[Vo]:Cute intro video at overunity.com
See: http://www.overunity.com/index.php This site a mishmash of claims presented without differentiation or editorial judgment (not unlike LENR-CANR.org I admit). Anyway, the video that plays when you first enter the site is clever. It looks like an antique silent-film movie. I like the portrait of Tesla in the background. I suppose this is an animation but it is so realistic it looks like a stop-action film. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rothwell has no opinion about theory
Horace Heffner wrote: 5. By making the grid elements small, say under 0.1 cm, there will be a clear marking of a scale on the micrographs and this will hopefully assist in counting and locating tracks, although the hole diameter should of course be larger that the thickness of the primary metallic layer (base), Is this supposed to be 0.1 mm? With cumulative detectors like this, such as x-ray film and CR39, I recommend some sort of mask; that is, something that blocks the particles you are trying to detect, and casts a shadow. Not seeing particles is a good as seeing them, in a sense. Italian researchers used dental x-ray film to detect x-rays in aqueous electrochemical cells. The anode cast a shadow on the film, and they used this shadow to make various analyses. It was remarkable how much information they got out the x-rays. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Professors who have no interest in cold fusion
I wrote: CATEGORY 3. People who have read a lot about the research but sincerely believe that all of the results are mistaken or fraud. As long as they do not persecute researchers they have done nothing wrong. They are incompetent in my opinion, but that is not an ethical issue. This is getting off topic, but regarding stupid people promoted to positions of high authority, here is what Harry Truman said soon after he fired Douglas MacArthur: I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the president. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son-of-a-bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail. It makes me nostalgic for the era when politicians and others said what they meant without sugarcoating or political correctness. I doubt Obama would ever say a thing like that, or even *think* a thing like that. More's the pity. He was on stage praising Moniz. I doubt he knows that Moniz is a political animal who has been trying to derail cold fusion with unfair tactics for years. I wonder if he would do anything even if he did know. Obama is not a naif so he knows such people are common in high places. Many political leaders are aware that cold fusion is real, but they have not lifted a finger to help it because it is too controversial and they do not want to risk their credibility. This is appalling. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gravity role in fusion
On Oct 24, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Oct 23, 2009, at 11:38 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: OK here's Newton's law of gravitation defined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation When bodies are large with respect to the distance between them, or even overlap, forces on every tiny volume of a given body are computed as the sum of forces over many small units of volume of the surrounding space. This summation is an integration process, with the volumes being examined in the limit where they approach zero volume. In the limit the number of chunks of volume dV becomes infinite and their volumes become zero - i.e. points. This is just basic calculus. This is how Coulomb's law (and Newton's gravitational equivalent) is applied for non-point objects. It works for ordinary volumes, like spheres, even inside them, and it works for wave functions. Yes, but you seem to ignore that this working gives a different result (rate of change or strength) in each of those cases you mention. You ignore that *both* the Coulomb and Newton laws apply in every case, i.e. for every pair of tiny volumes between which forces are computed, and thus the huge *ratio* of forces remains at about 10^30. The fact that all kinds of wild fields and force equations result from macro sized bodies is completely irrelevant to the accuracy of the fundamental laws. Let's say that to me, that remains to be demonstrated. OK, I'll give up on that. And particularly on the subatomic scale, as you said, this different result is to be associated with a wave function. This wave function then, in the case of the Coloumb force, does prevent the electron from collapsing into the nucleus, and prevents the protons to be escaping from it. So what? The solar system runs for billions of years without collapsing. Does this invalidate Newton's laws of gravitation? No. There is no reason to expect the Coulomb force to disappear at small radii just because it is balanced by other forces. The law is still valid, there are merely other forces at work at close range which have to be added also. Even if it did, similar effects would happen to the gravitational force as well, so it is *remains* insignificant compared to the Coulomb force. The two forces are coupled to a given volume in very similar ratios, not varying in ratio by anything like 10^30 for any pair of charged particles at a given distance r. What I'm thinking is that those other forces you mention are no more than gravity in disguise. Gravity in another mode of operation. When in the past the method of integration of point forces for gravity was defined, it was defined based on the mode of action of gravity at macroscopic scales. And maybe that is not the best way to see it at microscopic scales. Newton proceeded partially by induction(i.e. based on known data) when deriving the law of gravity, and after that, others proceeded by deduction, assuming that the same basic law applies at all scales. After that, others arranged some wave functions to make things fit with the classical laws when they didn't(in the atom), and invented other forces when that wasn't enough(in the nucleus). In the same way as, in a sense, gravity changes mode when entering the Earth, something similar could be happening at the atomic level. Please consider the following scenario. I'll talk here about two forces, but you'll see later that they can be unified: - An electron approaches a proton, attracted by both, the electric force and the gravitational force(to a much weaker extent). - Approaching the Bohr radius, an inversion process start to manifest for the gravitational force: it starts to increasingly repel instead of attract. Let's not hypothesize now about the reasons for that to be happening, just let me describe the theory. - At the Bohr radius, the repulsive gravitational force equals the Coulomb force, and the electron is stable in its orbit. - Inside the Bohr radius, the repulsive force continue growing up to a certain point, that lies somewhere in the middle between the orbit of the electron and the center of the nucleus. - After that point, gravity becomes attractive again(but much strongly), and after that, its strength diminishes(not increases) with distance to the center. And that's the nuclear force. The Bohr radius is then the result of the interaction of the Coulomb force with the repulsive mode of the gravitational force. The other orbitals are other points of equilibrium of these two forces. This has no sense of reality for me. Even as a repulsive force, gravity has the net same 1/r^2 *apparent attractive* effect from spherical shadowing.If gravity and the Coulomb force are both 1/ r^2 forces then they remain in the roughly 10^30 ratio range with regards to fusion (the topic of this thread) because you can't have charge without mass. That
Re: [Vo]:Rothwell has no opinion about theory
