RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:#1 plastic, Beene, and cold fusion
Frank, I agree . so easy to trap hydrogen, optical transparency and this resonance you are investigating all make the lowly soda bottle a great McGiver item that will lend itself to home built LENR demonstrations once the principles are understood. Maybe you will hit upon a low cost demo ahead of theory and kick this infant science into adolescence. Fran From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 4:05 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:#1 plastic, Beene, and cold fusion I am still working at plastic bottle detection. I have found that #1 soda bottle plastic has a strong resonance at tera hertz frequencies. J. Beene stated that this was useful. Another nice property is that #1 plastic is transparent to optical light. #1 plastic is not good at letting in hydrogen. that's not useful Frank
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
The data come from many places. First, the library LENR experimental data accumulated over the last 25 years in Jed's collection, Next, other data that should be added to Jed's collection, then there is the experimentation done that is directly applicable to LENR which is most recently done but not limited to these selected fields: nano technology, nanoplasmonics, quantum optics, nano optics, quantum mechanics, condensed matter physics, chemistry, solid state physics, the standard modal, Rossi's revelations, DGT published data, and the other developers of LENR+ systems. For example, To understand what is going on inside a NAE is interesting. To that goal, I am interested in how polaritons can produce a large anaopole magnetic field from a hot spot all the while frequency mixing of incoming EMF frequencies are going on. Let us discuss this reference: Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf Read it and give me your opinion as to its applicability to LENR+ On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:53 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Theory is not made of repetition and citation but of reflection and experimental testing. One of the nice things about coming up with a novel theory is it allows you to come up with novel experiments and if appropriately tempered by economic those experiments may be quite practical. What is your experimental test? On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I speak with the authority of repetition. I have gone over this stuff fifty times and no one has countered me except Ed Storms to my great joy. Theory is not made of sunshine and roses. Like steel, it is tempered by repeated blows and forged in fire, between the hammer and the anvil. In each post I provide one or more supporting references. All the opinions I provide are based on established science as defined by the references I list. http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306126v2.pdf As above In this thread, I provide a reference on how EMF frequencies can be both down shifted and up shifted in an optical cavity. This is called Fano resonance. I have described Fano resonance hundreds of times as simple as I can. Who else has provided a reference in this thread? No one! On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even more so than ChemE. Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical demonstration of that knowledge? On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR when the nucleus is suppressed (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do not excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or kinetic energy to excite the nucleus. On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. What is more interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out by the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention. If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the keV range, some of which might be considered gammas), then p+Ni is contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes place, for a period of hours or days. If low-level radiation is allowed, then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out. That is the heart of much of the recent thread. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. Although this discussion might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is that cold fusion consists of. So we've been having a discussion that is different than the usual gamma discussion. Rossi's terminology confuses things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as gammas. Eric
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:A return to Brown's Gas / HHO ?
I've been promoting these HHO devices as related to this field for years, I think there can be at a minimum over unity disassociation of hydrogen by the surface geometry of the plates where electrolyzed hydrogen loads into the metal geometry and pressure rises before being fed to the engine. Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2014 2:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:A return to Brown's Gas / HHO ? From: James Bowery If Mills discloses he deserves credit for that. By discloses I mean what the patent office means: Provides sufficient information in the patent disclosure for those skilled in the art to realize beneficial use independent of the inventor. You've seen his recent patent application. Even at 325 pages - does it disclose anything that the other patents relating to electrical discharge through water have missed? Or is it designed to deceive - which seems to be the consensus here on Vortex, when we discussed this patent application earlier. There are well over 2 million hits on google relating to patents for electrical discharge through water. Where is the novelty in Mills? ... other than, of course, the bald claim that the discharge is not really through water nor through HHO but is through Mills version in which one of the hydrogen atoms is in a reduced orbital making it more of a catalyst... and even then, Mills has not shown that the HHO species of prior art does not, in fact, conform identically to his version. I feel sorry for the BLP attorneys. They have surely told him that theories are not patentable no matter how great they are. I doubt if the attorneys are as incompetent as this application suggests. Most likely they were ordered to do the impossible: which is to try to patent a device which has been known in prior art for decades. Jones
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
I almost took that as an honorable mention... On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even more so than ChemE. Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical demonstration of that knowledge? On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR when the nucleus is suppressed (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do not excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or kinetic energy to excite the nucleus. On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. What is more interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out by the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention. If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the keV range, some of which might be considered gammas), then p+Ni is contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes place, for a period of hours or days. If low-level radiation is allowed, then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out. That is the heart of much of the recent thread. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. Although this discussion might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is that cold fusion consists of. So we've been having a discussion that is different than the usual gamma discussion. Rossi's terminology confuses things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as gammas. Eric
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
On Feb 2, 2014, at 9:39 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. What is more interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out by the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention. If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the keV range, some of which might be considered gammas), then p+Ni is contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will result in short- lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes place, for a period of hours or days. If low-level radiation is allowed, then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out. That is the heart of much of the recent thread. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. Although this discussion might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is that cold fusion consists of. So we've been having a discussion that is different than the usual gamma discussion. Rossi's terminology confuses things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as gammas. Eric, I do not think all the radiation is from side channels. Most is from the reaction producing energy. A little is from transmutation, but not the Rossi kind because it does not occur, and a very little is from hot fusion produced by fractofusion. Ed Storms Eric
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Axil, you completely ignore what is observed and how the behavior is produced. Rather than suggest complex, obscure, and novel ideas, why not learn what is actually seen? Ed Stporms On Feb 2, 2014, at 10:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR when the nucleus is suppressed (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do not excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or kinetic energy to excite the nucleus. On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. What is more interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out by the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention. If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the keV range, some of which might be considered gammas), then p+Ni is contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will result in short- lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes place, for a period of hours or days. If low-level radiation is allowed, then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out. That is the heart of much of the recent thread. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. Although this discussion might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is that cold fusion consists of. So we've been having a discussion that is different than the usual gamma discussion. Rossi's terminology confuses things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as gammas. Eric
RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
From: Eric Walker Jed Rothwell wrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at that demo. Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni - Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton reaction) only came into play as a last resort – and it was chosen as the “one and only” well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it only happens on the sun; and QCD, which would describe the level of exotherm (it is a strong force reaction) is not my field of expertise. I have been attempting to partner with an expert in QCD on this theory, but of course, most of them are negative on LENR to begin with and do not want to have their name associated with Rossi. That will change very soon. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. The problem with any suggestion including Ed’s, which does not exclude gamma radiation from the start (ab initio) which is to say - by the nature of the reaction itself – can be called “leakage.” In all reactions in physics where gammas can witnessed, they will be witnessed. There are no exceptions. Gammas are highly penetrating, and even1% leakage stands out like a sore thumb. Actually even one part per billion would stand out like a sore thumb. I do not mind belaboring the main point - that to adequately explain Rossi’s results, if Rossi is for real - we must backtrack in order find a gammaless starting point. This is due to the excellent gamma study by Bianchini who, with top notch instrumentation, could not find any gammas over hours of study at high thermal release, with his probes place under the original lead shielding. HE FOUND NONE - essentially a background level. The importance of “none” instead of a few, cannot be overemphasized. The underlying reaction must be gammaless. It is not sufficient to suggest that gammas are formed and suppressed. “Leakage” prevents that suggestion. There are no gammas in the Rossi reactor during operation and the ones seen at startup can be easily explained as external. Things could be different for other reactions like Pd-D, but for now, we are only concerned with an analysis of the Rossi reaction, in this thread. Jones
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Ed, Point me to something that illustrates your viewpoint. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, you completely ignore what is observed and how the behavior is produced. Rather than suggest complex, obscure, and novel ideas, why not learn what is actually seen? Ed Stporms On Feb 2, 2014, at 10:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR when the nucleus is suppressed (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do not excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or kinetic energy to excite the nucleus. On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. What is more interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out by the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention. If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the keV range, some of which might be considered gammas), then p+Ni is contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes place, for a period of hours or days. If low-level radiation is allowed, then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out. That is the heart of much of the recent thread. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. Although this discussion might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is that cold fusion consists of. So we've been having a discussion that is different than the usual gamma discussion. Rossi's terminology confuses things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as gammas. Eric
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelliin a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that his early systems produced gammas. The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the production of gammas. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Eric Walker Jed Rothwell wrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at that demo. Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi's own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni - Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton reaction) only came into play as a last resort - and it was chosen as the one and only well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it only happens on the sun; and QCD, which would describe the level of exotherm (it is a strong force reaction) is not my field of expertise. I have been attempting to partner with an expert in QCD on this theory, but of course, most of them are negative on LENR to begin with and do not want to have their name associated with Rossi. That will change very soon. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. The problem with any suggestion including Ed's, which does not exclude gamma radiation from the start (ab initio) which is to say - by the nature of the reaction itself - can be called leakage. In all reactions in physics where gammas can witnessed, they will be witnessed. There are no exceptions. Gammas are highly penetrating, and even1% leakage stands out like a sore thumb. Actually even one part per billion would stand out like a sore thumb. I do not mind belaboring the main point - that to adequately explain Rossi's results, if Rossi is for real - we must backtrack in order find a gammaless starting point. This is due to the excellent gamma study by Bianchini who, with top notch instrumentation, could not find any gammas over hours of study at high thermal release, with his probes place under the original lead shielding. HE FOUND NONE - essentially a background level. The importance of none instead of a few, cannot be overemphasized. The underlying reaction must be gammaless. It is not sufficient to suggest that gammas are formed and suppressed. Leakage prevents that suggestion. There are no gammas in the Rossi reactor during operation and the ones seen at startup can be easily explained as external. Things could be different for other reactions like Pd-D, but for now, we are only concerned with an analysis of the Rossi reaction, in this thread. Jones
RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
From: Axil Axil The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. That is absurd. There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In fact, the evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of hydrogen when loaded into condensed matter.
[Vo]:Fwd: Super-Inhabitable Planets near Alpha Centauri-B
-- Subject: Super-Inhabitable Planets near Alpha Centauri-B Greatings Vortex-l, Courtesy the NewScientist.com http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24980-star-next-door-may-host-a-superhabitable-world.html#.Uu-ugj1dWSo Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA...31F snow
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. That is absurd. There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In fact, the evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of hydrogen when loaded into condensed matter. There may be no evidence for this, but it seems likely based on what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles. That is to say, it is not likely that there are many different, totally unrelated, heretofore undiscovered ways to generate nuclear reactions in a metal lattice. It seem intuitively likely that all of these methods are somehow related at some level. That is not to say they all work the exact same way for all metals and for both hydrogen and deuterium. You can compare this to combustion, which works differently with different materials. Sometimes it produces smoke; sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it is rapid in an explosion, sometimes slow. As Chris Tinsley often pointed out, taking a broader view, you can even say that metabolism is a form of combustion. Both processes start with the same chemicals and produce the same products, which means they produce the same amount of energy per gram of reactant. They are different in many ways but fundamentally the same. As is rusting or any other oxidation, I suppose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
As you expected, I disagree strongly with this conclusion, Jones. All of the behavior flows from a single process. The fusion reaction of all isotopes of hydrogen provides the heat energy and fuels the transmutation reactions, of which there are two consequences depending on the isotope of hydrogen used. Do you really think that Nature has many ways of doing something so rare and novel that is seen only now as LENR? Unfortunately, it will take a long book to explain what is so simple once it is accepted and understood, rather like all new discoveries. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:19 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Axil Axil The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. That is absurd. There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In fact, the evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of hydrogen when loaded into condensed matter.
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Super-Inhabitable Planets near Alpha Centauri-B
But the near-paradise would come at a cost to visitors from Earth: the pull of gravity would be about one-quarter stronger than on our home turf. At least the NBA would be more fair. Also, if the increase in gravity is related to an increase in local entropy/vacuum, we will not live as long and the storms may be worse. Stewart On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: -- Subject: Super-Inhabitable Planets near Alpha Centauri-B Greatings Vortex-l, Courtesy the NewScientist.com http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24980-star-next-door-may-host-a-superhabitable-world.html#.Uu-ugj1dWSo Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA...31F snow
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
If you are interested in black hole research, I have just read how to do it with polaritons. You can produce worm holes, white holes, and black holes, even alternate universes, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.3013v2.pdf Black Holes and Wormholes in spinor polariton condensates On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:13 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I almost took that as an honorable mention... On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even more so than ChemE. Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical demonstration of that knowledge? On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR when the nucleus is suppressed (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do not excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or kinetic energy to excite the nucleus. On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. What is more interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out by the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention. If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the keV range, some of which might be considered gammas), then p+Ni is contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes place, for a period of hours or days. If low-level radiation is allowed, then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out. That is the heart of much of the recent thread. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. Although this discussion might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is that cold fusion consists of. So we've been having a discussion that is different than the usual gamma discussion. Rossi's terminology confuses things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as gammas. Eric
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that his early systems produced gammas. The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the production of gammas. First of all Axil, we apparently agree that one BASIC mechanism is causing all behavior called LENR. We disagree about what this mechanism is. Nevertheless, we need to be very clear about the words used to describe this behavior because several kinds of nuclear reactions take place at the same time, each of which produce radiation. Fusion makes the main heat and radiation, transmutation makes a little heat and a little radiation, and fractofusion makes occasional energetic radiation. Only a little of the radiation is energetic, none of which is produced by cold fusion. That feature makes LENR unique. Second, the Rossi claim for transmutation producing energy is simply WRONG. This is not correct, is not possible, and is not needed to explain the energy. We should leave Rossi out of the discussion and focus on published information from many competent sources. Third, the process can be explained using only a few plausible assumptions. Unfortunately, Vortex does not allow attachments, which prevents me from giving everyone the latest papers. I will send them to your personal address. Ed On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Eric Walker Jed Rothwell wrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/ Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at that demo. Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni - Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton reaction) only came into play as a last resort – and it was chosen as the “one and only” well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it only happens on the sun; and QCD, which would describe the level of exotherm (it is a strong force reaction) is not my field of expertise. I have been attempting to partner with an expert in QCD on this theory, but of course, most of them are negative on LENR to begin with and do not want to have their name associated with Rossi. That will change very soon. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. The problem with any suggestion including Ed’s, which does not exclude gamma radiation from the start (ab initio) which is to say - by the nature of the reaction itself – can be called “leakage.” In all reactions in physics where gammas can witnessed, they will be witnessed. There are no exceptions. Gammas are highly penetrating, and even1% leakage stands out like a sore thumb. Actually even one part per billion would stand out like a sore thumb. I do not mind belaboring the main point - that to adequately explain Rossi’s results, if Rossi is for real - we must backtrack in order find a gammaless starting point. This is due to the excellent gamma study by Bianchini who, with top notch instrumentation, could not find any gammas over hours of study at high thermal release, with his probes place under the original lead shielding. HE FOUND NONE - essentially a background level. The importance of “none” instead of a few, cannot be overemphasized. The underlying reaction must be gammaless. It is not sufficient to suggest that gammas are formed and
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at that demo. Things changed. That is where things get really interesting. Things did change, and by the time we get to Bianchini's report, given in connection with the Elforsk test, no gammas were seen. I do not recall what the threshold were set to for his measuring device, or even what type of device he used (e.g., GM counter, NaI scintillation counter, etc.). But whatever it was, I don't recall him measuring anything above ambient. There are two points to be made in this connection. The first is that Rossi has mentioned using 62Ni and 64Ni. I long thought the explanation for this was that these two isotopes are more reactive (although I didn't necessarily buy this explanation). I now suspect that that's not why they're being used at all. Instead, these isotopes after proton capture go to stable isotopes of copper -- 63Cu and 65Cu. In these two isotopes, there is no beta-plus decay and no beta-minus decay. That means, in particular, no 511 keV annihilation photons for the beta-plus decays, which would occur in huge quantities in a vigorous reaction with unenriched nickel. Remember when Rossi had all of the people evacuate the room during one of his demos? A second point to make is that a careful distinction must be made between (1) the missing gamma that would normally occur during a nickel proton capture reaction and (2) all of the activity that would happen after doing a run with unenriched nickel. It seems that (1) is simply not an issue, whatever is going on. My supposition is that (2) is relevant and that it has been brought under control, possibly through improvements in the enrichment process. Here it is easy to confuse ourselves by using the term gamma loosely -- there's low-level penetrating radiation, and there are the high-energy photons that are often seen as one of the daughters of a nickel proton capture reaction. I'm saying that it would seem that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and expected in an NiH reaction with unenriched nickel, and that the nuclear-origin gammas are not. The problem with any suggestion including Ed’s, which does not exclude gamma radiation from the start (ab initio) which is to say - by the nature of the reaction itself – can be called “leakage.” In all reactions in physics where gammas can witnessed, they will be witnessed. There are no exceptions. Gammas are highly penetrating, and even1% leakage stands out like a sore thumb. Actually even one part per billion would stand out like a sore thumb. This is an important point to be a stickler about, and you're right to emphasize it. It was also made in connection with neutrons in the WL description -- if there's any significant leakage at all of gammas in a kW reaction, bystanders are going to be in great danger. So I think that's an important gating factor -- aside from a few blips here and there, an explanation should not involve any gammas (of type 1, above, and not lower-energy penetrating radiation of type 2). I don't think the explanation I've been playing around with suffers from any issues on this count -- I've sort of taken a phenomenological approach, effectively defining away the problem of high-energy gammas, on the assumption that the hidden mechanism (perhaps relating to electrons) will eventually be understood. It's a cop-out, but only sort-of. Things could be different for other reactions like Pd-D, but for now, we are only concerned with an analysis of the Rossi reaction, in this thread. Yes -- I get the sense that things are different between NiH and PdD in at least one important respect. If there is proton capture in p+Ni (there might or might not be, although I think there probably is, at least as one reaction among several), there does not appear to be a corresponding deuteron capture reaction in PdD. A d+Pd reaction appears to be energetically unfavorable. So for reasons that go back to the constituent reactants, you might see a lot of activity in NiH with unenriched nickel, and relatively little activity in a typical PdD experiment. Eric
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
