RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
IMHO grain size and geometry of these other alloys as powders will have a major effect on their LENR activity. Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 5:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems From: Jed Rothwell Superior for what? Conducting protons? Surely not for loading hydrogen. I have never heard that. Surely you read Ahern's Arata replication for EPRI ? He achieved better loading than the standard of 1:1 with nickel-palladium alloy (at low Pd ratio in the alloy). Many alloys which are tailored for hydrogen storage are in fact better than palladium for that single property (which is the atomic ratio of lattice atoms to hydrogen atoms) This does not meant they will be more active for LENR - only that they will absorb more atoms of hydrogen per atom of lattice. That is what they are designed for. In fact, the alloys which store the most hydrogen are most often NOT anomalous as to energy release, when further stimulated. Unfortunately, the two fields have not been systematically investigated for determining the best of both worlds. Jones
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Bob, Much discussion regarding micro “tubule” geometry of Rossi powders leads many of us to consider the hair like protrusions as forming nano geometry between the grains as they pack to form a bulk powder. Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 5:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Also I suspect that the nano Ni that is produced is pretty pure. That may be why Rossi uses it … Not sure that I follow this. Although the Rossi patent mentions nanometric and specifically a favored isotope - Rossi himself has identified his nickel supplier, and says the geometry of his powder is micron not nano (at least at that point in time). Metals (as opposed to ceramics) can seldom be reduced below 10 microns by normal Industrial methods such as ball milling - due to surface electric properties aka: “agglomeration.” That is one reason why “nano” is so special and not fully appreciated wrt metals. It simply cannot happen in normal metal processing (except with mixed ceramics like the oxides of nickel). You might do well to talk to the Ni-O “nano” suppliers, like Quantum sphere: http://www.qsinano.com/products_nanomaterials.html They will set you straight on the lack of anything truly “nano” as a metal. It must have a surface oxide. … and may be the reason other researchers do not have very good luck at getting a good reaction. No doubt that Rossi, if we can believe his results, has found something that no one else has yet been able to duplicate. It may be serendipitous, but it is not likely to be “nanometric nickel” per se. Jones
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
From: Roarty, Francis X Bob, Much discussion regarding micro “tubule” geometry of Rossi powders leads many of us to consider the hair like protrusions as forming nano geometry between the grains as they pack to form a bulk powder. Fran The tubes could be hollow as well as in Enculescu’s image below. Does anyone have the citation for Rossi’s nickel lattice having “tubules”? Cannot find it. But check this out. http://www.science24.com/paper/11457 This is a marvelous image of what can be done, in principal, with nickel nanotubes via electroless deposition. It would not surprise me if Rossi’s supplier of nickel has used a similar technique. This particular paper is Romanian/German and has no connection to LENR that I am aware of. I wonder if Peter Gluck is aware of it? Perhaps a gram or two of this actual material should be tried in LENR, due to the possibility of entrapment of hydrogen in the tubes in one dimension, as we have discussed. As a caveat, this electroless nickel deposition technique apparently involves high phosphorous content, which could be a poison (who knows?) _ From: Jones Beene -Original Message- From: Bob Cook * Also I suspect that the nano Ni that is produced is pretty pure. That may be why Rossi uses it … Not sure that I follow this. Although the Rossi patent mentions nanometric and specifically a favored isotope - Rossi himself has identified his nickel supplier, and says the geometry of his powder is micron not nano (at least at that point in time). Metals (as opposed to ceramics) can seldom be reduced below 10 microns by normal Industrial methods such as ball milling - due to surface electric properties aka: “agglomeration.” That is one reason why “nano” is so special and not fully appreciated wrt metals. It simply cannot happen in normal metal processing (except with mixed ceramics like the oxides of nickel). You might do well to talk to the Ni-O “nano” suppliers, like Quantum sphere: http://www.qsinano.com/products_nanomaterials.html They will set you straight on the lack of anything truly “nano” as a metal. It must have a surface oxide. * … and may be the reason other researchers do not have very good luck at getting a good reaction. No doubt that Rossi, if we can believe his results, has found something that no one else has yet been able to duplicate. It may be serendipitous, but it is not likely to be “nanometric nickel” per se. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
morphing through some kind of process of entropy I think you are right, Vacuum = Entropy = Uncertainty! On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Does anyone have the citation for Rossi's nickel lattice having tubules? Cannot find it. But check this out. Yes, please. If anyone has a reference to Rossi using nickel with tubules, nanotubules, nanohairs, etc., please provide it. My understanding is that he uses micron-sized nickel powder, treated in some way, and rather than something nano-. There are carbon nanotubes, of course, and Rossi, as far as anyone knows, does not use them. It's remarkably difficult to pin the precise details down and keep them pinned down. They keep on moving around and morphing through some kind of process of entropy. Eric
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
As Eric realizes, this is a critical issue for anyone wanting to replicated Rossi. In fact, the material shown in the previous image, could indeed be called “micron sized” and one would not be dishonest. However the importance of hollow nickel tube could be the sine qua non of the Rossi scheme. Rossi has a history in his revelations, at least back when he was in full fund-raising mode, of first providing a bit too much information (inadvertently) and then backtracking later to try to minimize the damage. Thus, we often see conflicting statements which can be rationalized if one understands the history of “Rossi-speak”. This “tubule” mystery could be an exemplary example of what I am talking about. But did he actually ever say it? From: Eric Walker Does anyone have the citation for Rossi’s nickel lattice having “tubules”? Cannot find it. But check this out. Yes, please. If anyone has a reference to Rossi using nickel with tubules, nanotubules, nanohairs, etc., please provide it. My understanding is that he uses micron-sized nickel powder, treated in some way, and rather than something nano-. There are carbon nanotubes, of course, and Rossi, as far as anyone knows, does not use them. It's remarkably difficult to pin the precise details down and keep them pinned down. They keep on moving around and morphing through some kind of process of entropy. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Rossi has stated that he starts with 10 micron sized particles (since identified as a nickel powder produced from the carbonyl process), adds a catalyst (widely believed to be a nanopowder of some kind), and processes the mix in a way that leads to amplified tubercles on the surface. A search of tubules will not find the reference, he used tubercles. I have replicated the growth of tubercles by doing just what Rossi described. Begin with micron scale nickel powder (from the carbonyl precipitate process), add a nanopowder, mix, and heat in an oven with cycling H2, Ar, O2 process gas. The result is a porous structure of tubercles with nanowires growing from the surface. I suspect that both the nanowires and the tubercle structure are indicators that I am using similar processing of the powder mix as Rossi, but are not themselves the LENR NAE. The observation is that when processed in that manner, there are plenty of NAE somewhere. It is easy to believe that this structure (from the SEM pictures) will be rife with nanocracks as Dr. Storms suggests for the NAE. In fact, the NAE are likely to be features you cannot see under the SEM rather than the features you can see. Bob Higgins On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As Eric realizes, this is a critical issue for anyone wanting to replicated Rossi. In fact, the material shown in the previous image, could indeed be called micron sized and one would not be dishonest. However the importance of hollow nickel tube could be the *sine qua non* of the Rossi scheme. Rossi has a history in his revelations, at least back when he was in full fund-raising mode, of first providing a bit too much information (inadvertently) and then backtracking later to try to minimize the damage. Thus, we often see conflicting statements which can be rationalized if one understands the history of Rossi-speak. This tubule mystery could be an exemplary example of what I am talking about. But did he actually ever say it? *From:* Eric Walker Does anyone have the citation for Rossi's nickel lattice having tubules? Cannot find it. But check this out. Yes, please. If anyone has a reference to Rossi using nickel with tubules, nanotubules, nanohairs, etc., please provide it. My understanding is that he uses micron-sized nickel powder, treated in some way, and rather than something nano-. There are carbon nanotubes, of course, and Rossi, as far as anyone knows, does not use them. It's remarkably difficult to pin the precise details down and keep them pinned down. They keep on moving around and morphing through some kind of process of entropy.
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Ah. tubercles instead of tubules . Thanks Bob From: Bob Higgins Rossi has stated that he starts with 10 micron sized particles (since identified as a nickel powder produced from the carbonyl process), adds a catalyst (widely believed to be a nanopowder of some kind), and processes the mix in a way that leads to amplified tubercles on the surface. A search of tubules will not find the reference, he used tubercles. I have replicated the growth of tubercles by doing just what Rossi described.
