Re: [Vo]:3D printed car
2k$ cars ? this is what happen in emerging countries with moped and motorbikes, it has much success. 2014-09-21 3:55 GMT+02:00 Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net: Who knows what will happen. $2K cars? Tiny small single-seater vehicles for commuters to drive to work or to the grocery store. Self driving cars? Yea, very likely too. Transportation will evolve. Collectively, we will determine the best course of action. Very few individuals on their own have the capacity to predict what will eventually happen. The unpredictable collective principals of emergence will drive this one, not any single individual. Perhaps a little bit of synchronicity will play mysteriously into the mixture as well. For example... Years ago I was visiting Portland. While there I went into Powells Bookstore. I was wandering aimlessly down a dark isle my hand reached out for a book. I'm not sure what it was about this book that initially caught my eye. However, when I picked it out I noticed the author had spent some time studying the social behavior of ants. He spent some time studying these creature because he was researching the rules of emergence and how those rules play out within complex societies. The mysterious rules of emergence work with all kinds of living creature from all scales, from brain cells, insects, all the way up to humans crammed within a city environment. The subject of ants combined with the concept of emergence piqued my interest. I recalled as a young teenager I had studied the hive minded behavior of social insects - like ants. I managed several ant farms which included the queen. Sometimes I spent hours watching the collective behavior of these creatures with a powerful magnifying glass. Returning back to the present I was curious as to who the author was. Was it anyone I knew? Here is the author talking about his book on emergence at a TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_johnson_on_the_web_as_a_city?language=en Other than the fact that I could not rid myself of a feeling that the equally mysterious rules of synchronicity had perhaps played an amusing game with my psyche, the author bares no relation with me whatsoever. Granted, I realize I'm anthropomorphizing the behavior of the Universe. But what the hell. The universe plays tricks with me all the time. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Geyser Reactor Cascades / Transmutation System
Hi, I'm not sure if this was discussed here earlier, but I came across this website describing The Geyser Reactor Transmutation System. Seen in the light of presumed transmutation in the E-cat this might be interesting stuff to relate to. Ref. http://www.human-resonance.org/geyser_reactor.html Kind regards, Rob Dingemans
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Secondly, and most importantly - the neutron of the deuteron offers Coulomb shielding. Can you elaborate on this? I would have expected the neutron to be more or less invisible, as far as the Coulomb field is concerned. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
From: Eric Walker Secondly, and most importantly - the neutron of the deuteron offers Coulomb shielding. Can you elaborate on this? I would have expected the neutron to be more or less invisible, as far as the Coulomb field is concerned. Eric Of course, the neutron looks to be neutral – from a distance, so it's not generally expected to shield anything massively in the same way that magnetism is shielded by a high mu metal or a dielectric shields against an electrostatic field. But both of those mechanisms may offer a clue. Unless, of course, the neutron has a significant dipole moment or a significant near-field charge, so that is aligns geometrically between the proton and the approaching nickel nucleus – to partially shield in the same way a dielectric would. The strong force is so much stronger than electrical repulsion, that any small effect can make a difference at close range. This may an open matter, as to whether current theory suggests the dipole moment of the neutron may be nonzero (does anyone know for sure?) but the neutron is reported to have a negative near-field, which means that it could provide some degree of shielding effect – certainly the electrostatic field lines are much different than with a bare proton. I do not have a handy reference for the proof of a neutron near-field, so this should be double checked. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The strong force is so much stronger than electrical repulsion, that any small effect can make a difference at close range. If the possible Coulomb shielding effect from the neutron works at the same range as the strong force (i.e., is quite short-range), then I think the deuterons needed for the proposed bosonic deuteron capture will require a kinetic energy that is on the same order as that for neutron stripping via the Oppenheimer-Phillips process. Eric
[Vo]:what's impossible in LENR?