On 2/3/14, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Let us discuss this reference:... No, let us discuss an experiment of YOUR design, the results of which would differentiate YOUR theory from competing theories. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:53 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Theory is not made of repetition and citation but of reflection and experimental testing. One of the nice things about coming up with a novel theory is it allows you to come up with novel experiments and if appropriately tempered by economic those experiments may be quite practical. What is your experimental test? On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I speak with the authority of repetition. I have gone over this stuff fifty times and no one has countered me except Ed Storms to my great joy. Theory is not made of sunshine and roses. Like steel, it is tempered by repeated blows and forged in fire, between the hammer and the anvil. In each post I provide one or more supporting references. All the opinions I provide are based on established science as defined by the references I list. http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306126v2.pdf As above In this thread, I provide a reference on how EMF frequencies can be both down shifted and up shifted in an optical cavity. This is called Fano resonance. I have described Fano resonance hundreds of times as simple as I can. Who else has provided a reference in this thread? No one! On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even more so than ChemE. Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical demonstration of that knowledge? On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR when the nucleus is suppressed (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do not excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or kinetic energy to excite the nucleus. On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. What is more interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out by the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention. If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the keV range, some of which might be considered gammas), then p+Ni is contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes place, for a period of hours or days. If low-level radiation is allowed, then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out. That is the heart of much of the recent thread. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. Although this discussion might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is that cold fusion consists of. So we've been having a discussion that is different than the usual gamma discussion. Rossi's terminology confuses things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as gammas. Eric
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
I think this will be relevant for Storms theory and radiation. The reactions H+e+H or D+e+D in hydrons will take long time for a nuclear reaction. The energy is released as a sequence of many photons. And the reaction is greatly dependent on the environment. There may be some events in the metal how may destroy the NAE and interrupt ongoing nuclear reactions. If the hydrogen pair already have released some energy the reaction may it not go back. Instead it will realise the remaining energy in one high energy photon or as particles, but not so high energy as in a hot fusion reaction. Torulf On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 09:01:20 -0700, Edmund Storms wrote: On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that his early systems produced gammas. The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the production of gammas. First of all Axil, we apparently agree that one BASIC mechanism is causing all behavior called LENR. We disagree about what this mechanism is. Nevertheless, we need to be very clear about the words used to describe this behavior because several kinds of nuclear reactions take place at the same time, each of which produce radiation. Fusion makes the main heat and radiation, transmutation makes a little heat and a little radiation, and fractofusion makes occasional energetic radiation. Only a little of the radiation is energetic, none of which is produced by cold fusion. That feature makes LENR unique. Second, the Rossi claim for transmutation producing energy is simply WRONG. This is not correct, is not possible, and is not needed to explain the energy. We should leave Rossi out of the discussion and focus on published information from many competent sources. Third, the process can be explained using only a few plausible assumptions. Unfortunately, Vortex does not allow attachments, which prevents me from giving everyone the latest papers. I will send them to your personal address. Ed On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene wrote: FROM: Eric Walker Jed Rothwell wrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at that demo. Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi's own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni - Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton reaction) only came into play as a last resort - and it was chosen as the one and only well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it only happens on the sun; and QCD, which would describe the level of exotherm (it is a strong force reaction) is not my field of expertise. I have been attempting to partner with an expert in QCD on this theory, but of course, most of them are negative on LENR to begin with and do not want to have their name associated with Rossi. That will change very soon. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. The problem with any suggestion including Ed's, which does not exclude gamma radiation from the start (ab initio) which is to say - by the nature of the reaction itself - can be called leakage. In all reactions in physics where gammas can witnessed, they will be witnessed. There are no exceptions. Gammas are highly penetrating, and even1% leakage stands out like a sore thumb. Actually even one part per billion would stand out like a sore thumb. I do not mind belaboring the main point - that to adequately explain Rossi's
Fwd: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Begin forwarded message: From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Date: February 3, 2014 9:28:49 AM MST To: torulf.gr...@bredband.net torulf.gr...@bredband.net Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Good point Torulf. I believe the environment is important to make the Hydroton, but once made it will complete its task regardless of the environment. Nevertheless, many sources of energetic radiation can be proposed without having to use the Hydroton. If materials are subjected to sufficient local energy, normal nuclear reactions will result. These emit the normal energetic radiation and are outside of a discussion about LENR. LeClair entered this energy level in his experiments. Also, evidence exists for unusual kinds of radiation being emitted, with the EV being one example. The nuclear world is still not understood, but I choose to explore on only one part of this large unknown. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:15 AM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: I think this will be relevant for Storms theory and radiation. The reactions H+e+H or D+e+D in hydrons will take long time for a nuclear reaction. The energy is released as a sequence of many photons. And the reaction is greatly dependent on the environment. There may be some events in the metal how may destroy the NAE and interrupt ongoing nuclear reactions. If the hydrogen pair already have released some energy the reaction may it not go back. Instead it will realise the remaining energy in one high energy photon or as particles, but not so high energy as in a hot fusion reaction. Torulf On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 09:01:20 -0700, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that his early systems produced gammas. The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the production of gammas. First of all Axil, we apparently agree that one BASIC mechanism is causing all behavior called LENR. We disagree about what this mechanism is. Nevertheless, we need to be very clear about the words used to describe this behavior because several kinds of nuclear reactions take place at the same time, each of which produce radiation. Fusion makes the main heat and radiation, transmutation makes a little heat and a little radiation, and fractofusion makes occasional energetic radiation. Only a little of the radiation is energetic, none of which is produced by cold fusion. That feature makes LENR unique. Second, the Rossi claim for transmutation producing energy is simply WRONG. This is not correct, is not possible, and is not needed to explain the energy. We should leave Rossi out of the discussion and focus on published information from many competent sources. Third, the process can be explained using only a few plausible assumptions. Unfortunately, Vortex does not allow attachments, which prevents me from giving everyone the latest papers. I will send them to your personal address. Ed On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Eric Walker Jed Rothwell wrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/ Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at that demo. Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni - Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton reaction) only came into play as a last resort – and it was chosen as the “one and only” well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it only happens on the sun; and QCD, which would describe the
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
I don't feel that we have anything like enough evidence to say definitively whether there is one, or more than one, underlying mechanism. It seems likely that at least some of the different sets of experimental results will have a common underlying mechanism, and it is well worth trying to make progress by looking for common factors that might point to possible underlying mechanisms. But there may well be outliers that dont fit in, which may, or may not indicate that it is hopelessly wrong, or there might be multiple mechanisms However a hypothesis should suggests some novel experiments (ie is to a degree testable and can make predictions) which, as has already been said, is the whole point of a hypothesis. If it does not then it is of no great help. I feel that to state categorically at the moment that there are X underlying mechanisms is akin to stating that you can fit X angels on a pinhead. Nigel On 03/02/2014 15:19, Jones Beene wrote: *From:*Axil Axil The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. That is absurd. There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In fact, the evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of hydrogen when loaded into condensed matter.
RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
From: Jed Rothwell AA: The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. JB: That is absurd. There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In fact, the evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of hydrogen when loaded into condensed matter. JR: There may be no evidence for this, but it seems likely based on what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles. First off - LENR is no miracle. We are at the stage of adequate proof. The past irregularity in the Lab, of finding any LENR reaction at all - is still with us, Rossi notwithstanding. But that irregularity in itself is indicative of there being many energetic pathways of variable probability. As is Mills and the extraordinary variety of findings of transmutation or no transmutation, helium-e or tritium or helium-4 etc. Second, there is nothing in physics related to the silly notion of conservation of miracles. It is merely a reflection of the ignorance of the observer. Thirdly, hydrogen makes up most of the Universe - perhaps 90% of what we can see, and up to 99% of all mass, if dark matter is hydrogen in a DDL (deep Dirac level). Thus, it could be opined that if there were such a parameter as miracles (inherent ignorance) then the vast majority of those should be relate to hydrogen. In short, a dozen different versions of LENR could be on the low side :-) You can compare this to combustion, which works differently with different materials. Sometimes it produces smoke; sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it is rapid in an explosion, sometimes slow. As Chris Tinsley often pointed out, taking a broader view, you can even say that metabolism is a form of combustion. QED attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
First off, the production of only stable isotopes via fusion, points to no transfer of any angular momentum or kinetic energy by the cold fusion reaction. This points to photofusion. The report that only even numbers of protons and neutrons in the nucleus before fusion resulting in a zero nuclear spin points to photofusion. The clue that transmutation is not due to fission which cannot happen because of negative energy coming out of the fission reaction or multiple separate serial fusion events because multiple lighter elements are produced by fusion; so the cause must be a result of one massive fusion reaction of many diprotons into the nickel atom. This points to a total removal of nuclear repulsion for all these nucleons which all combine into two or more lighter resultant nuclei. Also the production of all those highly concentrated cooper pairs of protons point to suspension of nuclear repulsion. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:16 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/3/14, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Let us discuss this reference:... No, let us discuss an experiment of YOUR design, the results of which would differentiate YOUR theory from competing theories. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:53 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Theory is not made of repetition and citation but of reflection and experimental testing. One of the nice things about coming up with a novel theory is it allows you to come up with novel experiments and if appropriately tempered by economic those experiments may be quite practical. What is your experimental test? On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I speak with the authority of repetition. I have gone over this stuff fifty times and no one has countered me except Ed Storms to my great joy. Theory is not made of sunshine and roses. Like steel, it is tempered by repeated blows and forged in fire, between the hammer and the anvil. In each post I provide one or more supporting references. All the opinions I provide are based on established science as defined by the references I list. http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306126v2.pdf As above In this thread, I provide a reference on how EMF frequencies can be both down shifted and up shifted in an optical cavity. This is called Fano resonance. I have described Fano resonance hundreds of times as simple as I can. Who else has provided a reference in this thread? No one! On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even more so than ChemE. Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical demonstration of that knowledge? On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR when the nucleus is suppressed (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do not excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or kinetic energy to excite the nucleus. On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. What is more interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out by the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention. If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the keV range, some of which might be considered gammas), then p+Ni is contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes place, for a period of hours or days. If low-level radiation is allowed, then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out. That is the heart of much of the recent thread. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. Although this discussion might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is that cold
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
I agree with QED. We humans live in a weakly ionizing quantum vacuum, which varies in concentration in our atmosphere, creating low pressure disturbances and is conductive. Based upon observation, it is ionizing oxygen in our atmosphere and forming water vapor as well as weakly ionizing the water/ocean at times and triggering blooms and hypoxia. It is probably the ionization energy behind photosynthesis. This dark matter streams from the Sun, goes through inflation forming strings in our atmosphere which are decaying all of the time creating our weather in the jet streams and streaming to the core of the Earth, weakly interacting on humans and the Earth in a weakly ionizing effect we call gravity. That is my Macro explanation of something that is quantum in Nature Stewart On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Jed Rothwell AA: The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. JB: That is absurd. There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In fact, the evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of hydrogen when loaded into condensed matter. JR: There may be no evidence for this, but it seems likely based on what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles. First off - LENR is no miracle. We are at the stage of adequate proof. The past irregularity in the Lab, of finding any LENR reaction at all - is still with us, Rossi notwithstanding. But that irregularity in itself is indicative of there being many energetic pathways of variable probability. As is Mills and the extraordinary variety of findings of transmutation or no transmutation, helium-e or tritium or helium-4 etc. Second, there is nothing in physics related to the silly notion of conservation of miracles. It is merely a reflection of the ignorance of the observer. Thirdly, hydrogen makes up most of the Universe - perhaps 90% of what we can see, and up to 99% of all mass, if dark matter is hydrogen in a DDL (deep Dirac level). Thus, it could be opined that if there were such a parameter as miracles (inherent ignorance) then the vast majority of those should be relate to hydrogen. In short, a dozen different versions of LENR could be on the low side :-) You can compare this to combustion, which works differently with different materials. Sometimes it produces smoke; sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it is rapid in an explosion, sometimes slow. As Chris Tinsley often pointed out, taking a broader view, you can even say that metabolism is a form of combustion. QED
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Nigel, far more information is available than most people realize. My present book has 750 citations to essential information. How many people do you think have read these papers? My data base contains 4700 papers, which is more than available on LENR.org I'm trying to apply the fewest number of assumptions as possible to all observed behavior. I find that this is possible without violating any laws of nature and without introducing novel mechanisms. I can predict a whole range of behavior that can be looked for to test the model. Some of this behavior has been seen and is unexplained and some would be expected but ignored. The phenomenon has only a few novel features that I have identified. The rest can be explained by accepted laws of nature. Unfortunately, this requires a book length justification because acceptance requires a person to give up strongly held opinions. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote: I don't feel that we have anything like enough evidence to say definitively whether there is one, or more than one, underlying mechanism. It seems likely that at least some of the different sets of experimental results will have a common underlying mechanism, and it is well worth trying to make progress by looking for common factors that might point to possible underlying mechanisms. But there may well be outliers that dont fit in, which may, or may not indicate that it is hopelessly wrong, or there might be multiple mechanisms However a hypothesis should suggests some novel experiments (ie is to a degree testable and can make predictions) which, as has already been said, is the whole point of a hypothesis. If it does not then it is of no great help. I feel that to state categorically at the moment that there are X underlying mechanisms is akin to stating that you can fit X angels on a pinhead. Nigel On 03/02/2014 15:19, Jones Beene wrote: From:Axil Axil The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. That is absurd. There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In fact, the evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of hydrogen when loaded into condensed matter.
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
this post changed my mind about fission as a source of light nuclear ash. You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough energy in the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit. Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one 62Ni fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and that is the reaction:- 1H+62Ni = 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more possible exothermic reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 64Zn + 13.835 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV this one produces iron. 1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV The last 4 produce lighter elements. There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also for the daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+64Zn = 66Ge + 10.202 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV Note the many light elements/isotopes. Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements, fission becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one can see this by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent addition of *two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish. Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely shrunken Hydrino molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a neutron, so I think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells of other atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do. And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*. Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter. Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more likely fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules to be magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4 protons may also be possible, e.g. :- 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 66Ge + 24.037 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 65Ga + 1H + 17.778 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 61Zn + 5He + 7.372 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 62Zn + 4He + 21.156 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + 3He + 9.692 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 59Cu + 7Li + 3.859 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 60Cu + 6Li + 6.667 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 61Cu + 5Li + 12.713 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Ni + 10Be + 3.707 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 57Ni + 9Be + 7.144 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 17.696 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 59Ni + 7Be + 7.795 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 6Be + 8.507 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 55Co + 11B + 7.769 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Co + 10B + 6.398 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 57Co + 9B + 9.338 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Fe + 14C + 7.721 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 53Fe + 13C + 10.230 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 54Fe + 12C + 18.662 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 55Fe + 11C + 9.239 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Fe + 10C + 7.316 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 51Mn + 15N + 10.550 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Mn + 14N + 10.252 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 53Mn + 13N + 11.752 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 54Mn + 12N + 0.627 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 48Cr + 18O + 6.010 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 49Cr + 17O + 8.549 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 50Cr + 16O + 17.406 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 51Cr + 15O + 11.003 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 14O + 9.819 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 47V + 19F + 5.899 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 48V + 18F + 6.011 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 49V + 17F + 8.415 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 50V + 16F + 0.951 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 44Ti + 22Ne + 7.983 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 45Ti + 21Ne + 7.147 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 46Ti + 20Ne + 13.575 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 47Ti + 19Ne + 5.591 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 18Ne + 5.580 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 41Sc + 25Na + 0.410 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 42Sc + 24Na + 2.949 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 43Sc + 23Na + 8.128 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 44Sc + 22Na + 5.408 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 45Sc + 21Na + 5.662 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 39Ca + 27Mg + 4.271 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 40Ca + 26Mg + 13.471 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 41Ca + 25Mg + 10.740 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 42Ca + 24Mg + 14.890 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 43Ca + 23Mg + 6.292 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 44Ca + 22Mg + 4.275 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 37K + 29Al + 5.425 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 38K + 28Al + 8.061 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 39K + 27Al + 13.413 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 40K + 26Al + 8.155 MeV
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
I had not intended to get involved with this field, but stumbled into it when I became aware of some experimental results that did not fit into the conventional picture. Once I dipped my toe into the water I quickly came to realise how much information was available, some of which did seem to provide a pointer that might explain what had been seen. I have hypothesies on this and other scientific things, some of which I have been working on for over 30 years, but it is my custom when explaining them to other people to finish with But I may be wrong. I hope this means that I can give up opinions if circumstances dictate. I find it also useful to be able to say I understand your hypothesis, and it may be right (indeed it may well have advantages), but for the moment science is probably best served if you continue with your hypothesis and I with mine, and hopefully experimental evidence suggested by our two hypothesies will be such that we find out who was right before we die. Nigel On 03/02/2014 16:49, Edmund Storms wrote: Nigel, far more information is available than most people realize. My present book has 750 citations to essential information. How many people do you think have read these papers? My data base contains 4700 papers, which is more than available on LENR.org I'm trying to apply the fewest number of assumptions as possible to all observed behavior. I find that this is possible without violating any laws of nature and without introducing novel mechanisms. I can predict a whole range of behavior that can be looked for to test the model. Some of this behavior has been seen and is unexplained and some would be expected but ignored. The phenomenon has only a few novel features that I have identified. The rest can be explained by accepted laws of nature. Unfortunately, this requires a book length justification because acceptance requires a person to give up strongly held opinions. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote: I don't feel that we have anything like enough evidence to say definitively whether there is one, or more than one, underlying mechanism. It seems likely that at least some of the different sets of experimental results will have a common underlying mechanism, and it is well worth trying to make progress by looking for common factors that might point to possible underlying mechanisms. But there may well be outliers that dont fit in, which may, or may not indicate that it is hopelessly wrong, or there might be multiple mechanisms However a hypothesis should suggests some novel experiments (ie is to a degree testable and can make predictions) which, as has already been said, is the whole point of a hypothesis. If it does not then it is of no great help. I feel that to state categorically at the moment that there are X underlying mechanisms is akin to stating that you can fit X angels on a pinhead. Nigel On 03/02/2014 15:19, Jones Beene wrote: *From:*Axil Axil The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. That is absurd. There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In fact, the evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of hydrogen when loaded into condensed matter.