[Vo]:A new twist on the lost wax process for nickel nanotubes
Most everyone who has worked in an industrial setting is probably familiar with the lost wax process for fine detail casting of molten metal. Wiki has an entry. Based on extending or commercializing the (presumed) concept which is shown in the Enculescu paper, there is very likely to be a version of lost wax which is adaptable to the dedicated manufacturing of a matrix of nickel nanotubes. This kind of matrix is probably even adaptable to mass production and robotics, to low cost. Caveat - this is not too different from the Haisch Moddell patent which IIRC has not produced any measurable gain. IOW - it was a failure. However, they were not looking at LENR so they may have missed the proper application the basic idea. For instance, cold wax sheet could be punctured by a laser array and a scanning mirror, so that millions of holes are the result - and then the resulting surface could be thinly plated, following which the wax is removed. Essentially that appears to be what has been done in the image. It could then be possible to leach out the phosphorus, which they did not do. This final result would be based on the demonstrated premise that typical electroless nickel plating fluid allows such fine levels of detail at the nanoscale. That is a surprise. The tubes could be hollow as well, as apparently happens in Enculescu's process - in the image below. Apparently very accurate control of the level of nickel deposited can be engineered - which would not only allow the plating fluid to enter a porous wax inverse mold, but also to allow the tubes to be hollow. http://www.science24.com/paper/11457 This is what seems to be a marvelous image of what can be done, in principal, with nickel nanotubes via electroless deposition. Perhaps a gram or two of this actual material should be tried in LENR, due to the possibility of entrapment of hydrogen in the tubes in one dimension, as we have discussed. Kevin or Fran may have already ordered the electroless nickel controller and plating fluid on eBay :-) attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:An Open Letter
Dear Friends, I think/hope Big Money is able to help both Deep Science and Savior Technology to achiev their aims and I have written: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/02/open-letter-to-bill-gates.html I am tired of being a realist all the time. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Eric-- Your bring up some interesting questions about the Rossi reactor. The information I have included come from Rossi and Focardi's international patent application noted below. 1. Is Rossi separating Ni isotopes for the Ni he uses in the reactor? This would be expensive. The natural isotopic abundances are: Ni-58, 68.08%; Ni-59, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 80,000 years; Ni 60, 26.22%; Ni-61, 1.14%; Ni-62, 3.63%; Ni-63, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 92 years; Ni-64, 0.93%. I would pick Ni-60 because it is more than one transmutation (Ni-proton fusion) away from a radioactive residue. 2. Is there radioactive ash (Ni-59 or Ni-63) left in the spent reactors? Rossi and Focardi seem to contradict themselves with the statements below: ...we believe that form of energy involved is nuclear, and more specifically, due to fusion processes between protons and Nickel nuclei. They are exothermic with an energy release in the range 3-7,5 MeV, depending on the Nickel isotope involved. No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process. This information attributed to Focardi and Rossi comes from their instructive statements, which suggest the nuclear Ni-proton fusion, in the following paper: A new energy source from nuclear fusion S. Focardi(1) and A. Rossi(2)--(1)Physics Department Bologna University and INFN Bologna Section, (2)Leonardo Corp. (USA) - Inventor of the Patent, March 22, 2010 (international patent publication N. WO 2009/125444 A1) My final observation is that the Rossi-Focardi comment that there is no radioactivity in the residue needs to be checked. Other Ni-hydrogen materials that have been produced by other experimenters should be carefully checked for both the potential radioactive Ni isotopes---Ni-59 and Ni-63. They should be easy to detect given their well known decay modes and probable gamma emissions. (I will look up this information and put it in a subsequent comment.) I know that both Ni-59 and Ni-63 are problems when it comes to nuclear waste disposal of activated metals.) A null radioactivity essay would be revealing as to the process actually occurring in the Ni-hydrogen reactions. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Also I suspect that the nano Ni that is produced is pretty pure. That may be why Rossi uses it and may be the reason other researchers do not have very good luck at getting a good reaction. I'm guessing that the purity of Rossi's nickel (in terms of 62Ni and 64Ni) is related to avoiding beta-plus and beta-minus decay, and, with beta-plus decay, the 511 keV positron-electron annihilation photons. Some vorts may enjoy this video of a small cloud chamber [1]. It's remarkable that such a small event can have macroscopic effects. Eric [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQVMrkJYShc
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Bob--Bob Cook here Your comments are revealing. I believe quantum systems that are big enough to handle the energy fractionation that Hagelstein identifies in his lectures are a requirement for any solid state nuclear reaction. A thermal conductor to get the heat out is also necessary. These two objectives are probably at the heart of Rossi's design. Of course the Kim BEC theory may occur at discrete locations in the Ni creating new quantum systems during the reactor operation. However maintaining such nice locations for months of operation for the BEC's to form is questionable. Bob - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Bob Higgins Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 7:43 AM Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems Rossi has stated that he starts with 10 micron sized particles (since identified as a nickel powder produced from the carbonyl process), adds a catalyst (widely believed to be a nanopowder of some kind), and processes the mix in a way that leads to amplified tubercles on the surface. A search of tubules will not find the reference, he used tubercles. I have replicated the growth of tubercles by doing just what Rossi described. Begin with micron scale nickel powder (from the carbonyl precipitate process), add a nanopowder, mix, and heat in an oven with cycling H2, Ar, O2 process gas. The result is a porous structure of tubercles with nanowires growing from the surface. I suspect that both the nanowires and the tubercle structure are indicators that I am using similar processing of the powder mix as Rossi, but are not themselves the LENR NAE. The observation is that when processed in that manner, there are plenty of NAE somewhere. It is easy to believe that this structure (from the SEM pictures) will be rife with nanocracks as Dr. Storms suggests for the NAE. In fact, the NAE are likely to be features you cannot see under the SEM rather than the features you can see. Bob Higgins On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As Eric realizes, this is a critical issue for anyone wanting to replicated Rossi. In fact, the material shown in the previous image, could indeed be called micron sized and one would not be dishonest. However the importance of hollow nickel tube could be the sine qua non of the Rossi scheme. Rossi has a history in his revelations, at least back when he was in full fund-raising mode, of first providing a bit too much information (inadvertently) and then backtracking later to try to minimize the damage. Thus, we often see conflicting statements which can be rationalized if one understands the history of Rossi-speak. This tubule mystery could be an exemplary example of what I am talking about. But did he actually ever say it? From: Eric Walker Does anyone have the citation for Rossi's nickel lattice having tubules? Cannot find it. But check this out. Yes, please. If anyone has a reference to Rossi using nickel with tubules, nanotubules, nanohairs, etc., please provide it. My understanding is that he uses micron-sized nickel powder, treated in some way, and rather than something nano-. There are carbon nanotubes, of course, and Rossi, as far as anyone knows, does not use them. It's remarkably difficult to pin the precise details down and keep them pinned down. They keep on moving around and morphing through some kind of process of entropy.
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Fran-- I agree fully. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Roarty, Francis X To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:36 AM Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems IMHO grain size and geometry of these other alloys as powders will have a major effect on their LENR activity. Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 5:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems From: Jed Rothwell Superior for what? Conducting protons? Surely not for loading hydrogen. I have never heard that. Surely you read Ahern's Arata replication for EPRI ? He achieved better loading than the standard of 1:1 with nickel-palladium alloy (at low Pd ratio in the alloy). Many alloys which are tailored for hydrogen storage are in fact better than palladium for that single property (which is the atomic ratio of lattice atoms to hydrogen atoms) This does not meant they will be more active for LENR - only that they will absorb more atoms of hydrogen per atom of lattice. That is what they are designed for. In fact, the alloys which store the most hydrogen are most often NOT anomalous as to energy release, when further stimulated. Unfortunately, the two fields have not been systematically investigated for determining the best of both worlds. Jones
[Vo]:Ante Up - Annual Vortex Fund Raisin'
Vortex-L Rules: 1. $10/yr donation 2. NO SNEERING 3. KEEP MESSAGES UNDER 60K 4. DON'T QUOTE ENTIRE MESSAGES NEEDLESSLY 5. DON'T CC OTHER LIST SERVERS 6. NO SPAMMING The time comes again where we help pay for the canvas on which we splatter our speculations and opinions. Bill, which email address is used in your paypal account. And, are there other or preferred payment methods?
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
I believe that some fractionation must be taking place, but not to phonons. Phonons are contra-indicated by the experimental evidence. Phonons dissipate rapidly to heat with a decay constant that is based on the acoustic velocity. This means that the temperature will be extremely high near the nanoscale NAE, making it much higher temperature than the bulk of the reactor. It suggests that before any useful total heat is realized for the system, the NAE would burn itself out - melt, evaporate, etc. On the other hand, if the output from the NAE was fractionated to lower energy photons, then the decay constant would be based on the speed of light in the material and the deposition to heat would be spread much farther away from the NAE, allowing heat transport out of the NAE without overheating the NAE structure. The micro-explosions that have been reported are on a micron-scale, not on a nano-scale; nanoscale would be expected with phonons. The whole device melt-downs that have been reported can only happen if the NAE is not that much hotter than the bulk of the device. Photons would spread the heat away from the NAE in such a way that the meltdowns and micron-size explosions could occur. Keep in mind that Dr. Hagelstein has PRESUMED coupling to phonons in the formulation of his mathematical experiment. The formulation is not the completely general case with the best solution popping out. The general formulation is too complex to solve today, so simplifying presumptions must be made, and then the solutions are evaluated for consistency with experiment. The simplified formulation just makes it solve-able, not easy to solve. So, in this sense, Dr. Hagelstein is constructing mathematical experiments (the simplifications) and is testing the solutions to see if they match all of the experimental data. If he guesses right in his simplification (didn't leave out something important in his formulation), and finds a match to all of the experimental data, then he has a good theory. It is all based on the same original physics which cannot be solved in purely general form for the complex condensed matter environment. We may not know enough about the NAE to be able to simulate it today because we don't know what simplifications are appropriate. Bob On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Bob--Bob Cook here Your comments are revealing. I believe quantum systems that are big enough to handle the energy fractionation that Hagelstein identifies in his lectures are a requirement for any solid state nuclear reaction. A thermal conductor to get the heat out is also necessary. These two objectives are probably at the heart of Rossi's design. Of course the Kim BEC theory may occur at discrete locations in the Ni creating new quantum systems during the reactor operation. However maintaining such nice locations for months of operation for the BEC's to form is questionable. Bob
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Bob and Eric, the issue of transmutation is basic to understanding LENR. First of all, transmutation has a very high barrier requiring an explanation of how this can be overcome. Second, the resulting energy has to be dissipated in ways known to be possible. I propose the hydrogen fusion process provides the required energy and dissipates much of the excess mass-energy. In other words, transmutation can not occur unless fusion is taking place at the same time and place in the material. We now know that two kinds of transmutation occur. Iwamura shows that D can be added to a target resulting in a stable heavier product. Most other claims for transmutation are based on fragments of Pd being found. Explaining these two different results is the challenge. In the case of Ni+H, I propose the p-e-p fusion process deposits the resulting d in the Ni nucleus, resulting in fragmentation of the product in order to dissipate the excess mass-energy. I believe 2d enter all isotopes of Ni when the fusion reaction is operating. As a result, the 1.9 MeV obtained from the p-e-p reaction is added to any energy resulting from occasional transmutation. When the Ni fissions, it must conserve n and p, which produces a distribution of products that can be calculated. This calculation shows a distribution that is consistent with what is reported and reveals Ni-58 to be the most active isotope for energy production. I will provide much more detail and justification in my book. Meanwhile, you might consider this proposed process. I propose transmutation takes place in the Rossi cell, but he has incorrectly identified its source and incorrectly attributed the energy to transmutation. I propose most energy results from p-e-p=d fusion, with transmutation resulting from fission of Ni adding only a minor amount of energy. If this is the case, focus on Ni is a waste of time. Ed Storms On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Eric-- Your bring up some interesting questions about the Rossi reactor. The information I have included come from Rossi and Focardi's international patent application noted below. 1. Is Rossi separating Ni isotopes for the Ni he uses in the reactor? This would be expensive. The natural isotopic abundances are: Ni-58, 68.08%; Ni-59, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 80,000 years; Ni 60, 26.22%; Ni-61, 1.14%; Ni-62, 3.63%; Ni-63, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 92 years; Ni-64, 0.93%. I would pick Ni-60 because it is more than one transmutation (Ni- proton fusion) away from a radioactive residue. 2. Is there radioactive ash (Ni-59 or Ni-63) left in the spent reactors? Rossi and Focardi seem to contradict themselves with the statements below: ...we believe that form of energy involved is nuclear, and more specifically, due to fusion processes between protons and Nickel nuclei. They are exothermic with an energy release in the range 3-7,5 MeV, depending on the Nickel isotope involved. No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process. This information attributed to Focardi and Rossi comes from their instructive statements, which suggest the nuclear Ni-proton fusion, in the following paper: A new energy source from nuclear fusion S. Focardi(1) and A. Rossi(2)--(1)Physics Department Bologna University and INFN Bologna Section, (2)Leonardo Corp. (USA) - Inventor of the Patent, March 22, 2010 (international patent publication N. WO 2009/125444 A1) My final observation is that the Rossi-Focardi comment that there is no radioactivity in the residue needs to be checked. Other Ni- hydrogen materials that have been produced by other experimenters should be carefully checked for both the potential radioactive Ni isotopes---Ni-59 and Ni-63. They should be easy to detect given their well known decay modes and probable gamma emissions. (I will look up this information and put it in a subsequent comment.) I know that both Ni-59 and Ni-63 are problems when it comes to nuclear waste disposal of activated metals.) A null radioactivity essay would be revealing as to the process actually occurring in the Ni- hydrogen reactions. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Also I suspect that the nano Ni that is produced is pretty pure. That may be why Rossi uses it and may be the reason other researchers do not have very good luck at getting a good reaction. I'm guessing that the purity of Rossi's nickel (in terms of 62Ni and 64Ni) is related to avoiding beta-plus and beta-minus decay, and, with beta-plus decay, the 511 keV positron-electron annihilation photons. Some vorts may enjoy this
RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Agreed. The issue of a nearly complete lack of transmutation in many types of Ni-H is revealing. It narrows the range of possible energetic reactions which are possible, given that everything else probably conforms to normal physics. In some experiments (Piantelli) has shown far more transmutation than is seen than in other similar reactions, so I have tried to limit this analysis to Rossi, given the fact that he is clearly miles ahead in the race towards commercialization. If we first understand Rossi, then perhaps we will see why he is so far ahead. Piantelli is eating Rossi's photons, as your grandson the video gamer, might phrase it. It the excess heat is a million times more than can be accounted for by a tiny amount of transmutation, then the explanation leans one way. It the excess heat is less than 100 times more than can be accounted for by a much larger amount of transmutation, then the explanation leans another way. The second is Piantelli, the first is Rossi. Both explanation could be accurate for the type of experiment they are doing, due to small variation in reactants - possibly hidden, and unknown even to the experimenter himself. Rossi's reaction is clearly in the trillion plus range of excess heat over any possible transmutation. Transmutation does not happen without measureable levels of radiation, such as would be seen on the meters of Bianchini, with his expert qualifications. That fact is telling - since no excess radiation was seen. Thus no meaningful transmutation. Mills also reports none. Bottom line - the Rossi reaction is most likely a reaction which fundamentally does not involve either high energy photons or transmutation. High energy photons will occasionally leak and produce transmutation. There is no leak proof way to hide 1.1 MeV. Sorry. No high energy photons, no transmutation, then no fusion reaction has occurred which is known to produce high energy quanta. It is as simple as that. From: Edmund Storms Bob and Eric, the issue of transmutation is basic to understanding LENR.
