highly amusing. In response to my request for a single URL to an internet government conspiracy theory that was more plausible than my theory of a classified military program based on widely acknowledged science, technology and economics, ChemE provided a link to a Popular Science blog. Unfortunately, that link was not to one theory, but to several including such plausible theories as Mayan prophecies. However, one of the links was to internet kook Rense.com where someone mentioned a space-based kinetic energy weapon called God's Rods -- however, in addition to providing no cites for the referenced weapon system, there was no mention of the asteroid fly-by coincidence in the Rense.com internet government conspiracy theory. You can track it down if you like. Prima facia, it isn't interesting if for no other reason than they didn't account for the asteroidal coincidence. The plausibility of a space-based kinetic energy weapon, itself, didn't seem outlandish so I set about searching for mainstream press sources on God's Rods prior to recent events. Lo and behold, Popular Science, source of ChemE's debunking article was, itself the first source I found dating back to 2004! http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god If so-called “Rods from God”—an informal nickname of untraceable origin—ever do materialize, it won’t be for at least 15 years. Launching heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the rods’ speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the “absentee ratio”—the fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at any given time might be far from the desired target—would be prohibitive. A better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact. ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they’re stationed on Earth, would take less time to reach their targets. “The space-basing people seem to understand the downside of space weapons,” Pike says—among them, high costs and the difficulty of maintaining weapon platforms in orbit. “But I’ll still bet you there’s a lot of classified work on this going on right now.” On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:35 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: We await with bated breath your homework. I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be typical of your reponses to pointed questions: Evasive. The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory is this uncited sentence: Other theories claim the meteorite itself was evidence of a new weapon. and the only possible backup for this sentence is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a meteor. Keep it up, ChemE. Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your trolls. On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone. Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped with the Mayans based on its merits. On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote: No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge. A scattershot of a bunch conspiracy theories starting with a Mayan prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with a (singular) URL to a (singular) conspiracy theory more plausible than my theory, which is not conspiratorial unless you include routine government classified work as conspiratorial. On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: Ok, The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain it, although they found fragments around the hole. The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k tons. Without knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell. Your answer: http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote: Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably): http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/ But you must then search for the subheading: Typical Particle Orbit Calculations The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of these equations to the
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
Wow, I guess I proved your theory and my homework is done! On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:54 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Oh now this is highly amusing. In response to my request for a single URL to an internet government conspiracy theory that was more plausible than my theory of a classified military program based on widely acknowledged science, technology and economics, ChemE provided a link to a Popular Science blog. Unfortunately, that link was not to one theory, but to several including such plausible theories as Mayan prophecies. However, one of the links was to internet kook Rense.com where someone mentioned a space-based kinetic energy weapon called God's Rods -- however, in addition to providing no cites for the referenced weapon system, there was no mention of the asteroid fly-by coincidence in the Rense.com internet government conspiracy theory. You can track it down if you like. Prima facia, it isn't interesting if for no other reason than they didn't account for the asteroidal coincidence. The plausibility of a space-based kinetic energy weapon, itself, didn't seem outlandish so I set about searching for mainstream press sources on God's Rods prior to recent events. Lo and behold, Popular Science, source of ChemE's debunking article was, itself the first source I found dating back to 2004! http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god If so-called “Rods from God”—an informal nickname of untraceable origin—ever do materialize, it won’t be for at least 15 years. Launching heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the rods’ speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the “absentee ratio”—the fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at any given time might be far from the desired target—would be prohibitive. A better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact. ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they’re stationed on Earth, would take less time to reach their targets. “The space-basing people seem to understand the downside of space weapons,” Pike says—among them, high costs and the difficulty of maintaining weapon platforms in orbit. “But I’ll still bet you there’s a lot of classified work on this going on right now.” On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:35 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: We await with bated breath your homework. I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be typical of your reponses to pointed questions: Evasive. The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory is this uncited sentence: Other theories claim the meteorite itself was evidence of a new weapon. and the only possible backup for this sentence is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a meteor. Keep it up, ChemE. Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your trolls. On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone. Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped with the Mayans based on its merits. On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote: No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge. A scattershot of a bunch conspiracy theories starting with a Mayan prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with a (singular) URL to a (singular) conspiracy theory more plausible than my theory, which is not conspiratorial unless you include routine government classified work as conspiratorial. On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: Ok, The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain it, although they found fragments around the hole. The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k tons. Without knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell. Your answer: http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote: Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably): http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/ But you must
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
Thanks Ed for this quick compilation of the facts to consider. It is helpful to focus upon the observations that drive any new theories. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: cmns c...@googlegroups.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 12:41 pm Subject: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III Iperiodically have to start over with this discussion because the responseprovided by Abd becomes so long and complex that making clear conclusions areno longer possible. In addition, a clearer understanding results fromthese discussions and this needs to be examined without the distraction created by theearlier discussion. Thephenomenon called LENR has several basic features that have to guide a modeland were, ironically, the cause of its rejection. These features are: 1.The mass-energy is released in small quanta rather than as energetic particles, asis the normal case by nuclear reactions and hot fusion in particular. 2.The phenomenon is very rare on a geological time scale and difficult toreplicate in the laboratory. 3.The nuclear products are not the expected ones based on experience with the hot fusion process. 4.The process only occurs in condensed matter, especially in certain solids. 5.The process does not require applied energy to be initiated although extraenergy will increase its rate. Thesefeatures do not need additional demonstration or experimental detail to beaccepted as real by a knowledgeable observer. Thechallenge is to create a logically consistent model that does not conflict withwhat is known about conventional nuclear reactions and isconsistent with what is observed. The need for such an explanation, eventhought it is incomplete, flows from the fact that this phenomenon is toocomplex to investigate successfully using trial and error. In fact, allexperiments in science are guided at some level by an explanation, which issometimes informal and based on current observed behavior but more often isbased on established laws of Nature. The best model is the one that isconsistent with the largest number of observations and makes accuratepredictions about previously unseen behavior. These models are notdesigned to or are required to justify belief that the phenomenon called LENR is real. Theyare required to guide effective research that might eventually provide therequired justification for acceptance. To dothis, a few assumptions are required. These assumptions must beconsistent with the laws or rules known to apply to the chemical systemsin which the LENR effect occurs. Agreeing on which assumptions areconsistent with the required rules (laws) and which are not has been the basiccause of conflict and argument about the proposed models. Beforelisting the assumptions, we need to acknowledge that several nuclear processesand reactions can occur in a material at the same time. For the discussion tobe clear, we need to focus on only one reaction at a time. Initially thediscussion will focus on the most active reaction that results in themajor amount of detected heat energy. Severalmodels propose processes other than fusion. These models involve either creation of neutrons or their release from a stabilized form in the material. The resulting neutrons then interactwith nuclei to form the observed nuclear products. This discussion is notfocused on this claim other than to note that the observed behavior is notconsistent with this process and many parts of the model conflict with basiclaws of nature. Therefore, this path will not be explored here. The present discussionfocuses only on fusion of hydrons as the process called LENR. Threebasic processes have to occur at the same location and at the same time. No significant delay may separate thesethree events. These events are: A. Twoor more hydrons must occupy the same location at the same time in the material. B. Twoor more hydrons must overcome the Coulomb barrier separating them. C. The resulting reduction inmass-energy must be converted to heat-energy. Thebasic assumptions used here are: 1. Thebehavior involves only one basic mechanism that occurs at the same basiclocation in the active material being examined. 2. The nuclear process can involve any isotope of hydrogen. 3. The entire process must be consistent with all known laws of physics and chemistry, although gaps in knowledge are accepted. The above assumptions and observed behavior alone allow auseful model to be proposed. To start the process, the location of the nuclearprocess in the material must be identified. I call this location, the NuclearActive Environment (NAE). Consequently, a new assumption is introduced that says: The NAE is a new physical structure having no connection through quantum mechanical processes or the laws of thermodynamics with the atoms that form the lattice structure.
RE: [Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
Paul Breed wrote: How strong is the evidence for excess enthalphy and radiation emissions being correlated in Ni-H systems? There is plenty of evidence that Ni-H thermal gain in most cases, produces no measureable radiation. That does not necessarily mean that it is not nuclear. Thermacore, Mills, Celani, Ahern and other have seen no measurable radiation. Piantelli seems to be one of the main promoters of the radiation claim. It should be noted that the most common nuclear reaction in the Universe, by far - which is the reversible fusion of two protons into Helium-2 - such as happens with unimaginable frequency on most stars including our sun - is thought to produce no radiation. However, this reaction may produce excess energy. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
Actually, no, my theory is still that the mass for the kinetic energy weapon we saw over Russia was of non-terrestrial origin and this is consistent with Pike's claim that launch costs for God's Rods are too high. The economics of space-based civil engineering and industrialization, such as solar power satellites, have been known to be launch cost limited since the early 70s. The solution was also worked out then: use non-terrestrial materials. During the subsequent energy crisis under Carter and then on to the Reagan administration there were multiple studies of solar power satellites that proceeded to proclaim them uneconomic for the same reason that Pike declared God's Rods uneconomic: launch costs. However, every one of these studies failed to provide any damning critique of the studies that had shown non-terrestrial materials was an economic end-run. Why the persistent stupidity in the face of obvious needs for energy and, more generally, environmental pressures on the biosphere of an expanding technological civilization. Certainly, we may invoke stupidity as adequate explanation. On the other hand they may have been dumb like a fox during a period when Reagan's Star Wars project was investing huge amounts of money in space-based weapons systems. It is worth noting that during Star Wars I was working a the company most likely to be involved in the development of space-based kinetic energy weapons: Science Applications International Corporation. I frequently received in my mail box there mail addressed to the prior occupant of my office, Peter Vajkhttp://www.amazon.com/Doomsday-been-cancelled-Peter-Vajk/dp/0915238241. Click through his name for a delightful coincidence. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:59 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, I guess I proved your theory and my homework is done! On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:54 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Oh now this is highly amusing. In response to my request for a single URL to an internet government conspiracy theory that was more plausible than my theory of a classified military program based on widely acknowledged science, technology and economics, ChemE provided a link to a Popular Science blog. Unfortunately, that link was not to one theory, but to several including such plausible theories as Mayan prophecies. However, one of the links was to internet kook Rense.com where someone mentioned a space-based kinetic energy weapon called God's Rods -- however, in addition to providing no cites for the referenced weapon system, there was no mention of the asteroid fly-by coincidence in the Rense.com internet government conspiracy theory. You can track it down if you like. Prima facia, it isn't interesting if for no other reason than they didn't account for the asteroidal coincidence. The plausibility of a space-based kinetic energy weapon, itself, didn't seem outlandish so I set about searching for mainstream press sources on God's Rods prior to recent events. Lo and behold, Popular Science, source of ChemE's debunking article was, itself the first source I found dating back to 2004! http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god If so-called “Rods from God”—an informal nickname of untraceable origin—ever do materialize, it won’t be for at least 15 years. Launching heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the rods’ speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the “absentee ratio”—the fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at any given time might be far from the desired target—would be prohibitive. A better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact. ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they’re stationed on Earth, would take less time to reach their targets. “The space-basing people seem to understand the downside of space weapons,” Pike says—among them, high costs and the difficulty of maintaining weapon platforms in orbit. “But I’ll still bet you there’s a lot of classified work on this going on right now.” On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:35 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: We await with bated breath your homework. I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be typical of your reponses to pointed questions: Evasive. The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory is this uncited sentence: Other theories claim the meteorite itself was evidence of a new weapon. and
Re: [Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
A nuclear reaction must produce radiation in some form. I think this reasoning is how LENR ended up as a fringe science... IE P+F could not possibly have seen that much heat or they would be dead from radiation, therefore they are lying... I agree that in some situations LENR systems make detectable radiation... I also agree that there is evidence that sometimes they make heat and no detectable radiation. Dr Storms current theory argues that for D+D -4He the system must emit the energy in small enough doses that the radiation can't penetrate far enough to be detected The LENR on a thin membrane with xray film on the other side of the membrane experiments show there is radiation.. So yes for LENR to be occurring there must be radiation at some point, the key question I'm really asking is not is there something nuclear, the key question is there detectable radiation... and maybe is not really good enough if the goal is quickly screening lots possibilities... Paul On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Paul, you need to be careful how you describe correlation. A nuclear reaction must produce radiation in some form. This is the only way energy of the required magnitude can be released from a nuclear process. The only issue is how much of this radiation can be detected outside of the apparatus. Obviously, not much of this kind of energy escapes when CF occurs. Nevertheless, the radiation is useful to demonstrate that a novel nuclear reaction is occurring. The amount of radiation can only give a relative measure of the true rate, which is related to the heat being measured. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Paul Breed wrote: Thanks for the references... there is so much info to absorb in this space.. As I suspected Piantelli is seeing heat, OR he is seeing radiation, they do not seem to be corelated. IE gammas are not a good stand in for heat production... Paul On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Dear Paul, Do you know: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/piantelli-taxonomy_15.html ? Piantelli is the discoverer and developer, and long runner (solitary) of the NiH system. The tests were made at the Sienna Univ. the anlytical part at the Bologna u, (Sergio Focardi et al) Peter On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: As I previously commented I'm trying to set up a system for quickly testing various materials, simulations etc in a dry gas cell. Dr Storms seems pretty confident that whatever LENR is happening in Ni-H systems emits detectable radiation ... IE something easily detected with a sensitive Geiger Muller Tube.. How strong is the evidence for excess enthalphy and radiation emissions being correlated in Ni-H systems? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