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
The assay of Rossi reaction ash says that 10% was iron. This reaction looks like a good bet to be the main one in Rossi's reactor 1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV this one produces iron On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: this post changed my mind about fission as a source of light nuclear ash. You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough energy in the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit. Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one 62Ni fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and that is the reaction:- 1H+62Ni = 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more possible exothermic reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 64Zn + 13.835 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV this one produces iron. 1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV The last 4 produce lighter elements. There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also for the daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+64Zn = 66Ge + 10.202 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV Note the many light elements/isotopes. Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements, fission becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one can see this by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent addition of *two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish. Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely shrunken Hydrino molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a neutron, so I think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells of other atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do. And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*. Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter. Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more likely fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules to be magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4 protons may also be possible, e.g. :- 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 66Ge + 24.037 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 65Ga + 1H + 17.778 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 61Zn + 5He + 7.372 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 62Zn + 4He + 21.156 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + 3He + 9.692 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 59Cu + 7Li + 3.859 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 60Cu + 6Li + 6.667 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 61Cu + 5Li + 12.713 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Ni + 10Be + 3.707 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 57Ni + 9Be + 7.144 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 17.696 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 59Ni + 7Be + 7.795 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 6Be + 8.507 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 55Co + 11B + 7.769 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Co + 10B + 6.398 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 57Co + 9B + 9.338 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Fe + 14C + 7.721 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 53Fe + 13C + 10.230 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 54Fe + 12C + 18.662 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 55Fe + 11C + 9.239 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Fe + 10C + 7.316 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 51Mn + 15N + 10.550 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Mn + 14N + 10.252 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 53Mn + 13N + 11.752 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 54Mn + 12N + 0.627 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 48Cr + 18O + 6.010 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 49Cr + 17O + 8.549 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 50Cr + 16O + 17.406 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 51Cr + 15O + 11.003 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 14O + 9.819 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 47V + 19F + 5.899 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 48V + 18F + 6.011 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 49V + 17F + 8.415 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 50V + 16F + 0.951 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 44Ti + 22Ne + 7.983 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 45Ti + 21Ne + 7.147 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 46Ti + 20Ne + 13.575 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 47Ti + 19Ne + 5.591 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 18Ne + 5.580 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 41Sc + 25Na + 0.410 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 42Sc + 24Na + 2.949 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 43Sc + 23Na + 8.128 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 44Sc + 22Na + 5.408 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 45Sc + 21Na + 5.662 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 39Ca + 27Mg + 4.271 MeV
Re: [Vo]:Research Triangle Foundation to Make Announcement Monday about 'Centerpiece' Project.
The big announcement: The Research Triangle Park just announced new RTP Park Center, a mixed use approach to how Research Triangle Park is utilized.Now, @TheRTP has full control of the 100+ acres of land along I-40 NC 54. ~3m sq ft potential for new, mixed use development.
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
This list is on the right tract but very incomplete. Transmutation has two consequences. With the hydrogen nuclei is added and the resulting nuclei remains in tact, aka Iwamura. Or the final nucleus fissions, aka Miley et al. The consequence produce a collection of elements that must conserve n and p. I'm gradually identifying the rules that govern this process. These rules, when applied allow the observations to be explained. The collection below was not calculated using the correct rules. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote: this post changed my mind about fission as a source of light nuclear ash. You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough energy in the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit. Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one 62Ni fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and that is the reaction:- 1H+62Ni = 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more possible exothermic reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 64Zn + 13.835 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV this one produces iron. 1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV The last 4 produce lighter elements. There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also for the daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+64Zn = 66Ge + 10.202 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV Note the many light elements/isotopes. Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements, fission becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one can see this by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent addition of *two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish. Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely shrunken Hydrino molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a neutron, so I think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells of other atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do. And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*. Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter. Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more likely fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules to be magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4 protons may also be possible, e.g. :- 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 66Ge + 24.037 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 65Ga + 1H + 17.778 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 61Zn + 5He + 7.372 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 62Zn + 4He + 21.156 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + 3He + 9.692 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 59Cu + 7Li + 3.859 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 60Cu + 6Li + 6.667 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 61Cu + 5Li + 12.713 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Ni + 10Be + 3.707 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 57Ni + 9Be + 7.144 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 17.696 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 59Ni + 7Be + 7.795 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 6Be + 8.507 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 55Co + 11B + 7.769 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Co + 10B + 6.398 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 57Co + 9B + 9.338 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Fe + 14C + 7.721 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 53Fe + 13C + 10.230 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 54Fe + 12C + 18.662 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 55Fe + 11C + 9.239 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Fe + 10C + 7.316 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 51Mn + 15N + 10.550 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Mn + 14N + 10.252 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 53Mn + 13N + 11.752 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 54Mn + 12N + 0.627 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 48Cr + 18O + 6.010 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 49Cr + 17O + 8.549 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 50Cr + 16O + 17.406 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 51Cr + 15O + 11.003 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 14O + 9.819 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 47V + 19F + 5.899 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 48V + 18F + 6.011 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 49V + 17F + 8.415 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 50V + 16F + 0.951 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 44Ti + 22Ne + 7.983 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 45Ti + 21Ne + 7.147 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 46Ti + 20Ne + 13.575 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 47Ti + 19Ne + 5.591 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 18Ne + 5.580 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 41Sc + 25Na
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
IMHO, it would be productive in your reaction analysis to consider how important nuclear spin is in the LENR reaction. Then, you might ask yourself why spin is so important, then you might draw a connection between spin and magnetic effects and influences. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: This list is on the right tract but very incomplete. Transmutation has two consequences. With the hydrogen nuclei is added and the resulting nuclei remains in tact, aka Iwamura. Or the final nucleus fissions, aka Miley et al. The consequence produce a collection of elements that must conserve n and p. I'm gradually identifying the rules that govern this process. These rules, when applied allow the observations to be explained. The collection below was not calculated using the correct rules. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote: this post changed my mind about fission as a source of light nuclear ash. You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough energy in the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit. Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one 62Ni fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and that is the reaction:- 1H+62Ni = 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more possible exothermic reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 64Zn + 13.835 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV this one produces iron. 1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV The last 4 produce lighter elements. There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also for the daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+64Zn = 66Ge + 10.202 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV Note the many light elements/isotopes. Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements, fission becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one can see this by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent addition of *two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish. Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely shrunken Hydrino molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a neutron, so I think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells of other atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do. And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*. Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter. Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more likely fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules to be magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4 protons may also be possible, e.g. :- 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 66Ge + 24.037 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 65Ga + 1H + 17.778 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 61Zn + 5He + 7.372 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 62Zn + 4He + 21.156 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + 3He + 9.692 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 59Cu + 7Li + 3.859 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 60Cu + 6Li + 6.667 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 61Cu + 5Li + 12.713 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Ni + 10Be + 3.707 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 57Ni + 9Be + 7.144 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 17.696 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 59Ni + 7Be + 7.795 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 6Be + 8.507 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 55Co + 11B + 7.769 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Co + 10B + 6.398 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 57Co + 9B + 9.338 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Fe + 14C + 7.721 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 53Fe + 13C + 10.230 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 54Fe + 12C + 18.662 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 55Fe + 11C + 9.239 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Fe + 10C + 7.316 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 51Mn + 15N + 10.550 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Mn + 14N + 10.252 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 53Mn + 13N + 11.752 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 54Mn + 12N + 0.627 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 48Cr + 18O + 6.010 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 49Cr + 17O + 8.549 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 50Cr + 16O + 17.406 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 51Cr + 15O + 11.003 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 14O + 9.819 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 47V + 19F +
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
One more point, in a nuclear reaction spin is conserved between the input and output products, except if the reaction is electromagnetic in nature. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO, it would be productive in your reaction analysis to consider how important nuclear spin is in the LENR reaction. Then, you might ask yourself why spin is so important, then you might draw a connection between spin and magnetic effects and influences. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: This list is on the right tract but very incomplete. Transmutation has two consequences. With the hydrogen nuclei is added and the resulting nuclei remains in tact, aka Iwamura. Or the final nucleus fissions, aka Miley et al. The consequence produce a collection of elements that must conserve n and p. I'm gradually identifying the rules that govern this process. These rules, when applied allow the observations to be explained. The collection below was not calculated using the correct rules. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote: this post changed my mind about fission as a source of light nuclear ash. You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough energy in the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit. Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one 62Ni fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and that is the reaction:- 1H+62Ni = 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more possible exothermic reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 64Zn + 13.835 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV this one produces iron. 1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV The last 4 produce lighter elements. There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also for the daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+64Zn = 66Ge + 10.202 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV Note the many light elements/isotopes. Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements, fission becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one can see this by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent addition of *two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish. Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely shrunken Hydrino molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a neutron, so I think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells of other atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do. And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*. Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter. Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more likely fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules to be magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4 protons may also be possible, e.g. :- 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 66Ge + 24.037 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 65Ga + 1H + 17.778 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 61Zn + 5He + 7.372 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 62Zn + 4He + 21.156 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + 3He + 9.692 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 59Cu + 7Li + 3.859 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 60Cu + 6Li + 6.667 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 61Cu + 5Li + 12.713 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Ni + 10Be + 3.707 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 57Ni + 9Be + 7.144 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 17.696 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 59Ni + 7Be + 7.795 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 6Be + 8.507 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 55Co + 11B + 7.769 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Co + 10B + 6.398 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 57Co + 9B + 9.338 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Fe + 14C + 7.721 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 53Fe + 13C + 10.230 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 54Fe + 12C + 18.662 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 55Fe + 11C + 9.239 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Fe + 10C + 7.316 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 51Mn + 15N + 10.550 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Mn + 14N + 10.252 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 53Mn + 13N + 11.752 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 54Mn + 12N + 0.627 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni =
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote: I had not intended to get involved with this field, but stumbled into it when I became aware of some experimental results that did not fit into the conventional picture. Once I dipped my toe into the water I quickly came to realise how much information was available, some of which did seem to provide a pointer that might explain what had been seen. I have hypothesies on this and other scientific things, some of which I have been working on for over 30 years, but it is my custom when explaining them to other people to finish with But I may be wrong. I hope this means that I can give up opinions if circumstances dictate. I find it also useful to be able to say I understand your hypothesis, and it may be right (indeed it may well have advantages), but for the moment science is probably best served if you continue with your hypothesis and I with mine, and hopefully experimental evidence suggested by our two hypothesies will be such that we find out who was right before we die. I agree Nigel, many variations are plausible. However, these must be in agreement about basic features of the process. I'm looking for the basic features all explanations must contain. Also, people need to be guided effectively to look for the important behavior. Right now people make the effect work on occasions and report whatever they think is important or were able to detect. A new phenomenon of nature has been discovered, similar to but more important than the discovery of fission of uranium. A whole new kind of nuclear interaction has been revealed. Getting the understanding right is important and essential to using this energy in commercial application. Right now two battles are being fought. One with the skeptics outside the field who deny funding and the other in the field about how the process works. Mankind will not benefit until these battles are won. Meanwhile, the consequences of using conventional energy just gets worse. This is not a game of wits. This impacts on the future of mankind. Ed Storms Nigel On 03/02/2014 16:49, Edmund Storms wrote: Nigel, far more information is available than most people realize. My present book has 750 citations to essential information. How many people do you think have read these papers? My data base contains 4700 papers, which is more than available on LENR.org I'm trying to apply the fewest number of assumptions as possible to all observed behavior. I find that this is possible without violating any laws of nature and without introducing novel mechanisms. I can predict a whole range of behavior that can be looked for to test the model. Some of this behavior has been seen and is unexplained and some would be expected but ignored. The phenomenon has only a few novel features that I have identified. The rest can be explained by accepted laws of nature. Unfortunately, this requires a book length justification because acceptance requires a person to give up strongly held opinions. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote: I don't feel that we have anything like enough evidence to say definitively whether there is one, or more than one, underlying mechanism. It seems likely that at least some of the different sets of experimental results will have a common underlying mechanism, and it is well worth trying to make progress by looking for common factors that might point to possible underlying mechanisms. But there may well be outliers that dont fit in, which may, or may not indicate that it is hopelessly wrong, or there might be multiple mechanisms However a hypothesis should suggests some novel experiments (ie is to a degree testable and can make predictions) which, as has already been said, is the whole point of a hypothesis. If it does not then it is of no great help. I feel that to state categorically at the moment that there are X underlying mechanisms is akin to stating that you can fit X angels on a pinhead. Nigel On 03/02/2014 15:19, Jones Beene wrote: From:Axil Axil The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. That is absurd. There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In fact, the evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of hydrogen when loaded into condensed matter.