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Ed-- One simple question--In all the Ni-H systems has there been a good evaluation of the residuel radioactivity? What do you mean by fragmentation and Ni fission? For example, what are possible fission products? Lighter isotopes which are radioactively stable? Is the fission process like the reaction of a neutron with U-235 producing fragments with kinetic energy, or do the fragments merely stay put. However, If what you suggest happens, i.e. the introduction of d to the Ni nuclei, why not the following reactions?: Ni-58 goes to Cu-60 (radioactive) Ni-60 goes to Cu-62 (radioactive) Ni-61 goes to Cu-63 (stable) Ni-62 goes to Cu-64 (radioactive) and Ni-64 goes to Cu-66 (radioactive). All the radioactive Cu isotopes emit electrons or positrons and additional x-rays or soft gammas to boot, in addition to the .51 mev x-ray associated with positrons-electron reaction. Cu short-lived activity should be seen if the D-Ni reaction occurs. Rossi and Focardi did not appear to advocate such reactions. And I would have estimated that they would have looked for them. Remember they indicated no residual activity and did not mention the P-e-P reaction in their patent application. . Focardi must surely have known about it--the P-e-P reaction. Everything I have heard Focardi say and write has made sense to me and has seemed to be without obfuscation. (I cannot say this for hot fusion advocates and the APS establishment.) However, it would not be the first time I was wrong. A mentor once said it takes $1,000,000 worth of mistakes to make a good engineer, and that was in the late 60's. Luckily I do not have to worry about the issues Hagelstein and others make about my future career. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems Bob and Eric, the issue of transmutation is basic to understanding LENR. First of all, transmutation has a very high barrier requiring an explanation of how this can be overcome. Second, the resulting energy has to be dissipated in ways known to be possible. I propose the hydrogen fusion process provides the required energy and dissipates much of the excess mass-energy. In other words, transmutation can not occur unless fusion is taking place at the same time and place in the material. We now know that two kinds of transmutation occur. Iwamura shows that D can be added to a target resulting in a stable heavier product. Most other claims for transmutation are based on fragments of Pd being found. Explaining these two different results is the challenge. In the case of Ni+H, I propose the p-e-p fusion process deposits the resulting d in the Ni nucleus, resulting in fragmentation of the product in order to dissipate the excess mass-energy. I believe 2d enter all isotopes of Ni when the fusion reaction is operating. As a result, the 1.9 MeV obtained from the p-e-p reaction is added to any energy resulting from occasional transmutation. When the Ni fissions, it must conserve n and p, which produces a distribution of products that can be calculated. This calculation shows a distribution that is consistent with what is reported and reveals Ni-58 to be the most active isotope for energy production. I will provide much more detail and justification in my book. Meanwhile, you might consider this proposed process. I propose transmutation takes place in the Rossi cell, but he has incorrectly identified its source and incorrectly attributed the energy to transmutation. I propose most energy results from p-e-p=d fusion, with transmutation resulting from fission of Ni adding only a minor amount of energy. If this is the case, focus on Ni is a waste of time. Ed Storms On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Eric-- Your bring up some interesting questions about the Rossi reactor. The information I have included come from Rossi and Focardi's international patent application noted below. 1. Is Rossi separating Ni isotopes for the Ni he uses in the reactor? This would be expensive. The natural isotopic abundances are: Ni-58, 68.08%; Ni-59, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 80,000 years; Ni 60, 26.22%; Ni-61, 1.14%; Ni-62, 3.63%; Ni-63, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 92 years; Ni-64, 0.93%. I would pick Ni-60 because it is more than one transmutation (Ni-proton fusion) away from a radioactive residue. 2. Is there radioactive ash (Ni-59 or Ni-63) left in the spent reactors? Rossi and Focardi seem to contradict themselves with the statements below: ...we believe that form of energy involved is nuclear, and more specifically, due to fusion processes between protons and Nickel nuclei. They are
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Does anyone have the citation for Rossi’s nickel lattice having “tubules”? Cannot find it. But check this out. Yes, please. If anyone has a reference to Rossi using nickel with tubules, nanotubules, nanohairs, etc., please provide it. My understanding is that he uses micron-sized nickel powder, treated in some way, and rather than something nano-. There are carbon nanotubes, of course, and Rossi, as far as anyone knows, does not use them. It's remarkably difficult to pin the precise details down and keep them pinned down. They keep on moving around and morphing through some kind of process of entropy. Eric
[Vo]:Violation of Theory! Stop the Presses at Nature!
So we all know -- or at least we _should_ all know -- about Nature's rejection of Oriani's paper reporting reproduction of the FPE which it did despite its own peer review approving the paper. Its justification was that it flew in the face of theory and that other labs hadn't reproduced it. Setting aside, for the moment, the idiocy behind this justification, one might wonder why they published this paper: Graphene conducts electricity ten times better than expected Carbon layers grown on silicon carbide conduct electricity even better than theory predicted. Elizabeth Gibney 06 February 2014 http://www.nature.com/news/graphene-conducts-electricity-ten-times-better-than-expected-1.14676
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Ed--Bob Cook here-- Another question is if D is formed in the Ni-H system as you propose, why not the generation of He-4 as in the Pd system without the nasty fragmentation or fission of the Ni? The key to controlling the Rossi process maybe controlling the formation of D. The energy transfer process would be coupled by spin and distribution of angular momentum between the initially excited He-4* at a high spin state and the electrons of the system and maybe the various Ni nuclei in the system. Nuclear-magnetic spin of nuclei is of course coupled to electromagnetic irradiation signals in MRI technology. The math must be well established. Again spin state coupling with appropriate energy transfer should be explored in theory--this is above my head. Do you know if anyone has looked at this? Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems Bob and Eric, the issue of transmutation is basic to understanding LENR. First of all, transmutation has a very high barrier requiring an explanation of how this can be overcome. Second, the resulting energy has to be dissipated in ways known to be possible. I propose the hydrogen fusion process provides the required energy and dissipates much of the excess mass-energy. In other words, transmutation can not occur unless fusion is taking place at the same time and place in the material. We now know that two kinds of transmutation occur. Iwamura shows that D can be added to a target resulting in a stable heavier product. Most other claims for transmutation are based on fragments of Pd being found. Explaining these two different results is the challenge. In the case of Ni+H, I propose the p-e-p fusion process deposits the resulting d in the Ni nucleus, resulting in fragmentation of the product in order to dissipate the excess mass-energy. I believe 2d enter all isotopes of Ni when the fusion reaction is operating. As a result, the 1.9 MeV obtained from the p-e-p reaction is added to any energy resulting from occasional transmutation. When the Ni fissions, it must conserve n and p, which produces a distribution of products that can be calculated. This calculation shows a distribution that is consistent with what is reported and reveals Ni-58 to be the most active isotope for energy production. I will provide much more detail and justification in my book. Meanwhile, you might consider this proposed process. I propose transmutation takes place in the Rossi cell, but he has incorrectly identified its source and incorrectly attributed the energy to transmutation. I propose most energy results from p-e-p=d fusion, with transmutation resulting from fission of Ni adding only a minor amount of energy. If this is the case, focus on Ni is a waste of time. Ed Storms On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Eric-- Your bring up some interesting questions about the Rossi reactor. The information I have included come from Rossi and Focardi's international patent application noted below. 1. Is Rossi separating Ni isotopes for the Ni he uses in the reactor? This would be expensive. The natural isotopic abundances are: Ni-58, 68.08%; Ni-59, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 80,000 years; Ni 60, 26.22%; Ni-61, 1.14%; Ni-62, 3.63%; Ni-63, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 92 years; Ni-64, 0.93%. I would pick Ni-60 because it is more than one transmutation (Ni-proton fusion) away from a radioactive residue. 2. Is there radioactive ash (Ni-59 or Ni-63) left in the spent reactors? Rossi and Focardi seem to contradict themselves with the statements below: ...we believe that form of energy involved is nuclear, and more specifically, due to fusion processes between protons and Nickel nuclei. They are exothermic with an energy release in the range 3-7,5 MeV, depending on the Nickel isotope involved. No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process. This information attributed to Focardi and Rossi comes from their instructive statements, which suggest the nuclear Ni-proton fusion, in the following paper: A new energy source from nuclear fusion S. Focardi(1) and A. Rossi(2)--(1)Physics Department Bologna University and INFN Bologna Section, (2)Leonardo Corp. (USA) - Inventor of the Patent, March 22, 2010 (international patent publication N. WO 2009/125444 A1) My final observation is that the Rossi-Focardi comment that there is no radioactivity in the residue needs to be checked. Other Ni-hydrogen materials that have been produced by other experimenters should be carefully checked for both the potential radioactive Ni isotopes---Ni-59 and Ni-63. They should be easy
[Vo]:Celani solid state H-pump replicated
This is in Italian so you may have to run it through a translator. http://gsvit.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/esperimento-di-verifica-della-compress ione-elettrochimica-dellidrogeno-utilizzando-un-catodo-di-palladio-aggiornam ento-del-4-gennaio-2014/ Celani had published earlier that hydrogen could be compressed significantly by a palladium membrane. He may have been unaware that a similar device was patented in the 1980s by the US Navy. Nevertheless - he seems to be delighted that his work was verified. attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:Clarke describes the Internet in 1972
It is often said that people cannot predict future technology, even a few decades in advance. Some people cannot, but others can. Here is something Arthur Clarke wrote in 1972. He and others predicted the Internet and many of its ramifications. . . . It will be a future in which men do much less commuting and more communicating. Even today, probably 90 percent of the average executive's business could be performed without leaving home, by the use of equipment which is already available on an experimental basis. During the next decade, we will see the evolution of a general-purpose, home-communications console providing two-way vision, hard-copy readout so that diagrams and printed material can be exchanged, and a keyboard to allow conversation with the computers and information banks upon which our world will increasingly depend. Before we consider its practicability, let us see what we could do with such a device. Far more than business discussions and conferences would be possible; the housewife could go shopping by dialing the catalogue of her favorite stores; scholars and students would have instant access to any book or periodical stored in the global electronic library; this minute's news, continually updated, would be displayed in printed headlines, and any selected item could be expanded as desired, according to taste. This, incidentally, raises the possibility of something quite new -- the personalized electronic news service, tailored to the interests of the individual subscriber! Today, such a receiving console would cost tens of thousands of dollars-and would be useless, because the communications network to service it does not yet exist. But this network will be built up during the next decades; one of the great enterprises of the twentieth century will be the establishment, with the help of satellites, of a planetary information grid. It will join the other networks we have developed during the last hundred and fifty years, and which we now take so much for granted that we forget their existence, except when they break down. Chronologically, they are: water, sewerage, gas, electricity, telephone -- and now cable TV, or video. The forthcoming information grid will absorb the last two. . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
- Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems Bob and Eric, the issue of transmutation is basic to understanding LENR. First of all, transmutation has a very high barrier requiring an explanation of how this can be overcome. Second, the resulting energy has to be dissipated in ways known to be possible. I propose the hydrogen fusion process provides the required energy and dissipates much of the excess mass-energy. In other words, transmutation can not occur unless fusion is taking place at the same time and place in the material. We now know that two kinds of transmutation occur. Iwamura shows that D can be added to a target resulting in a stable heavier product. Most other claims for transmutation are based on fragments of Pd being found. Explaining these two different results is the challenge. In the case of Ni+H, I propose the p-e-p fusion process deposits the resulting d in the Ni nucleus, resulting in fragmentation of the product in order to dissipate the excess mass-energy. I believe 2d enter all isotopes of Ni when the fusion reaction is operating. As a result, the 1.9 MeV obtained from the p-e-p reaction is added to any energy resulting from occasional transmutation. When the Ni fissions, it must conserve n and p, which produces a distribution of products that can be calculated. This calculation shows a distribution that is consistent with what is reported and reveals Ni-58 to be the most active isotope for energy production. I will provide much more detail and justification in my book. Meanwhile, you might consider this proposed process. I propose transmutation takes place in the Rossi cell, but he has incorrectly identified its source and incorrectly attributed the energy to transmutation. I propose most energy results from p-e-p=d fusion, with transmutation resulting from fission of Ni adding only a minor amount of energy. If this is the case, focus on Ni is a waste of time. Ed Storms On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Eric-- Your bring up some interesting questions about the Rossi reactor. The information I have included come from Rossi and Focardi's international patent application noted below. 1. Is Rossi separating Ni isotopes for the Ni he uses in the reactor? This would be expensive. The natural isotopic abundances are: Ni-58, 68.08%; Ni-59, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 80,000 years; Ni 60, 26.22%; Ni-61, 1.14%; Ni-62, 3.63%; Ni-63, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 92 years; Ni-64, 0.93%. I would pick Ni-60 because it is more than one transmutation (Ni-proton fusion) away from a radioactive residue. 2. Is there radioactive ash (Ni-59 or Ni-63) left in the spent reactors? Rossi and Focardi seem to contradict themselves with the statements below: ...we believe that form of energy involved is nuclear, and more specifically, due to fusion processes between protons and Nickel nuclei. They are exothermic with an energy release in the range 3-7,5 MeV, depending on the Nickel isotope involved. No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process. This information attributed to Focardi and Rossi comes from their instructive statements, which suggest the nuclear Ni-proton fusion, in the following paper: A new energy source from nuclear fusion S. Focardi(1) and A. Rossi(2)--(1)Physics Department Bologna University and INFN Bologna Section, (2)Leonardo Corp. (USA) - Inventor of the Patent, March 22, 2010 (international patent publication N. WO 2009/125444 A1) My final observation is that the Rossi-Focardi comment that there is no radioactivity in the residue needs to be checked. Other Ni-hydrogen materials that have been produced by other experimenters should be carefully checked for both the potential radioactive Ni isotopes---Ni-59 and Ni-63. They should be easy to detect given their well known decay modes and probable gamma emissions. (I will look up this information and put it in a subsequent comment.) I know that both Ni-59 and Ni-63 are problems when it comes to nuclear waste disposal of activated metals.) A null radioactivity essay would be revealing as to the process actually occurring in the Ni-hydrogen reactions. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Also I suspect that the nano Ni that is produced is pretty pure. That may be why Rossi uses it and may be the reason other researchers do not have very
Re: [Vo]:Clarke describes the Internet in 1972
Jed-- Thanks for the observations of Clarke--its is an optimistic observation as are many regarding LENR. The pessimistic ones don't seem to be coming up as often. Bob --an old optimist - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 12:19 PM Subject: [Vo]:Clarke describes the Internet in 1972 It is often said that people cannot predict future technology, even a few decades in advance. Some people cannot, but others can. Here is something Arthur Clarke wrote in 1972. He and others predicted the Internet and many of its ramifications. . . . It will be a future in which men do much less commuting and more communicating. Even today, probably 90 percent of the average executive's business could be performed without leaving home, by the use of equipment which is already available on an experimental basis. During the next decade, we will see the evolution of a general-purpose, home-communications console providing two-way vision, hard-copy readout so that diagrams and printed material can be exchanged, and a keyboard to allow conversation with the computers and information banks upon which our world will increasingly depend. Before we consider its practicability, let us see what we could do with such a device. Far more than business discussions and conferences would be possible; the housewife could go shopping by dialing the catalogue of her favorite stores; scholars and students would have instant access to any book or periodical stored in the global electronic library; this minute's news, continually updated, would be displayed in printed headlines, and any selected item could be expanded as desired, according to taste. This, incidentally, raises the possibility of something quite new -- the personalized electronic news service, tailored to the interests of the individual subscriber! Today, such a receiving console would cost tens of thousands of dollars-and would be useless, because the communications network to service it does not yet exist. But this network will be built up during the next decades; one of the great enterprises of the twentieth century will be the establishment, with the help of satellites, of a planetary information grid. It will join the other networks we have developed during the last hundred and fifty years, and which we now take so much for granted that we forget their existence, except when they break down. Chronologically, they are: water, sewerage, gas, electricity, telephone -- and now cable TV, or video. The forthcoming information grid will absorb the last two. . . . - Jed
[Vo]:So close but so far away ... or was it?
http://www.google/patents/US4489049 In 1982 - several years before PF made the big splash, scientists working under US Navy contracts filed for what became US 4489049 for Solid state hydrogen pumping and storage material. Abstract: A solid-state hydrogen storage system. A layer of an amorphous binary metal alloy of a lanthanide and iron, nickel or cobalt is disposed on a suitable substrate and overcoated with palladium metal. Geeze, it would be a bit of a surprise, thirty+ years thereafter to learn that the nickel version of this hydrogen pump did not produce some small amount of anomalous heat. Of course, there would have been no reason to look for excess heat, at that time, but who knows how careful they were in the details? Funny that years later, on the cancellation of SPAWAR some doubts linger as to ultimate motivations and to what could be going on behind the scenes. Yet, on or about early November 2011, one Rear Admiral Patrick Brady, commander of SPAWAR, ordered researchers to terminate all LENR research. He may or may not have initiated the order, but one is left to wonders where Brady, or his superior, was located in 1982 and was he involved in continuing RD on the hydrogen storage system ? Anyway, his order came about a week after News broke about Rossi's October, 2011, demonstration of the E-Cat. Probably no connection just a coincidence... nothing to see here, please move on. Let's turn this over to the conspiracy theorists now so that it will be certain to be discredited as with the rest of LENR... Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Clarke describes the Internet in 1972
A 1968 view of future communications https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssOELouwBDI (note the gender stereotype - she buys, he pays) A 1976 highway as envisioned in 1956 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx6keHpeYak Harry On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jed-- Thanks for the observations of Clarke--its is an optimistic observation as are many regarding LENR. The pessimistic ones don't seem to be coming up as often. Bob --an old optimist - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, February 07, 2014 12:19 PM *Subject:* [Vo]:Clarke describes the Internet in 1972 It is often said that people cannot predict future technology, even a few decades in advance. Some people cannot, but others can. Here is something Arthur Clarke wrote in 1972. He and others predicted the Internet and many of its ramifications. . . . It will be a future in which men do much less commuting and more communicating. Even today, probably 90 percent of the average executive's business could be performed without leaving home, by the use of equipment which is already available on an experimental basis. During the next decade, we will see the evolution of a general-purpose, home-communications console providing two-way vision, hard-copy readout so that diagrams and printed material can be exchanged, and a keyboard to allow conversation with the computers and information banks upon which our world will increasingly depend. Before we consider its practicability, let us see what we could do with such a device. Far more than business discussions and conferences would be possible; the housewife could go shopping by dialing the catalogue of her favorite stores; scholars and students would have instant access to any book or periodical stored in the global electronic library; this minute's news, continually updated, would be displayed in printed headlines, and any selected item could be expanded as desired, according to taste. This, incidentally, raises the possibility of something quite new -- the personalized electronic news service, tailored to the interests of the individual subscriber! Today, such a receiving console would cost tens of thousands of dollars-and would be useless, because the communications network to service it does not yet exist. But this network will be built up during the next decades; one of the great enterprises of the twentieth century will be the establishment, with the help of satellites, of a planetary information grid. It will join the other networks we have developed during the last hundred and fifty years, and which we now take so much for granted that we forget their existence, except when they break down. Chronologically, they are: water, sewerage, gas, electricity, telephone -- and now cable TV, or video. The forthcoming information grid will absorb the last two. . . . - Jed
[Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
RAR are progressing with the construction of their second gravity engine and posted four new photos today. Presumably they have now had some operating experience of the first model yet continue to build the second one. http://www.rarenergia.com.br/gilman%20oficial%2019%20eng.JPG ref http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ensl=ptu=http://www.rarenergia.com.br/prev=/search%3Fq%3DRAR%2Benergia%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3Dfmx%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
There was a throw-away line in McKubre's interview with Sterling Allen -- he pointed across the lab and said he was doing a fundamental experiment on phonon interactions with Hagelstein. Maybe there'll be some real data points.