On Oct 25, 2009, at 7:42 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: 5. By making the grid elements small, say under 0.1 cm, there will be a clear marking of a scale on the micrographs and this will hopefully assist in counting and locating tracks, although the hole diameter should of course be larger that the thickness of the primary metallic layer (base), Is this supposed to be 0.1 mm? No. This is the suggested grid element size - the spacing between hole centers. The holes at that spacing would have to be less than 0.5 mm in diameter. One of the problems with this grid idea is the problem of bubble removal. I think the holes will quickly have bubbles covering the tops of them, but surface tension will continue to wet the inside surface and provide the ion flow path. It should take some experimenting to find the best hole size, including possibly adding sonic cell shakers to limit bubble size. With cumulative detectors like this, such as x-ray film and CR39, I recommend some sort of mask; that is, something that blocks the particles you are trying to detect, and casts a shadow. Yes, and of course masks of various thicknesses and kinds are useful for particle discrimination. The use of a grid of lots of tiny cells in a single experiment makes feasible aligning many different kinds, thicknesses, and patterns of discriminators with specific holes in the grid. This in effect, can provide many experiments for the price of one, which, with a little trouble, all run with the same voltage, current, chemical, and field time line profiles. Not seeing particles is a good as seeing them, in a sense. Italian researchers used dental x-ray film to detect x-rays in aqueous electrochemical cells. The anode cast a shadow on the film, and they used this shadow to make various analyses. It was remarkable how much information they got out the x-rays. - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Cute intro video at overunity.com
At 10:21 AM 10/25/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: See: http://www.overunity.com/index.phphttp://www.overunity.com/index.php This site a mishmash of claims presented without differentiation or editorial judgment (not unlike LENR-CANR.org I admit). Anyway, the video that plays when you first enter the site is clever. It looks like an antique silent-film movie. I like the portrait of Tesla in the background. I suppose this is an animation but it is so realistic it looks like a stop-action film. Cool animation, but WTF? Google ad on the site attracted my eye, so I clicked on it. How to Make Electricity? $200 kit has energy co's profits falling, exec's calling for its ban. Okay, what kind of scam is this? So I went to the site and, damn if I wasn't tempted to pay them the $49.95 for their on-line publication. Slick as hell. They aren't selling some free-energy ripoff, they aren't selling kits, actually, they are selling plans about how to put together solar panels and a windmill. They make it sound very attractive. It might or might not actually be a ripoff, but there are signs of, shall we say, puffery. Anyway, Overunity.com made a few cents off of my click. Multiply this by the readers of Vo, and it is actual pocket change. However, this is my basic turnoff: the original ad. Execs calling for its ban. Definitely puffery, unless unless it really is a ripoff, i.e., if the plans are completely impractical. Like, to make the solar cells, get some clean beach sand and He doesn't say that it's easy to do the work! And, when it boils down to it, that is mostly what we pay for when we buy stuff. Do it yourself and it's free! Not. All we have to spend is our labor, in the end. (Okay, so there is something else, this isn't a complete economic analysis, but it's true for many or most of us, to a large extent.) We need a cold fusion wiki, Jed. Wikis are actually truly excellent methods of developing documentation, under some conditions. The conditions could be created. The problem with Wikipedia is not the wiki concept, nor is it the skeptics and pinheads, the problem is that when the scale is beyond a certain scale and the participating community doesn't have a clear and genuine unifying goal, the adhocracy that was set up for Wikipedia is not only incredibly inefficient, it is quirky and vulnerable to certain kinds of abuse. And once this situation arises, it's very difficult to change. It's quite predictable, actually, it's like clockwork.
Re: [Vo]:Rothwell has no opinion about theory
This is also a preliminary response to Horace. I agree that the Galileo Project is a poor kit to offer, or whatever you wrote. However, it was designed for simplicity. Make it complicated, and replication becomes less likely. I'm starting for my own testing with Galileo because I'm confident that I'll see results, not because the design is optimal. There are many aspects to the design that can safely be optimized, especially by adding external monitoring of various kinds. Cathode design is an obvious place to move to, but much monkeying with it in the initial tests gets increasingly risky with how complex the change is. What you have written, Horace, isn't wasted, it will be considered as final cathode design moves forward. Fabrication through plating had already been considered. (Why use a gold wire if a gold-plated silver wire, for example, would do?) It's been suggested that I study various topics. Great idea. When I have another lifetime to spare, I will. Seriously, every day I feel intensely the weight of my ignorance about, say, electrochemistry. Especially electrochemistry. As well, my knowledge about the behavior of various elements under alpha bombardment is severely limited. So many topics, so little time. So ... I punt. I depend on my friends and even on my enemies. They will point my bloopers out to me. In a way, I'm just a node in a network, my own intelligence is quite limited, the network's intelligence is not nearly as limited. If I don't listen to my friends, that's when I become truly stupid. At 11:42 AM 10/25/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: 5. By making the grid elements small, say under 0.1 cm, there will be a clear marking of a scale on the micrographs and this will hopefully assist in counting and locating tracks, although the hole diameter should of course be larger that the thickness of the primary metallic layer (base), Is this supposed to be 0.1 mm? With cumulative detectors like this, such as x-ray film and CR39, I recommend some sort of mask; that is, something that blocks the particles you are trying to detect, and casts a shadow. Not seeing particles is a good as seeing them, in a sense. Italian researchers used dental x-ray film to detect x-rays in aqueous electrochemical cells. The anode cast a shadow on the film, and they used this shadow to make various analyses. It was remarkable how much information they got out the x-rays. Yes. Excellent idea, and easy to implement. It also brings up another possibility, time-dependent masking. One of the problems with CR-39 or LR-115 detectors is their very strength, they are cumulative. What if a mask is shifted in position so that a single detector covers a time period instead of the whole run? In addition, when the experiment is terminated, the cathode should be held against a detector for a time, for an auto-radiograph detecting residual radioactivity. With controls, of course. Some aspects of the reports I've seen indicate that the palladium plating may be fragile and can fall off easily, so moving stuff around is tricky. However, all the CR-39 I've seen that has been immersion with direct contact with the cathode has been, essentially, overexposed, so counting of tracks in the most active areas is impossible. LR-115 should be more tolerant of high track density, that's why I'm investigating it. I also intend to play with commercial CR-39 that is not the special stuff used by Fukuvi/Landauer, which is pretty expensive. I might put a lot of it in the cell, actually displacing significant heavy water. I was going to use acrylic for that, as well as to support more precise cathode structures than the flexible polyethylene cathode support Galileo used (and substituting acrylic is safe, I expect), but why not use cheap CR-39 and then see what happens when it's etched? Whatever I do, it has to start out very simple, or I'm unlikely to actually do it. But once I have something working and can replicate it, then the design can grow, with a baseline to compare it with. At a certain point, what I have will be sufficient to begin sales, and then the community of customers will help develop it further.