[Vo]:Hands-Up-Cops-Shoot Video
Hands-Up Cops-Shoot Video You can see the video with your own eyes. Stop and back it up if you miss it. Spread this vital video to everyone you know. Police violence is escalating. The first few shots are bean-bags. HOWEVER: HE CLEARLY HAD HIS HANDS UP AND HIS BACK TURNED WHEN THE LAST TWO FATAL SHOTSWITH A REAL FIRE-ARM . http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=_HrF_SYx1js http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=_HrF_SYx1js#t=0
[Vo]:BLP video is out
http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
One more important point, the contents of the topological defects(cracks, pits, holes, bumps) are superconducting. In other works, the cracks are superconducting. This is called topological superconductivity. There is only one environment where this superconductivity can happen at high temperature, and that is photons/polaritons condensation. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: One more point, in a nuclear reaction spin is conserved between the input and output products, except if the reaction is electromagnetic in nature. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO, it would be productive in your reaction analysis to consider how important nuclear spin is in the LENR reaction. Then, you might ask yourself why spin is so important, then you might draw a connection between spin and magnetic effects and influences. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: This list is on the right tract but very incomplete. Transmutation has two consequences. With the hydrogen nuclei is added and the resulting nuclei remains in tact, aka Iwamura. Or the final nucleus fissions, aka Miley et al. The consequence produce a collection of elements that must conserve n and p. I'm gradually identifying the rules that govern this process. These rules, when applied allow the observations to be explained. The collection below was not calculated using the correct rules. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote: this post changed my mind about fission as a source of light nuclear ash. You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough energy in the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit. Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one 62Ni fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and that is the reaction:- 1H+62Ni = 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more possible exothermic reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 64Zn + 13.835 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV this one produces iron. 1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV The last 4 produce lighter elements. There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also for the daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+64Zn = 66Ge + 10.202 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV Note the many light elements/isotopes. Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements, fission becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one can see this by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent addition of *two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish. Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely shrunken Hydrino molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a neutron, so I think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells of other atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do. And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*. Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter. Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more likely fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules to be magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4 protons may also be possible, e.g. :- 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 66Ge + 24.037 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 65Ga + 1H + 17.778 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 61Zn + 5He + 7.372 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 62Zn + 4He + 21.156 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + 3He + 9.692 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 59Cu + 7Li + 3.859 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 60Cu + 6Li + 6.667 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 61Cu + 5Li + 12.713 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Ni + 10Be + 3.707 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 57Ni + 9Be + 7.144 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 17.696 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 59Ni + 7Be + 7.795 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 6Be + 8.507 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 55Co + 11B + 7.769 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Co + 10B + 6.398 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 57Co + 9B
[Vo]:BLP Video 2hours from January 28th Demonstration
Greetings Vortex-L, Not sure IF this is new: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/ 2 plus hours of Dr Mills. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA 31 F snow
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
In the second demo, Mills et al are producing an excimer laser effect by using chlorine in the chemical mix. That type of laser will generate EUV which produces water cluster detonation. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: JR: There may be no evidence for this, but it seems likely based on what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles. First off - LENR is no miracle. We are at the stage of adequate proof. The past irregularity in the Lab, of finding any LENR reaction at all - is still with us, Rossi notwithstanding. McKubre did not mean it is a miracle. That was a joke. He meant what I said in the next sentences: . . . It is not likely that there are many different, totally unrelated, heretofore undiscovered ways to generate nuclear reactions in a metal lattice. It seem intuitively likely that all of these methods are somehow related at some level. But that irregularity in itself is indicative of there being many energetic pathways of variable probability. They can still all be of the same basic nature, explainable with the same basic physics. This seems likely. Irregularity is not multiplicity. Every snowflake is supposedly unique -- I assume based on the number molecules of water and the different ways they can be arranged. Every person is unique, because there are so many ways DNA can be arranged to make viable person. However, this does not mean that each snowflake has unique properties, or that people are not all the same species, with a great deal in common biologically. In short, a dozen different versions of LENR could be on the low side :-) Is this not like saying there are many different versions of fire? Some with smoke, some without, some at high temperatures, some at lower temperatures. That makes no sense. These is only one. Depending on conditions it acts differently. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BLP Video 2hours from January 28th Demonstration
OT: 3D printer Just thought it may be of interest at some point, last week I saw that carbon fibres can now be printed 3D. A related item is that EERE (DOE) is going to fund research into biomass, 'green', production of carbon fibres (think nanotubes, graphene) to the tune of $12 million. regards , ken (PS. Enjoying the discussions on theory and all; Go, team) On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Not sure IF this is new: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/ 2 plus hours of Dr Mills. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA 31 F snow
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
At the risk of overstepping the bounds of my understanding, it sounds like you have begun to respond to my question about the experimental design required to differentiate your theory from others. What you are saying, if I understand your response to that question, is that you predict nuclear products of a particular kind will result from your experiment. What is lacking is the experimental protocol. What kind of apparatus would be required to initiate photofusion so that measurable phenomena predicted by your theory would be present? On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: One more important point, the contents of the topological defects(cracks, pits, holes, bumps) are superconducting. In other works, the cracks are superconducting. This is called topological superconductivity. There is only one environment where this superconductivity can happen at high temperature, and that is photons/polaritons condensation. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: One more point, in a nuclear reaction spin is conserved between the input and output products, except if the reaction is electromagnetic in nature. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO, it would be productive in your reaction analysis to consider how important nuclear spin is in the LENR reaction. Then, you might ask yourself why spin is so important, then you might draw a connection between spin and magnetic effects and influences. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: This list is on the right tract but very incomplete. Transmutation has two consequences. With the hydrogen nuclei is added and the resulting nuclei remains in tact, aka Iwamura. Or the final nucleus fissions, aka Miley et al. The consequence produce a collection of elements that must conserve n and p. I'm gradually identifying the rules that govern this process. These rules, when applied allow the observations to be explained. The collection below was not calculated using the correct rules. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote: this post changed my mind about fission as a source of light nuclear ash. You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough energy in the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit. Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one 62Ni fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and that is the reaction:- 1H+62Ni = 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more possible exothermic reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 64Zn + 13.835 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV this one produces iron. 1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV The last 4 produce lighter elements. There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also for the daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+64Zn = 66Ge + 10.202 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV Note the many light elements/isotopes. Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements, fission becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one can see this by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent addition of *two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish. Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely shrunken Hydrino molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a neutron, so I think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells of other atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do. And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*. Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter. Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more likely fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules to be magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4 protons may also be possible, e.g. :- 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 66Ge + 24.037 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Axil, It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion reactions are the same process. Nature decided this issue and not us. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelliin a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that his early systems produced gammas. The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the production of gammas. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From:Eric Walker Jed Rothwell wrote: These discussions about suppressing gammarays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have beenarguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, thissounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the firstplace. That is really the crux ofthe Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi originally proposed a reaction inwhich substantial gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release.The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his beliefthat there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at that demo. Things changed. Note thatof late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the transmutationof nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni- Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashedand rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash. Jones wants to say that there is no penetratingradiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusionin mind. Well, yes - the RPF reversibleproton fusion suggestion (diproton reaction) only came into play as a last resort– and it was chosen as the “one and only” well-known nuclear reaction in all ofphysics which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it only happens onthe sun; and QCD, which would describe the level of exotherm (it is a strong forcereaction) is not my field of expertise. I have been attempting to partner withan expert in QCD on this theory, but of course, most of them are negative onLENR to begin with and do not want to have their name associated with Rossi.That will change very soon. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there isabove a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bearsotherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seenand is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. The problem with anysuggestion including Ed’s, which does not exclude gamma radiation from thestart (ab initio) which is to say - by the nature of the reaction itself – can becalled “leakage.” In all reactions in physics where gammas can witnessed, theywill be witnessed. There are no exceptions. Gammas are highly penetrating, andeven1% leakage stands out like a sore thumb. Actually even one part per billionwould stand out like a sore thumb. I do not mind belaboringthe main point - that to adequately explain Rossi’s results, if Rossi is forreal - we must backtrack in order find a gammaless starting point. This is dueto the excellent gamma study by Bianchini who, with top notch instrumentation, couldnot find any gammas over hours of study at high thermal release, with hisprobes place under the original lead shielding. HE FOUND NONE - essentially abackground level. The importance of “none” instead of a few, cannot beoveremphasized. The underlying reaction must be gammaless. It is not sufficient tosuggest that gammas are formed and suppressed. “Leakage” prevents thatsuggestion. There are no gammas in the Rossi reactor during operation and theones seen at startup can be easily explained as external. Things could be differentfor other reactions like Pd-D, but for now, we are only concerned with an analysisof the Rossi reaction, in this thread. Jones
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this, assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature reveals. The simplest assumption is to explore only a single process. It turns out that assumption fits the behavior. Of course this fit might result from luck, but this approach would seem to be a good start - better than an approach that does not fit the observations. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:25 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion reactions are the same process. Nature decided this issue and not us. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that his early systems produced gammas. The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the production of gammas. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Eric Walker Jed Rothwell wrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/ Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at that demo. Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni - Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton reaction) only came into play as a last resort – and it was chosen as the “one and only” well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it only happens on the sun; and QCD, which would describe the level of exotherm (it is a strong force reaction) is not my field of expertise. I have been attempting to partner with an expert in QCD on this theory, but of course, most of them are negative on LENR to begin with and do not want to have their name associated with Rossi. That will change very soon. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. The problem with any suggestion including Ed’s, which does not exclude gamma radiation from the start (ab initio) which is to say - by the nature of the reaction itself – can be called “leakage.” In all reactions in physics where gammas can witnessed, they will be witnessed. There are no exceptions. Gammas are highly penetrating, and even1% leakage stands out like a sore thumb. Actually even one part per billion would stand out like a sore thumb. I do not mind belaboring the main point - that to adequately explain Rossi’s results, if Rossi is for real - we must backtrack in order find a gammaless starting point. This is due to the excellent gamma study by Bianchini who, with top notch instrumentation, could not find any gammas over hours of study at high thermal release, with his probes place under the original lead shielding. HE FOUND NONE - essentially a background level. The importance of “none” instead of a few, cannot be overemphasized. The underlying reaction must be gammaless. It is not sufficient to suggest that gammas are formed and suppressed. “Leakage” prevents that suggestion. There are no gammas in the Rossi reactor during operation and the ones seen at startup can be easily explained as external. Things could be different for other reactions like Pd-D, but for now, we are only concerned with an analysis of the Rossi reaction, in this thread. Jones
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
A.V. Simakin has done the experiments you are after. They show how Photofission works. This nuclear reaction does not need a lattice to work. The NAE is a space between the gold nanoparticles. Without the nanoparticles, laser light of the same intensity does not produce the reaction. I believe that LeClair is producing water based nanoparticles that catalyze the LENR reaction as I have explained to vortex in past posts. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt. It is clearly shown that Neutrons are not required to initiate fission and the transmutation that fission can produce. Abstract Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was experimentally studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 1011 -1013 W/cm2 at the wavelength of 1.06 - 0.355 mm were used as well as a visible-range Cu vapor laser at peak power of 1010 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 - 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure initiated nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid and nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are discussed. Here is another paper: I have referenced papers here to show how the nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUAbvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ I have been looking for a theory that supports the Nanoplasmonic underpinnings of LENR. Composite fermions look good so far. For one thing, LENR is rooted in topology. These experiments are conclusive for me. These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively, why are they not replicated? Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830 Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf Critics of LENR are hard put to explain these series of experiments and why transmutation and fission are demonstrated by them. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: At the risk of overstepping the bounds of my understanding, it sounds like you have begun to respond to my question about the experimental design required to differentiate your theory from others. What you are saying, if I understand your response to that question, is that you predict nuclear products of a particular kind will result from your experiment. What is lacking is the experimental protocol. What kind of apparatus would be required to initiate photofusion so that measurable phenomena predicted by your theory would be present? On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: One more important point, the contents of the topological defects(cracks, pits, holes, bumps) are superconducting. In other works, the cracks are superconducting. This is called topological superconductivity. There is only one environment where this superconductivity can happen at high temperature, and that is photons/polaritons condensation. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: One more point, in a nuclear reaction spin is conserved between the input and output products, except if the reaction is electromagnetic in nature. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO, it would be productive in your reaction analysis to consider how important nuclear spin is in the LENR reaction. Then, you might ask yourself why spin is so important, then you might draw a connection between spin and magnetic effects and influences. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: This list is on the right tract but very incomplete. Transmutation has two consequences. With the hydrogen nuclei is added and the resulting nuclei remains in tact, aka Iwamura. Or the final nucleus fissions, aka Miley et al. The consequence produce a collection of elements that must conserve n and p. I'm gradually identifying the rules that govern this process. These rules, when applied allow the
RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
From: Jed Rothwell JR: There may be no evidence for this, but it seems likely based on what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles. First off - LENR is no miracle. We are at the stage of adequate proof. The past irregularity in the Lab, of finding any LENR reaction at all - is still with us, Rossi notwithstanding. McKubre did not mean it is a miracle. That was a joke. He meant what I said in the next sentences: . . . It is not likely that there are many different, totally unrelated, heretofore undiscovered ways to generate nuclear reactions in a metal lattice. Why not? QM has shown us clearly Ockham was always a joke, and that atomic processes are always far more complicated, not less complicated than what we want them to be without QM- due to tunneling, time reversal and other strange features. And who said anything about totally unrelated? Of course they are all related by QM if nothing else. The undiscovered part of the history of LENR is the key to understanding the multiple routes to thermal gain - in what it implies about the ignorance of the mainstream (and even about the continuing ignorance of some segments of the LENR community, many who still reject or do not understand QM). When the first route to LENR was discovered, the Pd-D route in 1989 - then that discovery alone implies that other latent routes are likely to be there - instead of less likely. This is because the first discovery affirms the ignorance of all scientists in the first case. It is merely an issue of vanity which makes any scientific observer think - that because he was fooled once, he can't be fooled many times. Vanity, vanity. That and absurd appeals to Ockham. The truth is that being fooled the first time makes it more probable that the same observer (mainstream science, or even one-track coldfusionistas) suffer from a systemic problem of analysis, which until it has been remedied, will cause the observer to fail again and again - and consequently miss other different, but somewhat related, routes to LENR. At least a dozen. Therefore and to the contrary, I think it could be very likely to be many routes to thermal gain with H2, and in fact all the evidence points that way - all of them unknown prior to 1989 but with the common denominator of hydrogen isotopes, which are entirely or partially confined in a lattice, usually involving QM tunneling. Often confinement will imply greatly increased density of the reactant, loss of molecular identity, and loss of freedom of movement. Pd-D is very different from Ni-H, but not unrelated. QM tunneling can exist in either case with vastly different results. Clearly Ni-H produces no helium and usually no gammas. Clearly deuterium in nickel is less likely to give excess heat and helium, than in Pd and nickel does almost nothing in Pd. In no way are the reactions the same, but neither are they totally different. Most reactions give no gammas, others a few gammas but these cannot be the same reaction because of the gammas. Same with transmutation. All the dozen of so LENR miracles are based on the mega-miracle of QM but it is remarkable how often this is overlooked. Jones
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this, assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature reveals. The simplest assumption is to explore only a single process. This is the default assumption for most research. It is Occam's razor, which is sometimes expressed as: do not multiply entities unnecessarily. This is a rule of thumb. It is not a physical law, or even an observation of nature. It is the kind of thing you might preface by saying, it is generally a good idea to . . . (not multiply entities / check for leaks after you join two pipes together / conduct initial flight tests in good weather / etc.) It is certainly not a joke. You would be a fool to ignore this dictum. What I have in mind with the conservation of miracles idea is similar, but perhaps a little different. It seems unlikely there are many different ways to produce anomalous heat from hydrides and yet they have all been hidden for the last 150 years. If there are many different mechanisms, it seems likely that some would be far easier to discover that others, and someone would have stumbled over an easy one long ago, rather than having them all appear after March 1989. People discovered things like the Seebeck effect (thermoelectricity) in 1821 because that wasn't hard to detect. They did not discover the transistor effect until 1948 because that called for very pure materials and new theory. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
One more point, I remember studying an experiment were transmutation was offset from the primary reaction site (NAE) by some very long distance but the transmutation at the remote site was weaker than at the crater(NAE) in the lattice. This indicated to me that an EMF causation was at play because the remote reaction was offset by such a long distance. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: A.V. Simakin has done the experiments you are after. They show how Photofission works. This nuclear reaction does not need a lattice to work. The NAE is a space between the gold nanoparticles. Without the nanoparticles, laser light of the same intensity does not produce the reaction. I believe that LeClair is producing water based nanoparticles that catalyze the LENR reaction as I have explained to vortex in past posts. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt. It is clearly shown that Neutrons are not required to initiate fission and the transmutation that fission can produce. Abstract Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was experimentally studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 1011 -1013 W/cm2 at the wavelength of 1.06 - 0.355 mm were used as well as a visible-range Cu vapor laser at peak power of 1010 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 - 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure initiated nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid and nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are discussed. Here is another paper: I have referenced papers here to show how the nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUAbvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ I have been looking for a theory that supports the Nanoplasmonic underpinnings of LENR. Composite fermions look good so far. For one thing, LENR is rooted in topology. These experiments are conclusive for me. These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively, why are they not replicated? Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830 Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf Critics of LENR are hard put to explain these series of experiments and why transmutation and fission are demonstrated by them. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: At the risk of overstepping the bounds of my understanding, it sounds like you have begun to respond to my question about the experimental design required to differentiate your theory from others. What you are saying, if I understand your response to that question, is that you predict nuclear products of a particular kind will result from your experiment. What is lacking is the experimental protocol. What kind of apparatus would be required to initiate photofusion so that measurable phenomena predicted by your theory would be present? On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: One more important point, the contents of the topological defects(cracks, pits, holes, bumps) are superconducting. In other works, the cracks are superconducting. This is called topological superconductivity. There is only one environment where this superconductivity can happen at high temperature, and that is photons/polaritons condensation. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: One more point, in a nuclear reaction spin is conserved between the input and output products, except if the reaction is electromagnetic in nature. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO, it would be productive in your reaction analysis to consider how important nuclear spin is in the LENR reaction. Then, you might ask yourself why spin is so important, then you might draw a connection between spin and magnetic effects and influences. On Mon, Feb 3,