Dear Friends, It is nasty rainy Sunday and I am depressive. I have just published http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/09/the-death-of-wet-pdd-was-highly.html Read it with care please it could be contagious. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
Eric, It really gets down to whether the gainful reaction is thermonuclear or quantum mechanical. If you look in the archives, “stripping” was favored by me for many years, and I first introduced it here - but opinions change. Your opinion may not change, but here is what convinced me that there is a better model than stripping. If the gain is QM based – which is to say a type of nuclear tunneling which is different than electron tunneling in semiconductors, then bosons are highly favored to begin with. Horace Heffner use to talk about a QM “slingshot” effect where the positive end (of a cold deuteron) enters the electron cloud of the nickel. This could work with a proton as well but the dynamics change at some point since the proton can go only as deep as the inner electron orbitals, to which it is strongly attracted. Because the deuteron is shaped like a barbell, and has a positive end with long separation to the neutron end, which has a negative near-field, the deuteron can be whipped around in a spinning motion like a slingshot by the inner orbital. Most of the time the positive end of the deuteron is eventually repelled by the heavy nucleus, as the proton is all of the time - but on occasion the neutron-end of the deuteron is aligned perfectly to lead the way into the femtometer geometry of the strong force. The probability of this precise geometry is low, but the transaction rate is high. From: Eric Walker The strong force is so much stronger than electrical repulsion, that any small effect can make a difference at close range. If the possible Coulomb shielding effect from the neutron works at the same range as the strong force (i.e., is quite short-range), then I think the deuterons needed for the proposed bosonic deuteron capture will require a kinetic energy that is on the same order as that for neutron stripping via the Oppenheimer-Phillips process. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If you look in the archives, “stripping” was favored by me for many years, and I first introduced it here - but opinions change. The first reference I saw to the OP process was from a thread between you and Abd Lomax, in 2010, in which you appeared to have introduced the possibility. In these posts I give credit to you: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg92455.html https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg92381.html If the gain is QM based – which is to say a type of nuclear tunneling which is different than electron tunneling in semiconductors, then bosons are highly favored to begin with. Right now I like neutron stripping and the OP process. In the past, in approximate chronological order, I've argued for a kind of nano-Polywell; an ill-conceived dipolariton-based bosonic fusion; Widom-Larsen; p+d fusion in nickel without thought given to the gammas; hidden d+d fusion and Pd-attenuated gammas; deuteron and/or proton capture in nickel; non-equilibrium disruption of the electronic structure of the metal and attending Coulomb screening; d+d fusion through z-pinch in electric arcs together with a new kind of electromagnetic channel that short-circuits the formation of gammas; and now OP and neutron stripping. As I learn more about the relevant physics and see insurmountable problems, I'm willing to switch to a new hypothesis. (I continue to take seriously some of the more recent thought experiments even as I give attention to OP + neutron stripping in the context of nickel.) In this particular case it's not so much about arguing against something that is QM based, in which spin is central, in favor of neutron stripping. I'm addressing an objection you raised earlier on in this thread: Note that stripping is closer to brute force thermodynamics, and unlikely to happen in condensed matter. I'm saying that the same objection applies to the bosonic deuteron capture reaction that you've proposed, because the neutron, as you have clarified, will only screen at short distances. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
Eric - In the end, there’s nothing new under the sun and the best we can do is try to get it right at least once along the pathway. One good thing about a long-running forum, with a heated give-and-take of ideas - is that if you can grasp everyone’s position, even for a few hours, and evolve your own thinking often enough with improvement over time, then eventually … it should be possible to pick and choose among old posts and find one that makes the writer look like a genius. :-) The problem is in making that brilliant post the most recent one! From: Eric Walker If you look in the archives, “stripping” was favored by me for many years, and I first introduced it here - but opinions change. The first reference I saw to the OP process was from a thread between you and Abd Lomax, in 2010, in which you appeared to have introduced the possibility. In these posts I give credit to you: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg92455.html https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg92381.html If the gain is QM based – which is to say a type of nuclear tunneling which is different than electron tunneling in semiconductors, then bosons are highly favored to begin with. Right now I like neutron stripping and the OP process. In the past, in approximate chronological order, I've argued for a kind of nano-Polywell; an ill-conceived dipolariton-based bosonic fusion; Widom-Larsen; p+d fusion in nickel without thought given to the gammas; hidden d+d fusion and Pd-attenuated gammas; deuteron and/or proton capture in nickel; non-equilibrium disruption of the electronic structure of the metal and attending Coulomb screening; d+d fusion through z-pinch in electric arcs together with a new kind of electromagnetic channel that short-circuits the formation of gammas; and now OP and neutron stripping. As I learn more about the relevant physics and see insurmountable problems, I'm willing to switch to a new hypothesis. (I continue to take seriously some of the more recent thought experiments even as I give attention to OP + neutron stripping in the context of nickel.) In this particular case it's not so much about arguing against something that is QM based, in which spin is central, in favor of neutron stripping. I'm addressing an objection you raised earlier on in this thread: Note that stripping is closer to brute force thermodynamics, and unlikely to happen in condensed matter. I'm saying that the same objection