Re: [Vo]:Professors who have no interest in cold fusion
At 12:15 PM 10/25/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Many political leaders are aware that cold fusion is real, but they have not lifted a finger to help it because it is too controversial and they do not want to risk their credibility. This is appalling. Well, perhaps. However, the real problem is in the very concept of political leaders. In a sane system, they are only servants. Not rubber stamps for popular opinion, but servants chosen for their character and intelligence, those who will use their intelligence to serve. So if action A is being considered, and is popular, and the servant believes that A is bogus and will fail, he or she will inform the employer. Us. And we need to be, collectively, smart enough to trust those we have chosen to be trustworthy, at least to trust them enough to respect their advice. We can still say, We've decided to do it, having considered your valued advice, and if we are wrong, we will not only not blame you, we will remember that you were right. No smart employer hires Yes-men, except maybe to sweep the floor, and even then who threw away the Case carbon? So ... how to develop mass intelligence? It's been considered an insoluble problem. I don't think it is. But if we believe that it's insoluble, we certainly won't find a solution, and we will reject proposed solutions out of hand, or at least not waste time considering them. Kind of like cold fusion, eh? Indeed. That's what got me here. It's simply one more example. I'm trying to connect a community, call it my customers. This community is formed to advise me how to serve them, but I make my own decisions, I'm not going to simply poll them and do whatever is most popular. But whatever I do will be transparent, so... if I get really stupid in my old age, someone else can take the position independently. Nothing will be wasted. As I'll be a servant of the community, and to the extent that I actually serve it, they will support me. This is actually how business functions, when it's working and when the customers are awake. I won't own my customers and they won't own me. It's a cooperative effort, continuously voluntary. (So: critical factor in whatever I set up: the customers can, to whatever extent they personally allow, communicate directly with each other; otherwise the central mechanism of communication can repress dissent, and even with that facility, the difficulty of initiating a new central communication structure and gaining participation can effectively repress dissent even when bypassing central control is still possible. Registered Wikipedia editors can email each other using the on-line interface, but when an editor is considered disruptive, and abuses email -- which can mean that they were so foolish as to email someone who didn't like it -- the bit that allows email communication can be flipped, and often is. I want a truly intelligent customer community, one capable of direct internal communication, not corruptible, always dependent for its activities on the individual interests of the customers, so that however it advises me is the best and most representative advice I could get from them, not just what I want to hear.)
Re: [Vo]:Cute intro video at overunity.com
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Okay, what kind of scam is this? It was discussed in this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg33209.html I wrote Google about the deceptive ad and have not seen it again there. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Cute intro video at overunity.com
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Cool animation, but WTF? Google ad on the site attracted my eye, so I clicked on it. How to Make Electricity? $200 kit has energy co's profits falling, exec's calling for its ban. I didn't even notice that. This site has links to LENR-CANR.org, which is why I noticed it. It is unfortunate that websites, magazines and people associated with cold fusion are sometimes also associated with things like commercial ZPE free energy claims. An expert told me that the movie is pure animation, no stop action involved. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Professors who have no interest in cold fusion
I like these lines of thought, Abd ul-Rahman. Communities-of-practice are similar to what, as I understand it, you are proposing and thinking. A substantial amount of thinking and experience has now emerged around the communities-of-practice idea, and several such communities have received significant benefit from so organizing themselves. Many of these have been on-line creations. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Professors who have no interest in cold fusion At 12:15 PM 10/25/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Many political leaders are aware that cold fusion is real, but they have not lifted a finger to help it because it is too controversial and they do not want to risk their credibility. This is appalling. Well, perhaps. However, the real problem is in the very concept of political leaders. In a sane system, they are only servants. Not rubber stamps for popular opinion, but servants chosen for their character and intelligence, those who will use their intelligence to serve. So if action A is being considered, and is popular, and the servant believes that A is bogus and will fail, he or she will inform the employer. Us. And we need to be, collectively, smart enough to trust those we have chosen to be trustworthy, at least to trust them enough to respect their advice. We can still say, We've decided to do it, having considered your valued advice, and if we are wrong, we will not only not blame you, we will remember that you were right. No smart employer hires Yes-men, except maybe to sweep the floor, and even then who threw away the Case carbon? So ... how to develop mass intelligence? It's been considered an insoluble problem. I don't think it is. But if we believe that it's insoluble, we certainly won't find a solution, and we will reject proposed solutions out of hand, or at least not waste time considering them. Kind of like cold fusion, eh? Indeed. That's what got me here. It's simply one more example. I'm trying to connect a community, call it my customers. This community is formed to advise me how to serve them, but I make my own decisions, I'm not going to simply poll them and do whatever is most popular. But whatever I do will be transparent, so... if I get really stupid in my old age, someone else can take the position independently. Nothing will be wasted. As I'll be a servant of the community, and to the extent that I actually serve it, they will support me. This is actually how business functions, when it's working and when the customers are awake. I won't own my customers and they won't own me. It's a cooperative effort, continuously voluntary. (So: critical factor in whatever I set up: the customers can, to whatever extent they personally allow, communicate directly with each other; otherwise the central mechanism of communication can repress dissent, and even with that facility, the difficulty of initiating a new central communication structure and gaining participation can effectively repress dissent even when bypassing central control is still possible. Registered Wikipedia editors can email each other using the on-line interface, but when an editor is considered disruptive, and abuses email -- which can mean that they were so foolish as to email someone who didn't like it -- the bit that allows email communication can be flipped, and often is. I want a truly intelligent customer community, one capable of direct internal communication, not corruptible, always dependent for its activities on the individual interests of the customers, so that however it advises me is the best and most representative advice I could get from them, not just what I want to hear.)