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
On 02/03/2014 02:14 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new He sounds so certain that it's hard to believe his theory has serious errors. I am not qualified to judge it. Craig
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
One big problem in LENR reaction analysis is the confusion between cause and effect. Many analysts judge an accidental effect produced by the primary cause to be the ultimate cause. Mills is confusing symptoms with primary causation. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/03/2014 02:14 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new He sounds so certain that it's hard to believe his theory has serious errors. I am not qualified to judge it. Craig
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
One of the critical things that Joe Papp did to enhance EUV production was to pass his spark through alpha emitters like radium and thorium. This is a LENR reaction where radioactive decay is accelerated and photon emissions from isotopes are greatly amplified. The more EUV that you can be produce, the bigger the bang that you can get. If Joe Papp conducted that demo, half the audience would be dead from shrapnel and the remainder would be paraplegic. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: One big problem in LENR reaction analysis is the confusion between cause and effect. Many analysts judge an accidental effect produced by the primary cause to be the ultimate cause. Mills is confusing symptoms with primary causation. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/03/2014 02:14 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new He sounds so certain that it's hard to believe his theory has serious errors. I am not qualified to judge it. Craig
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Consider various physical effects in metals that have been discovered over the centuries, such as magnetism, conducting electricity, the thermoelectric effect (and its opposite manifestation the Peltier effect), the photovoltaic effect, hydrogen embrittlement, piezoelectricity, and superconductivity. Each of these has one mechanism, and only one mechanism, as far as I know. It seems unlikely to me that anomalous nuclear effects in highly loaded metal hydrides are caused by many different phenomena with different physical principles. I do not think there are any other physical effects in metals which have two or more different disparate causes. In biology you sometimes find mechanisms, organs and so on that evolved independently, but came to resemble one another, such as the body shape of dolphins and fish. That's another story entirely. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Axil, unless Simakin et al share your theory, it is not the experiment I am after. Even if they do share your theory, you are predicting particular nuclear products that must be discriminated from those that would arise from other processes and I see no indication that they performed the required measurements. Furthermore, you are making bold claims about what we call LENR or cold fusion processes that are apparently producing large amounts of excess heat in commercial devices. While Simakin's device may have some aspects that bear some resemblance to those devices, it is clearly not what most people would call cold fusion or LENR and it is clearly not producing anything like excess energy. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: One more point, I remember studying an experiment were transmutation was offset from the primary reaction site (NAE) by some very long distance but the transmutation at the remote site was weaker than at the crater(NAE) in the lattice. This indicated to me that an EMF causation was at play because the remote reaction was offset by such a long distance. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: A.V. Simakin has done the experiments you are after. They show how Photofission works. This nuclear reaction does not need a lattice to work. The NAE is a space between the gold nanoparticles. Without the nanoparticles, laser light of the same intensity does not produce the reaction. I believe that LeClair is producing water based nanoparticles that catalyze the LENR reaction as I have explained to vortex in past posts. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt. It is clearly shown that Neutrons are not required to initiate fission and the transmutation that fission can produce. Abstract Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was experimentally studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 1011 -1013 W/cm2 at the wavelength of 1.06 - 0.355 mm were used as well as a visible-range Cu vapor laser at peak power of 1010 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 - 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure initiated nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid and nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are discussed. Here is another paper: I have referenced papers here to show how the nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUAbvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ I have been looking for a theory that supports the Nanoplasmonic underpinnings of LENR. Composite fermions look good so far. For one thing, LENR is rooted in topology. These experiments are conclusive for me. These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively, why are they not replicated? Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830 Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf Critics of LENR are hard put to explain these series of experiments and why transmutation and fission are demonstrated by them. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: At the risk of overstepping the bounds of my understanding, it sounds like you have begun to respond to my question about the experimental design required to differentiate your theory from others. What you are saying, if I understand your response to that question, is that you predict nuclear products of a particular kind will result from your experiment. What is lacking is the experimental protocol. What kind of apparatus would be required to initiate photofusion so that measurable phenomena predicted by your theory would be present? On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: One more important point, the contents of the topological defects(cracks, pits, holes, bumps) are superconducting. In other works, the cracks are
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
I agree with your approach Ed. I just wanted to point out that we must not put on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that some other reaction is taking place than the suspected one. It is prudent to begin with the most likely concepts to explore and to keep our eyes wide open for results that do not quite match our expectations. It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different processes are identified. Time and experimentation will settle the issue and it is premature to declare victory. For example, if you go back to the time before PF there was no possible way for cold fusion to occur according to what was known and the doors need to remain open to new discoveries that might come from unexpected locals. If the magnetic field reported by DGT turns out to be real, then a whole new series of paths become possible. I have been considering the application of positive feedback involving the interaction of a locally powerful magnetic field and some form of nuclear fusion process that couple into each other. A large scale version of this phenomena would not have been possible to observe before Rossi or DGT had systems with adequate power. The way nickel looses it gross magnetic characteristic once the temperature reaches a threshold might allow the underlying process to initiate. 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: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this, assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature reveals. The simplest assumption is to explore only a single process. It turns out that assumption fits the behavior. Of course this fit might result from luck, but this approach would seem to be a good start - better than an approach that does not fit the observations. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:25 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion reactions are the same process. Nature decided this issue and not us. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that his early systems produced gammas. The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the production of gammas. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Eric Walker Jed Rothwell wrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at that demo. Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni - Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton reaction) only came into play as a last resort – and it was chosen as the “one and only” well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it only happens on the sun; and QCD, which would describe the level of exotherm (it is a strong force reaction) is not my field of expertise. I have been attempting to partner with an expert in QCD on this theory, but of course, most of them are negative on LENR to begin with and do not want to have their name associated with Rossi. That will change very soon. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
Does he do any control discharges? By that I mean: Did he demonstrate what happens if you don't include the water but send the same electrical energy through the system? On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:23 PM, David Roberson wrote: I agree with your approach Ed. I just wanted to point out that we must not put on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that some other reaction is taking place than the suspected one. It is prudent to begin with the most likely concepts to explore and to keep our eyes wide open for results that do not quite match our expectations. It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different processes are identified. Time and experimentation will settle the issue and it is premature to declare victory. For example, if you go back to the time before PF there was no possible way for cold fusion to occur according to what was known and the doors need to remain open to new discoveries that might come from unexpected locals. If the magnetic field reported by DGT turns out to be real, then a whole new series of paths become possible. I have been considering the application of positive feedback involving the interaction of a locally powerful magnetic field and some form of nuclear fusion process that couple into each other. A large scale version of this phenomena would not have been possible to observe before Rossi or DGT had systems with adequate power. The way nickel looses it gross magnetic characteristic once the temperature reaches a threshold might allow the underlying process to initiate. I agree Dave, keeping an open mind is important. However, it is not wise to waste time on a claim that is clearly wrong. For example, the claim for neutron production by W-L and for significant energy produced by transmutation are clearly wrong. Also, the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can be safely ignored. Although CF was rejected based on incorrect interpretation of what is possible, a line has to be drawn somewhere. A person can waste a lot of time chasing ghosts. Ed Storms 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: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this, assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature reveals. The simplest assumption is to explore only a single process. It turns out that assumption fits the behavior. Of course this fit might result from luck, but this approach would seem to be a good start - better than an approach that does not fit the observations. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:25 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion reactions are the same process. Nature decided this issue and not us. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that his early systems produced gammas. The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the production of gammas. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Eric Walker Jed Rothwell wrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/ Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at that demo. Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni - Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton reaction) only came into play as a last resort – and it was chosen as the “one and only” well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics which did not produce gammas. Problem
RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
From: Jed Rothwell Consider various physical effects in metals that have been discovered over the centuries, such as magnetism, conducting electricity, the thermoelectric effect (and its opposite manifestation the Peltier effect), the photovoltaic effect, hydrogen embrittlement, piezoelectricity, and superconductivity. Each of these has one mechanism, and only one mechanism, as far as I know. It seems unlikely to me that anomalous nuclear effects in highly loaded metal hydrides are caused by many different phenomena with different physical principles. I do not think there are any other physical effects in metals which have two or more different disparate causes. In biology you sometimes find mechanisms, organs and so on that evolved independently, but came to resemble one another, such as the body shape of dolphins and fish. That's another story entirely. Conduction of electricity disproves your point since it has several distinct forms - including ionic conductivity, superconductivity and HTSC, which is different from SC. Not to mention biological conduction in neurons and semiconductors. At any rate, the difference between LENR and the simpler physical effects is found in the mysteries of QM tunneling in the context of two intertwined mechanisms - the reactant and the lattice which can experience tunneling effects in markedly different ways. Thus, hydrogen reacting within a nickel lattice would be a different reaction from deuterium reacting within palladium, both in the output, the ash and the radiation. The difference is sufficient to call them: two different types of LENR. QM tunneling is a basic paradigm shift in understanding, and it changes everything - to the extent that hydrogen reacting with an alloy of nickel and barium can be a different reaction than Ni-H. Curiously, hydrogen embrittlement is somewhat similar to LENR, and could be labeled as yet another form of LENR in which the thermal gain is relatively insignificant. Thanks for bringing that up. It also emphasizes the point that LENR can be low gain, high gain or endothermic. The most amazing detail of Ahern's EPRI work was in the discovery (rediscovery) of LENR endotherm.
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
He says he's ready to license the technology, and that there are companies he's going to meet which may do that. He thinks that a prototype could be built in a 'lightning fast' period of time, maybe a couple of months. Craig
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Ed, the magnetic field interaction has some traction. DGT, Dennis Craven, and Rossi all have mentioned observations that suggest magnetic interaction. If I recall, one of the government labs found correlation as well. It may be a blind alley as you appear to believe, but what if a strong clue to some LENR behavior is lurking within the data? Of course, I have long been seeking some form of coupling between adjacent NAE that leads to the explosive crater phenomena. Phonons, photons, or perhaps a shared magnetic environment might assist in some way to organize group behavior. I also harbor the thought that an extreme magnetic field might be the mechanism which offers fusion energy a slow escape process. We assume that a magnetic field can reach through the electron cloud and into the nucleus freely. The same in not true for electric fields. That is just a couple of reasons that I find magnetic interactions attractive to ponder. It may be a dead end, but it has possibilities. As you say, there are many ways to waste time and each has to choose his path. You come down hard against the W-L theory, but for some reason many including NASA seem convinced that they are moving ahead. I tend to agree with you on that one and perhaps we are both wrong. What was that dark shadow that just passed through the doorway? :-) 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: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 5:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:23 PM, David Roberson wrote: I agree with your approach Ed. I just wanted to point out that we must not put on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that some other reaction is taking place than the suspected one. It is prudent to begin with the most likely concepts to explore and to keep our eyes wide open for results that do not quite match our expectations. It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different processes are identified. Time and experimentation will settle the issue and it is premature to declare victory. For example, if you go back to the time before PF there was no possible way for cold fusion to occur according to what was known and the doors need to remain open to new discoveries that might come from unexpected locals. If the magnetic field reported by DGT turns out to be real, then a whole new series of paths become possible. I have been considering the application of positive feedback involving the interaction of a locally powerful magnetic field and some form of nuclear fusion process that couple into each other. A large scale version of this phenomena would not have been possible to observe before Rossi or DGT had systems with adequate power. The way nickel looses it gross magnetic characteristic once the temperature reaches a threshold might allow the underlying process to initiate. I agree Dave, keeping an open mind is important. However, it is not wise to waste time on a claim that is clearly wrong. For example, the claim for neutron production by W-L and for significant energy produced by transmutation are clearly wrong. Also, the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can be safely ignored. Although CF was rejected based on incorrect interpretation of what is possible, a line has to be drawn somewhere. A person can waste a lot of time chasing ghosts. Ed Storms 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: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this, assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature reveals. The simplest assumption is to explore only a single process. It turns out that assumption fits the behavior. Of course this fit might result from luck, but this approach would seem to be a good start - better than an approach that does not fit the observations. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:25 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion reactions are the same process. Nature decided this issue and not us. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Also, the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can be safely ignored. It is a conundrum of human nature that people beg and pled for info to be shared about the Ni/H reactor research and then when it is made available, unless it fits into the existing mindset, it can be safely ignored. It might also be that the background to understand how meta-materials, polaritons and quantum/nano optics works is not yet developed enough. This stuff is quite new and a specialty. For example, people who have limited background in the proper disciplines may think that an invisibility cloak is witchcraft but it has been built. Just the fact that by heating up a pinch of nickel dust can produce the magnetic output of a superconducting MRI machine is quite amazing in itself. If a person has just a small modicum of curiosity, such a scientific claim (I say accomplishment) would prompt a desire to figure out what is going on and not consider it a waste of time. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:23 PM, David Roberson wrote: I agree with your approach Ed. I just wanted to point out that we must not put on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that some other reaction is taking place than the suspected one. It is prudent to begin with the most likely concepts to explore and to keep our eyes wide open for results that do not quite match our expectations. It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different processes are identified. Time and experimentation will settle the issue and it is premature to declare victory. For example, if you go back to the time before PF there was no possible way for cold fusion to occur according to what was known and the doors need to remain open to new discoveries that might come from unexpected locals. If the magnetic field reported by DGT turns out to be real, then a whole new series of paths become possible. I have been considering the application of positive feedback involving the interaction of a locally powerful magnetic field and some form of nuclear fusion process that couple into each other. A large scale version of this phenomena would not have been possible to observe before Rossi or DGT had systems with adequate power. The way nickel looses it gross magnetic characteristic once the temperature reaches a threshold might allow the underlying process to initiate. I agree Dave, keeping an open mind is important. However, it is not wise to waste time on a claim that is clearly wrong. For example, the claim for neutron production by W-L and for significant energy produced by transmutation are clearly wrong. Also, the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can be safely ignored. Although CF was rejected based on incorrect interpretation of what is possible, a line has to be drawn somewhere. A person can waste a lot of time chasing ghosts. Ed Storms 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: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this, assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature reveals. The simplest assumption is to explore only a single process. It turns out that assumption fits the behavior. Of course this fit might result from luck, but this approach would seem to be a good start - better than an approach that does not fit the observations. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:25 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion reactions are the same process. Nature decided this issue and not us. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that his early systems produced gammas. The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the production of gammas. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Eric Walker Jed Rothwell wrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:23 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Axil, unless Simakin et al share your theory, it is not the experiment I am after. Simakin does understand that nanoplasmonics can cause nuclear reactions. Even if they do share your theory, you are predicting particular nuclear products that must be discriminated from those that would arise from other processes and I see no indication that they performed the required measurements. One of the characteristics of photo nuclear reactions is that this reaction type usually occurs in even(protons) even(protons) elements. Also photofusion should not produce radioactive isotopes. Furthermore, you are making bold claims about what we call LENR or cold fusion processes that are apparently producing large amounts of excess heat in commercial devices. There is an important strength component of the EMF LENR causation. While Simakin's device may have some aspects that bear some resemblance to those devices, it is clearly not what most people would call cold fusion or LENR and it is clearly not producing anything like excess energy. Excess energy is a quantity consideration, not a quality consideration. The Ni/H reactor produces lots of excess heat because it has lots of reactions going on per second. A pinch of uranium may be fissioning and not produce measurable heat, but a A-bomb produces lots of fission per nanosecond and it produces lots of excess heat. It is a matter of quantity with the quality being equal.
RE: [Vo]:BLP video is out
-Original Message- From: Craig He says he's ready to license the technology, and that there are companies he's going to meet which may do that. He thinks that a prototype could be built in a 'lightning fast' period of time, maybe a couple of months. Well this is déjà vu all over again, isn't it? Flashback 6 years to 2008. Almost the same Press Release. Different process, different players, same old shtick. BlackLight Power, Inc. is the inventor of a new primary energy source with applications to Heating, Central Power, Motive Power, and Micro-Distributed power generation. This relies on a new chemical process of releasing the latent energy of the hydrogen atom... This new process generates electricity for as cheap as 1 cent/kW-hour - two to four times cheaper than any other contemporary power sources. The company has licensed to seven utilities 8,250 megawatts of clean, safe hydrino generation fueled by water eliminating $2 billion/year in fuel costs. Flash forward 6 years. How much of that 8,250 megawatts of clean, safe hydrino power generation have those 8 Utility companies who licensed the BLP process in 2008, actually produced in the intervening years? Answer: zero. Why? Who knows? I guess this is another one of those inconvenient truths. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
My point is measurement is central to experiment. If you aren't measuring phenomena you seek to explain with similar signal to noise ratios, you need a different experiment. Look, its simple: If you have the keys to the LENR/Cold Fusio kingdom then you should be able to design a device that outperforms, in terms of excess energy, any of those that don't have those keys. Moreover, the reaction products should match your theory. What does this device look like? On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:23 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Axil, unless Simakin et al share your theory, it is not the experiment I am after. Simakin does understand that nanoplasmonics can cause nuclear reactions. Even if they do share your theory, you are predicting particular nuclear products that must be discriminated from those that would arise from other processes and I see no indication that they performed the required measurements. One of the characteristics of photo nuclear reactions is that this reaction type usually occurs in even(protons) even(protons) elements. Also photofusion should not produce radioactive isotopes. Furthermore, you are making bold claims about what we call LENR or cold fusion processes that are apparently producing large amounts of excess heat in commercial devices. There is an important strength component of the EMF LENR causation. While Simakin's device may have some aspects that bear some resemblance to those devices, it is clearly not what most people would call cold fusion or LENR and it is clearly not producing anything like excess energy. Excess energy is a quantity consideration, not a quality consideration. The Ni/H reactor produces lots of excess heat because it has lots of reactions going on per second. A pinch of uranium may be fissioning and not produce measurable heat, but a A-bomb produces lots of fission per nanosecond and it produces lots of excess heat. It is a matter of quantity with the quality being equal.