The message is simply this: We have sufficient control of the asteroid's little brother that you might be wise to consider the possibility that we have control of the asteroid. I would like our governments first to get a handle on identifying, tracking and redirecting/destroying them before they do damage to the Earth and injure, kill and destroy. Then I guess weaponizing them as you theorize, like we do everything else could be considered... On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:24 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, no, my theory is still that the mass for the kinetic energy weapon we saw over Russia was of non-terrestrial origin and this is consistent with Pike's claim that launch costs for God's Rods are too high. The economics of space-based civil engineering and industrialization, such as solar power satellites, have been known to be launch cost limited since the early 70s. The solution was also worked out then: use non-terrestrial materials. During the subsequent energy crisis under Carter and then on to the Reagan administration there were multiple studies of solar power satellites that proceeded to proclaim them uneconomic for the same reason that Pike declared God's Rods uneconomic: launch costs. However, every one of these studies failed to provide any damning critique of the studies that had shown non-terrestrial materials was an economic end-run. Why the persistent stupidity in the face of obvious needs for energy and, more generally, environmental pressures on the biosphere of an expanding technological civilization. Certainly, we may invoke stupidity as adequate explanation. On the other hand they may have been dumb like a fox during a period when Reagan's Star Wars project was investing huge amounts of money in space-based weapons systems. It is worth noting that during Star Wars I was working a the company most likely to be involved in the development of space-based kinetic energy weapons: Science Applications International Corporation. I frequently received in my mail box there mail addressed to the prior occupant of my office, Peter Vajkhttp://www.amazon.com/Doomsday-been-cancelled-Peter-Vajk/dp/0915238241. Click through his name for a delightful coincidence. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:59 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: Wow, I guess I proved your theory and my homework is done! On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:54 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Oh now this is highly amusing. In response to my request for a single URL to an internet government conspiracy theory that was more plausible than my theory of a classified military program based on widely acknowledged science, technology and economics, ChemE provided a link to a Popular Science blog. Unfortunately, that link was not to one theory, but to several including such plausible theories as Mayan prophecies. However, one of the links was to internet kook Rense.com where someone mentioned a space-based kinetic energy weapon called God's Rods -- however, in addition to providing no cites for the referenced weapon system, there was no mention of the asteroid fly-by coincidence in the Rense.com internet government conspiracy theory. You can track it down if you like. Prima facia, it isn't interesting if for no other reason than they didn't account for the asteroidal coincidence. The plausibility of a space-based kinetic energy weapon, itself, didn't seem outlandish so I set about searching for mainstream press sources on God's Rods prior to recent events. Lo and behold, Popular Science, source of ChemE's debunking article was, itself the first source I found dating back to 2004! http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god If so-called “Rods from God”—an informal nickname of untraceable origin—ever do materialize, it won’t be for at least 15 years. Launching heavy tungsten rods into space will require substantially cheaper rocket technology than we have today. But there are numerous other obstacles to making such a system work. Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, argues that the rods’ speed would be so high that they would vaporize on impact, before the rods could penetrate the surface. Furthermore, the “absentee ratio”—the fact that orbiting satellites circle the Earth every 100 minutes and so at any given time might be far from the desired target—would be prohibitive. A better solution, Pike argues, is to pursue the original concept: Place the rods atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would slow down enough during the downward part of their trajectory to avoid vaporizing on impact. ICBMs would also be less expensive and, since they’re stationed on Earth, would take less time to reach their targets. “The space-basing people seem to understand the downside of space weapons,” Pike says—among them, high costs and the difficulty of maintaining weapon platforms in orbit. “But I’ll still bet you there’s a lot of
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
I would question assumption #5 5. The process does not require applied energy to be initiated With start up times measured in days...I don't think you can say that, ie a random cosmic ray, or stray energy from anywhere. could kick it off I would also question the complete rejection of the neutron creation branch of theory I found the following to be somewhat interesting in this realm... http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-ca-1950ssternglass-exptseinstein-bethenov-25-2011
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
Before I comment, I should caution that I am only an EE and not a trained nuclear physicist or chemist. It is only natural for me to try to understand behavior in more familiar, EE terms. I would not like to offer an explanation so much as a mental rationalization that I have constructed to help me understand what is being reported. Dr. Peter Hagelstein (MIT) has a theory and simulation about the effect of coupling of the deuteron(s) in the lattice to the other surrounding atoms in the lattice. We all know each of the atoms in solid condensed matter is highly coupled to its neighboring atoms by the shared electron orbitals. This is strong coupling - it is what makes a solid. I also know from my RF training about he behavior of coupled resonant structures. Take a single resonant structure having a single resonant frequency. It has a single eigenmode (resonance). Now take an identical resonant element and bring it into coupling with the first. What happens is that the eigenmode of each splits into two eigenmodes geometrically centered on the original eigenmode. If there are 3 coupled resonators, then EACH resonator will have 3 eigenmodes. Even weak coupling cause the multiple eigenmodes, but they may be close to each other. Now consider that each atom in a lattice is a resonant element that is coupled to all of the other surrounding atoms in the lattice - strongly coupled to the close ones, and weakly coupled to the more distant atoms. Also imagine that the nucleus is a resonant structure (vibrational, rotational, and maybe in other dimensions) and is coupled to the electron cloud and hence to all of the other neighboring atoms and their nuclei. This would mean that the nucleus itself could now have multiple eigenmodes through its coupling to the neighboring atoms - something that would really only occur in condensed matter. One way these nuclear eigenmodes could be visualized may be in terms of formation of shallow isomeric stabilities in the nucleus. Could then, transitions between the multiple shallow isomeric stabilities be equivalent in some way to the eigenmodes of the electron cloud and allow transitions between them? Could this allow the nucleus to de-excite via transitions between these coupled isomeric stabilities - giving off quanta that are defined by the difference in energy between the different nuclear isomeric states (the eigenvalues)? Of course, this doesn't explain or help understand how the Coulomb barrier is overcome, just how it may be possible in condensed matter to de-excite a nucleus via multiple small gamma photons. Also, by this hypothetical mechanism, this behavior would be possible anywhere in the lattice and is not special to cracks or to the surface of the solid where LENR appears evidenced to occur. Perhaps the de-excitation of a nucleus by small gamma photons is a property of the condensed matter and overcoming of the Coulomb barrier is something that only happens in special features (cracks, surface) in the condensed matter. Obviously the nuclear coupling nucleus eigenmode splitting would be affected by the atomic spacing; and a hydrogen/deuterium atom in a crack would certainly have a different couplings, and hence different eigenmodes, than a hydrogen/deuterium atom would have inside the more regular lattice. Could a unique coupling that could occur with just the right crack, split the eigenmodes of the nucleus in such a way that it matches phonon eigenmodes in the lattice? Bob On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Regardless of their involvement, the Coulomb reduction process must take place in a manner to allow the mass-energy to be released gradually in small quanta before the fusion process is complete. Otherwise, if mass-energy remains in the final structure, it must result in gamma emission to be consistent with known behavior. At this point in the model, we are faced with a dilemma. What process can be proposed that satisfies the observed behavior but does not conflict with known and accepted concepts in physics? All of the proposed models are faced with this dilemma while attempting to solve the problem different ways. The only question is which of the proposed methods (theories) provides the most logical description of observed behavior and best predictions, because they all contain the consequence of this dilemma. Can we focus the discussion on this dilemma? Ed -- Regards, Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Paul Breed wrote: A nuclear reaction must produce radiation in some form. I think this reasoning is how LENR ended up as a fringe science... IE P+F could not possibly have seen that much heat or they would be dead from radiation, therefore they are lying... Paul, the skeptics missed the point. Radiation in some form is essential. The issue at the time was the form of the radiation, that was all. Radiation having the required high energy was expected and was not found. Nevertheless, radiation at low energy has been detected repeatedly. This level of energy is unexpected but nevertheless reveals the presence of an unconventional nuclear process. I agree that in some situations LENR systems make detectable radiation... I also agree that there is evidence that sometimes they make heat and no detectable radiation. Dr Storms current theory argues that for D+D -4He the system must emit the energy in small enough doses that the radiation can't penetrate far enough to be detected The LENR on a thin membrane with xray film on the other side of the membrane experiments show there is radiation.. So yes for LENR to be occurring there must be radiation at some point, the key question I'm really asking is not is there something nuclear, the key question is there detectable radiation... and maybe is not really good enough if the goal is quickly screening lots possibilities... Radiation is the ONLY way an active material can be quickly identified. This tool has been ignored. I'm trying to get you and other people to use it. Ed Paul On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Paul, you need to be careful how you describe correlation. A nuclear reaction must produce radiation in some form. This is the only way energy of the required magnitude can be released from a nuclear process. The only issue is how much of this radiation can be detected outside of the apparatus. Obviously, not much of this kind of energy escapes when CF occurs. Nevertheless, the radiation is useful to demonstrate that a novel nuclear reaction is occurring. The amount of radiation can only give a relative measure of the true rate, which is related to the heat being measured. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Paul Breed wrote: Thanks for the references... there is so much info to absorb in this space.. As I suspected Piantelli is seeing heat, OR he is seeing radiation, they do not seem to be corelated. IE gammas are not a good stand in for heat production... Paul On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Paul, Do you know: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/piantelli-taxonomy_15.html ? Piantelli is the discoverer and developer, and long runner (solitary) of the NiH system. The tests were made at the Sienna Univ. the anlytical part at the Bologna u, (Sergio Focardi et al) Peter On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: As I previously commented I'm trying to set up a system for quickly testing various materials, simulations etc in a dry gas cell. Dr Storms seems pretty confident that whatever LENR is happening in Ni-H systems emits detectable radiation ... IE something easily detected with a sensitive Geiger Muller Tube.. How strong is the evidence for excess enthalphy and radiation emissions being correlated in Ni-H systems? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
Do you think that a random comic ray would start a process at one single site in a material that causes steady release of watts of power? Cosmic rays do not even initiate chemical reactions. For example TNT is completely stable in spite of being bombarded continuously. Of course, imagination can suggest all kinds of process, but a little common sense has to be used. Otherwise, no progress will be made,. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Paul Breed wrote: I would question assumption #5 5. The process does not require applied energy to be initiated With start up times measured in days...I don't think you can say that, ie a random cosmic ray, or stray energy from anywhere. could kick it off I would also question the complete rejection of the neutron creation branch of theory I found the following to be somewhat interesting in this realm... http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-ca-1950ssternglass-exptseinstein-bethenov-25-2011
Re: [Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
Not for sure, if you look for my other two papers tr Piantelli on my Blog,you will see he has wiorked underfounded, his lab was moved more times, do it is possible he had no means to measure heat, radiation and transmutations for all tests. More important, many if not all transition metals can be used and heat/radiation is metal-specific. Peter On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: Thanks for the references... there is so much info to absorb in this space.. As I suspected Piantelli is seeing heat, OR he is seeing radiation, they do not seem to be corelated. IE gammas are not a good stand in for heat production... Paul On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Dear Paul, Do you know: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/piantelli-taxonomy_15.html ? Piantelli is the discoverer and developer, and long runner (solitary) of the NiH system. The tests were made at the Sienna Univ. the anlytical part at the Bologna u, (Sergio Focardi et al) Peter On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: As I previously commented I'm trying to set up a system for quickly testing various materials, simulations etc in a dry gas cell. Dr Storms seems pretty confident that whatever LENR is happening in Ni-H systems emits detectable radiation ... IE something easily detected with a sensitive Geiger Muller Tube.. How strong is the evidence for excess enthalphy and radiation emissions being correlated in Ni-H systems? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
What I am trying to get Ed among others to recognize is that high energy radiation from nuclear activity can be significantly downshifted in frequency by the same sub wave length nano-structures that produce the nuclear reactions in the first place. Furthermore, the WL argument that energetic electrons can screen high energy radiation has not made an impression on people either. And then, when heat strongly interacts with electrons, these quasiparticles can modify the character of high energy EMF. When heat is developed in the lattice, gamma rays can be transformed into a lower energy radiation. Transmutation is a sure indicator that nuclear processes are afoot. Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons with precise targeting, try The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein. In 1983, Heinlein and I actually came to logger heads, in person, over Gen Graham's abuse of the non-terrestrial materials concepts by O'Neill and Vajk. He had written the foreword to Graham's book High Frontier about weaponizing nonterrestrial resources. Graham was a key figure in Reagan's Star Wars Strategic Defense Initiative. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall
Re: [Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
*Piantelli seems to be one of the main promoters of the radiation claim.* Piantelli sometimes sees EMF because of the way he produces his reaction, His nano-structures are not topologically ideal to downshift the EMF to a lower energy profile. Since this downshifting of high energy EMF can be done through a number of mechanisms, Piantelli's unique LENR production techniques have their own individual EMF profile. It is not like Piantelli is an LENR outlier. Cheers: axil On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** ** ** Paul Breed wrote: ** ** How strong is the evidence for excess enthalphy and radiation emissions being correlated in Ni-H systems? ** ** ** ** There is plenty of evidence that Ni-H thermal gain in most cases, produces no measureable radiation. That does not necessarily mean that it is not nuclear. ** ** Thermacore, Mills, Celani, Ahern and other have seen no measurable radiation. ** ** Piantelli seems to be one of the main promoters of the radiation claim.*** * ** ** It should be noted that the most common nuclear reaction in the Universe, by far – which is the reversible fusion of two protons into Helium-2 – such as happens with unimaginable frequency on most stars including our sun - is thought to produce no radiation. However, this reaction may produce excess energy. ** ** Jones ** ** ** **
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
I'm not saying that external energy is required, only that setting that as a unconditional unquestioned principal upon which one is going to accept or reject theories seems weak, especially because we know that in some cases the addition of energy accelerates the process. If one accepts Defklions or Ross'is claims at all they seem to be able to turn it on and off at will... Same with Brilliuons phase one published experiments... Suppose the NAE is a resonance of some kind A very high Q perfect resonant structure of exactly the right size will start or run with just minor thermal excitation... and be maintained by the coupling from the effect it creates. A less perfect slightly lower Q structure might run with a tiny tickle of the right excitation An even less perfect much lower Q structure might allow transmutations, but not energy gain when properly stimulated Experiments like the arc transmutations and the hydrogen xray tube neutron generator experiments seem to do LENR without having to specially prepare or otherwise coddle the material. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Do you think that a random comic ray would start a process at one single site in a material that causes steady release of watts of power? Cosmic rays do not even initiate chemical reactions. For example TNT is completely stable in spite of being bombarded continuously. Of course, imagination can suggest all kinds of process, but a little common sense has to be used. Otherwise, no progress will be made,. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Paul Breed wrote: I would question assumption #5 5. The process does not require applied energy to be initiated With start up times measured in days...I don't think you can say that, ie a random cosmic ray, or stray energy from anywhere. could kick it off I would also question the complete rejection of the neutron creation branch of theory I found the following to be somewhat interesting in this realm... http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-ca-1950ssternglass-exptseinstein-bethenov-25-2011