[Vo]:Nickel has unique physical properties
Given the looming importance of the Arata-Zhang finding - of a special importance for a particular nickel alloy, over and above palladium for baseline LENR effects - taken alongside the Mills and numerous other reports of energy anomalies with nickel electrodes, one might ask: what is special about nickel in regard to lower energy nuclear activity ? I am assuming of course, that Mills is hiding or ignoring the nuclear transmutation which is occurring in his devices, for a number of proprietary reasons. Dunno for sure what is special about nickel. But I started brooding on this subject this morning, trying hard to think outside the mainstream box, and two things stand out as potentially important: 1) Nickel is one of only two elements in the periodic table whose atomic weight is less than the preceding element (cobalt in this case). The other is so rare as to be of minimal importance. 2) In stellar cosmology, the nuclear fusion (nucleosynthesis) of heavier elements, the maximum weight for any element which can be fused is nickel (not iron as is commonly thought) reaching an isotope with an atomic mass of 56 - however this nickel isotope then decays to iron. Iron and nickel are 'joined at the hip' in many ways. To further expound on why this could be important in LENR transmutation: atomic weight is found by taking the atomic mass of each isotope and averaging by that isotopes natural abundance. The reason for the drop in atomic weight in nickel (compared to Cobalt which precedes it) is due to the distribution of isotopes: nickel-58 (68%), nickel-60 (26%), nickel-61 (1%), nickel-62 (4%), nickel-64 (1%). Because the largest contributor to the atomic weight of nickel is the nickel-58 isotope, which is lighter than cobalt-59, the overall atomic weight comes out light despite nickel having the extra proton. This is not quite a singularity, but the other time it occurs in nature is with tellurium and iodine. The importance of this factoid - if it does prove to be relevant for ease of transmutation is that nickel can be hypothesized to be the most relatively receptive common element in the periodic table for the addition of nuclear mass, due to its inherent lightness on relative stepwise scale. We are eliminating the Coulomb problem for the time being (to be explained). In the past everything nuclear seemed to revolve around charge, and large nuclei with larger charge were seen as being relatively less likely to be affected by another nucleus. This assumption may be wrong in a situation of very tight orbital spacing or orientation (even if that is an illusion based on relativistic factors as Fran Roarty suggests). IOW - if it turns out the hydrogen or deuterium do in fact have fleeting lower ground states, which can be defined in a way which is very different from the way that Randell Mills does in his CQM theory, and even if the (so-called) orbital is not stable over time as Mills claims (and as we perceive it in 3-space) then there will exist the arguable ability of the altered near-field of hydrogen (or altered statistics of charge placement) to assist in overcoming normal Coulomb repulsion wrt other nuclei. If and when this happens, then nickel becomes arguably the most nuclear-active element in the entire periodic table, due to its relative lightness (as defined above) . yes, admittedly this is a stretch in logical reasoning if one is hemmed in by mainstream teaching on the subject and by majority opinions. That is why it is necessary on occasion to force oneself to think outside the box. And after all - a stretch in logical reasoning is also what Sunday mornings are best suited for anyway, no? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nickel has unique physical properties
It might be noted that, for pure Ni, the crystal structure is quite similar to Pd whose face is only 36 pm larger. Terry On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Given the looming importance of the Arata-Zhang finding - of a special importance for a particular nickel alloy, over and above palladium for baseline LENR effects - taken alongside the Mills and numerous other reports of energy anomalies with nickel electrodes, one might ask: what is special about nickel in regard to lower energy nuclear activity ? I am assuming of course, that Mills is hiding or ignoring the nuclear transmutation which is occurring in his devices, for a number of proprietary reasons. Dunno for sure what is special about nickel. But I started brooding on this subject this morning, trying hard to think outside the “mainstream” box, and two things stand out as potentially important: 1) Nickel is one of only two elements in the periodic table whose atomic weight is less than the preceding element (cobalt in this case). The other is so rare as to be of minimal importance. 2) In stellar cosmology, the nuclear fusion (nucleosynthesis) of heavier elements, the maximum weight for any element which can be fused is nickel (not iron as is commonly thought) reaching an isotope with an atomic mass of 56 – however this nickel isotope then decays to iron. Iron and nickel are ‘joined at the hip’ in many ways. To further expound on why this could be important in LENR transmutation: atomic weight is found by taking the atomic mass of each isotope and averaging by that isotopes natural abundance. The reason for the drop in atomic weight in nickel (compared to Cobalt which precedes it) is due to the distribution of isotopes: nickel-58 (68%), nickel-60 (26%), nickel-61 (1%), nickel-62 (4%), nickel-64 (1%). Because the largest contributor to the atomic weight of nickel is the nickel-58 isotope, which is lighter than cobalt-59, the overall atomic weight comes out “light” despite nickel having the extra proton. This is not quite a singularity, but the other time it occurs in nature is with tellurium and iodine. The importance of this factoid – if it does prove to be relevant for “ease of transmutation” is that nickel can be hypothesized to be the most “relatively receptive” common element in the periodic table for the addition of nuclear mass, due to its inherent “lightness” on relative stepwise scale. We are eliminating the Coulomb problem for the time being (to be explained). In the past everything nuclear seemed to revolve around charge, and large nuclei with larger charge were seen as being relatively less likely to be affected by another nucleus. This assumption may be wrong in a situation of very tight orbital spacing or orientation (even if that is an illusion based on relativistic factors as Fran Roarty suggests). IOW – if it turns out the hydrogen or deuterium do in fact have fleeting “lower ground states”, which can be defined in a way which is very different from the way that Randell Mills does in his CQM theory, and even if the (so-called) orbital is not stable over time as Mills claims (and as we perceive it in 3-space) then there will exist the arguable ability of the altered near-field of hydrogen (or altered statistics of charge placement) to assist in overcoming normal Coulomb repulsion wrt other nuclei. If and when this happens, then nickel becomes arguably the “most nuclear-active element in the entire periodic table”, due to its “relative lightness” (as defined above) … yes, admittedly this is a “stretch” in logical reasoning if one is hemmed in by mainstream teaching on the subject and by majority opinions. That is why it is necessary on occasion to force oneself to think “outside the box.” And after all - a “stretch” in logical reasoning is also what Sunday mornings are best suited for anyway, no? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mauro's Theory