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Dave-- Muon induced cold fusion was known before the P-F effect was demonstrated. I always assumed the magnetic field in the P-F effect was somehow involved with the event. Pd has a large magnetic susceptibility and a large electronic heat capacity associated with effectively heavy S band electrons. The large B field inside the Pd metal would reduce the number of possible quantum states for the deuterium particles and cause them to be aligned, spin-wise, parallel or anti parallel to the local (internal) B field. I have an idea about the synthesis of He from the deuterium that involves the spin, angular momentum and transfer of residual energy via spin coupling to the electronic structure of the lattice, assuming a continuous quantum connected system. I have always thought that the He formed in the process starts out as an excited He* with a high spin quantum state and associated energy which is rapidly (instantaneously) released to the lattice electrons (conserving angular momentum) and hence vibrational phonons--heat. Linear momentum and kinetic energy is not involved in the process. Also, apparently similar (perceived the same) physical phenomena have differing causes--the issue is in what's apparent and what really is the cause. I tend to agree with Axil. His comment that if you look deep enough (the picture will make sense) is the basis for scientific investigation. Bob Cook (Stalecookie) (My first response to this blog.) - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev I agree with your approach Ed. I just wanted to point out that we must not put on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that some other reaction is taking place than the suspected one. It is prudent to begin with the most likely concepts to explore and to keep our eyes wide open for results that do not quite match our expectations. It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different processes are identified. Time and experimentation will settle the issue and it is premature to declare victory. For example, if you go back to the time before PF there was no possible way for cold fusion to occur according to what was known and the doors need to remain open to new discoveries that might come from unexpected locals. If the magnetic field reported by DGT turns out to be real, then a whole new series of paths become possible. I have been considering the application of positive feedback involving the interaction of a locally powerful magnetic field and some form of nuclear fusion process that couple into each other. A large scale version of this phenomena would not have been possible to observe before Rossi or DGT had systems with adequate power. The way nickel looses it gross magnetic characteristic once the temperature reaches a threshold might allow the underlying process to initiate. Dave
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Axil, if I believed DGT, I would be interested. However, I person has to draw the line when information has no support. Where do you draw the line? Do you believe everything you are told? Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Also, the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can be safely ignored. It is a conundrum of human nature that people beg and pled for info to be shared about the Ni/H reactor research and then when it is made available, unless it fits into the existing mindset, it can be safely ignored. It might also be that the background to understand how meta- materials, polaritons and quantum/nano optics works is not yet developed enough. This stuff is quite new and a specialty. For example, people who have limited background in the proper disciplines may think that an invisibility cloak is witchcraft but it has been built. Just the fact that by heating up a pinch of nickel dust can produce the magnetic output of a superconducting MRI machine is quite amazing in itself. If a person has just a small modicum of curiosity, such a scientific claim (I say accomplishment) would prompt a desire to figure out what is going on and not consider it a waste of time. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:23 PM, David Roberson wrote: I agree with your approach Ed. I just wanted to point out that we must not put on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that some other reaction is taking place than the suspected one. It is prudent to begin with the most likely concepts to explore and to keep our eyes wide open for results that do not quite match our expectations. It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different processes are identified. Time and experimentation will settle the issue and it is premature to declare victory. For example, if you go back to the time before PF there was no possible way for cold fusion to occur according to what was known and the doors need to remain open to new discoveries that might come from unexpected locals. If the magnetic field reported by DGT turns out to be real, then a whole new series of paths become possible. I have been considering the application of positive feedback involving the interaction of a locally powerful magnetic field and some form of nuclear fusion process that couple into each other. A large scale version of this phenomena would not have been possible to observe before Rossi or DGT had systems with adequate power. The way nickel looses it gross magnetic characteristic once the temperature reaches a threshold might allow the underlying process to initiate. I agree Dave, keeping an open mind is important. However, it is not wise to waste time on a claim that is clearly wrong. For example, the claim for neutron production by W-L and for significant energy produced by transmutation are clearly wrong. Also, the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can be safely ignored. Although CF was rejected based on incorrect interpretation of what is possible, a line has to be drawn somewhere. A person can waste a lot of time chasing ghosts. Ed Storms 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: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this, assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature reveals. The simplest assumption is to explore only a single process. It turns out that assumption fits the behavior. Of course this fit might result from luck, but this approach would seem to be a good start - better than an approach that does not fit the observations. Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:25 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion reactions are the same process. Nature decided this issue and not us. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that his early systems produced gammas. The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the production of gammas. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Eric Walker Jed Rothwell wrote: These
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Conduction of electricity disproves your point since it has several distinct forms - including ionic conductivity, superconductivity and HTSC, which is different from SC. Point taken. I guess there are different modes. A lot of underlying similarity though. How do you know SC and HTCS are different things? Sez who? Not to mention biological conduction in neurons and semiconductors. That's overstating it, I think. Biological conduction is more like a store-and-forward message relay system (telegraphy or the Internet.) Curiously, hydrogen embrittlement is somewhat similar to LENR . . . Yes. Mizuno makes that point. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
Measurements of the energy output and spectral evidence for the hydrino theory start at 1:16:25 On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Craig He says he's ready to license the technology, and that there are companies he's going to meet which may do that. He thinks that a prototype could be built in a 'lightning fast' period of time, maybe a couple of months. Well this is déjà vu all over again, isn't it? Flashback 6 years to 2008. Almost the same Press Release. Different process, different players, same old shtick. BlackLight Power, Inc. is the inventor of a new primary energy source with applications to Heating, Central Power, Motive Power, and Micro-Distributed power generation. This relies on a new chemical process of releasing the latent energy of the hydrogen atom... This new process generates electricity for as cheap as 1 cent/kW-hour - two to four times cheaper than any other contemporary power sources. The company has licensed to seven utilities 8,250 megawatts of clean, safe hydrino generation fueled by water - eliminating $2 billion/year in fuel costs. Flash forward 6 years. How much of that 8,250 megawatts of clean, safe hydrino power generation have those 8 Utility companies who licensed the BLP process in 2008, actually produced in the intervening years? Answer: zero. Why? Who knows? I guess this is another one of those inconvenient truths. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Measurements of the energy output and spectral evidence for the hydrino theory start at 1:16:25 Thanks! - Jed
RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
From: Jed Rothwell Conduction of electricity disproves your point since it has several distinct forms - including ionic conductivity, superconductivity and HTSC, which is different from SC. Point taken. I guess there are different modes. A lot of underlying similarity though. How do you know SC and HTSC are different things? The experts seem to agree that in conventional superconductivity, electrons are paired (Cooper pairs) and this is mediated by lattice phonons whose kinetic excursion is suppressed to almost nothing but what is left is important. In HTSC - high temperature superconductivity - the explanation is different: electron pairing is not mediated by phonons, which must be more widely spaced, but by spin waves known as quasi-particles similar to magnons (para-magnons). There are actually several theories that are above my pay grade. One of the reasons that HTSC seems similar to LENR, in general, is that Cooper pairs of protons do exist - and would be the direct analogy; and spin waves or magnons would be the mediation. Thus the Letts/Cravens effect is tied back to the magnons. One thing which LENR may be missing, based on HTSC principles is that there could be an advantage to establishing a high current flow of protons through the lattice by some kind of mechanical pumping. No one is doing this AFAIK. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
I would first hold off judgment and disbelief until I see if the claim is self-consistent. Then I move on to consistencies with other examples of similar claims: there have been many claims about monopole production in the long history of cold fusion, next I move on to consistency with known science and engineering. This is why I brought up this research as follows: Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf If a ball of light cannot produce a magnetic field, I would disbelieve the claim. However, if a ball of polaritons are likely to produce a anaople magnetic field and it looks like a monopole (no it is a monopole, the holy grail of many in the hunt for cold fusion over many years), I would choose to believe that the Ni/H reactor can produce monopole magnetic fields and that these fields are central to cold fusion. Next, I would wait with anticipation for any new bit of research that DGT might release to see if the monopole nature of the magnetism is further supported. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, if I believed DGT, I would be interested. However, I person has to draw the line when information has no support. Where do you draw the line? Do you believe everything you are told? Ed Storms On Feb 3, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Also, the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can be safely ignored. It is a conundrum of human nature that people beg and pled for info to be shared about the Ni/H reactor research and then when it is made available, unless it fits into the existing mindset, it can be safely ignored. It might also be that the background to understand how meta-materials, polaritons and quantum/nano optics works is not yet developed enough. This stuff is quite new and a specialty. For example, people who have limited background in the proper disciplines may think that an invisibility cloak is witchcraft but it has been built. Just the fact that by heating up a pinch of nickel dust can produce the magnetic output of a superconducting MRI machine is quite amazing in itself. If a person has just a small modicum of curiosity, such a scientific claim (I say accomplishment) would prompt a desire to figure out what is going on and not consider it a waste of time. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:23 PM, David Roberson wrote: I agree with your approach Ed. I just wanted to point out that we must not put on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that some other reaction is taking place than the suspected one. It is prudent to begin with the most likely concepts to explore and to keep our eyes wide open for results that do not quite match our expectations. It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different processes are identified. Time and experimentation will settle the issue and it is premature to declare victory. For example, if you go back to the time before PF there was no possible way for cold fusion to occur according to what was known and the doors need to remain open to new discoveries that might come from unexpected locals. If the magnetic field reported by DGT turns out to be real, then a whole new series of paths become possible. I have been considering the application of positive feedback involving the interaction of a locally powerful magnetic field and some form of nuclear fusion process that couple into each other. A large scale version of this phenomena would not have been possible to observe before Rossi or DGT had systems with adequate power. The way nickel looses it gross magnetic characteristic once the temperature reaches a threshold might allow the underlying process to initiate. I agree Dave, keeping an open mind is important. However, it is not wise to waste time on a claim that is clearly wrong. For example, the claim for neutron production by W-L and for significant energy produced by transmutation are clearly wrong. Also, the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can be safely ignored. Although CF was rejected based on incorrect interpretation of what is possible, a line has to be drawn somewhere. A person can waste a lot of time chasing ghosts. Ed Storms 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: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this, assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature reveals. The simplest assumption is to explore only a single process. It turns out that assumption fits the behavior. Of
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion. I guess it skipped my thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems. It is interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction between the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal of sense that some direct interaction takes place between the charged particles and the magnetic field that permeates the area around them. If that field is intense enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of those charged particles by effectively offering them a medium to 'push' against. A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests would be able to reach into every region of the active material, including the nuclei. The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected remnant would be expected since the internally generated field passes through an excellent metallic conductor. I also suspect that any locally generated rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by nearby electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their location. How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations penetrate is of interest. It seems logical to assume that essentially all of the electrons that intercept that field would get a kick from a nearby fusion reaction. This process reminds me of how I visualize a magnetic brake in operation. A few questions remain that I want answered. Is the large external magnetic field reported by DGT real? Have they retracted that announcement or do they continue to insist that it is reported accurately? If the field exists, my suspicion is that there is some interaction between the powerful magnetic field and the individual NAE. How this gets translated into a positive feedback effect escapes me at this time. I anticipate a positive feedback system is generating this behavior because of the nature of the field. There does not seem to be any known reason for such a large field to be generated by the DGT device, and of course, it begins as a small field. There likewise is no good explanation for the LENR action either, so it seems like a logical conclusion to assume they are connected in some manner. For example, a small local NAE allows a fusion which results in the release of a significant local magnetic field that interacts with its neighbors. This field induces some of them to join in leading to additional LENR activity. The new fusions are somehow able to add to the initial guiding field in a positive manner. Both increase together to result in a significant amount of LENR activity and a large total magnetic field. You do not observe one without the other being present. Also, unless the parameters are correct allowing the coupling to be sufficient, you do not observe a significant amount of LENR performance or a significant external magnetic field. The requirement for the correct positive feedback environment could easily explain the difficulty in producing a working system. The above scenario represents my latest thinking. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 7:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Dave-- Muon induced cold fusion was known before the P-F effect was demonstrated. I always assumed the magnetic field in the P-F effect was somehow involved with the event. Pd has a large magnetic susceptibility and a large electronic heat capacity associated with effectively heavy S band electrons. The large B field inside the Pd metal would reduce the number of possible quantum states for the deuterium particles and cause them to be aligned, spin-wise, parallel or anti parallel to the local (internal) B field. I have an idea about the synthesis of He from the deuterium that involves the spin, angular momentum and transfer of residual energy via spin coupling to the electronic structure of the lattice, assuming a continuous quantum connected system. I have always thought that the He formed in the process starts out as an excited He* with a high spin quantum state and associated energy which is rapidly (instantaneously) released to the lattice electrons (conserving angular momentum) and hence vibrational phonons--heat. Linear momentum and kinetic energy is not involved in the process. Also, apparently similar (perceived the same) physical phenomena have differing causes--the issue is in what's apparent and what really is the cause. I tend to agree with Axil. His comment that if you look deep enough (the picture will make sense) is the basis for scientific investigation. Bob Cook (Stalecookie) (My first response to this blog.) - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 2:23 PM Subject: Re:
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
The device will look a lot like the recent NI/H reactors. The vender of the Ni/H reactor who takes polariton production of magnetic solutions most to heart will dominate the marketplace. The reaction products of both the DGT reaction and the Rossi reaction match my latest predictions---heavy low Z element production. I am sure that will not be Mills. By the way, I change my mind on occasion when conditions warrant...this is a good thing. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:10 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: My point is measurement is central to experiment. If you aren't measuring phenomena you seek to explain with similar signal to noise ratios, you need a different experiment. Look, its simple: If you have the keys to the LENR/Cold Fusio kingdom then you should be able to design a device that outperforms, in terms of excess energy, any of those that don't have those keys. Moreover, the reaction products should match your theory. What does this device look like? On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:23 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Axil, unless Simakin et al share your theory, it is not the experiment I am after. Simakin does understand that nanoplasmonics can cause nuclear reactions. Even if they do share your theory, you are predicting particular nuclear products that must be discriminated from those that would arise from other processes and I see no indication that they performed the required measurements. One of the characteristics of photo nuclear reactions is that this reaction type usually occurs in even(protons) even(protons) elements. Also photofusion should not produce radioactive isotopes. Furthermore, you are making bold claims about what we call LENR or cold fusion processes that are apparently producing large amounts of excess heat in commercial devices. There is an important strength component of the EMF LENR causation. While Simakin's device may have some aspects that bear some resemblance to those devices, it is clearly not what most people would call cold fusion or LENR and it is clearly not producing anything like excess energy. Excess energy is a quantity consideration, not a quality consideration. The Ni/H reactor produces lots of excess heat because it has lots of reactions going on per second. A pinch of uranium may be fissioning and not produce measurable heat, but a A-bomb produces lots of fission per nanosecond and it produces lots of excess heat. It is a matter of quantity with the quality being equal.
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
David, A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it can thermalize gamma radiation to EUV and convert that radiation to more magnetic strength in a positive feed back loop. I will continue to repeat this until it gets through, On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion. I guess it skipped my thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems. It is interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction between the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal of sense that some direct interaction takes place between the charged particles and the magnetic field that permeates the area around them. If that field is intense enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of those charged particles by effectively offering them a medium to 'push' against. A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests would be able to reach into every region of the active material, including the nuclei. The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected remnant would be expected since the internally generated field passes through an excellent metallic conductor. I also suspect that any locally generated rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by nearby electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their location. How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations penetrate is of interest. It seems logical to assume that essentially all of the electrons that intercept that field would get a kick from a nearby fusion reaction. This process reminds me of how I visualize a magnetic brake in operation. A few questions remain that I want answered. Is the large external magnetic field reported by DGT real? Have they retracted that announcement or do they continue to insist that it is reported accurately? If the field exists, my suspicion is that there is some interaction between the powerful magnetic field and the individual NAE. How this gets translated into a positive feedback effect escapes me at this time. I anticipate a positive feedback system is generating this behavior because of the nature of the field. There does not seem to be any known reason for such a large field to be generated by the DGT device, and of course, it begins as a small field. There likewise is no good explanation for the LENR action either, so it seems like a logical conclusion to assume they are connected in some manner. For example, a small local NAE allows a fusion which results in the release of a significant local magnetic field that interacts with its neighbors. This field induces some of them to join in leading to additional LENR activity. The new fusions are somehow able to add to the initial guiding field in a positive manner. Both increase together to result in a significant amount of LENR activity and a large total magnetic field. You do not observe one without the other being present. Also, unless the parameters are correct allowing the coupling to be sufficient, you do not observe a significant amount of LENR performance or a significant external magnetic field. The requirement for the correct positive feedback environment could easily explain the difficulty in producing a working system. The above scenario represents my latest thinking. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 7:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Dave-- Muon induced cold fusion was known before the P-F effect was demonstrated. I always assumed the magnetic field in the P-F effect was somehow involved with the event. Pd has a large magnetic susceptibility and a large electronic heat capacity associated with effectively heavy S band electrons. The large B field inside the Pd metal would reduce the number of possible quantum states for the deuterium particles and cause them to be aligned, spin-wise, parallel or anti parallel to the local (internal) B field. I have an idea about the synthesis of He from the deuterium that involves the spin, angular momentum and transfer of residual energy via spin coupling to the electronic structure of the lattice, assuming a continuous quantum connected system. I have always thought that the He formed in the process starts out as an excited He* with a high spin quantum state and associated energy which is rapidly (instantaneously) released to the lattice electrons (conserving angular momentum) and hence vibrational phonons--heat. Linear momentum and kinetic energy is not involved in the process. Also, apparently similar (perceived the same) physical phenomena have differing causes--the issue is in what's apparent and what really is the cause. I tend to agree with Axil.