[Vo]:ANS - NETS-2013 -- Some sessions of interest
Program and Abstract Book -- Nuclear Emerging Technologies for Space (NETS-2013) February 25-28, 2013 Albuquerque, New Mexico Sponsored by The American Nuclear Society (Aerospace Nuclear Science and Technology Division and Trinity Section) (PROGRAM p.17 of 48) Monday, February 25 -- 2:003:40 pm Track V: Innovative and Advanced Technologies Advanced Concepts Salon I/J Session Chair/Co-Chair: John H. Scott, NASA-JSC; Steven D. Howe, CSNR Invitation to NIAC, Ron Turner (ANSER) Use of D/H Clusters in LENR Power Sources for Space and Distributed Power, George H. Miley, Xiaoling Yang, Kyu-Jung Kim (Univ. of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana) and Heinrich Hora (Univ. of New South Wales) Microwave Extraction of Water and Thermal-Hydraulics Analyses in a Radioactive Core of a Lunar Hopper for Steam-Propelled Flight, Rijan P. Shrestha (Univ. of Illinois), Nick Campbell (Univ. of Florida), Declan Roberts (U. Leicester) and Steven D. Howe (CSNR) Experimental and Computational Study of HIIPER (Helicon-Injected Inertial Plasma Electrostatic Rocket), George Chen, Akshata Krishnamurthy, Paul Keutelian, Benjamin Ulmen and George H. Miley (Univ. of Illinois) The Fusion - Transmutation Battery, Liviu Popa-Simil (LAVM LLC)
[Vo]: Hydrogen State Within NEA
I have been considering the behavior of hydrogen that is captured by a nickel matrix to obtain a better understanding of the system. It seems highly likely that an individual proton would not be freely floating around within an NAE type region. The electric field of this particle would ensure that any nearby electrons would be stolen and you would end up with an hydrogen atom. Do we have evidence that this is the case or is there evidence supporting the idea of a free proton lingering around in a large cavernous NAE? Then, when I think of hydrogen gas contained within a nickel cage, I immediately visualize interesting behavior. Of course we all would agree that a very large container composed of nickel would hold a large number of atoms of hydrogen at the ambient temperature of the nickel metal. A lot of the gas would proceed to leak out through the poor container material, but there would be a factor that could be described to define the leakage rate to be expected under various conditions. The large number of captured hydrogen molecules or atoms would settle at the same temperature as the surrounding metal to exist in thermal equilibrium. If someone were to place a pressure probe within the cavity he would measure the pressure associated with the quantity of hydrogen. Now, what happens as we shrink the volume of the cavity? If we decide to keep the pressure and temperature constant, we would have to remove gas in inverse proportion to the cavity volume change. At a given temperature and pressure the gas molecules are a certain average distance apart, which in the case of hydrogen would be significant at room temperatures. I am playing with the density calculations for hydrogen to help determine how many typically would occupy a small NAE that eventually approaches the size of a nickel atom. I realize that I will run out of hydrogen a long time before the NAE gets anywhere near nickel atom size if I am to keep the captive gas at room temperature and pressure. So, what are we to think of the hydrogen gas that is captured within a small NAE? Does it exist in some liquid form due to the enormous pressure that would be required in order to force it to coexist with its fellow atoms? You would have a difficult time compressing hydrogen at room temperature into such density. The temperature of the hydrogen would be mainly determined by that of the surrounding nickel atoms, so the pressure must adjust in some manner. Would this pressure paradox prevent more than one molecule of hydrogen from entering in a close relationship with its kind within small cavities? It would appear as though the extreme pressure would result in the rapid escape of additional molecules or atoms into adjacent empty holes. Perhaps this is why the loading must be so high for LENR to begin since once there are no holes nearby for pressure release the metal matrix must deal with the extreme pressure available. The main final questions are: how would we define the state of the hydrogen trapped within the region that is so small that only two or perhaps six exist? Is this by definition a gas at very high pressure and room temperature? When would it be considered a liquid? Are their BEC implications? Let's make an attempt to define the state of the hydrogen that we assume is reacting in the form as it exists and determine what laws of physics apply. Any good thoughts? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
Terry, thanks for clearing it up. Whatever was steering that last meteoroid was a very bad driver. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons with precise targeting, try The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein. In 1983, Heinlein and I actually came to logger heads, in person, over Gen Graham's abuse of the non-terrestrial materials concepts by O'Neill and Vajk. He had written the foreword to Graham's book High Frontier about weaponizing nonterrestrial resources. Graham was a key figure in Reagan's Star Wars Strategic Defense Initiative. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall
Re: [Vo]:ANS - NETS-2013 -- Some sessions of interest
I forgot to include the link - www.new.ans.org/meetings/file/372 Program and Abstract Book -- Nuclear Emerging Technologies for Space (NETS-2013) February 25-28, 2013 Albuquerque, New Mexico Sponsored by The American Nuclear Society (Aerospace Nuclear Science and Technology Division and Trinity Section) (PROGRAM p.17 of 48) Monday, February 25 -- 2:003:40 pm Track V: Innovative and Advanced Technologies Advanced Concepts Salon I/J Session Chair/Co-Chair: John H. Scott, NASA-JSC; Steven D. Howe, CSNR Invitation to NIAC, Ron Turner (ANSER) Use of D/H Clusters in LENR Power Sources for Space and Distributed Power, George H. Miley, Xiaoling Yang, Kyu-Jung Kim (Univ. of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana) and Heinrich Hora (Univ. of New South Wales) Microwave Extraction of Water and Thermal-Hydraulics Analyses in a Radioactive Core of a Lunar Hopper for Steam-Propelled Flight, Rijan P. Shrestha (Univ. of Illinois), Nick Campbell (Univ. of Florida), Declan Roberts (U. Leicester) and Steven D. Howe (CSNR) Experimental and Computational Study of HIIPER (Helicon-Injected Inertial Plasma Electrostatic Rocket), George Chen, Akshata Krishnamurthy, Paul Keutelian, Benjamin Ulmen and George H. Miley (Univ. of Illinois) The Fusion - Transmutation Battery, Liviu Popa-Simil (LAVM LLC)
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
So is it your thesis that the russian meteor was a fragment blown off the larger meteor? Harry On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons with precise targeting, try The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein. In 1983, Heinlein and I actually came to logger heads, in person, over Gen Graham's abuse of the non-terrestrial materials concepts by O'Neill and Vajk. He had written the foreword to Graham's book High Frontier about weaponizing nonterrestrial resources. Graham was a key figure in Reagan's Star Wars Strategic Defense Initiative. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
*Suppose the NAE is a resonance of some kind* * * *A very high Q perfect resonant structure of exactly the right size will start or run with just minor thermal excitation...* * * *and be maintained by the coupling from the effect it creates.* Look into the Fano resonance of electrons in narrow Nano-metric cavities. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: I'm not saying that external energy is required, only that setting that as a unconditional unquestioned principal upon which one is going to accept or reject theories seems weak, especially because we know that in some cases the addition of energy accelerates the process. If one accepts Defklions or Ross'is claims at all they seem to be able to turn it on and off at will... Same with Brilliuons phase one published experiments... Suppose the NAE is a resonance of some kind A very high Q perfect resonant structure of exactly the right size will start or run with just minor thermal excitation... and be maintained by the coupling from the effect it creates. A less perfect slightly lower Q structure might run with a tiny tickle of the right excitation An even less perfect much lower Q structure might allow transmutations, but not energy gain when properly stimulated Experiments like the arc transmutations and the hydrogen xray tube neutron generator experiments seem to do LENR without having to specially prepare or otherwise coddle the material. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Do you think that a random comic ray would start a process at one single site in a material that causes steady release of watts of power? Cosmic rays do not even initiate chemical reactions. For example TNT is completely stable in spite of being bombarded continuously. Of course, imagination can suggest all kinds of process, but a little common sense has to be used. Otherwise, no progress will be made,. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Paul Breed wrote: I would question assumption #5 5. The process does not require applied energy to be initiated With start up times measured in days...I don't think you can say that, ie a random cosmic ray, or stray energy from anywhere. could kick it off I would also question the complete rejection of the neutron creation branch of theory I found the following to be somewhat interesting in this realm... http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-ca-1950ssternglass-exptseinstein-bethenov-25-2011
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
Paul, we have to start somewhere with some assumptions. ALL theories are based on assumptions, some less plausible than others. These are the assumptions I start with. They are plausible and allow the options for a model to be reduced to useful numbers. On Feb 22, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Paul Breed wrote: I'm not saying that external energy is required, only that setting that as a unconditional unquestioned principal upon which one is going to accept or reject theories seems weak, especially because we know that in some cases the addition of energy accelerates the process. Starting a process is entirely different from increasing its rate, as you know from chemistry. These two processes generally have no relationship to each other. Why assume they are related during LENR? If one accepts Defklions or Ross'is claims at all they seem to be able to turn it on and off at will... Same with Brilliuons phase one published experiments... None of these examples is based on any more than hearsay. We have no details. I'm using only information that is not in doubt. Suppose the NAE is a resonance of some kind The NAE is a PLACE. It is NOT a condition. A resonance can occur INSIDE of the NAE. You need to apply the concepts as they are intended. A very high Q perfect resonant structure of exactly the right size will start or run with just minor thermal excitation... and be maintained by the coupling from the effect it creates. The fusion process has a beginning and an ending. It is not continuous. Once the He forms, the reaction must stop until the He leaves the site and more D takes its place. Ed A less perfect slightly lower Q structure might run with a tiny tickle of the right excitation An even less perfect much lower Q structure might allow transmutations, but not energy gain when properly stimulated Experiments like the arc transmutations and the hydrogen xray tube neutron generator experiments seem to do LENR without having to specially prepare or otherwise coddle the material. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Do you think that a random comic ray would start a process at one single site in a material that causes steady release of watts of power? Cosmic rays do not even initiate chemical reactions. For example TNT is completely stable in spite of being bombarded continuously. Of course, imagination can suggest all kinds of process, but a little common sense has to be used. Otherwise, no progress will be made,. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Paul Breed wrote: I would question assumption #5 5. The process does not require applied energy to be initiated With start up times measured in days...I don't think you can say that, ie a random cosmic ray, or stray energy from anywhere. could kick it off I would also question the complete rejection of the neutron creation branch of theory I found the following to be somewhat interesting in this realm... http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llclenrs-ca-1950ssternglass-exptseinstein-bethenov-25-2011
Re: [Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
Radiation is the ONLY way an active material can be quickly identified. This tool has been ignored. I'm trying to get you and other people to use it Understood, the system I'm building will have at least one GM tube of equal or better sensitivity to the LND7313 you used in your experiment in fact that instrument arrived yesterday. Setting up a quick IR temp measurement from inside a hot pressurized vessel is neither cheap nor easy... I'm trying to determine if the radiation only is sufficient or if I should stick to my original plan to put in IR temp sensing of the material under test. Its looking like a robust reliable IR sensing of small targets inside the chamber will be about $5K and 4+ weeks of lead time. The lower cost IR stuff won't go to high enough temperatures to be useful... (As others have pointed out one needs to be above the curie temperature of the material being tested.) Paul
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
Your interpretation of what I've written renders me speechless. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: So is it your thesis that the russian meteor was a fragment blown off the larger meteor? Harry On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons with precise targeting, try The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein. In 1983, Heinlein and I actually came to logger heads, in person, over Gen Graham's abuse of the non-terrestrial materials concepts by O'Neill and Vajk. He had written the foreword to Graham's book High Frontier about weaponizing nonterrestrial resources. Graham was a key figure in Reagan's Star Wars Strategic Defense Initiative. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons with precise targeting, try The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein. Yeah, but they didn't call it the foot. :-)
Re: [Vo]: Hydrogen State Within NEA
= I have been considering the behavior of hydrogen that is captured by a nickel matrix to obtain a better understanding of the system. It seems highly likely that an individual proton would not be freely floating around within an NAE type region. The electric field of this particle would ensure that any nearby electrons would be stolen and you would end up with an hydrogen atom. Do we have evidence that this is the case or is there evidence supporting the idea of a free proton lingering around in a large cavernous NAE? The hydrogen would be incorporated into the walls of nickel nanowires as a hydride on the surface of a micro-particle. The electron(s) of the hydrogen would then form a dipole and enter into the space between the nanowires an form a hybrid plasmonic/excitonic system . On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:32 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have been considering the behavior of hydrogen that is captured by a nickel matrix to obtain a better understanding of the system. It seems highly likely that an individual proton would not be freely floating around within an NAE type region. The electric field of this particle would ensure that any nearby electrons would be stolen and you would end up with an hydrogen atom. Do we have evidence that this is the case or is there evidence supporting the idea of a free proton lingering around in a large cavernous NAE? Then, when I think of hydrogen gas contained within a nickel cage, I immediately visualize interesting behavior. Of course we all would agree that a very large container composed of nickel would hold a large number of atoms of hydrogen at the ambient temperature of the nickel metal. A lot of the gas would proceed to leak out through the poor container material, but there would be a factor that could be described to define the leakage rate to be expected under various conditions. The large number of captured hydrogen molecules or atoms would settle at the same temperature as the surrounding metal to exist in thermal equilibrium. If someone were to place a pressure probe within the cavity he would measure the pressure associated with the quantity of hydrogen. Now, what happens as we shrink the volume of the cavity? If we decide to keep the pressure and temperature constant, we would have to remove gas in inverse proportion to the cavity volume change. At a given temperature and pressure the gas molecules are a certain average distance apart, which in the case of hydrogen would be significant at room temperatures. I am playing with the density calculations for hydrogen to help determine how many typically would occupy a small NAE that eventually approaches the size of a nickel atom. I realize that I will run out of hydrogen a long time before the NAE gets anywhere near nickel atom size if I am to keep the captive gas at room temperature and pressure. So, what are we to think of the hydrogen gas that is captured within a small NAE? Does it exist in some liquid form due to the enormous pressure that would be required in order to force it to coexist with its fellow atoms? You would have a difficult time compressing hydrogen at room temperature into such density. The temperature of the hydrogen would be mainly determined by that of the surrounding nickel atoms, so the pressure must adjust in some manner. Would this pressure paradox prevent more than one molecule of hydrogen from entering in a close relationship with its kind within small cavities? It would appear as though the extreme pressure would result in the rapid escape of additional molecules or atoms into adjacent empty holes. Perhaps this is why the loading must be so high for LENR to begin since once there are no holes nearby for pressure release the metal matrix must deal with the extreme pressure available. The main final questions are: how would we define the state of the hydrogen trapped within the region that is so small that only two or perhaps six exist? Is this by definition a gas at very high pressure and room temperature? When would it be considered a liquid? Are their BEC implications? Let's make an attempt to define the state of the hydrogen that we assume is reacting in the form as it exists and determine what laws of physics apply. Any good thoughts? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