On Oct 24, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Regarding the concept of carrier particles, like photons and gravitons, it is clear to me that, in the case of the photon, we're in the presence of something like a pulse or wave train(a discrete number of waves), and that we assume that wave train to be a particle, and to act like a particle in its interactions with other particles. Photons are mainly travelling(propagating) waves, while electrons and protons are (mainly) rotating ones. So, photons are the propagation of discrete transversal wave trains, and gravitons (if they exist) will be the propagation of forms of pulsating(longitudinal) movement in the fabric of space, in the form of discrete longitudinal wave trains. Mauro I think it might be worth considering that the terms photon and graviton as well as virtual photon already have commonly accepted definitions. The graviton and virtual photon are the messenger particles of the gravitational and Coulomb forces respectively. The photon is a packet of electromagnetic energy, and thus carries positive momentum and interacts with gravity. The graviton is the gravitational analog of the virtual photon. They both can feasibly exchange positive or negative momentum. They are near field force carriers. Now, there is an obvious hole in the definitions - the gravitational analog to the photon. This is the graviphoton. This was defined by Barbieri and Cecotti in: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m5724623tt5ph28j/ as an arbitrarily light vector boson which is coupled with typical gravitational strength to matter hyper multiplets, possessing unbroken guauge interactions as well! Now that I find difficult to follow! However, their model does predict gravitational force anomalies at close range, which you might find interesting and similar to your own thoughts. In my own theory: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf I simply defined the graviphoton as the gravitational analog to the photon. Since the premise of my theory is that the laws of gravity and electromagnetics are isomorphic, and I have defined the 1-1 correspondences that create the isomorphism, such a definition has a very precise meaning in terms of formulations. In either definition, the graviphoton carries both energy and positive momentum. It can exert a gravitational *push*. Because they carry energy, and thus mass, neither the photon nor the graviphoton can escape from a black hole. Gravitons can escape from a black hole else a black hole could not exert gravity and thus a black hole that can suck in mass from long rage, like those we see in galaxy centers, could not exist. My theory, unlike all others I know of, predicts that virtual photons, which carry no mass, can not carry gravitational charge, and thus *can* escape black holes. Information is not lost when matter falls into black holes. Black holes can have magnetic and electrostatic fields. This means that black holes can be manufactured and contained electromagnetically, and they can be accelerated. They can be manipulated for many purposes. It also means that black hole mergers should produce quadrupole ELF magnetic signatures which dwarf gravimagnetic signatures by 30 orders of magnitude, and may already exist in geomagnetic ELF data. These distinctions result in predictions may have great importance when it comes to astronomical observations. For example, when it comes to very high energy x-rays, it may well be that some of the photons observed may actually be graviphotons. Photons from mirror matter, if it exists, are not observable by us. However, graviphotons from mirror matter would be observable. If there a method to distinguish the two, and I provided that, then we can have an x-ray view into the universe of mirror matter stars, i.e. the high energy ones any way. It seems to me that when tiny things are examined quantum mechanically, there always results a wave particle duality. Since this is the case in electromagnetism we certainly should expect it to be true for gravity, if ever there is to be a quantum theory of gravity. The obvious question that arises then if there is to be a wave theory of gravity, what waves? What qualities of vacuum will permit such waves. In the case of electromagnetic waves we have the permittivity e0 and permeablity u0 of the vacuum. The 1-1 correspondence requires a gravipermittivity e0_g = 1/(4 Pi G) = 1.192299(31)x10^9 kg s^2/m^3, and a gravipermeability u0 = 4 Pi G/ (c_g) = = 9.33196(96)x10^-27 m/ kg, where c_g is the speed of gravity propagation, as defined by Jefimenko. What is unique about my theory is the use of the imaginary number i in the units expressing mass charge, and all gravimagnetic field values. This convention permits the establishment of a full isomorphism, gets the force directions right in all
RE: [Vo]:Nickel has unique physical properties
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton It might be noted that, for pure Ni, the crystal structure is quite similar to Pd whose face is only 36 pm larger. Would it be your opinion then, that the A-Z alloy (84% Ni, 16% Pd) would have a slightly tighter internal cavity than pure palladium? That could be important, if true. Again, it is important to go back to graph in the 2003 paper where this alloy is shown to hold almost a 3:1 atomic ratio of hydrogen relative to the metal atoms. There was a time in LENR when 1:1 was thought to be the best that you could get. Now we find 3:1 with the new alloy and in addition to that, a tighter cavity ... voila - fusion with no added energy above the 300 psi over-pressure. I'd have to call that very remarkable... Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nickel has unique physical properties
Jones Beene referred to the Arata Zhang material with 84% Ni, 16% Pd. I believe this is their most effective alloy yet. It is described in the ICCF-15 abstracts, p. 35, quoted in full: PRODUCTION OF HELIUM AND ENERGY IN THE “SOLID FUSION” Y. Arata, Y.C. Zhang, and X.F. Wang Center for Advanced Science and Innovation, Osaka University 2-1 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan In this paper, A new type “Solid Fusion Reactor” has been developed to test the existence of solid state nuclear fusion (“ Solid Fusion”): reproducible experiments have been made at room temperature and without external power input. Both of the energy and Helium generation affected by the reactor structure, gas flow rate, powder weight, and cooling condition were studied. Deuterium gas loading processes of two types of nanomaterial (ZrO[2]*Pd35 and ZrO[2]*Ni[30]Pd[5]) were studied respectively in this paper. The results showed the energy produced in ZrO2*Ni30Pd5 is higher than in ZrO2*Pd35. Helium as an important evidence of solid-state fusion was detected by mass analyzer “QMS”. As result, “ Solid Fusion” has been confirmed by the helium existence, and then we developed the Helium production system I should scan the Arata handout paper. He will not allow me to upload it but I can give out copies privately, I suppose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cute intro video at overunity.com
That isn't the ad in question. I didn't even look at that one. I quoted what the ad said for the site I looked at. No pseudoscience or fringe science involved, as far as I could see. Just, in the end, plans for a solar cell array and a wind turbine. Good plans? Worth $50? I have no ieda, but I was not inspired by the hype to trust them. At 01:48 PM 10/25/2009, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Okay, what kind of scam is this? It was discussed in this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg33209.html I wrote Google about the deceptive ad and have not seen it again there. Terry
RE: [Vo]:Professors who have no interest in cold fusion
At 02:11 PM 10/25/2009, Lawrence de Bivort wrote: I like these lines of thought, Abd ul-Rahman. Thanks. A lot has gone into them, and not just thinking, but hands-on practice. Communities-of-practice are similar to what, as I understand it, you are proposing and thinking. A substantial amount of thinking and experience has now emerged around the communities-of-practice idea, and several such communities have received significant benefit from so organizing themselves. Many of these have been on-line creations. It works, that's known, under the right conditions. Problems only arise when the scale becomes very large, for the most part, and so when I'm suggesting organizations, I suggest building in simple, efficient methods that will allow the beneficial aspects of small-scale peer communities, that can enjoy high unity of purpose without becoming paralyzed, even if the scale becomes large. If that were difficult, it wouldn't be worth it. I believe it's easy, almost trivially simple, but because it doesn't seem necessary at the beginning, it isn't done until the scale becomes too large to do it, so more centralized structures are created, i.e., traditional organizations. Traditional organizations work, and don't work, and we are all familiar with both.