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
Is there an explanation somewhere of how this machine is supposed to work? Who's funding the projects? [m] On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 1:29 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: RAR are progressing with the construction of their second gravity engine and posted four new photos today. Presumably they have now had some operating experience of the first model yet continue to build the second one. http://www.rarenergia.com.br/gilman%20oficial%2019%20eng.JPG ref http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ensl=ptu=http://www.rarenergia.com.br/prev=/search%3Fq%3DRAR%2Benergia%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3Dfmx%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official
Re: [Vo]:Clarke describes the Internet in 1972
H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: A 1968 view of future communications https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssOELouwBDI (note the gender stereotype - she buys, he pays) They got the basic ideas right, but the mechanics wrong. You would think that by 1968 people would realize that video text would be used instead of facsimile. I have a 1966 special edition of Scientific American devoted to information (computers) that shows this. It is interesting that they have the woman shopping by looking at a video image of actual clothes on display in real time at a store, rather than looking at photos of the merchandise such as you find at Amazon.com. On-line shopping is more like using a Sears catalog circa 1968 than it is like going to a store. It is an older business model brought back into use. That often happens. I think Clarke had a better grasp of the ramifications than some other people did. Others predicted a narrow range of on-line activities. Shopping often comes up, for some reason. Reading books or watching movies on line was less often predicted, I think. Incidentally, the Scientific American advertisements are full of gender stereotypes and sexism. It is a polite magazine. Like many other academic institutions, they did not realize how sexist they were. It used to annoy my mother to no end. A 1976 highway as envisioned in 1956 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx6keHpeYak Way wrong. They could never have imagined the GPS or Google's self driving car. No seat-belts! It is interesting how much technical information the car provides. A computer simulated voice tells you the turbine input temperature etc. A Prius screen gives you a lot of data. When technology is new, the manufacturer sometimes gives customers Too Much Information (TMI). My brother has a stereo set from the 1960s with a logo on the front saying FET transistor (I think it is). Not one person in a thousand back then knew or cared what a Field Effect Transistor was. It was the latest thing. It sounded good. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Feb 7, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- One simple question--In all the Ni-H systems has there been a good evaluation of the residuel radioactivity? Bob, evidence shows that when Pd or Ni experience transmutation, the resulting nucleus breaks into two parts. These two parts are not radioactive. In other words, the system tries to dissipate all the energy while producing nuclei that have no residual energy, i.e. are not radioactive. Addition of 2(p-e-p) to Ni results is a distribution of stable products, with O, Mg, Si, S Ca, and Ti being the most frequent. Si is matched with S. Prompt alpha emission also occurs leaving behind Ni. This process results from the normal rules of nuclear chemistry. NO copper isotopes are formed. The detected copper has normal isotopic composition, which is not possible to produce from transmutation. I suspect copper results from contamination by materials in the cell. If copper formed, the nucleus would have no way to dissipate the energy, which is essential. What do you mean by fragmentation and Ni fission? For example, what are possible fission products? Lighter isotopes which are radioactively stable? Is the fission process like the reaction of a neutron with U-235 producing fragments with kinetic energy, or do the fragments merely stay put. However, If what you suggest happens, i.e. the introduction of d to the Ni nuclei, why not the following reactions?: Ni-58 goes to Cu-60 (radioactive) Ni-60 goes to Cu-62 (radioactive) Ni-61 goes to Cu-63 (stable) Ni-62 goes to Cu-64 (radioactive) and Ni-64 goes to Cu-66 (radioactive). All the radioactive Cu isotopes emit electrons or positrons and additional x-rays or soft gammas to boot, in addition to the .51 mev x-ray associated with positrons-electron reaction. Cu short-lived activity should be seen if the D-Ni reaction occurs. Rossi and Focardi did not appear to advocate such reactions. And I would have estimated that they would have looked for them. Remember they indicated no residual activity and did not mention the P-e-P reaction in their patent application. . This is true. They clearly have no understanding of nuclear chemistry. They saw transmutation produced and from this observation ASSUMED that heat resulted from transmutation because they found the p-e-p reaction impossible to explain. My approach is to violate as few basic laws as possible and to find an internally consistent process. That goal involves d-e-d, d-e-p and p-e-p type reactions. In addition, transmutation requires energy that is only available from the fusion reaction. These conclusions lead logically to a model that can explain all observations without ad hoc assumptions or using novel processes. Unfortunately, the justification and details require a book to explain, so don't expect a proof here. Ed Storms Focardi must surely have known about it--the P-e-P reaction. Everything I have heard Focardi say and write has made sense to me and has seemed to be without obfuscation. (I cannot say this for hot fusion advocates and the APS establishment.) However, it would not be the first time I was wrong. A mentor once said it takes $1,000,000 worth of mistakes to make a good engineer, and that was in the late 60's. Luckily I do not have to worry about the issues Hagelstein and others make about my future career. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems Bob and Eric, the issue of transmutation is basic to understanding LENR. First of all, transmutation has a very high barrier requiring an explanation of how this can be overcome. Second, the resulting energy has to be dissipated in ways known to be possible. I propose the hydrogen fusion process provides the required energy and dissipates much of the excess mass-energy. In other words, transmutation can not occur unless fusion is taking place at the same time and place in the material. We now know that two kinds of transmutation occur. Iwamura shows that D can be added to a target resulting in a stable heavier product. Most other claims for transmutation are based on fragments of Pd being found. Explaining these two different results is the challenge. In the case of Ni+H, I propose the p-e-p fusion process deposits the resulting d in the Ni nucleus, resulting in fragmentation of the product in order to dissipate the excess mass-energy. I believe 2d enter all isotopes of Ni when the fusion reaction is operating. As a result, the 1.9 MeV obtained from the p-e-p reaction is added to any energy resulting from occasional transmutation. When the Ni fissions, it must conserve n and p, which produces a distribution of products that can be calculated. This calculation shows a
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
Mark, Click on the second link. Starting at image #53 (and later) there are some diagrams. If you can understand how it works from those, or from the patent, please let me know ;-) It is the brainchild of RAR Energia and funded by them
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Feb 7, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed--Bob Cook here-- Another question is if D is formed in the Ni-H system as you propose, why not the generation of He-4 as in the Pd system without the nasty fragmentation or fission of the Ni? That answer is too complicated to explain here. That is why the book is required. Take my word for the present that I have a good reason for this model. The key to controlling the Rossi process maybe controlling the formation of D. The energy transfer process would be coupled by spin and distribution of angular momentum between the initially excited He-4* at a high spin state and the electrons of the system and maybe the various Ni nuclei in the system. Nuclear-magnetic spin of nuclei is of course coupled to electromagnetic irradiation signals in MRI technology. The math must be well established. These fragmentation products release about 11 MeV/fragment. Please tell me how spin state coupling can transfer this amount of energy. Even adding a p to Ni requires about 6 MeV be dissipated. I know of no example of this much energy being transferred by any kind of coupling mechanism. Do you? Ed Storms Again spin state coupling with appropriate energy transfer should be explored in theory--this is above my head. Do you know if anyone has looked at this? Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems Bob and Eric, the issue of transmutation is basic to understanding LENR. First of all, transmutation has a very high barrier requiring an explanation of how this can be overcome. Second, the resulting energy has to be dissipated in ways known to be possible. I propose the hydrogen fusion process provides the required energy and dissipates much of the excess mass-energy. In other words, transmutation can not occur unless fusion is taking place at the same time and place in the material. We now know that two kinds of transmutation occur. Iwamura shows that D can be added to a target resulting in a stable heavier product. Most other claims for transmutation are based on fragments of Pd being found. Explaining these two different results is the challenge. In the case of Ni+H, I propose the p-e-p fusion process deposits the resulting d in the Ni nucleus, resulting in fragmentation of the product in order to dissipate the excess mass-energy. I believe 2d enter all isotopes of Ni when the fusion reaction is operating. As a result, the 1.9 MeV obtained from the p-e-p reaction is added to any energy resulting from occasional transmutation. When the Ni fissions, it must conserve n and p, which produces a distribution of products that can be calculated. This calculation shows a distribution that is consistent with what is reported and reveals Ni-58 to be the most active isotope for energy production. I will provide much more detail and justification in my book. Meanwhile, you might consider this proposed process. I propose transmutation takes place in the Rossi cell, but he has incorrectly identified its source and incorrectly attributed the energy to transmutation. I propose most energy results from p-e-p=d fusion, with transmutation resulting from fission of Ni adding only a minor amount of energy. If this is the case, focus on Ni is a waste of time. Ed Storms On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Eric-- Your bring up some interesting questions about the Rossi reactor. The information I have included come from Rossi and Focardi's international patent application noted below. 1. Is Rossi separating Ni isotopes for the Ni he uses in the reactor? This would be expensive. The natural isotopic abundances are: Ni-58, 68.08%; Ni-59, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 80,000 years; Ni 60, 26.22%; Ni-61, 1.14%; Ni-62, 3.63%; Ni-63, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 92 years; Ni-64, 0.93%. I would pick Ni-60 because it is more than one transmutation (Ni- proton fusion) away from a radioactive residue. 2. Is there radioactive ash (Ni-59 or Ni-63) left in the spent reactors? Rossi and Focardi seem to contradict themselves with the statements below: ...we believe that form of energy involved is nuclear, and more specifically, due to fusion processes between protons and Nickel nuclei. They are exothermic with an energy release in the range 3-7,5 MeV, depending on the Nickel isotope involved. No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process. This information attributed to Focardi and Rossi comes from their instructive statements, which suggest the nuclear Ni-proton fusion, in the following paper: A new energy source from nuclear fusion S. Focardi(1) and A. Rossi(2)--(1)Physics Department Bologna
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
It is wonderful in a way, but why not build a desktop version? Even if it produces only milliwatts excess, if it can overcome friction and keep going it will convince everyone. After the superconducting supercollider was abandoned, some Young Turk physicists began to rethink the whole idea. I read that some of them have come up with desktop-scale machines that accomplish some of the goals of the supercollider. That's how you are supposed to do science. I wish Rossi would scale down. His 1 MW reactor was, in its own way, as nutty as the RAR megamachine or the supercollider. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
I wrote: It is wonderful in a way, but why not build a desktop version? Even if it produces only milliwatts excess, if it can overcome friction and keep going it will convince everyone. Maybe it can't overcome friction? Maybe the gadget resembles a Tokamak, as in: You can't make a small one work. It's gotta be big. Or to paraphrase the potato chip commercial, you can't heat just one. You can make a small plasma machine. I don't recall why ITER has to be so big. Is that the only size that can be self-sustaining, with a fully ignited reaction? That is weird. I get that a star has to be big, but why a Tokamak? And why do they make laser fusion gadgets so huge? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NOVA_laser.jpg Note the person in the middle, looking up at the boxes. Question: What is he thinking? Can anyone supply a punch line? How about: It is true what they say. These things *do* look like Rossi's 1 MW reactor modules. You don't suppose?!? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:An Open Letter
Dear Peter, I like your letter. I am glad Athena has been consulting with you. The problem is that politics is involved. I have tried, for almost as long as you have done work in different areas, to move that hindrance out of the way. However, it seems as if when an organization (in a very generic meaning) grows larger than ten individuals that decease (politics) will take over common sense and then . . . I think that if your letter does not work I will call in Thor and Sleipner:). It might scare someone to action - let me know if you need support. Good Luck. BTW realism is built on dreams. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends, I think/hope Big Money is able to help both Deep Science and Savior Technology to achiev their aims and I have written: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/02/open-letter-to-bill-gates.html I am tired of being a realist all the time. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
Jed wrote: It is wonderful in a way, but why not build a desktop version? Even if it produces only milliwatts excess, if it can overcome friction and keep going it will convince everyone. They claimed they had a small model working first. I think you need something bigger to be believed and attract attention. There are several small magnet motors that the inventors claim work but no one believes them.