Paul, I have seen no credible demonstration that the Curie temperature plays any role. This idea is mostly based on various arbitrary models. In the nickel case, the effect becomes visible at higher temperatures simply because the rate increases with temperature. The effect can only be seen when the rate exceeds the sensitivity of the calorimeter, which in the case of Ni generally requires higher temperatures than required for Pd. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Paul Breed wrote: Radiation is the ONLY way an active material can be quickly identified. This tool has been ignored. I'm trying to get you and other people to use it Understood, the system I'm building will have at least one GM tube of equal or better sensitivity to the LND7313 you used in your experiment in fact that instrument arrived yesterday. Setting up a quick IR temp measurement from inside a hot pressurized vessel is neither cheap nor easy... I'm trying to determine if the radiation only is sufficient or if I should stick to my original plan to put in IR temp sensing of the material under test. Its looking like a robust reliable IR sensing of small targets inside the chamber will be about $5K and 4+ weeks of lead time. The lower cost IR stuff won't go to high enough temperatures to be useful... (As others have pointed out one needs to be above the curie temperature of the material being tested.) Paul
[Vo]:The Kinetic Energy Weapon (Bluff?) Theory of February 15, 2013's Cosmic Coincidence
Before I get into talking about the delightful coincidence of February 15, 2013 between the close Earth flyby of an asteroid and the largest meteor entry to Earth's atmosphere in over a century -- both at mutually independent vectors -- I want to talk a little about another delightful coincidence: While working at Science Applications International Corporoation's Roselle St. offices in Sorrento Valley of La Jolla, CAhttps://maps.google.com/maps?hl=enie=UTF-8q=saic+san+diego,+cafb=1gl=ushq=saichnear=0x80d9530fad921e4b:0xd3a21fdfd15df79,San+Diego,+CAei=8L0nUZuLGsjZrAHRuoHQDQved=0CKMBELYDiwloc=cids:2698751337000512967 during the Reagan administration's Star Wars project, I would frequently receive mail addressed to a prior occupant of my office there: Peter Vajk. You might recall Peter Vajk as the author of Doomsday Has Been Cancelledhttp://www.amazon.com/Doomsday-been-cancelled-Peter-Vajk/dp/0915238241 in which he modified the Club of Rome's dynamical global model to incorporate non-terrestrial resources. In 1974, I wrote the first multiplayer 3D virtual reality (first person shooter) game called spasimhttp://web.archive.org/web/20070419202019/http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery/spasim.html in which I concocted a set of differential equations doing a mock up of the Club of Rome's model and the major theme of the game was the acquisition of nonterrestrial resources to keep the plant's population from going into revolt over terrestrial limits to growth. Vajk did his first work in this area in 1975. Oh but the delightful coincidence doesn't end there, because every day on my way to the industrial assembly area next door where I was managing the production of control software for an automated ordnance inspection system, I would walk past the Strategic Defense Initiative bays where, among other things, there were some rather impressive structures, presumably intended for orbital operation such as a very light-weight but powerful Van de Graaff generator intended to power who-knows-what. I bring up this delightful coincidence because my early involvement with Gerard O'Neill's Space Studies Institute http://ssi.org/ as Senior Associate 401 (right behind Ronald Reagan's membership number of 400) made me aware of an apparent disconnect between the DoE's solar power satellite studies and those of the non-terrestrial materials strategy popularized by O'Neill and Vajk: Not one of the studies of solar power satellites conducted by the major players such as the DoE even attempted a critical assessment of non-terrestrial materials studies. The citations were content-free dismissals. While we can chalk this up to a variety of bureaucratic characteristics, including conservatism or more simply bureaucratic stupidity, the events of February 15, 2013 lead me to suspect something more. I had a bit of a hostile encounter with an old man who showed up at a space development conference in 1983 in San Francisco where I was representing Space Studies Institute and had designed their booth. Part of the booth was the book The High Frontierhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Frontier:_Human_Colonies_in_Space by Gerard O'Neill sitting next to the book High Frontierhttp://www.amazon.com/High-Frontier-Daniel-O-Graham/dp/0523480784 by Gen. Daniel Graham. Above the two books I had a sign that said The Real Thing and Cheap Imitation respectively. The old man walked up, his finger shaking in rage at the book by Gen. Daniel Graham and said, This book could save this county! I merely looked at him and told him that O'Neill's book had come out before Graham's and that Graham's didn't focus on the economics. The old man, still shaking, asked Do you know who I am? as he opened Graham's book and pointed to the name of the person who wrote the preface: Robert Heinlein at which point I merely looked him in the eye and said nothing with an expression saying ...and?... He added, There is no copyright on book title. I told him that Space Studies Institute had service marked ¨High Frontier and that Graham had used it without permission. Heinlein then said simply, I don't believe you. and walked off in a huff. Heinlein, as you may recall from The Moon is a Harsh Mistresshttp://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/revolutionarystoolkit/TheMoonIsAHarshMistress.pdf, described a space-based kinetic energy weapon which, although of limited capacity, was of sufficient capacity to bluff a super power into submission. Just one more thing before I get to the events of February 15, 2013: A private company has now formed called Planetary Resourceshttp://www.planetaryresources.com/ which is enjoying not only a lot of positive press, but substantial and prestigious financing and they are utilizing declassified spy satellite technology to prospect for Earth-approaching asteroids. As you are well aware, spy satellites technology has been far more advanced for a far longer time than has been openly acknowledged -- except perhaps by rumor -- and it is
Re: [Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
*Radiation is the ONLY way an active material can be quickly identified. This tool has been ignored. I'm trying to get you and other people to use it * I suggest that you might look for an increase of thermoelectric current produced by the reaction. Rossi has said he has seen this increase in his high temperature LENR system. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com wrote: Radiation is the ONLY way an active material can be quickly identified. This tool has been ignored. I'm trying to get you and other people to use it Understood, the system I'm building will have at least one GM tube of equal or better sensitivity to the LND7313 you used in your experiment in fact that instrument arrived yesterday. Setting up a quick IR temp measurement from inside a hot pressurized vessel is neither cheap nor easy... I'm trying to determine if the radiation only is sufficient or if I should stick to my original plan to put in IR temp sensing of the material under test. Its looking like a robust reliable IR sensing of small targets inside the chamber will be about $5K and 4+ weeks of lead time. The lower cost IR stuff won't go to high enough temperatures to be useful... (As others have pointed out one needs to be above the curie temperature of the material being tested.) Paul
Re: [Vo]:The Kinetic Energy Weapon (Bluff?) Theory of February 15, 2013's Cosmic Coincidence
Did you guys invent the Internet too? Terry, I like your theory better. On Friday, February 22, 2013, James Bowery wrote: Before I get into talking about the delightful coincidence of February 15, 2013 between the close Earth flyby of an asteroid and the largest meteor entry to Earth's atmosphere in over a century -- both at mutually independent vectors -- I want to talk a little about another delightful coincidence: While working at Science Applications International Corporoation's Roselle St. offices in Sorrento Valley of La Jolla, CAhttps://maps.google.com/maps?hl=enie=UTF-8q=saic+san+diego,+cafb=1gl=ushq=saichnear=0x80d9530fad921e4b:0xd3a21fdfd15df79,San+Diego,+CAei=8L0nUZuLGsjZrAHRuoHQDQved=0CKMBELYDiwloc=cids:2698751337000512967 during the Reagan administration's Star Wars project, I would frequently receive mail addressed to a prior occupant of my office there: Peter Vajk. You might recall Peter Vajk as the author of Doomsday Has Been Cancelledhttp://www.amazon.com/Doomsday-been-cancelled-Peter-Vajk/dp/0915238241 in which he modified the Club of Rome's dynamical global model to incorporate non-terrestrial resources. In 1974, I wrote the first multiplayer 3D virtual reality (first person shooter) game called spasimhttp://web.archive.org/web/20070419202019/http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery/spasim.html in which I concocted a set of differential equations doing a mock up of the Club of Rome's model and the major theme of the game was the acquisition of nonterrestrial resources to keep the plant's population from going into revolt over terrestrial limits to growth. Vajk did his first work in this area in 1975. Oh but the delightful coincidence doesn't end there, because every day on my way to the industrial assembly area next door where I was managing the production of control software for an automated ordnance inspection system, I would walk past the Strategic Defense Initiative bays where, among other things, there were some rather impressive structures, presumably intended for orbital operation such as a very light-weight but powerful Van de Graaff generator intended to power who-knows-what. I bring up this delightful coincidence because my early involvement with Gerard O'Neill's Space Studies Institute http://ssi.org/ as Senior Associate 401 (right behind Ronald Reagan's membership number of 400) made me aware of an apparent disconnect between the DoE's solar power satellite studies and those of the non-terrestrial materials strategy popularized by O'Neill and Vajk: Not one of the studies of solar power satellites conducted by the major players such as the DoE even attempted a critical assessment of non-terrestrial materials studies. The citations were content-free dismissals. While we can chalk this up to a variety of bureaucratic characteristics, including conservatism or more simply bureaucratic stupidity, the events of February 15, 2013 lead me to suspect something more. I had a bit of a hostile encounter with an old man who showed up at a space development conference in 1983 in San Francisco where I was representing Space Studies Institute and had designed their booth. Part of the booth was the book The High Frontierhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Frontier:_Human_Colonies_in_Space by Gerard O'Neill sitting next to the book High Frontierhttp://www.amazon.com/High-Frontier-Daniel-O-Graham/dp/0523480784 by Gen. Daniel Graham. Above the two books I had a sign that said The Real Thing and Cheap Imitation respectively. The old man walked up, his finger shaking in rage at the book by Gen. Daniel Graham and said, This book could save this county! I merely looked at him and told him that O'Neill's book had come out before Graham's and that Graham's didn't focus on the economics. The old man, still shaking, asked Do you know who I am? as he opened Graham's book and pointed to the name of the person who wrote the preface: Robert Heinlein at which point I merely looked him in the eye and said nothing with an expression saying ...and?... He added, There is no copyright on book title. I told him that Space Studies Institute had service marked ¨High Frontier and that Graham had used it without permission. Heinlein then said simply, I don't believe you. and walked off in a huff. Heinlein, as you may recall from The Moon is a Harsh Mistresshttp://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/revolutionarystoolkit/TheMoonIsAHarshMistress.pdf, described a space-based kinetic energy weapon which, although of limited capacity, was of sufficient capacity to bluff a super power into submission. Just one more thing before I get to the events of February 15, 2013: A private company has now formed called Planetary Resourceshttp://www.planetaryresources.com/ which is enjoying not only a lot of positive press, but substantial and prestigious financing and they are utilizing declassified spy satellite technology to prospect for
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
The fusion process has a beginning and an ending. It is not continuous. Once the He forms, the reaction must stop until the He leaves the site and more D takes its place. Has anyone melted a working cathode to see if it contains any trapped He? We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its possible that its a bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a way to escape to the surface?
Re: [Vo]:The Kinetic Energy Weapon (Bluff?) Theory of February 15, 2013's Cosmic Coincidence
I think a much more plausible theory is that one of those 3 large inbound comets have pulled in asteroids with them On Friday, February 22, 2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: Did you guys invent the Internet too? Terry, I like your theory better. On Friday, February 22, 2013, James Bowery wrote: Before I get into talking about the delightful coincidence of February 15, 2013 between the close Earth flyby of an asteroid and the largest meteor entry to Earth's atmosphere in over a century -- both at mutually independent vectors -- I want to talk a little about another delightful coincidence: While working at Science Applications International Corporoation's Roselle St. offices in Sorrento Valley of La Jolla, CAhttps://maps.google.com/maps?hl=enie=UTF-8q=saic+san+diego,+cafb=1gl=ushq=saichnear=0x80d9530fad921e4b:0xd3a21fdfd15df79,San+Diego,+CAei=8L0nUZuLGsjZrAHRuoHQDQved=0CKMBELYDiwloc=cids:2698751337000512967 during the Reagan administration's Star Wars project, I would frequently receive mail addressed to a prior occupant of my office there: Peter Vajk. You might recall Peter Vajk as the author of Doomsday Has Been Cancelledhttp://www.amazon.com/Doomsday-been-cancelled-Peter-Vajk/dp/0915238241 in which he modified the Club of Rome's dynamical global model to incorporate non-terrestrial resources. In 1974, I wrote the first multiplayer 3D virtual reality (first person shooter) game called spasimhttp://web.archive.org/web/20070419202019/http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery/spasim.html in which I concocted a set of differential equations doing a mock up of the Club of Rome's model and the major theme of the game was the acquisition of nonterrestrial resources to keep the plant's population from going into revolt over terrestrial limits to growth. Vajk did his first work in this area in 1975. Oh but the delightful coincidence doesn't end there, because every day on my way to the industrial assembly area next door where I was managing the production of control software for an automated ordnance inspection system, I would walk past the Strategic Defense Initiative bays where, among other things, there were some rather impressive structures, presumably intended for orbital operation such as a very light-weight but powerful Van de Graaff generator intended to power who-knows-what. I bring up this delightful coincidence because my early involvement with Gerard O'Neill's Space Studies Institute http://ssi.org/ as Senior Associate 401 (right behind Ronald Reagan's membership number of 400) made me aware of an apparent disconnect between the DoE's solar power satellite studies and those of the non-terrestrial materials strategy popularized by O'Neill and Vajk: Not one of the studies of solar power satellites conducted by the major players such as the DoE even attempted a critical assessment of non-terrestrial materials studies. The citations were content-free dismissals. While we can chalk this up to a variety of bureaucratic characteristics, including conservatism or more simply bureaucratic stupidity, the events of February 15, 2013 lead me to suspect something more. I had a bit of a hostile encounter with an old man who showed up at a space development conference in 1983 in San Francisco where I was representing Space Studies Institute and had designed their booth. Part of the booth was the book The High Frontierhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Frontier:_Human_Colonies_in_Space by Gerard O'Neill sitting next to the book High Frontierhttp://www.amazon.com/High-Frontier-Daniel-O-Graham/dp/0523480784 by Gen. Daniel Graham. Above the two books I had a sign that said The Real Thing and Cheap Imitation respectively. The old man walked up, his finger shaking in rage at the book by Gen. Daniel Graham and said, This book could save this county! I merely looked at him and told him that O'Neill's book had come out before Graham's and that Graham's didn't focus on the economics. The old man, still shaking, asked Do you know who I am? as he opened Graham's book and pointed to the name of the person who wrote the preface: Robert Heinlein at which point I merely looked him in the eye and said nothing with an expression sa
Re: [Vo]:Re: explaining LENR - II
First of all, ***How long did it take for you to generate a 4 point list rather than answer a simple 40k foot inductive question? your question was not about my theory. ***It sure as hell was. It points to one theory being more consistent with the evidence than the other. The BEC theory possibly competes with yours at that point. It was about how I would expected a BEC would behave, ***No, it is about how a fusion event would absorb in a lattice and how such absorption would necessitate lots of lattice be between the event the observer. which has no relationship to my theory ***It has plenty of relationship to your theory. You just choose to not see it. Second, I explained ***Explained? Your supposed lack of time was the explanation. But you have plenty of time for denigration, dismissal, 4-point lists, etc. And by doing so you violate Occham's Razor, multiplying entities beyond necessity. to you why I did not answer your question and you replied with demanding arrogance. ***I don't demand anything. I just point out how you're avoiding answering the question while you have time for other stuff. You won't answer it because you can't -- that isn't a demand, it's an observation of your behavior. If you want to find evidence of demanding arrogance, simply look through the last few weeks of your own vortex posts and search for the word must. Now, that is demanding arrogance. One simple recent example: Kevin, gefore suggesting explanations, a person must... In a discussion group, interaction with other people is voluntary ***then volunteer an explanation. and based on a pleasant and fruitful interaction. ***It isn't based on pleasant fruitful interaction, not to put too fine a point on things. The RESULT is SUPPOSED to be pleasant fruitful interaction. BUt your decision to not answer questions lacks fruit and has generated some unpleasantness. Third, when I say I do not BELIEVE ***Yeah, that's something I notice about your writing, how you appear to have this almost religious outlook about how things are supposed to be in terms of science LENR. For instance you wrote to me that I accept reality according to KP Sinha rather than from you. What kind of polemic nonsense is that? We MUSt approach things a certain way... that kind of thing. BEC has a role, perhaps I can translate this belief into English you can accept. ***There you go again. I have seen no evidence to support the claim. ***You choose not to see it. People in this state of mind can look across the sky and fail to see the sun. I have seen no plausible justification that a BEC based on hydrogen atoms can occur at room temperature. ***YE Kim sees it. Others see it. Experimental evidence suggests it. You prefer, you choose not to see it. I have seen no evidence of how a BEC can produce results that are consistent with observations attributed to LENR. ***YE Kim sees it. Others see it. Experimental evidence suggests it. You prefer, you choose not to see it. I have seen no explanation of how a BEC can produce results that are consistent with observations attributed to LENR ***YE Kim provided it. Others see it. Experimental evidence backs it up. You prefer, you choose not to see it. Are these statements clear? ***Your statements are about as clear as mud. These statements are based on my study ***baloney. Those statements are based on your emotional attachment to your theory. and reading of all the evidence I can find. ***What about getting in touch with YE Kim, KP Sinha, and others and having a pow-wow about how to test each others' theories? How is it you read all the same stuff as me about laser cooling and concluded it was not used for LENR even though KP Sinha told me directly that was EXACTLY his approach? What else have you got wrong in your approach to your theory? The world may never know... because you choose this path of not defending your theory because you don't have the time. I'm not interest in debating this information. ***Then it is likely that your theory will become a fish out of water, struggling for what you refuse to provide it by not defending it. I suggest you do this with people who care about a possible role for BEC. ***I suggest you defend your theory. Fourth, your understanding of how lasers behave when applied to a solid material conflicts with what I have observed ***yup. That's because you got it wrong. Go ahead give KP Sinha a call and come up to speed. You might even get some insight against the formation of BECs because his theory conflicts with it. Read how Dr. Chu got his Nobel Prize in physics by forming BECs with laser cooling. Then tell us again how laser cooling hasn't been used for LENR. and shows a confidence on your part that has no justification. ***Let me know how that conversation goes with KP Sinha, and also with YE Kim. If my confidence is unjustified then I'm perfectly willing