Re: [Vo]:Mauro's Theory
Horace Heffner wrote: On Oct 24, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Regarding the concept of carrier particles, like photons and gravitons, it is clear to me that, in the case of the photon, we're in the presence of something like a pulse or wave train(a discrete number of waves), and that we assume that wave train to be a particle, and to act like a particle in its interactions with other particles. Photons are mainly travelling(propagating) waves, while electrons and protons are (mainly) rotating ones. So, photons are the propagation of discrete transversal wave trains, and gravitons (if they exist) will be the propagation of forms of pulsating(longitudinal) movement in the fabric of space, in the form of discrete longitudinal wave trains. Mauro I think it might be worth considering that the terms photon and graviton as well as virtual photon already have commonly accepted definitions. The graviton and virtual photon are the messenger particles of the gravitational and Coulomb forces respectively. The photon is a packet of electromagnetic energy, and thus carries positive momentum and interacts with gravity. The graviton is the gravitational analog of the virtual photon. They both can feasibly exchange positive or negative momentum. They are near field force carriers. Thank you for that. I knew something was missing in the photon - electromagnetism relation, but didn't knew exactly what it was. As I see it now: the photon is a packet (or a wave train as I called it before), of electromagnetic energy, and the virtual photon is electromagnetic energy itself(waves, not necessarily in discrete packets or trains.) So, electrons and protons propagate their electromagnetic imprint through virtual photons, which are generic wave perturbations of the electromagnetic tapestry, while photons are specific forms or groupings of these perturbations. Produced when an electron changes orbital, by example. The quantum paradigm, with its particle wave duality, probably makes virtual photons quantifiable also! but they shouldn't be in my opinion. Not necessarily, at least. It should be enough to know that photons have particle nature, due to its packet mode, while virtual photons are the waves themselves. The same with gravitons and graviphotons, then. Gravitons are the waves which propagate the gravitational imprint, while graviphotons would be (if they exist) packets or discrete wave trains of these waves, produced under specific circumstances. Which can even coincide with the production of photons, or not. This is the kind of discussion I was expecting! Couldn't these gravitons be a form of longitudinal wave instead of transversal, as I've proposed? A longitudinal axis of movement is orthogonal to the transversal, so that could be the imaginary number you mention in your theory. And a longitudinal wave is the result of a pulsation, so a natural similitude arises between an electromagnetic wave, which is produced by a rotation, and a gravitational wave, which is produced by a pulsation(which is no more than the projection of a fourth dimensional rotation in 3d space). Finally: The virtual nature of both of these waves can be explained by imagining that they are somehow submersed into the propagation medium, and only appear on the presence of another interacting particle, or obstacle. In the same way as, say, waves in the ocean, which are almost invisible on the surface of the high seas are made apparent when approaching the shore. Or in the same way as the invisible light is made visible when cast on a particular material object. Mauro Now, there is an obvious hole in the definitions - the gravitational analog to the photon. This is the graviphoton. This was defined by Barbieri and Cecotti in: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m5724623tt5ph28j/ as an arbitrarily light vector boson which is coupled with typical gravitational strength to matter hyper multiplets, possessing unbroken guauge interactions as well! Now that I find difficult to follow! However, their model does predict gravitational force anomalies at close range, which you might find interesting and similar to your own thoughts. In my own theory: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf I simply defined the graviphoton as the gravitational analog to the photon. Since the premise of my theory is that the laws of gravity and electromagnetics are isomorphic, and I have defined the 1-1 correspondences that create the isomorphism, such a definition has a very precise meaning in terms of formulations. In either definition, the graviphoton carries both energy and positive momentum. It can exert a gravitational *push*. Because they carry energy, and thus mass, neither the photon nor the graviphoton can escape from a black hole. Gravitons can escape from a black hole else a black hole could not exert gravity
Re: [Vo]:Nickel has unique physical properties
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton It might be noted that, for pure Ni, the crystal structure is quite similar to Pd whose face is only 36 pm larger. Would it be your opinion then, that the A-Z alloy (84% Ni, 16% Pd) would have a slightly tighter internal cavity than pure palladium? That could be important, if true. Literature indicates that the Pd segregates to the surface: http://www.fzu.cz/activities/conferences/ecoss22/abstracts/17010.pdf http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=w5182k06n5871187size=largest which brings to mind one of Horace's writings on how deuterium enters the lattice. I'll have to search his site unless he jumps in here. If Pd inducts the hydrogen into the cell and it propagates to the internal Ni structure, confinement should increase significantly. This would increase the fusion population. Perhaps Pd funnels the reactants into this geometry? Terry
Re: [Vo]:Nickel has unique physical properties
Just a thought: has anyone ever tried aiming neutrons from a Farnsworth Fusor at a loaded sample of nickel/H or palladium/D? I assume a Fusor could be tuned to emit neutrons of any kinetic energy one chose? Fusion is regarded as so difficult because the temperature needed to overcome the Coulomb barrier is millions of degrees but in terms of electron volts it is no problem at all. It is trivial to achieve fusion in a Fusor. I just wondered if a guaranteed easy source of fusion neutrons may set off the LENR reaction. Another thought: how about forming a nanoscale sponge out of ceramic piezolectric/triboelectric material, plating it with P or Ni, loading it up with D or H and then zapping the piezoelectric material with high frequency/high amplitude electric voltage. See what happens. Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Mauro's Theory