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Perhaps I heard you this time! Would you expect the increased magnetic field created by these polaritons to then be able to cause more LENR activity in synchronization? I suppose I need to have a better understanding of the half soliton of polaritons that you mention. Where can I locate a straight forward description of them? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev David, A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it can thermalize gamma radiation to EUV and convert that radiation to more magnetic strength in a positive feed back loop. I will continue to repeat this until it gets through, On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion. I guess it skipped my thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems. It is interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction between the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal of sense that some direct interaction takes place between the charged particles and the magnetic field that permeates the area around them. If that field is intense enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of those charged particles by effectively offering them a medium to 'push' against. A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests would be able to reach into every region of the active material, including the nuclei. The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected remnant would be expected since the internally generated field passes through an excellent metallic conductor. I also suspect that any locally generated rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by nearby electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their location. How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations penetrate is of interest. It seems logical to assume that essentially all of the electrons that intercept that field would get a kick from a nearby fusion reaction. This process reminds me of how I visualize a magnetic brake in operation. A few questions remain that I want answered. Is the large external magnetic field reported by DGT real? Have they retracted that announcement or do they continue to insist that it is reported accurately? If the field exists, my suspicion is that there is some interaction between the powerful magnetic field and the individual NAE. How this gets translated into a positive feedback effect escapes me at this time. I anticipate a positive feedback system is generating this behavior because of the nature of the field. There does not seem to be any known reason for such a large field to be generated by the DGT device, and of course, it begins as a small field. There likewise is no good explanation for the LENR action either, so it seems like a logical conclusion to assume they are connected in some manner. For example, a small local NAE allows a fusion which results in the release of a significant local magnetic field that interacts with its neighbors. This field induces some of them to join in leading to additional LENR activity. The new fusions are somehow able to add to the initial guiding field in a positive manner. Both increase together to result in a significant amount of LENR activity and a large total magnetic field. You do not observe one without the other being present. Also, unless the parameters are correct allowing the coupling to be sufficient, you do not observe a significant amount of LENR performance or a significant external magnetic field. The requirement for the correct positive feedback environment could easily explain the difficulty in producing a working system. The above scenario represents my latest thinking. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 7:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Dave-- Muon induced cold fusion was known before the P-F effect was demonstrated. I always assumed the magnetic field in the P-F effect was somehow involved with the event. Pd has a large magnetic susceptibility and a large electronic heat capacity associated with effectively heavy S band electrons. The large B field inside the Pd metal would reduce the number of possible quantum states for the deuterium particles and cause them to be aligned, spin-wise, parallel or anti parallel to the local (internal) B field. I have an idea about the synthesis of He from the deuterium that involves the spin, angular momentum and transfer of residual energy via spin coupling to the electronic structure of the lattice, assuming a continuous quantum connected
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
Has anyone noticed that in Mills' drawings of the MHD converter that he has the direction of the coils and the B field wrong for the directions that he wants his positive and negative ions to travel? At 53:13, he is showing a slide with an axial B field and presumably with the plasma split and expanding along the axis. The force on the charges will be normal to the B field and it will cause the charges to spiral around the axis. What he really wants is a B field that is going along the axis he wants his charges to curve, so he wants a B field that would be across his apparatus. What he is showing wouldn't work as a DC generator. Did I get this wrong? Bob On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
I agree Bob. He needs to rotate the coils 90 degrees as you point out. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out Has anyone noticed that in Mills' drawings of the MHD converter that he has the direction of the coils and the B field wrong for the directions that he wants his positive and negative ions to travel? At 53:13, he is showing a slide with an axial B field and presumably with the plasma split and expanding along the axis. The force on the charges will be normal to the B field and it will cause the charges to spiral around the axis. What he really wants is a B field that is going along the axis he wants his charges to curve, so he wants a B field that would be across his apparatus. What he is showing wouldn't work as a DC generator. Did I get this wrong? Bob On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
I haven't seen that picture but based on earlier stuff I've seen that axial magnetic field acts as a guide for the expanding plasma - the plasma first travels axially and then intersects the transverse field at the ends, when it hits the transverse field, the electrons spiral towards one electrode and the positive species spiral to the opposite electrode with the electrodes connected to a load On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree Bob. He needs to rotate the coils 90 degrees as you point out. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out Has anyone noticed that in Mills' drawings of the MHD converter that he has the direction of the coils and the B field wrong for the directions that he wants his positive and negative ions to travel? At 53:13, he is showing a slide with an axial B field and presumably with the plasma split and expanding along the axis. The force on the charges will be normal to the B field and it will cause the charges to spiral around the axis. What he really wants is a B field that is going along the axis he wants his charges to curve, so he wants a B field that would be across his apparatus. What he is showing wouldn't work as a DC generator. Did I get this wrong? Bob On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/ -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
here are two links for MHD, magnetohydrodynamics http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/maspec.html#c5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHD_generator On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't seen that picture but based on earlier stuff I've seen that axial magnetic field acts as a guide for the expanding plasma - the plasma first travels axially and then intersects the transverse field at the ends, when it hits the transverse field, the electrons spiral towards one electrode and the positive species spiral to the opposite electrode with the electrodes connected to a load On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree Bob. He needs to rotate the coils 90 degrees as you point out. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out Has anyone noticed that in Mills' drawings of the MHD converter that he has the direction of the coils and the B field wrong for the directions that he wants his positive and negative ions to travel? At 53:13, he is showing a slide with an axial B field and presumably with the plasma split and expanding along the axis. The force on the charges will be normal to the B field and it will cause the charges to spiral around the axis. What he really wants is a B field that is going along the axis he wants his charges to curve, so he wants a B field that would be across his apparatus. What he is showing wouldn't work as a DC generator. Did I get this wrong? Bob On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/ -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998 -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
That might explain what they are actually planning. The transverse field at the end of the coils must have been left out of the drawing by accident. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out I haven't seen that picture but based on earlier stuff I've seen that axial magnetic field acts as a guide for the expanding plasma - the plasma first travels axially and then intersects the transverse field at the ends, when it hits the transverse field, the electrons spiral towards one electrode and the positive species spiral to the opposite electrode with the electrodes connected to a load On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree Bob. He needs to rotate the coils 90 degrees as you point out. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out Has anyone noticed that in Mills' drawings of the MHD converter that he has the direction of the coils and the B field wrong for the directions that he wants his positive and negative ions to travel? At 53:13, he is showing a slide with an axial B field and presumably with the plasma split and expanding along the axis. The force on the charges will be normal to the B field and it will cause the charges to spiral around the axis. What he really wants is a B field that is going along the axis he wants his charges to curve, so he wants a B field that would be across his apparatus. What he is showing wouldn't work as a DC generator. Did I get this wrong? Bob On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/ -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
To me the most interesting part was the q+a toward the end. From about 1:53:00 to 2:05:00 he finally cuts loose from the script and makes a strong case for the quality and significance of his research. It left me with a somewhat improved impression of BLP's prospects. The engineering challenge is bigger than he lets on but still within reach given deep enough pockets and careful design. On 2/3/2014 5:16 PM, James Bowery wrote: Measurements of the energy output and spectral evidence for the hydrino theory start at 1:16:25 On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net mailto:jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Craig He says he's ready to license the technology, and that there are companies he's going to meet which may do that. He thinks that a prototype could be built in a 'lightning fast' period of time, maybe a couple of months. Well this is déjà vu all over again, isn't it? Flashback 6 years to 2008. Almost the same Press Release. Different process, different players, same old shtick. BlackLight Power, Inc. is the inventor of a new primary energy source with applications to Heating, Central Power, Motive Power, and Micro-Distributed power generation. This relies on a new chemical process of releasing the latent energy of the hydrogen atom... This new process generates electricity for as cheap as 1 cent/kW-hour - two to four times cheaper than any other contemporary power sources. The company has licensed to seven utilities 8,250 megawatts of clean, safe hydrino generation fueled by water -- eliminating $2 billion/year in fuel costs. Flash forward 6 years. How much of that 8,250 megawatts of clean, safe hydrino power generation have those 8 Utility companies who licensed the BLP process in 2008, actually produced in the intervening years? Answer: zero. Why? Who knows? I guess this is another one of those inconvenient truths. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
A polariton is a photon and an electron locked together in a pair. This pair orbits around a cavity on its edge. The spin of all polaritons are pointed such that the polariton ensemble produces a magnetic field at the center of the soliton perpendicular to the circular polariton current (whirlpool). This current is superconducting. When photons and electrons enter into the soliton, they don't exit. By the way, polariton solitons are used as a research tool to understand the behavior of astrophysical black holes. I believe that the magnetic field projections from the soliton screen the charge of all fermions in the nucleus including the nucleus and all protons in the neighborhood. When the nucleus and many di-protons pairs around it reorganizes, gamma energy travels back on the magnetic field lines from the soliton and the photons gain energy generating increase magnetic field strengths going forward. The magnetic fields produced by such solitons can get huge. LeClair saw a soliton he produced eat through 6 feet of copper as it rode on the surface of a copper rod. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Perhaps I heard you this time! Would you expect the increased magnetic field created by these polaritons to then be able to cause more LENR activity in synchronization? I suppose I need to have a better understanding of the half soliton of polaritons that you mention. Where can I locate a straight forward description of them? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev David, A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it can thermalize gamma radiation to EUV and convert that radiation to more magnetic strength in a positive feed back loop. I will continue to repeat this until it gets through, On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion. I guess it skipped my thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems. It is interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction between the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal of sense that some direct interaction takes place between the charged particles and the magnetic field that permeates the area around them. If that field is intense enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of those charged particles by effectively offering them a medium to 'push' against. A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests would be able to reach into every region of the active material, including the nuclei. The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected remnant would be expected since the internally generated field passes through an excellent metallic conductor. I also suspect that any locally generated rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by nearby electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their location. How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations penetrate is of interest. It seems logical to assume that essentially all of the electrons that intercept that field would get a kick from a nearby fusion reaction. This process reminds me of how I visualize a magnetic brake in operation. A few questions remain that I want answered. Is the large external magnetic field reported by DGT real? Have they retracted that announcement or do they continue to insist that it is reported accurately? If the field exists, my suspicion is that there is some interaction between the powerful magnetic field and the individual NAE. How this gets translated into a positive feedback effect escapes me at this time. I anticipate a positive feedback system is generating this behavior because of the nature of the field. There does not seem to be any known reason for such a large field to be generated by the DGT device, and of course, it begins as a small field. There likewise is no good explanation for the LENR action either, so it seems like a logical conclusion to assume they are connected in some manner. For example, a small local NAE allows a fusion which results in the release of a significant local magnetic field that interacts with its neighbors. This field induces some of them to join in leading to additional LENR activity. The new fusions are somehow able to add to the initial guiding field in a positive manner. Both increase together to result in a significant amount of LENR activity and a large total magnetic field. You do not observe one without the other being present. Also, unless the parameters are correct allowing the coupling to be sufficient, you do not observe a significant amount of LENR performance or a significant external magnetic field.
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
I just took a careful look at the drawing and there is a B field shown inside the area of the output power loop. That must represent the field that we did not see earlier. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll jef...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out I haven't seen that picture but based on earlier stuff I've seen that axial magnetic field acts as a guide for the expanding plasma - the plasma first travels axially and then intersects the transverse field at the ends, when it hits the transverse field, the electrons spiral towards one electrode and the positive species spiral to the opposite electrode with the electrodes connected to a load On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree Bob. He needs to rotate the coils 90 degrees as you point out. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out Has anyone noticed that in Mills' drawings of the MHD converter that he has the direction of the coils and the B field wrong for the directions that he wants his positive and negative ions to travel? At 53:13, he is showing a slide with an axial B field and presumably with the plasma split and expanding along the axis. The force on the charges will be normal to the B field and it will cause the charges to spiral around the axis. What he really wants is a B field that is going along the axis he wants his charges to curve, so he wants a B field that would be across his apparatus. What he is showing wouldn't work as a DC generator. Did I get this wrong? Bob On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/ -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
You are describing a strange particle Axil. It is not clear as to whether or not the magnetic field generated within the soliton is steady or of an AC nature. Can you verify that a DC magnetic field is generated by this type of ensemble? Why does the AC frequency of the trapped photon not effect the field? I am not aware of any RF type of system that can generate a DC field unless it is rectified by some means. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev A polariton is a photon and an electron locked together in a pair. This pair orbits around a cavity on its edge. The spin of all polaritons are pointed such that the polariton ensemble produces a magnetic field at the center of the soliton perpendicular to the circular polariton current (whirlpool). This current is superconducting. When photons and electrons enter into the soliton, they don’t exit. By the way, polariton solitons are used as a research tool to understand the behavior of astrophysical black holes. I believe that the magnetic field projections from the soliton screen the charge of all fermions in the nucleus including the nucleus and all protons in the neighborhood. When the nucleus and many di-protons pairs around it reorganizes, gamma energy travels back on the magnetic field lines from the soliton and the photons gain energy generating increase magnetic field strengths going forward. The magnetic fields produced by such solitons can get huge. LeClair saw a soliton he produced eat through 6 feet of copper as it rode on the surface of a copper rod. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Perhaps I heard you this time! Would you expect the increased magnetic field created by these polaritons to then be able to cause more LENR activity in synchronization? I suppose I need to have a better understanding of the half soliton of polaritons that you mention. Where can I locate a straight forward description of them? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev David, A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it can thermalize gamma radiation to EUV and convert that radiation to more magnetic strength in a positive feed back loop. I will continue to repeat this until it gets through, On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion. I guess it skipped my thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems. It is interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction between the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal of sense that some direct interaction takes place between the charged particles and the magnetic field that permeates the area around them. If that field is intense enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of those charged particles by effectively offering them a medium to 'push' against. A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests would be able to reach into every region of the active material, including the nuclei. The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected remnant would be expected since the internally generated field passes through an excellent metallic conductor. I also suspect that any locally generated rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by nearby electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their location. How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations penetrate is of interest. It seems logical to assume that essentially all of the electrons that intercept that field would get a kick from a nearby fusion reaction. This process reminds me of how I visualize a magnetic brake in operation. A few questions remain that I want answered. Is the large external magnetic field reported by DGT real? Have they retracted that announcement or do they continue to insist that it is reported accurately? If the field exists, my suspicion is that there is some interaction between the powerful magnetic field and the individual NAE. How this gets translated into a positive feedback effect escapes me at this time. I anticipate a positive feedback system is generating this behavior because of the nature of the field. There does not seem to be any known reason for such a large field to be generated by the DGT device, and of course, it begins as a small field. There likewise is no good explanation for the LENR action either, so it seems like a logical conclusion to assume they are connected in some manner. For example, a small local NAE allows a fusion
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