Re: [Vo]:The Kinetic Energy Weapon (Bluff?) Theory of February 15, 2013's Cosmic Coincidence
The measured velocity vectors are inconsistent with that theory. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:29 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I think a much more plausible theory is that one of those 3 large inbound comets have pulled in asteroids with them On Friday, February 22, 2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: Did you guys invent the Internet too? Terry, I like your theory better. On Friday, February 22, 2013, James Bowery wrote: Before I get into talking about the delightful coincidence of February 15, 2013 between the close Earth flyby of an asteroid and the largest meteor entry to Earth's atmosphere in over a century -- both at mutually independent vectors -- I want to talk a little about another delightful coincidence: While working at Science Applications International Corporoation's Roselle St. offices in Sorrento Valley of La Jolla, CAhttps://maps.google.com/maps?hl=enie=UTF-8q=saic+san+diego,+cafb=1gl=ushq=saichnear=0x80d9530fad921e4b:0xd3a21fdfd15df79,San+Diego,+CAei=8L0nUZuLGsjZrAHRuoHQDQved=0CKMBELYDiwloc=cids:2698751337000512967 during the Reagan administration's Star Wars project, I would frequently receive mail addressed to a prior occupant of my office there: Peter Vajk. You might recall Peter Vajk as the author of Doomsday Has Been Cancelledhttp://www.amazon.com/Doomsday-been-cancelled-Peter-Vajk/dp/0915238241 in which he modified the Club of Rome's dynamical global model to incorporate non-terrestrial resources. In 1974, I wrote the first multiplayer 3D virtual reality (first person shooter) game called spasimhttp://web.archive.org/web/20070419202019/http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery/spasim.html in which I concocted a set of differential equations doing a mock up of the Club of Rome's model and the major theme of the game was the acquisition of nonterrestrial resources to keep the plant's population from going into revolt over terrestrial limits to growth. Vajk did his first work in this area in 1975. Oh but the delightful coincidence doesn't end there, because every day on my way to the industrial assembly area next door where I was managing the production of control software for an automated ordnance inspection system, I would walk past the Strategic Defense Initiative bays where, among other things, there were some rather impressive structures, presumably intended for orbital operation such as a very light-weight but powerful Van de Graaff generator intended to power who-knows-what. I bring up this delightful coincidence because my early involvement with Gerard O'Neill's Space Studies Institute http://ssi.org/ as Senior Associate 401 (right behind Ronald Reagan's membership number of 400) made me aware of an apparent disconnect between the DoE's solar power satellite studies and those of the non-terrestrial materials strategy popularized by O'Neill and Vajk: Not one of the studies of solar power satellites conducted by the major players such as the DoE even attempted a critical assessment of non-terrestrial materials studies. The citations were content-free dismissals. While we can chalk this up to a variety of bureaucratic characteristics, including conservatism or more simply bureaucratic stupidity, the events of February 15, 2013 lead me to suspect something more. I had a bit of a hostile encounter with an old man who showed up at a space development conference in 1983 in San Francisco where I was representing Space Studies Institute and had designed their booth. Part of the booth was the book The High Frontierhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Frontier:_Human_Colonies_in_Space by Gerard O'Neill sitting next to the book High Frontierhttp://www.amazon.com/High-Frontier-Daniel-O-Graham/dp/0523480784 by Gen. Daniel Graham. Above the two books I had a sign that said The Real Thing and Cheap Imitation respectively. The old man walked up, his finger shaking in rage at the book by Gen. Daniel Graham and said, This book could save this county! I merely looked at him and told him that O'Neill's book had come out before Graham's and that Graham's didn't focus on the economics. The old man, still shaking, asked Do you know who I am? as he opened Graham's book and pointed to the name of the person who wrote the preface: Robert Heinlein at which point I merely looked him in the eye and said nothing with an expression sa
Re: [Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
It should be noted that the most common nuclear reaction in the Universe, by far – which is the reversible fusion of two protons into Helium-2 – such as happens with unimaginable frequency on most stars including our sun - is thought to produce no radiation. However, this reaction may produce excess energy. Jones ***I do not understand why this isn't being investigated more thoroughly. It's not as if you've proposed some new physics.
Re: [Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
Dr Storms current theory argues that for D+D -4He the system must emit the energy in small enough doses that the radiation can't penetrate far enough to be detected ***Sounds like new physics to me. Is there any evidence that this lower-level emission takes place elsewhere besides in LENR experiments?
Re: [Vo]:The Kinetic Energy Weapon (Bluff?) Theory of February 15, 2013's Cosmic Coincidence
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Did you guys invent the Internet too? Terry, I like your theory better. I don't recall God's Rods. I think that would have been a bit too irreverent for the Potus. However, there were those brilliant pebbles. http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/brilliant-pebbles/
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
You pose an interesting question. Perhaps the fresh helium leads to an increase in the number of NAE that form due to its interaction with the metal. Who knows? I have long wondered if evidence exists for a limited chain reaction of some sort since some of the earlier surface pictures appeared to demonstrate explosive crater formations. Perhaps Ed or someone has seen very strong evidence that each LENR event is entirely independent of the next one and limited in scale to just one helium formation. Is anyone aware of evidence in support to this hypothesis? I could imagine that some form of precursor event is required before another can be initiated. Perhaps our favorite spark plug in the form of a cosmic ray deposits the secret ingredient that then allows for the follow up LENR action. No one could doubt that a cosmic ray has sufficient energy to trigger a small nuclear fusion reaction. We need to be careful not to automatically reject such a nuclear event as being inconsistent since no high energy radiation is evident. I would contend that a cosmic ray represents a very high level of high energy radiation by itself. Dave -Original Message- From: Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 4:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III The fusion process has a beginning and an ending. It is not continuous. Once the He forms, the reaction must stop until the He leaves the site and more D takes its place. Has anyone melted a working cathode to see if it contains any trapped He? We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its possible that its a bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a way to escape to the surface?
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its possible that its a bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a way to escape to the surface? ***It is possible it's a bulk effect but the evidence is only seen at the surface. Like a landslide pushing a hundred trees into a river, but the forces of the river at that point are strong enough to pull the trees downstream until they cause a backup at the lower energy part of the system. The causal event took place upstream (or, inside the bulk) but the observed evidence is downstream (at the surface).
Re: [Vo]:Nanowire frequency conversion
This example is presented to you to support the point that nanowires can concert [convert?] gamma-rays directly into heat is properly configured. ***All kinds of things convert light to heat, such as your skin when you go out into the sunshine. But aren't gamma rays far more energetic than basic light? Is there evidence that gamma rays have converted to heat in some kind of metal matrix?
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:19 PM, David Roberson wrote: You pose an interesting question. Perhaps the fresh helium leads to an increase in the number of NAE that form due to its interaction with the metal. Who knows? If enough helium forms, this will certainly be true. However, this requires the effect run for a long time without this aid. I have long wondered if evidence exists for a limited chain reaction of some sort since some of the earlier surface pictures appeared to demonstrate explosive crater formations. Two kinds of surface effects occur. Some are caused by material depositing from an impure electrolyte at the site of H2 loss from a crack. Others are caused by local melting produced by a very high concentration of NAE. These two types are easy to separate. Perhaps Ed or someone has seen very strong evidence that each LENR event is entirely independent of the next one and limited in scale to just one helium formation. Is anyone aware of evidence in support to this hypothesis? The local areas flash off and on in apparently random ways, as been seen and measured by Szpak et al. I could imagine that some form of precursor event is required before another can be initiated. Perhaps our favorite spark plug in the form of a cosmic ray deposits the secret ingredient that then allows for the follow up LENR action. No one could doubt that a cosmic ray has sufficient energy to trigger a small nuclear fusion reaction. We need to be careful not to automatically reject such a nuclear event as being inconsistent since no high energy radiation is evident. I would contend that a cosmic ray represents a very high level of high energy radiation by itself. Before you speculate too much, Dave, you really need to understand all that has been discovered and observed. I spent 23 years doing this, so my model is not based on casual ideas. Ed Dave -Original Message- From: Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 4:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III The fusion process has a beginning and an ending. It is not continuous. Once the He forms, the reaction must stop until the He leaves the site and more D takes its place. Has anyone melted a working cathode to see if it contains any trapped He? We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its possible that its a bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a way to escape to the surface?
Re: [Vo]:The Kinetic Energy Weapon (Bluff?) Theory of February 15, 2013's Cosmic Coincidence
I understand how an iron meteorite can burn in the atmosphere and create sonic booms and break into pieces. I would like to see the model energy balance that shows me how that translates to a 500 kton blast from a 10kton rock while it is still in the air and has not given up its kinetic energy. Am I missing something? On Friday, February 22, 2013, Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:; wrote: Did you guys invent the Internet too? Terry, I like your theory better. I don't recall God's Rods. I think that would have been a bit too irreverent for the Potus. However, there were those brilliant pebbles. http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/brilliant-pebbles/
Re: [Vo]:Nanowire frequency conversion
Gamma Rays: Frequency Range: 1020 - 1024 Hz Wavelength Range: 10exp(-12) m 10 exp(-12) meters = 61.4421235 microns The nano structure must be less than the wavelength of the radiation, A BIG peice of nano-material is at or under 100 nanometers. This is less than 61 microns so a nano-structure that small can convert a gamma ray to heat because it is less than the far wavelenth of the radiation. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: This example is presented to you to support the point that nanowires can concert [convert?] gamma-rays directly into heat is properly configured. ***All kinds of things convert light to heat, such as your skin when you go out into the sunshine. But aren't gamma rays far more energetic than basic light? Is there evidence that gamma rays have converted to heat in some kind of metal matrix?
Re: [Vo]:The Kinetic Energy Weapon (Bluff?) Theory of February 15, 2013's Cosmic Coincidence
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Did you guys invent the Internet too? Terry, I like your theory better. I don't recall God's Rods. I think that would have been a bit too irreverent for the Potus. However, there were those brilliant pebbles. http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/brilliant-pebbles/ The importance of the ABM and START treaties to this issue are that no one even conceived of limiting kinetic energy weapons as replacements for tactical nuclear warheads. To commemorate the signing of the START I treaty -- which may well have given impetus to find non-nuclear energetic weapons of mass destruction -- on July 31, 1991, the House Subcommittee on Space held hearings on space commercialization during which I gave testimony.on legislation my coalition had promoted to privatize space launch systemshttp://web.archive.org/web/20090724062504/http://geocities.com/jim_bowery/testimny.htm -- after which I became Vice President for Public Affairs at E'Prime Aerospace, which had been given license by the Bush Administration to take control of the Peace Keeper Missle production lines for the purpose of turning them to commercial launch services by adapting the MIRV upper stage with a geostationary orbital system. The dramatic reduction of MIRVs in the strategic arsenal, on the very day that I testified, freed up a lot of resources. PS: I must apologize in advance to the pseudonymous noise source ChemE Stewart, whoever he is, for doing things with my life rather than mercilessly blathering nonsense to disrupt fragile channels of communication like vortex-l. Perhaps it would help calm him down if proclaimed myself the inventor of the wheel.
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
The question of whether or not this is a bulk effect can be addressed by using a very thin plating of active material. If the reaction is similar with the thin film that you get with a larger bulk, or perhaps even a thicker plating, then it is surface related. I assume that there is adequate evidence available at this point from the many experiments that have been conducted. If this can not be answered at this time I would be concerned. Dave -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 5:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its possible that its a bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a way to escape to the surface? ***It is possible it's a bulk effect but the evidence is only seen at the surface. Like a landslide pushing a hundred trees into a river, but the forces of the river at that point are strong enough to pull the trees downstream until they cause a backup at the lower energy part of the system. The causal event took place upstream (or, inside the bulk) but the observed evidence is downstream (at the surface).
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
I could imagine that some form of precursor event is required before another can be initiated. The concentration of electrons on the surface of the nano-material must reach a critical level before the reaction is productive. Rossi uses thermoelectric material to get this surface electron density up and DGT uses a spark discharge. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 5:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The question of whether or not this is a bulk effect can be addressed by using a very thin plating of active material. If the reaction is similar with the thin film that you get with a larger bulk, or perhaps even a thicker plating, then it is surface related. I assume that there is adequate evidence available at this point from the many experiments that have been conducted. If this can not be answered at this time I would be concerned. Dave -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 5:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its possible that its a bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a way to escape to the surface? ***It is possible it's a bulk effect but the evidence is only seen at the surface. Like a landslide pushing a hundred trees into a river, but the forces of the river at that point are strong enough to pull the trees downstream until they cause a backup at the lower energy part of the system. The causal event took place upstream (or, inside the bulk) but the observed evidence is downstream (at the surface).
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
Yes Dave, thin layers of Pd have been studied and found to produce energy. In addition, the behavior of helium and tritium show that they are made very near the surface and not in the bulk. These issues have been well discussed. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:43 PM, David Roberson wrote: The question of whether or not this is a bulk effect can be addressed by using a very thin plating of active material. If the reaction is similar with the thin film that you get with a larger bulk, or perhaps even a thicker plating, then it is surface related. I assume that there is adequate evidence available at this point from the many experiments that have been conducted. If this can not be answered at this time I would be concerned. Dave -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 5:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its possible that its a bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a way to escape to the surface? ***It is possible it's a bulk effect but the evidence is only seen at the surface. Like a landslide pushing a hundred trees into a river, but the forces of the river at that point are strong enough to pull the trees downstream until they cause a backup at the lower energy part of the system. The causal event took place upstream (or, inside the bulk) but the observed evidence is downstream (at the surface).