Hi Jack, As you're probably aware, possibility to choose freely is fundamental to our human nature. And with freedom to choose, with free will, it came the possibility for error. Because a poor thing would be our freedom, if we did not have the freedom to choose wrongly. Unfortunately, there are many more ways to choose wrongly than to choose rightly. But fortunately, in between all of them there exists also the possibility of choosing rightly. When we do that we are reunited with God, who only wishes us good choosing. And this time (if we had taken the burden of choosing rightly under our own shoulders), we're reunited with Him in full waking consciousness. What Ray Tomes proposes is compatible with what I think. The only need would be to find a standing wave formulation for what I prefer to think and denominate as a vortical or circular movement. I assume that a kind of circular, or better, spherical standing wave will do it. I agree with your natural selection thoughts regarding theories; and the restriction of experimentation is something I'm particularly aware of :-) Best regards, Mauro Taylor J. Smith wrote: Hi Mauro,10-25-09 I just prefer particles; I don't believe in them. Ray Tomes, owner of the Cycles Group, goes futher than than what you suggest: Ray proposes that matter, in any form, is a standing wave, I also like Dirac's epos, as explained on Vortex by Don Hotson -- a plausible mechanism for action-at-a-distace across the universe. Theories should be judged by the design equations and inventios they facillitate; natural selection will pick the winners. The downside of any theory is the restriction of experimentation. Jack Smith
Re: [Vo]:Rothwell has no opinion about theory
On Oct 25, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: This is also a preliminary response to Horace. I agree that the Galileo Project is a poor kit to offer, or whatever you wrote. However, it was designed for simplicity. Make it complicated, and replication becomes less likely. Why would anyone go to the trouble to produce a poor kit to offer? BTW, those are not my words. Production of a kit for amateurs using a procedure known to have major problems and that produces results that are not even convincing to the CF community is potentially harmful to the field. Doing so for profit casts an even darker pall on the community, because the motives can be impugned. I'm starting for my own testing with Galileo because I'm confident that I'll see results, not because the design is optimal. There are many aspects to the design that can safely be optimized, especially by adding external monitoring of various kinds. Cathode design is an obvious place to move to, but much monkeying with it in the initial tests gets increasingly risky with how complex the change is. What you have written, Horace, isn't wasted, it will be considered as final cathode design moves forward. Fabrication through plating had already been considered. (Why use a gold wire if a gold-plated silver wire, for example, would do?) If nothing else I hope you keep the CR-39 or other detector out of the electrolyte. That is known to cause problems. It's been suggested that I study various topics. Great idea. When I have another lifetime to spare, I will. Seriously, every day I feel intensely the weight of my ignorance about, say, electrochemistry. Especially electrochemistry. As well, my knowledge about the behavior of various elements under alpha bombardment is severely limited. So many topics, so little time. So ... I punt. I depend on my friends and even on my enemies. They will point my bloopers out to me. In a way, I'm just a node in a network, my own intelligence is quite limited, the network's intelligence is not nearly as limited. If I don't listen to my friends, that's when I become truly stupid. On Sep 29, 2009, at 6:08 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Originally, I thought I'd be a nuclear physicist, and I was on my way, as an undergraduate student at Caltech. But my life took me to different places, so I never developed an investment in theory; I simply got an attitude and an approach from sitting with Feynmann -- who taught physics my first two years at Caltech, those lectures were the ones that became the standard text. I also had Linus Pauling for freshman chemistry, but he wasn't nearly as memorable. On Sep 1, 2009, at 10:31 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: If the volume were large enough, we could buy one of those spectrometers. Or build one, it's not a difficult measurement, you need a Co-57 source, an accurate gamma detector, and a linear motor to drive the source toward or away from the test sample at a known velocity. I did this in sophomore physics lab at Caltech, that's why I recognized the significance of Vyosotskii's findings, I'm not sure that others get it. Back in those days it was nearly impossible to find a physics major at Caltech with less than 140 IQ. This exercise is beginning to look more like a social science experiment than a legitimate physics effort. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Nickel has unique physical properties
At 03:07 PM 10/25/2009, Jones Beene wrote: Would it be your opinion then, that the A-Z alloy (84% Ni, 16% Pd) would have a slightly tighter internal cavity than pure palladium? That could be important, if true. Arrgh, my kingdom for a knowledge of electrochemistry! Suppose I wanted to try codeposition with that alloy? Would I just put in that molar ratio of nickel chloride and palladium chloride?
Re: [Vo]:Nickel has unique physical properties
At 03:56 PM 10/25/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene referred to the Arata Zhang material with 84% Ni, 16% Pd. I believe this is their most effective alloy yet. It is described in the ICCF-15 abstracts, p. 35, quoted in full: PRODUCTION OF HELIUM AND ENERGY IN THE SOLID FUSION Y. Arata, Y.C. Zhang, and X.F. Wang Center for Advanced Science and Innovation, Osaka University 2-1 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan Helium as an important evidence of solid-state fusion was detected by mass analyzer QMS. As result, Solid Fusion has been confirmed by the helium existence, and then we developed the Helium production system Cool. Arata, as you've explained many times, doesn't give a fig about what people think. So... he settles on a measure of the activity, then works on optimizing that, instead of trying to please the critics with more proof. If somebody thinks his helium measurements are screwy, that's not his problem. He's going to see how much helium he can make! If he's getting optimal results with that mixture, the whole cost equation shifts. Now. Once Lomax Design Associates sweeps the world with its home Thermonuclear Nanodetonation kit, we will make the actual big bucks with Cold Fusion Handwarmers. Don't you think that would be great for the winter, here in New England? And the skeptics can go eff themselves, as they will if they tell the wife, No way that could be working, you've been fooled into thinking your hands are warm, it's purely wishful thinking, the Coulomb barrier can't possibly be bypassed, take it back. Or not, I suppose. But why not start thinking about products that can be made, instead of products that might someday, maybe be made if there are technology breakthroughs? It doesn't have to be a big energy revolution. At first. Just make some hands warm, a few degrees inside a pocket might be enough.