I haven't made it to the QA yet. Mills talked about there being a 100:1 energy ratio between gasoline and water. In other words, a car would go as far on 1 gallon of water as 100 gallons of gasoline. He made the case for a microliter of water producing 1000J of excess heat which is about 1 GJ/liter. Gasoline is about 36 MJ/liter. So, the ratio is about 28:1, which is approximately correct. Clearly the effect is not like LENR because the ratio to chemical is so small. Of course, Mills does not believe the effect is nuclear. It bothers me that someone that has gone through so much extension of Maxwell's equations to bring them to the physics of the atom (supposedly) has made such a basic mistake in the presentation slides as missing the direction for the B field in the MHD generator. If he makes that mistake in his patent drawings, he is screwed. Further, what he shows for an MHD generator won't work for another reason as well. For the expanding plasma to make power, it would have to do work passing through the magnetic field. The magnetic field will offer an impediment to the flow of the plasma - much like a small orifice would. That will produce back pressure that will cause the expanding plasma to go anywhere else it can. His gear electrodes will create an expansion volume that will be hard to contain the plasma to go through those high back pressure magnet channels. The expansion volume around those gears would have to be small and the gears would have to be sealed to force the plasma to push through the magnetic field. The fluid dynamics of his apparatus just don't look like they will work. It reminds me of the problems the hot plasma folks have controlling their plasma at high temp and pressure. The calorimetry of the pop is really interesting. The guy who spoke about it kept interchanging power for energy and that was a little disturbing. However, their apparatus seemed to show an energy gain of about 2, presuming their measurements were correct. Bob On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:56 PM, AlanG a...@magicsound.us wrote: To me the most interesting part was the q+a toward the end. From about 1:53:00 to 2:05:00 he finally cuts loose from the script and makes a strong case for the quality and significance of his research. It left me with a somewhat improved impression of BLP's prospects. The engineering challenge is bigger than he lets on but still within reach given deep enough pockets and careful design. On 2/3/2014 5:16 PM, James Bowery wrote: Measurements of the energy output and spectral evidence for the hydrino theory start at 1:16:25 On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Craig He says he's ready to license the technology, and that there are companies he's going to meet which may do that. He thinks that a prototype could be built in a 'lightning fast' period of time, maybe a couple of months. Well this is déjà vu all over again, isn't it? Flashback 6 years to 2008. Almost the same Press Release. Different process, different players, same old shtick. BlackLight Power, Inc. is the inventor of a new primary energy source with applications to Heating, Central Power, Motive Power, and Micro-Distributed power generation. This relies on a new chemical process of releasing the latent energy of the hydrogen atom... This new process generates electricity for as cheap as 1 cent/kW-hour - two to four times cheaper than any other contemporary power sources. The company has licensed to seven utilities 8,250 megawatts of clean, safe hydrino generation fueled by water - eliminating $2 billion/year in fuel costs. Flash forward 6 years. How much of that 8,250 megawatts of clean, safe hydrino power generation have those 8 Utility companies who licensed the BLP process in 2008, actually produced in the intervening years? Answer: zero. Why? Who knows? I guess this is another one of those inconvenient truths. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
The spin of the polariton produces the magnetic field in the same way that an iron magnet produces a magnetic field; that is, through spin alignment except that the half soliton has only one pole. Think of the soliton as a very strong permanent magnet. Charge movement does not produce a current. There is no AC frequency and no RF involved. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You are describing a strange particle Axil. It is not clear as to whether or not the magnetic field generated within the soliton is steady or of an AC nature. Can you verify that a DC magnetic field is generated by this type of ensemble? Why does the AC frequency of the trapped photon not effect the field? I am not aware of any RF type of system that can generate a DC field unless it is rectified by some means. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev A polariton is a photon and an electron locked together in a pair. This pair orbits around a cavity on its edge. The spin of all polaritons are pointed such that the polariton ensemble produces a magnetic field at the center of the soliton perpendicular to the circular polariton current (whirlpool). This current is superconducting. When photons and electrons enter into the soliton, they don't exit. By the way, polariton solitons are used as a research tool to understand the behavior of astrophysical black holes. I believe that the magnetic field projections from the soliton screen the charge of all fermions in the nucleus including the nucleus and all protons in the neighborhood. When the nucleus and many di-protons pairs around it reorganizes, gamma energy travels back on the magnetic field lines from the soliton and the photons gain energy generating increase magnetic field strengths going forward. The magnetic fields produced by such solitons can get huge. LeClair saw a soliton he produced eat through 6 feet of copper as it rode on the surface of a copper rod. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Perhaps I heard you this time! Would you expect the increased magnetic field created by these polaritons to then be able to cause more LENR activity in synchronization? I suppose I need to have a better understanding of the half soliton of polaritons that you mention. Where can I locate a straight forward description of them? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev David, A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it can thermalize gamma radiation to EUV and convert that radiation to more magnetic strength in a positive feed back loop. I will continue to repeat this until it gets through, On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion. I guess it skipped my thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems. It is interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction between the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal of sense that some direct interaction takes place between the charged particles and the magnetic field that permeates the area around them. If that field is intense enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of those charged particles by effectively offering them a medium to 'push' against. A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests would be able to reach into every region of the active material, including the nuclei. The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected remnant would be expected since the internally generated field passes through an excellent metallic conductor. I also suspect that any locally generated rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by nearby electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their location. How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations penetrate is of interest. It seems logical to assume that essentially all of the electrons that intercept that field would get a kick from a nearby fusion reaction. This process reminds me of how I visualize a magnetic brake in operation. A few questions remain that I want answered. Is the large external magnetic field reported by DGT real? Have they retracted that announcement or do they continue to insist that it is reported accurately? If the field exists, my suspicion is that there is some interaction between the powerful magnetic field and the individual NAE. How this gets translated into a positive feedback effect escapes me at this time. I anticipate a positive
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Ed: the Rossi claim for transmutation producing energy is simply WRONG. Jones: Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni - Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash. Ed: the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can be safely ignored. The confidence with which these statements are made seems misplaced. Eric
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
If I understand what you are saying, I should be able to place a large magnet in front of one of these polaritons and it would be attracted to it. Is that correct? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev The spin of the polariton produces the magnetic field in the same way that an iron magnet produces a magnetic field; that is, through spin alignment except that the half soliton has only one pole. Think of the soliton as a very strong permanent magnet. Charge movement does not produce a current. There is no AC frequency and no RF involved. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You are describing a strange particle Axil. It is not clear as to whether or not the magnetic field generated within the soliton is steady or of an AC nature. Can you verify that a DC magnetic field is generated by this type of ensemble? Why does the AC frequency of the trapped photon not effect the field? I am not aware of any RF type of system that can generate a DC field unless it is rectified by some means. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev A polariton is a photon and an electron locked together in a pair. This pair orbits around a cavity on its edge. The spin of all polaritons are pointed such that the polariton ensemble produces a magnetic field at the center of the soliton perpendicular to the circular polariton current (whirlpool). This current is superconducting. When photons and electrons enter into the soliton, they don’t exit. By the way, polariton solitons are used as a research tool to understand the behavior of astrophysical black holes. I believe that the magnetic field projections from the soliton screen the charge of all fermions in the nucleus including the nucleus and all protons in the neighborhood. When the nucleus and many di-protons pairs around it reorganizes, gamma energy travels back on the magnetic field lines from the soliton and the photons gain energy generating increase magnetic field strengths going forward. The magnetic fields produced by such solitons can get huge. LeClair saw a soliton he produced eat through 6 feet of copper as it rode on the surface of a copper rod. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Perhaps I heard you this time! Would you expect the increased magnetic field created by these polaritons to then be able to cause more LENR activity in synchronization? I suppose I need to have a better understanding of the half soliton of polaritons that you mention. Where can I locate a straight forward description of them? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev David, A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it can thermalize gamma radiation to EUV and convert that radiation to more magnetic strength in a positive feed back loop. I will continue to repeat this until it gets through, On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion. I guess it skipped my thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems. It is interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction between the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal of sense that some direct interaction takes place between the charged particles and the magnetic field that permeates the area around them. If that field is intense enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of those charged particles by effectively offering them a medium to 'push' against. A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests would be able to reach into every region of the active material, including the nuclei. The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected remnant would be expected since the internally generated field passes through an excellent metallic conductor. I also suspect that any locally generated rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by nearby electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their location. How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations penetrate is of interest. It seems logical to assume that essentially all of the electrons that intercept that field would get a kick from a nearby fusion reaction. This process reminds me of how I visualize a magnetic brake in operation. A few questions remain that I want answered. Is the large external magnetic field
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
yes, A magnetic field will affect the direction of the spin of the both the polariton and the soliton. but that might not affect the LENR reaction because there is matter all around the soliton, the mega-spin of the soliton will just zap some other atoms in the area. One more point, all the solitons are formed into a superconducting BEC and what the magnetic field will do to the BEC I have not thought about. The external magnetic field might destroy the BEC. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:46 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If I understand what you are saying, I should be able to place a large magnet in front of one of these polaritons and it would be attracted to it. Is that correct? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev The spin of the polariton produces the magnetic field in the same way that an iron magnet produces a magnetic field; that is, through spin alignment except that the half soliton has only one pole. Think of the soliton as a very strong permanent magnet. Charge movement does not produce a current. There is no AC frequency and no RF involved. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: You are describing a strange particle Axil. It is not clear as to whether or not the magnetic field generated within the soliton is steady or of an AC nature. Can you verify that a DC magnetic field is generated by this type of ensemble? Why does the AC frequency of the trapped photon not effect the field? I am not aware of any RF type of system that can generate a DC field unless it is rectified by some means. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev A polariton is a photon and an electron locked together in a pair. This pair orbits around a cavity on its edge. The spin of all polaritons are pointed such that the polariton ensemble produces a magnetic field at the center of the soliton perpendicular to the circular polariton current (whirlpool). This current is superconducting. When photons and electrons enter into the soliton, they don't exit. By the way, polariton solitons are used as a research tool to understand the behavior of astrophysical black holes. I believe that the magnetic field projections from the soliton screen the charge of all fermions in the nucleus including the nucleus and all protons in the neighborhood. When the nucleus and many di-protons pairs around it reorganizes, gamma energy travels back on the magnetic field lines from the soliton and the photons gain energy generating increase magnetic field strengths going forward. The magnetic fields produced by such solitons can get huge. LeClair saw a soliton he produced eat through 6 feet of copper as it rode on the surface of a copper rod. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Perhaps I heard you this time! Would you expect the increased magnetic field created by these polaritons to then be able to cause more LENR activity in synchronization? I suppose I need to have a better understanding of the half soliton of polaritons that you mention. Where can I locate a straight forward description of them? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev David, A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it can thermalize gamma radiation to EUV and convert that radiation to more magnetic strength in a positive feed back loop. I will continue to repeat this until it gets through, On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion. I guess it skipped my thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems. It is interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction between the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal of sense that some direct interaction takes place between the charged particles and the magnetic field that permeates the area around them. If that field is intense enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of those charged particles by effectively offering them a medium to 'push' against. A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests would be able to reach into every region of the active material, including the nuclei. The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected remnant would be expected since the internally generated field passes through an excellent metallic conductor. I also suspect that any locally
Re: [Vo]:BLP video is out
It is interesting to do a little math around this experiment. Presume that the popper is operating with a fuel of 1 microliter of water and produces a net excess energy of 1000 joules. Presume Mills to be correct in assigning most of the reaction is conversion to 1/4 hydrino state that is liberating ~54 eV per atom (8.65E-18 J). Then to get 1000 J of excess heat, would require the transition to 1/4 hydrino state of 1.16E20 H atoms. A mole is 6.02E23, so getting the 1000 J would take (1.16E20 H atoms)/(6.02E23 atoms per mole) = 1.9E-4 mole. For H, one mole is 1 gram, so getting 1000 J consumed 190 micrograms of H. In H2O, Hydrogen is 2/18 or 1/9 of the molecule. So, 1 microliter of water is 1 mg of water and has 1/9 of 1 mg of H = .111 mg of H = 111 micrograms of H. Hmmm. So 190 micrograms of H was converted to 1/4 Hydrino state, but only 111 micrograms of H was present to start. So, if the reaction was 100% efficient, it would require almost 2 microliters of water to begin. Or, the H atoms would have to be sent to a smaller fraction hydrino state liberating more energy per atom of H converted. This seems too efficient in conversion of H to hydrino, or much more energy is being liberated per atom of H. Is my math correct? Bob On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote: http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/
[Vo]:Late breaking soliton news
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-physics-mystery-solitons-vortex.html
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Eric Walker wrote: Ed: the Rossi claim for transmutation producing energy is simply WRONG. Jones: Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni - Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash. Ed: the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can be safely ignored. The confidence with which these statements are made seems misplaced. Why do you say this, Eric? Do you have evidence I do not know about? Can you give a reason why the statements are not correct? On the other hand, I can give reasons why I think the statements are correct. If I were uncertain, I would say so. However, I think my reasons are strong enough to give confidence. What are your reasons for not agreeing? Science is based on choices, not on accepting every claim. The choices are based on knowledge. Sometimes they are wrong, but at least the reasons are clear. What are your reasons for believing Rossi and DGT? As for transmutation producing energy, if the rate is great enough, transmutation will produce detectable power. The problem is getting sufficient rate. No measurement shows a sufficient rate can be produced. In addition, the huge Coulomb barrier stops the reaction, which eliminates the claim unless a method to overcome it is identified. I have suggested a method, but the rate would nevertheless be small. As for the magnetic field, this is based on a statement by DGT without any evidence being published. This is hearsay evidence. It has no value even in law, much less in science. Of course, a small magnetic effect might occur or a small magnetic field might alter the rate. However, no magnetic field can be created at the atomic level that is known to cause a nuclear reaction. Some very intense magnetic fields have been generated without producing fusion, which is the process we are discussing. Why would you believe DGT could create such a field in the apparatus they have shown? Ed Storms Eric
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Why would you believe DGT could create such a field in the apparatus they have shown? Because both Ken Sholders and proton-21 produced cold fusion and monopole fields using sparks. On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Eric Walker wrote: Ed: the Rossi claim for transmutation producing energy is simply WRONG. Jones: Note that of late, Rossi's own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni - Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash. Ed: the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can be safely ignored. The confidence with which these statements are made seems misplaced. Why do you say this, Eric? Do you have evidence I do not know about? Can you give a reason why the statements are not correct? On the other hand, I can give reasons why I think the statements are correct. If I were uncertain, I would say so. However, I think my reasons are strong enough to give confidence. What are your reasons for not agreeing? Science is based on choices, not on accepting every claim. The choices are based on knowledge. Sometimes they are wrong, but at least the reasons are clear. What are your reasons for believing Rossi and DGT? As for transmutation producing energy, if the rate is great enough, transmutation will produce detectable power. The problem is getting sufficient rate. No measurement shows a sufficient rate can be produced. In addition, the huge Coulomb barrier stops the reaction, which eliminates the claim unless a method to overcome it is identified. I have suggested a method, but the rate would nevertheless be small. As for the magnetic field, this is based on a statement by DGT without any evidence being published. This is hearsay evidence. It has no value even in law, much less in science. Of course, a small magnetic effect might occur or a small magnetic field might alter the rate. However, no magnetic field can be created at the atomic level that is known to cause a nuclear reaction. Some very intense magnetic fields have been generated without producing fusion, which is the process we are discussing. Why would you believe DGT could create such a field in the apparatus they have shown? Ed Storms Eric
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Why do you say this, Eric? Do you have evidence I do not know about? Can you give a reason why the statements are not correct? I have seen what you and the others have seen. Rossi has been consistent in much, although certainly not all, of the technical claims he has made (let us set aside for the moment his business claims). What he is saying is by and large consistent with what Focardi and Piantelli and others have presented in other connections. Much of what Rossi has said has been borne out by further investigation, as in, for example, the report of the team under contract with Elforsk. With this history, I see no reason to give Rossi a blank check. But neither do I see grounds for rejecting his claims out of hand. On the other hand, I can give reasons why I think the statements are correct. If I were uncertain, I would say so. However, I think my reasons are strong enough to give confidence. It is my belief that your reasons for rejecting Rossi's claims are largely theoretical and do not go back to experimental evidence relating to NiH. What has been learned about PdD electrolysis is only somewhat applicable to an NiH gas phase system, especially if one has not obtained great amounts of excess heat with such a system (as very few have). In this regard, Rossi and Defkalion are in a league apart from even the researchers who have focused for years on NiH. We can ignore them, but if anything they claim is true, they know more about NiH than the next ten researchers combined. What are your reasons for not agreeing? I am arguing for approaching their claims with an open mind rather than rejecting them in the attitude of a knower. Science is based on choices, not on accepting every claim. The choices are based on knowledge. Sometimes they are wrong, but at least the reasons are clear. What are your reasons for believing Rossi and DGT? I don't necessarily believe them in everything they've claimed. I believe there's a good possibility that they've made solid observations and, with some amount of obfuscation, they've reported them largely in tact. I personally can piece together how their claims are internally consistent. It is quite remarkable how what they've said over the years can be made sense of. As for transmutation producing energy, if the rate is great enough, transmutation will produce detectable power. The problem is getting sufficient rate. No measurement shows a sufficient rate can be produced. Here we're drawing lessons from PdD, we're drawing lessons from low-gain NiH, and we're drawing lessons from our own personal theories. We are not, specifically, drawing upon a solid base of experimental research in NiH. Rossi and Defkalion, if we're to believe anything they've said, are obtaining kilowatts of power. Given this success, and given Rossi's claim to have observed transmutations that are orders of magnitude above measurement error, I may balk at his claim, but will not set it aside willy-nilly. In addition, the huge Coulomb barrier stops the reaction, which eliminates the claim unless a method to overcome it is identified. I have suggested a method, but the rate would nevertheless be small. Here you're providing theoretical reasons to ignore Rossi's claims about transmutations being the primary source of heat. Note that they are very similar to the claims made to discount d+d fusion as the primary source of heat in PdD. As for the magnetic field, this is based on a statement by DGT without any evidence being published. This is hearsay evidence. It has no value even in law, much less in science. The search for truth is about as far away from the pursuit of law as any two pursuits can be in this world. It is a pity that the common law has the strict rules of evidence that it does. It's an even greater pity that scientists conceive their work in a similar vein, where there's a written record, and anything that has not successfully been entered into the record is ignored. Eric