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
*New Findings from Rice University in the Area of Nanotechnology Published* *October 1st, 2012* 2012 OCT 1 (VerticalNews) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Nanotechnology Weekly -- Investigators discuss new findings in Nanotechnology. According to news originating from Houston, Texas, by VerticalNews correspondents, research stated, Planar clusters of coupled plasmonic nanoparticles support nanoscale electromagnetic 'hot spots' and coherent effects, such as Fano resonances, with unique near and far field signatures, currently of prime interest for sensing applications. Here we show that plasmonic cluster properties can be substantially modified by the addition of individual, discrete dielectric nanoparticles at specific locations on the cluster, introducing... Fano resonance in a nanowire can convert heat/electron particles into electromagnetic hotspots aka nuclear active areas. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I periodically have to start over with this discussion because the response provided by Abd becomes so long and complex that making clear conclusions are no longer possible. In addition, a clearer understanding results from these discussions and this needs to be examined without the distraction created by the earlier discussion. The phenomenon called LENR has several basic features that have to guide a model and were, ironically, the cause of its rejection. These features are: 1. The mass-energy is released in small quanta rather than as energetic particles, as is the normal case by nuclear reactions and hot fusion in particular. 2. The phenomenon is very rare on a geological time scale and difficult to replicate in the laboratory. 3. The nuclear products are not the expected ones based on experience with the hot fusion process. 4. The process only occurs in condensed matter, especially in certain solids. 5. The process does not require applied energy to be initiated although extra energy will increase its rate. These features do not need additional demonstration or experimental detail to be accepted as real by a knowledgeable observer. The challenge is to create a logically consistent model that does not conflict with what is known about conventional nuclear reactions and is consistent with what is observed. The need for such an explanation, even thought it is incomplete, flows from the fact that this phenomenon is too complex to investigate successfully using trial and error. In fact, all experiments in science are guided at some level by an explanation, which is sometimes informal and based on current observed behavior but more often is based on established laws of Nature. The best model is the one that is consistent with the largest number of observations and makes accurate predictions about previously unseen behavior. These models are not designed to or are required to justify belief that the phenomenon called LENR is real. They are required to guide effective research that might eventually provide the required justification for acceptance. To do this, a few assumptions are required. These assumptions must be consistent with the laws or rules known to apply to the chemical systems in which the LENR effect occurs. Agreeing on which assumptions are consistent with the required rules (laws) and which are not has been the basic cause of conflict and argument about the proposed models. Before listing the assumptions, we need to acknowledge that several nuclear processes and reactions can occur in a material at the same time. For the discussion to be clear, we need to focus on only one reaction at a time. Initially the discussion will focus on the most active reaction that results in the major amount of detected heat energy. Several models propose processes other than fusion. These models involve either creation of neutrons or their release from a stabilized form in the material. The resulting neutrons then interact with nuclei to form the observed nuclear products. This discussion is not focused on this claim other than to note that the observed behavior is not consistent with this process and many parts of the model conflict with basic laws of nature. Therefore, this path will not be explored here. The present discussion focuses only on fusion of hydrons as the process called LENR. Three basic processes have to occur at the same location and at the same time. No significant delay may separate these three events. These events are: A. Two or more hydrons must occupy the same location at the same time in the material. B. Two or more hydrons must overcome the Coulomb barrier separating them. C. The resulting reduction in mass-energy must be converted to heat-energy. The basic assumptions used here are: 1.The behavior involves only one basic mechanism that occurs
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
The question of whether or not this is a bulk effect can be addressed by using a very thin plating of active material. If the reaction is similar with the thin film that you get with a larger bulk, or perhaps even a thicker plating, then it is surface related. I assume that there is adequate evidence available at this point from the many experiments that have been conducted. If this can not be answered at this time I would be concerned. Maybe... suppose its a bulk effec, but it gets clogged with He. So it happens everywhere, but it can only repeat at the surface where He clears... Dr Storms says by the behavior of He we know its a surface effect. Do we really know enough to say that its a surface effect, or do we only know enough to say the surface is the only place where He can escape? IE Melting a cathode after the fact and looking to see if it then releases trapped He would be a big clue, that is why I asked if that experiment had been done? If you melt it and git minimal new He, I think we can say with 90% certainty its a surface effect If one gets excess helium after melting the cathode it might not be a surface effect The best test would be to divinde a cathode run one half in a cell and leave one half in a he free environment... Then melt both and see the He emission difference.. Paul
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
From what I can read in these figures, the electric field enhancemnt ranges to 300 fold http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/121024/srep00764/full/srep00764.html#/f4 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *New Findings from Rice University in the Area of Nanotechnology Published * *October 1st, 2012* 2012 OCT 1 (VerticalNews) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Nanotechnology Weekly -- Investigators discuss new findings in Nanotechnology. According to news originating from Houston, Texas, by VerticalNews correspondents, research stated, Planar clusters of coupled plasmonic nanoparticles support nanoscale electromagnetic 'hot spots' and coherent effects, such as Fano resonances, with unique near and far field signatures, currently of prime interest for sensing applications. Here we show that plasmonic cluster properties can be substantially modified by the addition of individual, discrete dielectric nanoparticles at specific locations on the cluster, introducing... Fano resonance in a nanowire can convert heat/electron particles into electromagnetic hotspots aka nuclear active areas. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I periodically have to start over with this discussion because the response provided by Abd becomes so long and complex that making clear conclusions are no longer possible. In addition, a clearer understanding results from these discussions and this needs to be examined without the distraction created by the earlier discussion. The phenomenon called LENR has several basic features that have to guide a model and were, ironically, the cause of its rejection. These features are: 1. The mass-energy is released in small quanta rather than as energetic particles, as is the normal case by nuclear reactions and hot fusion in particular. 2. The phenomenon is very rare on a geological time scale and difficult to replicate in the laboratory. 3. The nuclear products are not the expected ones based on experience with the hot fusion process. 4. The process only occurs in condensed matter, especially in certain solids. 5. The process does not require applied energy to be initiated although extra energy will increase its rate. These features do not need additional demonstration or experimental detail to be accepted as real by a knowledgeable observer. The challenge is to create a logically consistent model that does not conflict with what is known about conventional nuclear reactions and is consistent with what is observed. The need for such an explanation, even thought it is incomplete, flows from the fact that this phenomenon is too complex to investigate successfully using trial and error. In fact, all experiments in science are guided at some level by an explanation, which is sometimes informal and based on current observed behavior but more often is based on established laws of Nature. The best model is the one that is consistent with the largest number of observations and makes accurate predictions about previously unseen behavior. These models are not designed to or are required to justify belief that the phenomenon called LENR is real. They are required to guide effective research that might eventually provide the required justification for acceptance. To do this, a few assumptions are required. These assumptions must be consistent with the laws or rules known to apply to the chemical systems in which the LENR effect occurs. Agreeing on which assumptions are consistent with the required rules (laws) and which are not has been the basic cause of conflict and argument about the proposed models. Before listing the assumptions, we need to acknowledge that several nuclear processes and reactions can occur in a material at the same time. For the discussion to be clear, we need to focus on only one reaction at a time. Initially the discussion will focus on the most active reaction that results in the major amount of detected heat energy. Several models propose processes other than fusion. These models involve either creation of neutrons or their release from a stabilized form in the material. The resulting neutrons then interact with nuclei to form the observed nuclear products. This discussion is not focused on this claim other than to note that the observed behavior is not consistent with this process and many parts of the model conflict with basic laws of nature. Therefore, this path will not be explored here. The present discussion focuses only on fusion of hydrons as the process called LENR. Three basic processes have to occur at the same location and at the same time. No significant delay may separate these three events. These events are: A. Two or more hydrons must occupy the same location at the same time in the material. B. Two or more hydrons must
RE: [Vo]:Do Ni H LENR reactions generate detectable radiation?
From: Kevin O'Malley It should be noted that the most common nuclear reaction in the Universe, by far - which is the reversible fusion of two protons into Helium-2 - such as happens with unimaginable frequency on most stars including our sun - is thought to produce no radiation. However, this reaction may produce excess energy. Jones ***I do not understand why this isn't being investigated more thoroughly. It's not as if you've proposed some new physics. Well Kevin - it is new physics insofar as using a solar phenomenon to explain LENR in a way that has never been done before. This methodology had never been proposed before I took up the cause a few months ago. However, the hypothesis fits the circumstances of Ni-H in such an elegant way that it is unwise to ignore it despite its lack of provenance :-) There is a solvable problem with it. Reversible fusion as an explanatory hypothesis requires a mechanism for confinement of protons, such as can be provided by the huge gravity field of a star. The leap of faith for this being an active mechanism in LENR (or even the predominant mechanism) then becomes cavity confinement. or more precisely, can cavity confinement at low temperature be a substitute for an immense gravity field of a star at much hotter temperature? There must exist a mechanism on Earth to hold two protons together long enough for the strong force to temporarily bind them, in a similar way that gravity does on our Sun. In LENR, this would be the metal matrix of the host - such as nickel or palladium. In the original PF paper, they computed something like 10^26 atmospheres of virtual pressure exits inside the palladium matrix - way more than enough even for fusion. That's electrolytic compression, sometimes confused with overpotential. Not everyone agrees that this high level of virtual compression is a physical reality, and PF later dropped the explanation. But another approach, essentially with the same result - is the relativistic approach, which Fran Roarty suggests on his blog - for Casimir cavities. So yes - to the extent that reversible proton fusion is applied to explain LENR via cavity confinement, and to the extent that QCD can be interpreted to show a small amount of actual gain in every failed instance of reversible fusion, this is indeed new physics. But it does not involve a pure invented mechanism to explain lack of gammas - the so-called magic phonons. So the bottom line, and the beauty of RPF -reversible proton fusion- is that it requires no rationalization for the lack of radioactivity - since the energy derived from QCD color change is on the order of a fractional eV per instance. To get substantial energy out, you need a high transaction rate of these failed fusions. RPF of course does NOT explain deuterium/palladium, where there appears to be correlation of excess heat to helium (unless you accept Krivit's criticism of that data). Therefore another knock on RPF is that to explain everything in LENR, including palladium/deuterium, there must be at least two (or possible more) active mechanisms. Ockham supporters do not like this, as it complicates everything - but parsimony can be argued to be a gross over-generalization anyway, and has never been really helpful in physics. Jones
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
Ed, When Szpak observed the flashes was it possible for him to determine the magnitude of the source of energy? I realize that he saw individual flashes, but how powerful was each one? Is it possible to prove that each flash was at a level consistent with the energy released by just one fusion? I know that this sort of technique is used in nuclear research to detect particles, but they have a pretty good idea of the intensity of the flash expected during the event. You know I love to speculate Ed. I plea guilty as charged. I have been involved in what we call Blue Sky Thinking where people freely come up with ideas that happen to enter their minds and know that most are not possible. The key ingredient is that the ideas are not immediately negatively criticized by the other participants. On many occasions this leads in unexpected directions which often become productive. Is this not what vortex is intended to offer? It is my hope that someone else will have a spark of genius ignited by another idea, perhaps one of mine. Until someone can deliver a working LENR device at will that matches their theory in detail without exception, there is room for wild speculation. One day, someone will generate that theory from the collection of evidence where all the pieces will fit together perfectly. Ed, you have a pretty good theory but there are still others in contention. Do you consider your theory as iron clad at this time? If so, I understand why you want to ensure that noise coming from other directions does not misdirect the understanding of how LENR behaves. My question above is important to answer and if you are absolutely confident that each fusion reaction is of only a single pair of D's that is randomly occurring and disconnected please let me know. That tiny bit of knowledge is vital to my understanding. Evidence exists that there is connection between individual events which just popped into my mind. You have stated that the effect is temperature dependent as we believe which implies that each energy release adds heat to the system leading to more of the same. This is correlated in time. Now, how fast does the energy released by each reaction dissipate among the NAE? There most likely exists a relaxation time during which the energy becomes spread throughout the material. Would it not seem likely that the nearby NAE would be effected much more strongly than those far removed? The density of NAE that are present within a region of the metal could be a major indication of the magnitude of energy released due to this interaction. You might want to consider how this effect could fit into your theory. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 5:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:19 PM, David Roberson wrote: You pose an interesting question. Perhaps the fresh helium leads to an increase in the number of NAE that form due to its interaction with the metal. Who knows? If enough helium forms, this will certainly be true. However, this requires the effect run for a long time without this aid. I have long wondered if evidence exists for a limited chain reaction of some sort since some of the earlier surface pictures appeared to demonstrate explosive crater formations. Two kinds of surface effects occur. Some are caused by material depositing from an impure electrolyte at the site of H2 loss from a crack. Others are caused by local melting produced by a very high concentration of NAE. These two types are easy to separate. Perhaps Ed or someone has seen very strong evidence that each LENR event is entirely independent of the next one and limited in scale to just one helium formation. Is anyone aware of evidence in support to this hypothesis? The local areas flash off and on in apparently random ways, as been seen and measured by Szpak et al. I could imagine that some form of precursor event is required before another can be initiated. Perhaps our favorite spark plug in the form of a cosmic ray deposits the secret ingredient that then allows for the follow up LENR action. No one could doubt that a cosmic ray has sufficient energy to trigger a small nuclear fusion reaction. We need to be careful not to automatically reject such a nuclear event as being inconsistent since no high energy radiation is evident. I would contend that a cosmic ray represents a very high level of high energy radiation by itself. Before you speculate too much, Dave, you really need to understand all that has been discovered and observed. I spent 23 years doing this, so my model is not based on casual ideas. Ed Dave -Original Message- From: Paul Breed p...@rasdoc.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 4:25 pm
Re: [Vo]:The Kinetic Energy Weapon (Bluff?) Theory of February 15, 2013's Cosmic Coincidence
I would guess that the magnitude of the shock wave is what is being compared. The air gets compressed ahead of the meteor since it can not move out of the way. This builds up to a very powerful blast. Dave -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 5:33 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Kinetic Energy Weapon (Bluff?) Theory of February 15, 2013's Cosmic Coincidence I understand how an iron meteorite can burn in the atmosphere and create sonic booms and break into pieces. I would like to see the model energy balance that shows me how that translates to a 500 kton blast from a 10kton rock while it is still in the air and has not given up its kinetic energy. Am I missing something? On Friday, February 22, 2013, Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Did you guys invent the Internet too? Terry, I like your theory better. I don't recall God's Rods. I think that would have been a bit too irreverent for the Potus. However, there were those brilliant pebbles. http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/brilliant-pebbles/
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
On Feb 22, 2013, at 4:26 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, When Szpak observed the flashes was it possible for him to determine the magnitude of the source of energy? I realize that he saw individual flashes, but how powerful was each one? Is it possible to prove that each flash was at a level consistent with the energy released by just one fusion? I know that this sort of technique is used in nuclear research to detect particles, but they have a pretty good idea of the intensity of the flash expected during the event. Nothing quantitive has been measured, only the basic behavior. Nevertheless, this is enough to show that individual events are contributing to an average that is measured as heat. You know I love to speculate Ed. I plea guilty as charged. I have been involved in what we call Blue Sky Thinking where people freely come up with ideas that happen to enter their minds and know that most are not possible. The key ingredient is that the ideas are not immediately negatively criticized by the other participants. On many occasions this leads in unexpected directions which often become productive. Is this not what vortex is intended to offer? Yes, but it helps if the thinking is based on some connection to reality. I can also think of all kinds of novel ideas, but the goal is to actually make progress in seeing reality. Giving ideas at random is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Yes, you can make some interesting moves, but you will not win the game. It is my hope that someone else will have a spark of genius ignited by another idea, perhaps one of mine. Until someone can deliver a working LENR device at will that matches their theory in detail without exception, there is room for wild speculation. This was true in 1989, but not now. Would you speculate to a doctor about how the gall bladder functions or to Boeing Inc. how the airplane actually works? Perhaps these are extreme examples, but my suggestion is to learn something first. One day, someone will generate that theory from the collection of evidence where all the pieces will fit together perfectly. Ed, you have a pretty good theory but there are still others in contention. Do you consider your theory as iron clad at this time? I have identified certain aspects a successful theory must have. I have not provided all the details yet. The only way a theory can be judged is by how effectively it explains what is observed. My theory is more effective in doing this than any other. This only means that it is on the right tract. I'm only show where the gold is buried, not how to dig or why it is present at that location. That information comes later. If so, I understand why you want to ensure that noise coming from other directions does not misdirect the understanding of how LENR behaves. I object to the noise as you say only because it is a distraction from hearing what is being sought, rather like listening to music while a friend constantly talks. My question above is important to answer and if you are absolutely confident that each fusion reaction is of only a single pair of D's that is randomly occurring and disconnected please let me know. That tiny bit of knowledge is vital to my understanding. Have you read my papers? I explain exactly what I think is occurring. Evidence exists that there is connection between individual events which just popped into my mind. You have stated that the effect is temperature dependent as we believe which implies that each energy release adds heat to the system leading to more of the same. No, temperature dependence only means that one controlling part of the process is endothermic, i.e. it requires energy to occur. This requirement results from basic laws of thermodynamics. This is correlated in time. Now, how fast does the energy released by each reaction dissipate among the NAE? There most likely exists a relaxation time during which the energy becomes spread throughout the material. Would it not seem likely that the nearby NAE would be effected much more strongly than those far removed? The density of NAE that are present within a region of the metal could be a major indication of the magnitude of energy released due to this interaction. You are describing thermal behavior, which is a well known and understood process that has no relationship to the source of heat. My theory does not care what happens to the heat once the photons are formed because the heat energy results from the photons being absorbed by the surrounding material by well know processes. CF follows normal rules up to a critical stage and again follows normal rules after this stage. The question is, What happens during this unknown stage in the process? This is where I suggest you apply your ideas. Ed You might want to consider how this effect could fit into
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
I think Pons Fleishmann had their meltdown on a relatively very thick piece of Palladium. It was the thickest piece they had experimented on, 1 cubic centimeter IIRC. I know that's only one datapoint, but there could be others if we look for them. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The question of whether or not this is a bulk effect can be addressed by using a very thin plating of active material. If the reaction is similar with the thin film that you get with a larger bulk, or perhaps even a thicker plating, then it is surface related. I assume that there is adequate evidence available at this point from the many experiments that have been conducted. If this can not be answered at this time I would be concerned. Dave -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 5:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III We all believe LENR is a surface effect, but its possible that its a bulk effect, that only works once then is dependent on giving He a way to escape to the surface? ***It is possible it's a bulk effect but the evidence is only seen at the surface. Like a landslide pushing a hundred trees into a river, but the forces of the river at that point are strong enough to pull the trees downstream until they cause a backup at the lower energy part of the system. The causal event took place upstream (or, inside the bulk) but the observed evidence is downstream (at the surface).