[Vo]:Kowalski, Beaty, Driscoll, Horton and Lohstreter poster
I see the experiment Bill Beaty participated in was reported by poster at ICCF15. It would be nice see something more than an abstract. Will something be published? From ICCF Abstracts: On electrolysis-induced emission of charged nuclear projectiles On electrolysis-induced emission of charged nuclear projectiles Ludwik Kowalski, William Beaty, Jeff Driscoll, Mike Horton and Pete Lohstreter On electrolysis-induced emission of charged nuclear projectiles Ludwik Kowalski, William Beaty, Jeff Driscoll, Mike Horton and Pete Lohstreter According to Richard Oriani, production of nuclear projectiles due to electrolysis, using his protocol (1), is highly reproducible. The Curie Project was organized to verify this claim. The electrolyte is a solution of Li2SO4 in light water. The cathode is nickel and the anode is platinum. Nuclear projectiles are detected with CR-39 chips (2,3,4,5) protected from the electrolyte by a thin Mylar film. The work is in progress. Preliminary results confirm emission of nuclear projectiles, similar to alpha particles. But the effect does not seem to be reproducible. References: 1) R.A. Oriani “Reproducible Evidence for the Generation of a Nuclear Reaction During Electrolysis,” Proceeding of the 14th Int. Conf. on Cold Fusion, October 2008, Washington D.C. The report can be downloaded from http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368TGP_oriani.pdf 2) C. Brun et al., Radiat. Meas. 31, 89 (1999) 3) F.H. Seguin et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 74, 975 (2003) 4) D. Nikezic, K.N. Yu, Mat. Sci. Eng. R. 46, 51 (2004) 5) F.M.F. Ng et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. B 263, 266 (2007) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Sound imaging of NAE sites
I have seen only two digital oscillograms of the pressure waves from apparent NAE in the SPAWAR experiments, these were clear characteristic signals, a sharp spike followed by a relaxation. The frequency of occurrence of these spikes may be a few per second, and I'm guessing that they correspond to the heat flashes that the SPAWAR IR imaging shows. If I set up not just one piezoelectric transducer, but four or six, it should be possible to locate the source of each shock. The entire cell is on the order of 20 microseconds wide at the speed of sound in water, so normally signals from the sensors that match within that window would be coming from a common event. It should be possible to filter the transducer signals and determine the relative arrival time of each signal, and, from that, with each pair of sensors, determine a coordinate of the source. But it may not be necessary. If the sound is characteristic and not produced when nuclear activity doesn't occur, then one sensor is enough to do the basic job.
Re: [Vo]:Rothwell has no opinion about theory
At 08:09 PM 10/25/2009, you wrote: On Oct 25, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: This is also a preliminary response to Horace. I agree that the Galileo Project is a poor kit to offer, or whatever you wrote. However, it was designed for simplicity. Make it complicated, and replication becomes less likely. Why would anyone go to the trouble to produce a poor kit to offer? BTW, those are not my words. Sigh. I believe I was clear that the quotation marks indicated not an exact quote, but a sense. What you actually wrote was but the Galileo protocol seems to me to be *NOT* a protocol appropriate for dissemination on a commercial basis. My work will proceed in stages. In the first stage, I'm gathering materials for an expanded experiment following, more or less, the Galileo protocol. I've never done a codeposition experiment before, or anything like it since college, almost fifty years ago. I've got two forces to balance, one is I don't want to waste time with approaches that don't work, until I have an approach, in hand, tested, that I know works. So I'm quite wary of any changes to the basic Galileo protocol: the materials, the quantities, the cathode geometry, the current profile. On the other hand, there are obvious possible improvements, and I have different motives than the Galileo experimenters. For them, saving, say, $100 on materials for a cell, when they were putting a huge amount of effort in, would be trivial. For me, saving money on a cell, as long as it doesn't have a significant impact on results, is a big deal. But if I go too far in the first stage, as, for example, using a cheap stainless-steel wire that is plated with 24 K gold, instead of a pure gold wire, I might end up wasting weeks. I'll spend the money on the gold. To start. I'll also buy a little gold-plated wire for further development. The biggest expense in the experiment is not the palladium, it's the wire for the cathode and anode. The anode wire they recommend, platinum, is the most expensive. Is that necessary? How about gold, if nothing else? How about stainless steel, for that matter? As the first stage progresses, I'll be buying materials. As it happens, buying just enough for one experiment is pretty expensive. So I'll buy more, and I will offer these materials for sale. Because of the volume purchase savings, I should be able to offer low quantities, buy what you need, for about what it would cost from the suppliers. (If I can get some volume going, it might become cheaper.) Basically, it's pretty much standard retail/wholesale. I now have LR-115 radiation detector sheets. For some purposes, better than CR-39. I also have a little Boron-10 neutron converter screen, enough that I can experiment with it and sell some. I have much more of both of these than I'll need for my own work, so, if anyone wants LR-115 radiation detectors or 1x2 cm pieces of Boron-10 screen, I could sell them immediately. Be the first on your block! There are only two down sides to LR-115: it's dark red, so if you want to be able to see through the detector, not so good, and I have no idea if it is stable in the electrolyte. If it is, whoopee! It's about one-quarter the cost of CR-39 intended for radiation detection. But commercial CR-39 is actually cheap. Problem is, if you don't know the history of it, how much radiation damage has it suffered from background? On the other hand, I do intend to buy some CR-39 sheets from Ebay and develop pieces. They are so cheap, compared to Fukuvi/Landauer CR-39, that I might as well try. Second stage, I'll be varying the protocol; at this point it's no longer the Galileo protocol and it might vary considerably from it. I still want to keep it relatively simple. Unless, I suppose, some angel investor pops up, which I'm not expecting. Horace, this is a for-profit venture, because if it isn't, it won't happen. If you've got some donor lined up to support me to put together free kits, or, for that matter, to support someone else to do it, be my guest! During the second stage, kits will be available to beta testers. Unless I get that angel funding, these will also be kits that are sold. They are sold as exactly what they are: a very specific list of materials, a specific design, open information about what has been tested and what the results were, and with no guarantees except that all of this information is accurate. Your mileage may vary. Third stage, the kits are sold to the general public, but, quite likely, they will be accompanied with disclaimers. Full disclosure. The results from my own work, and from all those who have used the beta kits, providing it is disclosed to me, will all be published. Whether the results were successful or not. These are science kits and, in fact, there are no experimental failures if the procedures are documented and the results are reported carefully enough. Production of a kit for amateurs
Re: [Vo]:Nickel has unique physical properties
On Oct 25, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton It might be noted that, for pure Ni, the crystal structure is quite similar to Pd whose face is only 36 pm larger. Would it be your opinion then, that the A-Z alloy (84% Ni, 16% Pd) would have a slightly tighter internal cavity than pure palladium? That could be important, if true. Literature indicates that the Pd segregates to the surface: http://www.fzu.cz/activities/conferences/ecoss22/abstracts/17010.pdf http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd? code=w5182k06n5871187size=largest which brings to mind one of Horace's writings on how deuterium enters the lattice. I'll have to search his site unless he jumps in here. If Pd inducts the hydrogen into the cell and it propagates to the internal Ni structure, confinement should increase significantly. This would increase the fusion population. Perhaps Pd funnels the reactants into this geometry? Terry I am sorry to say my memory is just not very good so I'm not sure what you mean. I did some basic lattice computations here: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/AtomicExpansion.pdf Summarized here as compared to the Cubic Close Packed Structure using bond lengths provided from webelements.com (at your request if I recall correctly): http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CCP.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