Re: [Vo]:So close but so far away ... or was it?
Some years ago I was on a Church walk and got chatting with an elderly gentleman from the Church and I found that he had been a metallergist, so we got to talking about LENR. It turned out that in the 50's he had been working on a project that involved hydrogen and palladium and noticed a number of anomolous effects. For various reasons which he explained, and which I can no longer remember they decided not to pursue this. He said that he was not suprised at the Pons and Fleischmann developments many years later, but was unaware of the continuing work. As you say, so close, but so far away... Nigel On 07/02/2014 21:24, Jones Beene wrote: http://www.google/patents/US4489049 In 1982 - several years before PF made the big splash, scientists working under US Navy contracts filed for what became US 4489049 for Solid state hydrogen pumping and storage material. Abstract: A solid-state hydrogen storage system. A layer of an amorphous binary metal alloy of a lanthanide and iron, nickel or cobalt is disposed on a suitable substrate and overcoated with palladium metal. Geeze, it would be a bit of a surprise, thirty+ years thereafter to learn that the nickel version of this hydrogen pump did not produce some small amount of anomalous heat. Of course, there would have been no reason to look for excess heat, at that time, but who knows how careful they were in the details? Funny that years later, on the cancellation of SPAWAR some doubts linger as to ultimate motivations and to what could be going on behind the scenes. Yet, on or about early November 2011, one Rear Admiral Patrick Brady, commander of SPAWAR, ordered researchers to terminate all LENR research. He may or may not have initiated the order, but one is left to wonders where Brady, or his superior, was located in 1982 and was he involved in continuing RD on the hydrogen storage system ? Anyway, his order came about a week after News broke about Rossi's October, 2011, demonstration of the E-Cat. Probably no connection just a coincidence... nothing to see here, please move on. Let's turn this over to the conspiracy theorists now so that it will be certain to be discredited as with the rest of LENR... Jones
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: They claimed they had a small model working first. I think you need something bigger to be believed and attract attention. Okay, but surely not THIS big! There are several small magnet motors that the inventors claim work but no one believes them. Many people would believe them if they would perform a proper demonstration. It is not difficult to define what constitutes proper in this context. Let it run for a long time on a glass table. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
Jed wrote: Okay, but surely not THIS big! Ah, but you missed the bit about getting attention. AA There are several small magnet motors that the inventors claim work but no one believes them. Many people would believe them if they would perform a proper demonstration. It is not difficult to define what constitutes proper in this context. Let it run for a long time on a glass table. There is always some claim. It has a battery hidden in it etc. If some recognized university would run a test they might be believed, but it is beneath their dignity or they don't want to be seen considering something contrary to mainstream theories. LENR is a good example.
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Let it run for a long time on a glass table. There is always some claim. It has a battery hidden in it etc. It is easy to eliminate that objection. Weigh the entire device and compute how much energy it could hold if the entire device is a battery. I am not sympathetic to inventors who will not make such an obvious demonstration and evaluation because they say there will be objections like this. It is easy to overrule such objections. If some recognized university would run a test they might be believed, but it is beneath their dignity or they don't want to be seen considering something contrary to mainstream theories. LENR is a good example. It is not a good example because many recognized universities did test LENR, and they did confirm it and publish confirmations. That has not happened with a single magnetic motor. If one of them is real, I am confident the inventor could convince people such as me, and I -- in turn -- could probably convince others to look at it. I could probably get it funded. That is more important than convincing university professors. Actually, the person you want to convince is Terry Blanton. He is our resident expert in magnetic motors. He says he looked at some of them closely and found they did not work. I doubt they work. They violate the conservation of energy, unlike LENR. All the above also applies to gravity driven motors. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Ed--Bob Cook here Thanks for you response. I need a little more time to think about your ideas. I need to look at the respective products you identify and the likely other respective fission pieces to see if I agree with what you say makes sense. Just roughly thinking, I would expect a neutron or 2 and maybe an alpha in such a fission process. Is there a good reference on what you call rules of nuclear chemistry? Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems On Feb 7, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed-- One simple question--In all the Ni-H systems has there been a good evaluation of the residuel radioactivity? Bob, evidence shows that when Pd or Ni experience transmutation, the resulting nucleus breaks into two parts. These two parts are not radioactive. In other words, the system tries to dissipate all the energy while producing nuclei that have no residual energy, i.e. are not radioactive. Addition of 2(p-e-p) to Ni results is a distribution of stable products, with O, Mg, Si, S Ca, and Ti being the most frequent. Si is matched with S. Prompt alpha emission also occurs leaving behind Ni. This process results from the normal rules of nuclear chemistry. NO copper isotopes are formed. The detected copper has normal isotopic composition, which is not possible to produce from transmutation. I suspect copper results from contamination by materials in the cell. If copper formed, the nucleus would have no way to dissipate the energy, which is essential. What do you mean by fragmentation and Ni fission? For example, what are possible fission products? Lighter isotopes which are radioactively stable? Is the fission process like the reaction of a neutron with U-235 producing fragments with kinetic energy, or do the fragments merely stay put. However, If what you suggest happens, i.e. the introduction of d to the Ni nuclei, why not the following reactions?: Ni-58 goes to Cu-60 (radioactive) Ni-60 goes to Cu-62 (radioactive) Ni-61 goes to Cu-63 (stable) Ni-62 goes to Cu-64 (radioactive) and Ni-64 goes to Cu-66 (radioactive). All the radioactive Cu isotopes emit electrons or positrons and additional x-rays or soft gammas to boot, in addition to the .51 mev x-ray associated with positrons-electron reaction. Cu short-lived activity should be seen if the D-Ni reaction occurs. Rossi and Focardi did not appear to advocate such reactions. And I would have estimated that they would have looked for them. Remember they indicated no residual activity and did not mention the P-e-P reaction in their patent application. . This is true. They clearly have no understanding of nuclear chemistry. They saw transmutation produced and from this observation ASSUMED that heat resulted from transmutation because they found the p-e-p reaction impossible to explain. My approach is to violate as few basic laws as possible and to find an internally consistent process. That goal involves d-e-d, d-e-p and p-e-p type reactions. In addition, transmutation requires energy that is only available from the fusion reaction. These conclusions lead logically to a model that can explain all observations without ad hoc assumptions or using novel processes. Unfortunately, the justification and details require a book to explain, so don't expect a proof here. Ed Storms Focardi must surely have known about it--the P-e-P reaction. Everything I have heard Focardi say and write has made sense to me and has seemed to be without obfuscation. (I cannot say this for hot fusion advocates and the APS establishment.) However, it would not be the first time I was wrong. A mentor once said it takes $1,000,000 worth of mistakes to make a good engineer, and that was in the late 60's. Luckily I do not have to worry about the issues Hagelstein and others make about my future career. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems Bob and Eric, the issue of transmutation is basic to understanding LENR. First of all, transmutation has a very high barrier requiring an explanation of how this can be overcome. Second, the resulting energy has to be dissipated in ways known to be possible. I propose the hydrogen fusion process provides the required energy and dissipates much of the excess mass-energy. In other words, transmutation can not occur unless fusion is taking place at the same time and place in the material. We now know that two kinds of transmutation occur. Iwamura shows that D can be added to a target resulting in a
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: And why do they make laser fusion gadgets so huge? Because only the big ones cost billions of dollars. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: Rossi has stated that he starts with 10 micron sized particles (since identified as a nickel powder produced from the carbonyl process), adds a catalyst (widely believed to be a nanopowder of some kind), and processes the mix in a way that leads to amplified tubercles on the surface. Thanks for the helpful clarification. I didn't realize that. The main reference I have found is Hank Mills's PESN article [1]. I'm curious where Mills got this information. It sounds like you have made a lot of progress on getting an NiH reactor set up. Have you seen anything interesting? Eric [1] http://pesn.com/2012/01/02/9601998_Defkalion_Claims_No_Problem_with_Revealing_Cold_Fusion_Catalyst/
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: 1. Is Rossi separating Ni isotopes for the Ni he uses in the reactor? This would be expensive. I can only imagine. I'm not sure how one would go about enriching select isotopes of nickel. Perhaps they have sufficiently different properties to make separation straightforward? (E.g., maybe the spin-0 claim one hears occasionally in connection with some isotopes, which is something I know nothing about, can be made use of.) Hank Mills reports that Rossi has found a cheap way to enrich the nickel, although I do not have an opinion about this [1]. 2. Is there radioactive ash (Ni-59 or Ni-63) left in the spent reactors? I was thinking of radioactive species of copper and zinc, primarily. By contrast, I believe 62Ni and 64Ni would go to stable isotopes of copper after proton capture. In natural abundance, 58Ni is the most prevalent, at 68 percent: p + 58Ni → 59Cu + ɣ + Q (2.9 MeV) Here 59Cu is an unstable species which will beta-plus decay to 59Ni, which will then transition to 59Co via electron capture. I believe it will be accompanied by an Auger cascade, so there will be lots of activity taken together. By contrast, p + 62Ni → 63Cu + ɣ + Q (5.6 MeV) Here 63Cu is a stable isotope. If one assumes the ɣ is somehow being fractionated as a large set of lower-energy photons through some as-yet discovered mechanism, as I suspect is happening (I'm rooting for an interaction with the electronic structure, here), then you want 62Ni and 64Ni, because there will be no activity with these isotopes afterwards. Using nickel in its natural isotopes will be like banging the keys on a piano -- there will be lots of noise leaving the system. My final observation is that the Rossi-Focardi comment that there is no radioactivity in the residue needs to be checked. Yes, very much so. This is one of those mutating details, subject to a mysterious law of entropy, where one doesn't know what to believe. In a related connection, I recall an anecdote of an experiment by one of the Italian researchers, perhaps Piantelli, where some nickel that had been undergoing a reaction was placed in a cloud chamber and all kinds of activity was seen. If there is proton capture happening at a significant level, and there is no activity, my guess is that this would be primarily because Rossi has succeeded in enriching the nickel to suitable isotopes to a high degree. But my understanding is that it is also the case that in PdD experiments, transmutations are often seen to stable isotopes, so there may be something inherent to cold fusion that leads to stable isotopes, mitigating perhaps the need for enrichment to very high levels. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Agreed. The issue of a “nearly complete lack” of transmutation in many types of Ni-H is revealing. Rossi has claimed this: THE AMOUNT OF COPPER WE FIND AFTER 6 MONTHS OF OPERATION IS OF ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE THAT THE IMPURITIES IN THE 99. Ni WE USE. [1] This is from an article by Matts Lewans: Analyses of the nickel powder used in Rossi’s energy catalyzer show that a large amount of copper is formed. Sven Kullander considers this to be evidence of a nuclear reaction. [2] There are many other similar, suggestive statements out there. I think it is hard to justify the conclusion that there is almost no transmutation being seen in Rossi's device. It the excess heat is a million times more than can be accounted for by a tiny amount of transmutation, then the explanation leans one way. This is a finding from (probably low-gain) PdD research. There is little to conclude about NiH, as far as I can tell. Keep in mind that in PdD d+d fusion may be more energetically favorable than transmutation, by way of whatever magic is happening that is causing cold fusion. Transmutation does not happen without measureable levels of radiation, such as would be seen on the meters of Bianchini, with his expert qualifications. This is a reasonable expectation, but I think the conclusion is too pat. It is possible that a combination of enrichment on Rossi's part and a natural mechanism that favors stable isotopes in LENR are sufficient to keep the activity down if you do your prep work correctly. Bottom line – the Rossi reaction is most likely a reaction which fundamentally does not involve either high energy photons or transmutation. Sure -- everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and we grant you the same. Eric [1] http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=395cpage=1#comment-20859 [2] http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Ed--Bob Cook here Spin states of a quantum system reflect the angular momentum of the system and hence the energy associated with that angular momentum. High spin quantum numbers reflect the higher energy of the system. The allowable states are quantized. In magnetic fields the direction of the spin is controlled more or less depending upon the field strength. The allowable number of states is reduced from the situation where there is no magnetic field. Resonant magnetic oscillating fields input to a nucleus with a magnetic moment and non-zero spin state for its ground state, can add energy to the quantum system by changing the spin number of the quantum system. This is the basis for the MRI technology which is an accounting of the energy absorption at a given resonance frequency at well determined locations, identifying the nucleus with the specific resonance frequency absorption . If there is spin coupling, (a basic assumption is that spin is conserved in any nuclear reaction at the end of the reaction) a coupling between various particles subject to integer, J, quantum seems probable. Thus, any He-4* with a high spin integer J quantum number and excess energy--say 10 mev--would distribute this high angular momentum to electrons or other particles in the quantum system--all the many electrons and particles at the same time. The electrons (and other particles) in turn would distribute their excess spin energy (angular momentum) to the lattice as electromagnetic field oscillations or radiation and hence lattice heat. In the end the net spin would be what it was to start with. The reaction would be fast and cause results of the distribution of quantum angular momentum and lattice motion instantaneously. No energetic (kinetic energy) particles are involved, only angular momentum with its corresponding rotational energy. The rotational energy may actually be rotating electric and or magnetic fields associated with the particle with the high spin quantum state. Again I do not understand the details of spin coupling, the actual timing nor the most likely fractionation of the spin/angular momentum among the particles of the quantum system. The basic idea is that the energy associated with the mass loss first shows up as angular momentum or spin of the newly found He-4* and this spin is distributed to the rest of the system. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems On Feb 7, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed--Bob Cook here-- Another question is if D is formed in the Ni-H system as you propose, why not the generation of He-4 as in the Pd system without the nasty fragmentation or fission of the Ni? That answer is too complicated to explain here. That is why the book is required. Take my word for the present that I have a good reason for this model. The key to controlling the Rossi process maybe controlling the formation of D. The energy transfer process would be coupled by spin and distribution of angular momentum between the initially excited He-4* at a high spin state and the electrons of the system and maybe the various Ni nuclei in the system. Nuclear-magnetic spin of nuclei is of course coupled to electromagnetic irradiation signals in MRI technology. The math must be well established. These fragmentation products release about 11 MeV/fragment. Please tell me how spin state coupling can transfer this amount of energy. Even adding a p to Ni requires about 6 MeV be dissipated. I know of no example of this much energy being transferred by any kind of coupling mechanism. Do you? Ed Storms Again spin state coupling with appropriate energy transfer should be explored in theory--this is above my head. Do you know if anyone has looked at this? Bob - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems Bob and Eric, the issue of transmutation is basic to understanding LENR. First of all, transmutation has a very high barrier requiring an explanation of how this can be overcome. Second, the resulting energy has to be dissipated in ways known to be possible. I propose the hydrogen fusion process provides the required energy and dissipates much of the excess mass-energy. In other words, transmutation can not occur unless fusion is taking place at the same time and place in the material. We now know that two kinds of transmutation occur. Iwamura shows that D can be added to a target resulting in a stable heavier product. Most other claims for transmutation are based on fragments of Pd being found. Explaining these two
Re: [Vo]:So close but so far away ... or was it?
Jones-- Bob Cook here-- I doubt there was no connection. I would guess the work at SPAWAR became a black project. LENR clearly has potential for ship propulsion and other high energy density fuel needs in the Navy. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 1:24 PM Subject: [Vo]:So close but so far away ... or was it? http://www.google/patents/US4489049 In 1982 - several years before PF made the big splash, scientists working under US Navy contracts filed for what became US 4489049 for Solid state hydrogen pumping and storage material. Abstract: A solid-state hydrogen storage system. A layer of an amorphous binary metal alloy of a lanthanide and iron, nickel or cobalt is disposed on a suitable substrate and overcoated with palladium metal. Geeze, it would be a bit of a surprise, thirty+ years thereafter to learn that the nickel version of this hydrogen pump did not produce some small amount of anomalous heat. Of course, there would have been no reason to look for excess heat, at that time, but who knows how careful they were in the details? Funny that years later, on the cancellation of SPAWAR some doubts linger as to ultimate motivations and to what could be going on behind the scenes. Yet, on or about early November 2011, one Rear Admiral Patrick Brady, commander of SPAWAR, ordered researchers to terminate all LENR research. He may or may not have initiated the order, but one is left to wonders where Brady, or his superior, was located in 1982 and was he involved in continuing RD on the hydrogen storage system ? Anyway, his order came about a week after News broke about Rossi's October, 2011, demonstration of the E-Cat. Probably no connection just a coincidence... nothing to see here, please move on. Let's turn this over to the conspiracy theorists now so that it will be certain to be discredited as with the rest of LENR... Jones
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: NO copper isotopes are formed. The detected copper has normal isotopic composition, which is not possible to produce from transmutation. I suspect copper results from contamination by materials in the cell. You may have jumped to a conclusion on this one on the basis of some low-gain nickel research. I do not think we can conclude that no copper is ever formed, if Rossi's statements are to be taken at face value. In addition, transmutation requires energy that is only available from the fusion reaction. This is an assumption. My intuition tells me that an arbitrarily high potential can form during a transient between two electrically insulated grain boundaries as well, and some interesting things can happen in that connection, although I am not yet able to characterize this system. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Even adding a p to Ni requires about 6 MeV be dissipated. I know of no example of this much energy being transferred by any kind of coupling mechanism. Do you? That is the question that once answered will win someone the Nobel prize. I assume that something like this is happening. I assume that the person who wins the Nobel prize will be a mainstream physicist who repackages something that was haphazardly mentioned on this list without giving or perhaps even knowing to give credit, long after people have forgotten about this list. Eric
[Vo]:Not from Fusion paper by Steven Jones
http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischman n_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/StevenJonesSeminarAtUnivMissouriOct2012.pdf This is a perspective which goes back before PF - some on Vortex will not like to revisit. The most interesting finding is the RF signature - which is seen with a very good correspondence to the excess heat spikes. This is from the collapse of the magnetic field, so that ties in with recent threads here. Worth a read - no matter what your feeling are towards the author. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Not from Fusion paper by Steven Jones
The link does not work for me. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 7, 2014 11:53 pm Subject: [Vo]:Not from Fusion paper by Steven Jones http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischman n_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/StevenJonesSeminarAtUnivMissouriOct2012.pdf This is a perspective which goes back before PF - some on Vortex will not like to revisit. The most interesting finding is the RF signature - which is seen with a very good correspondence to the excess heat spikes. This is from the collapse of the magnetic field, so that ties in with recent threads here. Worth a read - no matter what your feeling are towards the author.
RE: [Vo]:So close but so far away ... or was it?
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook Jones-- Bob Cook here-- I doubt there was no connection. I would guess the work at SPAWAR became a black project. LENR clearly has potential for ship propulsion and other high energy density fuel needs in the Navy. Bob, Yes - that is my feeling as well (no proof whatsoever, other than coincidence) and deconstruction based on depth or interest (no pun intended). In fact the seeds of a putative black project could go back to before PF. That was why I brought up that particular patent, but it could have been based on something else which was found in Naval RD as a consequence of say- torpedoes powered by hydrogen. - Original Message - From: Jones Beene http://www.google/patents/US4489049 In 1982 - several years before PF made the big splash, scientists working under US Navy contracts filed for what became US 4489049 for Solid state hydrogen pumping and storage material. Abstract: A solid-state hydrogen storage system. A layer of an amorphous binary metal alloy of a lanthanide and iron, nickel or cobalt is disposed on a suitable substrate and overcoated with palladium metal. Geeze, it would be a bit of a surprise, thirty+ years thereafter to learn that the nickel version of this hydrogen pump did not produce some small amount of anomalous heat. Of course, there would have been no reason to look for excess heat, at that time, but who knows how careful they were in the details? Funny that years later, on the cancellation of SPAWAR some doubts linger as to ultimate motivations and to what could be going on behind the scenes. Yet, on or about early November 2011, one Rear Admiral Patrick Brady, commander of SPAWAR, ordered researchers to terminate all LENR research. He may or may not have initiated the order, but one is left to wonders where Brady, or his superior, was located in 1982 and was he involved in continuing RD on the hydrogen storage system ? Anyway, his order came about a week after News broke about Rossi's October, 2011, demonstration of the E-Cat. Probably no connection just a coincidence... nothing to see here, please move on. Let's turn this over to the conspiracy theorists now so that it will be certain to be discredited as with the rest of LENR... Jones
RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Yes Rossi did promote Ni-Cu at one time, but it is not his current spiel. AFAIK – since the death of Focardi, Rossi no longer strongly promotes any theory for gain - but it may still be on his blog. Kullander also admitted the copper found was of natural isotope distribution. Copper is well-known to migrate by thermal diffusion rapidly by when in contact with other metals and heated. Rossi probably now realizes this. Rossi’s old reactors were made largely of copper alloy. Any copper found would of necessity have to be radioactive, if from transmutation – and since it was not radioactive, nor in an anomalous isotope distribution – then it had to be from migration instead. From: Eric Walker Jones Beene wrote: Agreed. The issue of a “nearly complete lack” of transmutation in many types of Ni-H is revealing. Rossi has claimed this: THE AMOUNT OF COPPER WE FIND AFTER 6 MONTHS OF OPERATION IS OF ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE THAT THE IMPURITIES IN THE 99. Ni WE USE. [1] This is from an article by Matts Lewans: Analyses of the nickel powder used in Rossi’s energy catalyzer show that a large amount of copper is formed. Sven Kullander considers this to be evidence of a nuclear reaction. [2] There are many other similar, suggestive statements out there. I think it is hard to justify the conclusion that there is almost no transmutation being seen in Rossi's device. It the excess heat is a million times more than can be accounted for by a tiny amount of transmutation, then the explanation leans one way. This is a finding from (probably low-gain) PdD research. There is little to conclude about NiH, as far as I can tell. Keep in mind that in PdD d+d fusion may be more energetically favorable than transmutation, by way of whatever magic is happening that is causing cold fusion. Transmutation does not happen without measureable levels of radiation, such as would be seen on the meters of Bianchini, with his expert qualifications. This is a reasonable expectation, but I think the conclusion is too pat. It is possible that a combination of enrichment on Rossi's part and a natural mechanism that favors stable isotopes in LENR are sufficient to keep the activity down if you do your prep work correctly. Bottom line – the Rossi reaction is most likely a reaction which fundamentally does not involve either high energy photons or transmutation. Sure -- everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and we grant you the same. Eric [1] http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=395cpage=1#comment-20859 http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=395cpage=1 [2] http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Not from Fusion paper by Steven Jones
You may have the plain text truncation problem. If you are using plain text: Instead of clicking - copy this entire string all the way to pdf and paste it in the address bar http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischman n_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/StevenJonesSeminarAtUnivMissouriOct2012.pdf From: David Roberson The link does not work for me. -Original Message- This is a perspective which goes back before PF - some on Vortex will not like to revisit. The most interesting finding is the RF signature - which is seen with a very good correspondence to the excess heat spikes. This is from the collapse of the magnetic field, so that ties in with recent threads here. Worth a read - no matter what your feeling are towards the author.