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured
Sorry, I've only been skimming the posts in the thread. In the back of my mind I've been wondering how the two space rocks could be related even though they were headed in almost in opposite directions. Your talk of spacebased kinetic energy weapons got me thinkingIf a space rock fragments from an explosion it could result in two rocks moving in opposite directions. Alternatively, the two space rocks and their trajectories could be the result of an improbable collision in recent years. Harry On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:37 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Your interpretation of what I've written renders me speechless. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: So is it your thesis that the russian meteor was a fragment blown off the larger meteor? Harry On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Terry, if you want to invoke scifi space based kinetic energy weapons with precise targeting, try The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein. In 1983, Heinlein and I actually came to logger heads, in person, over Gen Graham's abuse of the non-terrestrial materials concepts by O'Neill and Vajk. He had written the foreword to Graham's book High Frontier about weaponizing nonterrestrial resources. Graham was a key figure in Reagan's Star Wars Strategic Defense Initiative. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footfall
Re: [Vo]:Nanowire frequency conversion
A BIG peice of nano-material is at or under 100 nanometers. This is less than 61 microns so a nano-structure that small can convert a gamma ray to heat because it is less than the far wavelenth of the radiation. ***Much of current semiconductor research is well under 100 nm. Why haven't they seen this conversion of gammas to heat? Why hasn't it been accepted in mainstream physics? A google search for conversion of gamma rays to heat generates only cold fusion related hits.
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
Ed, I suspect that you did not follow my description of the heat involvement of the reaction. Unless the temperature is irrelevant at each finite location then what I was suggesting should be a major factor. Any heat energy that is emitted within a small volume will cause an immediate temperature rise in that region. Even though the elevated temperature is short lived, it is there for a finite time period. This would most likely be exhibited by strong kinetic movements of the nearby metal atoms and the hydrogen nearby. This close proximity short term heating could not be distinguished from elevated material temperature in general and would behave much like heating the entire system up by many degrees centigrade. I would be very surprised if the NAE next door did not experience a large heat wave as the heat from a fusion event diffused throughout the metal. Sure, heat conduction is fairly understood, and that is what I am expecting to cause the difference. The reason why this thought is important is that a relatively enormous amount of heat is released during a fusion event, far more than any chemical one encountered. If you are convinced that all of the energy is released in the form of radiation that penetrates relatively deeply into the metal bulk, then I can see why you dismiss my idea. If you agree that local heating is the main way the energy escapes then this concept offers a simple method of generating extra LENR power that is a function of the density of NAE, the system temperature, and other variables. Give the idea some attention. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 7:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III On Feb 22, 2013, at 4:26 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, When Szpak observed the flashes was it possible for him to determine the magnitude of the source of energy? I realize that he saw individual flashes, but how powerful was each one? Is it possible to prove that each flash was at a level consistent with the energy released by just one fusion? I know that this sort of technique is used in nuclear research to detect particles, but they have a pretty good idea of the intensity of the flash expected during the event. Nothing quantitive has been measured, only the basic behavior. Nevertheless, this is enough to show that individual events are contributing to an average that is measured as heat. You know I love to speculate Ed. I plea guilty as charged. I have been involved in what we call Blue Sky Thinking where people freely come up with ideas that happen to enter their minds and know that most are not possible. The key ingredient is that the ideas are not immediately negatively criticized by the other participants. On many occasions this leads in unexpected directions which often become productive. Is this not what vortex is intended to offer? Yes, but it helps if the thinking is based on some connection to reality. I can also think of all kinds of novel ideas, but the goal is to actually make progress in seeing reality. Giving ideas at random is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Yes, you can make some interesting moves, but you will not win the game. It is my hope that someone else will have a spark of genius ignited by another idea, perhaps one of mine. Until someone can deliver a working LENR device at will that matches their theory in detail without exception, there is room for wild speculation. This was true in 1989, but not now. Would you speculate to a doctor about how the gall bladder functions or to Boeing Inc. how the airplane actually works? Perhaps these are extreme examples, but my suggestion is to learn something first. One day, someone will generate that theory from the collection of evidence where all the pieces will fit together perfectly. Ed, you have a pretty good theory but there are still others in contention. Do you consider your theory as iron clad at this time? I have identified certain aspects a successful theory must have. I have not provided all the details yet. The only way a theory can be judged is by how effectively it explains what is observed. My theory is more effective in doing this than any other. This only means that it is on the right tract. I'm only show where the gold is buried, not how to dig or why it is present at that location. That information comes later. If so, I understand why you want to ensure that noise coming from other directions does not misdirect the understanding of how LENR behaves. I object to the noise as you say only because it is a distraction from hearing what is being sought, rather like listening to music while a friend constantly talks. My question above is important to answer and if you are absolutely confident that each fusion
Re: [Vo]:Nanowire frequency conversion
Check your dimensions. Gamma rays are on the order of the size of a nucleus. You appear off by many orders of magnitude. Dave -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 8:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanowire frequency conversion A BIG peice of nano-material is at or under 100 nanometers. This is less than 61 microns so a nano-structure that small can convert a gamma ray to heat because it is less than the far wavelenth of the radiation. ***Much of current semiconductor research is well under 100 nm. Why haven't they seen this conversion of gammas to heat? Why hasn't it been accepted in mainstream physics? A google search for conversion of gamma rays to heat generates only cold fusion related hits.
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
Well Dave, your description might affect local regions. If the concentration of NAE is too high, a runaway effect might occur locally and cause local melting, which would kill the effect at that location. Nevertheless, the heat is not created only at the site of the reaction. The reaction produces photons that have a range in matter before they lose their energy as heat. The net result is complicated because the energy from one NAE site is absorbed throughout the material thanks to the photon flux. We only have the ability to measure the average temperature and the average power, although local heating can be detected as brief bursts of increased temperature and local melting. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 8:47 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I suspect that you did not follow my description of the heat involvement of the reaction. Unless the temperature is irrelevant at each finite location then what I was suggesting should be a major factor. Any heat energy that is emitted within a small volume will cause an immediate temperature rise in that region. Even though the elevated temperature is short lived, it is there for a finite time period. This would most likely be exhibited by strong kinetic movements of the nearby metal atoms and the hydrogen nearby. This close proximity short term heating could not be distinguished from elevated material temperature in general and would behave much like heating the entire system up by many degrees centigrade. I would be very surprised if the NAE next door did not experience a large heat wave as the heat from a fusion event diffused throughout the metal. Sure, heat conduction is fairly understood, and that is what I am expecting to cause the difference. The reason why this thought is important is that a relatively enormous amount of heat is released during a fusion event, far more than any chemical one encountered. If you are convinced that all of the energy is released in the form of radiation that penetrates relatively deeply into the metal bulk, then I can see why you dismiss my idea. If you agree that local heating is the main way the energy escapes then this concept offers a simple method of generating extra LENR power that is a function of the density of NAE, the system temperature, and other variables. Give the idea some attention. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 7:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III On Feb 22, 2013, at 4:26 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, When Szpak observed the flashes was it possible for him to determine the magnitude of the source of energy? I realize that he saw individual flashes, but how powerful was each one? Is it possible to prove that each flash was at a level consistent with the energy released by just one fusion? I know that this sort of technique is used in nuclear research to detect particles, but they have a pretty good idea of the intensity of the flash expected during the event. Nothing quantitive has been measured, only the basic behavior. Nevertheless, this is enough to show that individual events are contributing to an average that is measured as heat. You know I love to speculate Ed. I plea guilty as charged. I have been involved in what we call Blue Sky Thinking where people freely come up with ideas that happen to enter their minds and know that most are not possible. The key ingredient is that the ideas are not immediately negatively criticized by the other participants. On many occasions this leads in unexpected directions which often become productive. Is this not what vortex is intended to offer? Yes, but it helps if the thinking is based on some connection to reality. I can also think of all kinds of novel ideas, but the goal is to actually make progress in seeing reality. Giving ideas at random is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Yes, you can make some interesting moves, but you will not win the game. It is my hope that someone else will have a spark of genius ignited by another idea, perhaps one of mine. Until someone can deliver a working LENR device at will that matches their theory in detail without exception, there is room for wild speculation. This was true in 1989, but not now. Would you speculate to a doctor about how the gall bladder functions or to Boeing Inc. how the airplane actually works? Perhaps these are extreme examples, but my suggestion is to learn something first. One day, someone will generate that theory from the collection of evidence where all the pieces will fit together perfectly. Ed, you have a pretty good theory but there are still others in contention. Do you consider your theory as iron clad at this time? I have identified certain aspects a successful theory
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
I guess a lot depends upon information that is difficult to obtain. I assumed that your process emitted photons of many types, but figured they could not be too energetic or else we would have detected them outside of the material since the surface is where they originate. This implies that they are not capable of much penetration. I understand why the local heating would destroy the active NAE if too much heat were generated. Is this not what you would normally expect to happen with active fusion occurring? My mental picture of your theory was that new NAE are being formed all of the time to replace those that are jammed with helium or other ash. Local melting might help to accomplish this task since the rapid cooling due to heat diffusion into the nearby colder metal would lead to dislocations. The appearance of the metal surface from some of the earlier experiments strongly suggested to me that some form of chain reaction was occurring at least on occasions. The amount of energy required to produce the observed craters must have been much larger than that due to just one lone fusion event. If we couple this behavior with the density variations of your NAE, an explanation for the large variation in excess power might emerge. The large scale meltdown of the PF cube would fall into this category as well. If this type of activity is possible, a dangerous thermal effect is not out of the question. Are you or anyone else aware of other run away thermal events that we might want to explore? Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 11:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III Well Dave, your description might affect local regions. If the concentration of NAE is too high, a runaway effect might occur locally and cause local melting, which would kill the effect at that location. Nevertheless, the heat is not created only at the site of the reaction. The reaction produces photons that have a range in matter before they lose their energy as heat. The net result is complicated because the energy from one NAE site is absorbed throughout the material thanks to the photon flux. We only have the ability to measure the average temperature and the average power, although local heating can be detected as brief bursts of increased temperature and local melting. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 8:47 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I suspect that you did not follow my description of the heat involvement of the reaction. Unless the temperature is irrelevant at each finite location then what I was suggesting should be a major factor. Any heat energy that is emitted within a small volume will cause an immediate temperature rise in that region. Even though the elevated temperature is short lived, it is there for a finite time period. This would most likely be exhibited by strong kinetic movements of the nearby metal atoms and the hydrogen nearby. This close proximity short term heating could not be distinguished from elevated material temperature in general and would behave much like heating the entire system up by many degrees centigrade. I would be very surprised if the NAE next door did not experience a large heat wave as the heat from a fusion event diffused throughout the metal. Sure, heat conduction is fairly understood, and that is what I am expecting to cause the difference. The reason why this thought is important is that a relatively enormous amount of heat is released during a fusion event, far more than any chemical one encountered. If you are convinced that all of the energy is released in the form of radiation that penetrates relatively deeply into the metal bulk, then I can see why you dismiss my idea. If you agree that local heating is the main way the energy escapes then this concept offers a simple method of generating extra LENR power that is a function of the density of NAE, the system temperature, and other variables. Give the idea some attention. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 7:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III On Feb 22, 2013, at 4:26 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, When Szpak observed the flashes was it possible for him to determine the magnitude of the source of energy? I realize that he saw individual flashes, but how powerful was each one? Is it possible to prove that each flash was at a level consistent with the energy released by just one fusion? I know that this sort of technique is used in nuclear research to detect particles, but they have a pretty good idea of the intensity of the flash expected during the event. Nothing quantitive has been measured, only the basic behavior.