applies to the bosonic deuteron capture reaction that you've proposed, because the neutron, as you have clarified, will only screen at short distances. Eric attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:59 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to H Veeder's message of Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:53:37 -0400: Hi, [snip] If hydrinos and deuterinos are both present, perhaps it is possible for the neutron stripping to work in two directions such that a deuterino can give up a neutron to a heavy nucleus and a heavy nucleus can give up a neutron to hydrino. ( I am thinking of a nuclear version of epicatalysis.) Harry A heavy nucleus won't give up a neutron to a Hydrino, because in doing so it would lose about 5-10 MeV, but only gain 2.2 MeV from the formation of the deuteron. That means it is an endothermic reaction, but that doesn't mean it is impossible. I am not implying that neutron stripping should be discarded if the reverse reaction is possible. I mentioned epicatalysis because theoretical research on the subject was recently published in Physical Review E. Along with some empirical evidence the research suggests that deviations of practical significance from the 2nd law of law thermodynamics are possible with epicatalysis : https://www.facebook.com/ParadigmEnergy/posts/249600938581128 Now the theory of epicatalysis is based on chemical activity, but I don't see why the theory could not be broadened to include nuclear activity or other unconventional high energy activity if a given heat anomaly is too large to explain by just chemical activity. A tacit assumption of CF/LENR research is that an anomalous thermal signal will have practical significance if it results from the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy in a one way process. The assumption holds whether the source of energy is nuclear or chemical or some other. Consequently, measured temperature anomalies are suspect until they are supported by additional calorimetry which yields a global temperature rise. If this global temperature rise (excess heat signal) is not found, and measurement error is ruled out, then the temperature anomaly will be classified as a local fluctuation with no practical significance. This interpretation of temperature signals is motivated by the demands of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, if a process like epicatalysis is creating the temperature anomalies then the methods used to measure an excess heat signal need to be reconsidered. Detecting an excess heat signal ordinarily means looking for a global temperature rise which requires that the source of an anomaly be placed in a thermally closed environment since it is assumed the temperature rise is based on the creation of kinetic energy from inside the system. In contradistinction epicatalysis transfers energy from a lower temperature region to a higher temperature region. If the purpose of the enclosure is to detect a global temperature rise none will be found. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
In reply to H Veeder's message of Sun, 21 Sep 2014 17:35:34 -0400: Hi, Nuclear energies are 6 orders of magnitude larger than chemical energies, which I would expect to reduce the chances to the point where it's not even worth considering. However, that said, it should be noted that the same is not always true for reactions where D is converted into T. e.g. the following reaction is exothermic:- 9Be+2H = 4He + 4He + 3H + 4.684 MeV On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:59 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to H Veeder's message of Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:53:37 -0400: Hi, [snip] If hydrinos and deuterinos are both present, perhaps it is possible for the neutron stripping to work in two directions such that a deuterino can give up a neutron to a heavy nucleus and a heavy nucleus can give up a neutron to hydrino. ( I am thinking of a nuclear version of epicatalysis.) Harry A heavy nucleus won't give up a neutron to a Hydrino, because in doing so it would lose about 5-10 MeV, but only gain 2.2 MeV from the formation of the deuteron. ?That means it is an endothermic reaction, but that doesn't mean it is impossible?. I am not implying that neutron stripping should be discarded ?if the reverse reaction is possible. ? I ? ? mentioned epicatalysis because ?theoretical research on? ?the subject ?was recently ? published in Physical Review E. Along with some empirical evidence the research suggests that deviations ?of practical significance ? from the 2nd law of law thermodynamics are possible ?with epicatalysis ?:? https://www.facebook.com/ParadigmEnergy/posts/249600938581128 Now the theory of epicatalysis is based on chemical activity, but I don't see why the theory could not be broadened to include nuclear activity or other unconventional high energy activity if a given heat anomaly is too large to explain by just chemical activity. A tacit assumption of CF/LENR research is that an anomalous thermal signal will have practical significance if it results from the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy in a one way process. The assumption holds whether the source of energy is nuclear or chemical or some other. Consequently, measured temperature anomalies are suspect until they are supported by additional calorimetry which yields a global temperature rise. If this global temperature rise (excess heat signal) is not found, and measurement error is ruled out, then the temperature anomaly will be classified as a local fluctuation with no practical significance. This interpretation of temperature signals is motivated by the demands of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, if a process like epicatalysis is creating the temperature anomalies then the methods used to measure an excess heat signal need to be reconsidered. Detecting an excess heat signal ordinarily means looking for a global temperature rise which requires that the source of an anomaly be placed in a thermally closed environment since it is assumed the temperature rise is based on the creation of kinetic energy from inside the system. In contradistinction epicatalysis transfers energy from a lower temperature region to a higher temperature region. If the purpose of the enclosure is to detect a global temperature rise none will be found. Harry Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:30:04 +1000: Hi, [snip] 9Be+2H = 4He + 4He + 3H + 4.684 MeV BTW, this reaction also works for H (but only just). 1H+9Be = 4He + 4He + 2H + 0.651 MeV ..and I suspect that 9Be is the only naturally occurring isotope for which it will work. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