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Bob, I like your approach. In june I whimsically imagined all the resulting energy of fusion being transformed into He with linear momentum. This would preserve conservation energy but violate conservation of momentum. At the time it did not occur to me that the energy could be transformed into angular momentum and thereby preserve conservation of momentum. Harry On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Ed--Bob Cook here Spin states of a quantum system reflect the angular momentum of the system and hence the energy associated with that angular momentum. High spin quantum numbers reflect the higher energy of the system. The allowable states are quantized. In magnetic fields the direction of the spin is controlled more or less depending upon the field strength. The allowable number of states is reduced from the situation where there is no magnetic field. Resonant magnetic oscillating fields input to a nucleus with a magnetic moment and non-zero spin state for its ground state, can add energy to the quantum system by changing the spin number of the quantum system. This is the basis for the MRI technology which is an accounting of the energy absorption at a given resonance frequency at well determined locations, identifying the nucleus with the specific resonance frequency absorption . If there is spin coupling, (a basic assumption is that spin is conserved in any nuclear reaction at the end of the reaction) a coupling between various particles subject to integer, J, quantum seems probable. Thus, any He-4* with a high spin integer J quantum number and excess energy--say 10 mev--would distribute this high angular momentum to electrons or other particles in the quantum system--all the many electrons and particles at the same time. The electrons (and other particles) in turn would distribute their excess spin energy (angular momentum) to the lattice as electromagnetic field oscillations or radiation and hence lattice heat. In the end the net spin would be what it was to start with. The reaction would be fast and cause results of the distribution of quantum angular momentum and lattice motion instantaneously. No energetic (kinetic energy) particles are involved, only angular momentum with its corresponding rotational energy. The rotational energy may actually be rotating electric and or magnetic fields associated with the particle with the high spin quantum state. Again I do not understand the details of spin coupling, the actual timing nor the most likely fractionation of the spin/angular momentum among the particles of the quantum system. The basic idea is that the energy associated with the mass loss first shows up as angular momentum or spin of the newly found He-4* and this spin is distributed to the rest of the system. Bob Cook - Original Message - *From:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Sent:* Friday, February 07, 2014 2:34 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems On Feb 7, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed--Bob Cook here-- Another question is if D is formed in the Ni-H system as you propose, why not the generation of He-4 as in the Pd system without the nasty fragmentation or fission of the Ni? That answer is too complicated to explain here. That is why the book is required. Take my word for the present that I have a good reason for this model. The key to controlling the Rossi process maybe controlling the formation of D. The energy transfer process would be coupled by spin and distribution of angular momentum between the initially excited He-4* at a high spin state and the electrons of the system and maybe the various Ni nuclei in the system. Nuclear-magnetic spin of nuclei is of course coupled to electromagnetic irradiation signals in MRI technology. The math must be well established. These fragmentation products release about 11 MeV/fragment. Please tell me how spin state coupling can transfer this amount of energy. Even adding a p to Ni requires about 6 MeV be dissipated. I know of no example of this much energy being transferred by any kind of coupling mechanism. Do you? Ed Storms Again spin state coupling with appropriate energy transfer should be explored in theory--this is above my head. Do you know if anyone has looked at this? Bob - Original Message - *From:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Sent:* Friday, February 07, 2014 10:32 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems Bob and Eric, the issue of transmutation is basic to understanding LENR. First of all, transmutation has a very high barrier requiring an explanation of how this can be overcome. Second, the resulting energy has to be dissipated in ways known to be possible. I propose
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Eric--Bob Cook here-- It may be that laser radiation at selected frequencies could activate organic Ni compounds selectively based on the mass of the Ni isotope. The activation may be ionization or other molecular changes to increase or decrease solubility and the opportunity for separation. Selective activation may also be possible via the magnetic properties of the respective Ni isotopes with oscillating magnetic fields I think you have the decay scheme for Ni-59 wrong. It has a 76,000 year half life and decays by electron capture as you said. The data I have indicate no gamma activity, in the transition to the Cu-59 nucleus. This is unusual situation that the new nucleus is not formed in an excited state. This is a nice feature of Ni-59, and it should cause no problems. Ni-59 does have a neutron activation cross section, and checking for it in reactor residue should not be to difficult. One would use neutron activation with gamma evaluation of the activated product.One would need to use a research reactor for a source of neutrons like the U of Missouri has. Bob Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 8:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: 1. Is Rossi separating Ni isotopes for the Ni he uses in the reactor? This would be expensive. I can only imagine. I'm not sure how one would go about enriching select isotopes of nickel. Perhaps they have sufficiently different properties to make separation straightforward? (E.g., maybe the spin-0 claim one hears occasionally in connection with some isotopes, which is something I know nothing about, can be made use of.) Hank Mills reports that Rossi has found a cheap way to enrich the nickel, although I do not have an opinion about this [1]. 2. Is there radioactive ash (Ni-59 or Ni-63) left in the spent reactors? I was thinking of radioactive species of copper and zinc, primarily. By contrast, I believe 62Ni and 64Ni would go to stable isotopes of copper after proton capture. In natural abundance, 58Ni is the most prevalent, at 68 percent: p + 58Ni → 59Cu + ɣ + Q (2.9 MeV) Here 59Cu is an unstable species which will beta-plus decay to 59Ni, which will then transition to 59Co via electron capture. I believe it will be accompanied by an Auger cascade, so there will be lots of activity taken together. By contrast, p + 62Ni → 63Cu + ɣ + Q (5.6 MeV) Here 63Cu is a stable isotope. If one assumes the ɣ is somehow being fractionated as a large set of lower-energy photons through some as-yet discovered mechanism, as I suspect is happening (I'm rooting for an interaction with the electronic structure, here), then you want 62Ni and 64Ni, because there will be no activity with these isotopes afterwards. Using nickel in its natural isotopes will be like banging the keys on a piano -- there will be lots of noise leaving the system. My final observation is that the Rossi-Focardi comment that there is no radioactivity in the residue needs to be checked. Yes, very much so. This is one of those mutating details, subject to a mysterious law of entropy, where one doesn't know what to believe. In a related connection, I recall an anecdote of an experiment by one of the Italian researchers, perhaps Piantelli, where some nickel that had been undergoing a reaction was placed in a cloud chamber and all kinds of activity was seen. If there is proton capture happening at a significant level, and there is no activity, my guess is that this would be primarily because Rossi has succeeded in enriching the nickel to suitable isotopes to a high degree. But my understanding is that it is also the case that in PdD experiments, transmutations are often seen to stable isotopes, so there may be something inherent to cold fusion that leads to stable isotopes, mitigating perhaps the need for enrichment to very high levels. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I think you have the decay scheme for Ni-59 wrong. It has a 76,000 year half life and decays by electron capture as you said. It's good that you seem to know your way around these nuclear transitions. That makes you and Robin and a few others who can keep the rest of us honest. The data I have indicate no gamma activity, in the transition to the Cu-59 nucleus. I'm thinking of this reaction: https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/servlet/X4sSearch5?reacc=28-NI-62(P%2CG)29-CU-63%2C%2CSIG What data are you using? Do they include proton capture cross sections? Up to now I have only been able to work out the Q values but have had no insight into the cross sections. The Exfor cross section data are hard to make sense of. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
I wrote: I'm thinking of this reaction: https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/servlet/X4sSearch5?reacc=28-NI-62(P%2CG)29-CU-63%2C%2CSIG Sorry, that should have been: https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/servlet/X4sSearch5?reacc=28-NI-58(P%2CG)29-CU-59%2C%2CSIG Eric
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Eric-- I am looking at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Chart of the Nuclides, Thirteenth Addition Revised as of July 1983. This chart does not include proton capture cross sections. I do not believe I have seen proton capture cross sections for any isotopes. The cross section would have to be a function of the proton energy. The thermal neutron cross section of the proton is 0.333 barns and its integral cross section is 0.150 barns. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I think you have the decay scheme for Ni-59 wrong. It has a 76,000 year half life and decays by electron capture as you said. It's good that you seem to know your way around these nuclear transitions. That makes you and Robin and a few others who can keep the rest of us honest. The data I have indicate no gamma activity, in the transition to the Cu-59 nucleus. I'm thinking of this reaction: https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/servlet/X4sSearch5?reacc=28-NI-62(P%2CG)29-CU-63%2C%2CSIG What data are you using? Do they include proton capture cross sections? Up to now I have only been able to work out the Q values but have had no insight into the cross sections. The Exfor cross section data are hard to make sense of. Eric
Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, the person you want to convince is Terry Blanton. He is our resident expert in magnetic motors. He says he looked at some of them closely and found they did not work. Skeptical by experience. We tested spirals, pulsed, shielded . . . every configuration we could imagine and found them conservative. But, I'm still open if someone has a new idea.
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Eric--Bob here I looked at the link and have now seen a list of cross sections for the Ni-59, P reaction. I must study the protocol for measuring the specified cross sections to understand the sig and dsig data. Off hand I do not understand these labels. My guess is that the energies listed are the average of the data within a 1 sigma band of all the data (and also a 2 sigma band of all the data) at a specified incident proton energy. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems I wrote: I'm thinking of this reaction: https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/servlet/X4sSearch5?reacc=28-NI-62(P%2CG)29-CU-63%2C%2CSIG Sorry, that should have been: https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/servlet/X4sSearch5?reacc=28-NI-58(P%2CG)29-CU-59%2C%2CSIG Eric
Re: [Vo]:Not from Fusion paper by Steven Jones
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischman n_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/StevenJonesSeminarAtUnivMissouriOct2012.pdf This is a perspective which goes back before PF - some on Vortex will not like to revisit. Okay, as long as it does not involve thermite and WTC 4. ;-)