Re: [Vo]:Nanowire frequency conversion
It is accepted in mainstream physics. This technology has just begun development. Because the field is new, there the number of applications is few. He engineers have not taken full advantage of the basic scientific research. If we can pack large numbers of electrons into a confined space, each electron would assume it’s on quantum number because it is confined like a the orbitals of electrons in an atom. This pile of electrons form an artificial atom but it doesn’t have nucleus and have a very large range of quantum numbers. When a gamma ray strikes this pile of electrons, the kinetic energy of the photon transfers it energy to the electrons and the quantum number of one or more electrons increases. These excited electrons can reemit the energy at a lower wavelength or lower energy electron can enter into the pile because the gamma has made some energy gap room. A quantum dot holds a pile of electrons that do this function. Large quantum dots have been created that can store 600 electrons and handle a photon of about 1 MeV. See page 42 www.physics.umanitoba.ca/nano/publications/comments.pdf This lack of gammas in LENR leads me to suspect that there are cavities that hold large numbers of electrons to downshift the gamma photons. The gamma’s will also allow these cavities to pack more electrons in because the gammas increase the quantum numbers of the electrons already there to higher quantum levels allowing lower energy electrons to sneak into the pile. Glad to help: Axil On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: A BIG peice of nano-material is at or under 100 nanometers. This is less than 61 microns so a nano-structure that small can convert a gamma ray to heat because it is less than the far wavelenth of the radiation. ***Much of current semiconductor research is well under 100 nm. Why haven't they seen this conversion of gammas to heat? Why hasn't it been accepted in mainstream physics? A google search for conversion of gamma rays to heat generates only cold fusion related hits.
Re: [Vo]:Nanowire frequency conversion
Sorry, my bad Axil On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:51 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Check your dimensions. Gamma rays are on the order of the size of a nucleus. You appear off by many orders of magnitude. Dave -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 8:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanowire frequency conversion A BIG peice of nano-material is at or under 100 nanometers. This is less than 61 microns so a nano-structure that small can convert a gamma ray to heat because it is less than the far wavelenth of the radiation. ***Much of current semiconductor research is well under 100 nm. Why haven't they seen this conversion of gammas to heat? Why hasn't it been accepted in mainstream physics? A google search for conversion of gamma rays to heat generates only cold fusion related hits.
Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III
Under my theory of LENR it may be possible to setup a single nuclear active site for observation and measure what goes on inside that volume in detail. The experiment involves setting up a quantum dot with a 600 electron storage capacity constructed in a way to enclose the electron ensemble in nickel walls with the entirety of the device surrounded by a pressurized hydrogen atmosphere. A Pd/D system can be setup in like manner. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Well Dave, your description might affect local regions. If the concentration of NAE is too high, a runaway effect might occur locally and cause local melting, which would kill the effect at that location. Nevertheless, the heat is not created only at the site of the reaction. The reaction produces photons that have a range in matter before they lose their energy as heat. The net result is complicated because the energy from one NAE site is absorbed throughout the material thanks to the photon flux. We only have the ability to measure the average temperature and the average power, although local heating can be detected as brief bursts of increased temperature and local melting. Ed On Feb 22, 2013, at 8:47 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I suspect that you did not follow my description of the heat involvement of the reaction. Unless the temperature is irrelevant at each finite location then what I was suggesting should be a major factor. Any heat energy that is emitted within a small volume will cause an immediate temperature rise in that region. Even though the elevated temperature is short lived, it is there for a finite time period. This would most likely be exhibited by strong kinetic movements of the nearby metal atoms and the hydrogen nearby. This close proximity short term heating could not be distinguished from elevated material temperature in general and would behave much like heating the entire system up by many degrees centigrade. I would be very surprised if the NAE next door did not experience a large heat wave as the heat from a fusion event diffused throughout the metal. Sure, heat conduction is fairly understood, and that is what I am expecting to cause the difference. The reason why this thought is important is that a relatively enormous amount of heat is released during a fusion event, far more than any chemical one encountered. If you are convinced that all of the energy is released in the form of radiation that penetrates relatively deeply into the metal bulk, then I can see why you dismiss my idea. If you agree that local heating is the main way the energy escapes then this concept offers a simple method of generating extra LENR power that is a function of the density of NAE, the system temperature, and other variables. Give the idea some attention. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 7:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:explaining LENR -III On Feb 22, 2013, at 4:26 PM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, When Szpak observed the flashes was it possible for him to determine the magnitude of the source of energy? I realize that he saw individual flashes, but how powerful was each one? Is it possible to prove that each flash was at a level consistent with the energy released by just one fusion? I know that this sort of technique is used in nuclear research to detect particles, but they have a pretty good idea of the intensity of the flash expected during the event. Nothing quantitive has been measured, only the basic behavior. Nevertheless, this is enough to show that individual events are contributing to an average that is measured as heat. You know I love to speculate Ed. I plea guilty as charged. I have been involved in what we call Blue Sky Thinking where people freely come up with ideas that happen to enter their minds and know that most are not possible. The key ingredient is that the ideas are not immediately negatively criticized by the other participants. On many occasions this leads in unexpected directions which often become productive. Is this not what vortex is intended to offer? Yes, but it helps if the thinking is based on some connection to reality. I can also think of all kinds of novel ideas, but the goal is to actually make progress in seeing reality. Giving ideas at random is like playing chess without knowing the rules. Yes, you can make some interesting moves, but you will not win the game. It is my hope that someone else will have a spark of genius ignited by another idea, perhaps one of mine. Until someone can deliver a working LENR device at will that matches their theory in detail without exception, there is room for wild speculation. This was true in 1989, but not now. Would you speculate to a doctor about how
Re: [Vo]:Nanowire frequency conversion
Corrected… It is accepted in mainstream physics. This technology has just begun development. Because the field is new, the number of applications is few. The engineers have not taken full advantage of this type of basic scientific research. If we can pack large numbers of electrons into a confined space, each electron would assume its own quantum number because these electrons are confined like the electrons confined to the orbitals of an atom. This collection of electrons will form an artificial atom but the collection doesn’t have nucleus and can also have a very large range of quantum numbers. When a gamma ray strikes this ensemble of electrons, the kinetic energy of this photon transfers it energy to the electrons and the quantum number of one or more electrons will increase. These newly excited electrons can reemit the energy at a lower wavelength, or lower energy electron can enter into the pile because the gamma has made some energy gap room in the electron group. A quantum dot can hold such a pile of electrons that do the functions so described. Large quantum dots have been created that can store 600 electrons and more. They can handle a photon of about 1 MeV and more. See page 42 www.physics.umanitoba.ca/nano/publications/comments.pdf This lack of gammas detected in the LENR reaction leads me to suspect that there are nano-cavities that hold large numbers of electrons that can downshift the gamma photons produced nearby. These gamma’s will also allow these cavities to pack more electrons in because the gammas increase the quantum numbers of the electrons already there to higher quantum levels allowing lower energy electrons to sneak into the pile. Glad to help:Axil On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: It is accepted in mainstream physics. This technology has just begun development. Because the field is new, there the number of applications is few. He engineers have not taken full advantage of the basic scientific research. If we can pack large numbers of electrons into a confined space, each electron would assume it’s on quantum number because it is confined like a the orbitals of electrons in an atom. This pile of electrons form an artificial atom but it doesn’t have nucleus and have a very large range of quantum numbers. When a gamma ray strikes this pile of electrons, the kinetic energy of the photon transfers it energy to the electrons and the quantum number of one or more electrons increases. These excited electrons can reemit the energy at a lower wavelength or lower energy electron can enter into the pile because the gamma has made some energy gap room. A quantum dot holds a pile of electrons that do this function. Large quantum dots have been created that can store 600 electrons and handle a photon of about 1 MeV. See page 42 www.physics.umanitoba.ca/nano/publications/comments.pdf This lack of gammas in LENR leads me to suspect that there are cavities that hold large numbers of electrons to downshift the gamma photons. The gamma’s will also allow these cavities to pack more electrons in because the gammas increase the quantum numbers of the electrons already there to higher quantum levels allowing lower energy electrons to sneak into the pile. Glad to help: Axil On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: A BIG peice of nano-material is at or under 100 nanometers. This is less than 61 microns so a nano-structure that small can convert a gamma ray to heat because it is less than the far wavelenth of the radiation. ***Much of current semiconductor research is well under 100 nm. Why haven't they seen this conversion of gammas to heat? Why hasn't it been accepted in mainstream physics? A google search for conversion of gamma rays to heat generates only cold fusion related hits.
Re: [Vo]:Nanowire frequency conversion
Axil, I am trying to understand how your model is able to contain the large number of electrons without dispersion. It seems that the force repelling the electrons would force them to expand outward through any walls. How do you envision them being contained? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 23, 2013 12:45 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanowire frequency conversion Corrected… It is accepted in mainstream physics. This technology has just begun development. Because the field is new, the number of applications is few. The engineers have not taken full advantage of this type of basic scientific research. If we can pack large numbers of electrons into a confined space, each electron would assume its own quantum number because these electrons are confined like the electrons confined to the orbitals of an atom. This collection of electrons will form an artificial atom but the collection doesn’t have nucleus and can also have a very large range of quantum numbers. When a gamma ray strikes this ensemble of electrons, the kinetic energy of this photon transfers it energy to the electrons and the quantum number of one or more electrons will increase. These newly excited electrons can reemit the energy at a lower wavelength, or lower energy electron can enter into the pile because the gamma has made some energy gap room in the electron group. A quantum dot can hold such a pile of electrons that do the functions so described. Large quantum dots have been created that can store 600 electrons and more. They can handle a photon of about 1 MeV and more. See page 42 www.physics.umanitoba.ca/nano/publications/comments.pdf This lack of gammas detected in the LENR reaction leads me to suspect that there are nano-cavities that hold large numbers of electrons that can downshift the gamma photons produced nearby. These gamma’s will also allow these cavities to pack more electrons in because the gammas increase the quantum numbers of the electrons already there to higher quantum levels allowing lower energy electrons to sneak into the pile. Glad to help:Axil On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: It is accepted in mainstream physics. This technology has just begun development. Because the field is new, there the number of applications is few. He engineers have not taken full advantage of the basic scientific research. If we can pack large numbers of electrons into a confined space, each electron would assume it’s on quantum number because it is confined like a the orbitals of electrons in an atom. This pile of electrons form an artificial atom but it doesn’t have nucleus and have a very large range of quantum numbers. When a gamma ray strikes this pile of electrons, the kinetic energy of the photon transfers it energy to the electrons and the quantum number of one or more electrons increases. These excited electrons can reemit the energy at a lower wavelength or lower energy electron can enter into the pile because the gamma has made some energy gap room. A quantum dot holds a pile of electrons that do this function. Large quantum dots have been created that can store 600 electrons and handle a photon of about 1 MeV. See page 42 www.physics.umanitoba.ca/nano/publications/comments.pdf This lack of gammas in LENR leads me to suspect that there are cavities that hold large numbers of electrons to downshift the gamma photons. The gamma’s will also allow these cavities to pack more electrons in because the gammas increase the quantum numbers of the electrons already there to higher quantum levels allowing lower energy electrons to sneak into the pile. Glad to help: Axil On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: A BIG peice of nano-material is at or under 100 nanometers. This is less than 61 microns so a nano-structure that small can convert a gamma ray to heat because it is less than the far wavelenth of the radiation. ***Much of current semiconductor research is well under 100 nm. Why haven't they seen this conversion of gammas to heat? Why hasn't it been accepted in mainstream physics? A google search for conversion of gamma rays to heat generates only cold fusion related hits.
Re: [Vo]:Nanowire frequency conversion
See for an example of fermion confinement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_dot Plexcitons are different. They are bosons. It is an electron and a hole and where the hole is in the nickel wall of the cavity and the electron is in the empty space of the cavity. These electrons are held in place by dipole confinement. In physics, polaritons are quasiparticles resulting from strong coupling of electromagnetic waves (heat) with an electric or magnetic dipole-carrying excitation. Because they are bosons there is no limit to the number you can pack in a cavity because there is no Pauli Exclusion Principle to deal with. They can form Bose-Einstein condensates inside the cavities and many cavities can join the condensate. I don’t know how this condensate works in detail. What happens to the holes in the dipoles located in the Ni walls ? Are these holes part of the condinsate? arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7086 Bose-Einstein condensation of plexcitons - arXiv.org You should look into the Plexciton because the Nasa people think that it is causing LENR. When you get some knowledge on this subject we can teach each other through pleasant conversation. Cheers: Axil On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 1:02 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, I am trying to understand how your model is able to contain the large number of electrons without dispersion. It seems that the force repelling the electrons would force them to expand outward through any walls. How do you envision them being contained? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 23, 2013 12:45 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanowire frequency conversion Corrected… It is accepted in mainstream physics. This technology has just begun development. Because the field is new, the number of applications is few. The engineers have not taken full advantage of this type of basic scientific research. If we can pack large numbers of electrons into a confined space, each electron would assume its own quantum number because these electrons are confined like the electrons confined to the orbitals of an atom. This collection of electrons will form an artificial atom but the collection doesn’t have nucleus and can also have a very large range of quantum numbers. When a gamma ray strikes this ensemble of electrons, the kinetic energy of this photon transfers it energy to the electrons and the quantum number of one or more electrons will increase. These newly excited electrons can reemit the energy at a lower wavelength, or lower energy electron can enter into the pile because the gamma has made some energy gap room in the electron group. A quantum dot can hold such a pile of electrons that do the functions so described. Large quantum dots have been created that can store 600 electrons and more. They can handle a photon of about 1 MeV and more. See page 42 www.physics.umanitoba.ca/nano/publications/comments.pdf This lack of gammas detected in the LENR reaction leads me to suspect that there are nano-cavities that hold large numbers of electrons that can downshift the gamma photons produced nearby. These gamma’s will also allow these cavities to pack more electrons in because the gammas increase the quantum numbers of the electrons already there to higher quantum levels allowing lower energy electrons to sneak into the pile. Glad to help:Axil On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: It is accepted in mainstream physics. This technology has just begun development. Because the field is new, there the number of applications is few. He engineers have not taken full advantage of the basic scientific research. If we can pack large numbers of electrons into a confined space, each electron would assume it’s on quantum number because it is confined like a the orbitals of electrons in an atom. This pile of electrons form an artificial atom but it doesn’t have nucleus and have a very large range of quantum numbers. When a gamma ray strikes this pile of electrons, the kinetic energy of the photon transfers it energy to the electrons and the quantum number of one or more electrons increases. These excited electrons can reemit the energy at a lower wavelength or lower energy electron can enter into the pile because the gamma has made some energy gap room. A quantum dot holds a pile of electrons that do this function. Large quantum dots have been created that can store 600 electrons and handle a photon of about 1 MeV. See page 42 www.physics.umanitoba.ca/nano/publications/comments.pdf This lack of gammas in LENR leads me to suspect that there are cavities that hold large numbers of electrons to downshift the gamma photons. The gamma’s will also allow these cavities to pack more electrons in because the gammas increase the quantum numbers of the electrons already there to higher quantum levels allowing lower energy
