Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Horace Heffner]

I forgot to mention Table 2 of:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHreviewoftr.pdf

Note that the results are reported in percent of isotopic abundance.   
In terms of atoms this is *huge*.  It is *huge* compared to helium  
results.


If you find related reactions in my tables (all energetically  
feasible reactions are included, whether of unobservable branch  
probability or not) at:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt

you will see that the energies involved are enormous in most all  
cases involved.


Iwamura results were treated in some special reports at the end.

Note that only the strong reactions, which precede the weak  
reactions, are included in my tables.  Weak reactions often follow  
immediately, and only add to the mass difference. There is a giant  
"missing energy" problem, in addition to the enormous missing  
energetic signature radiation problem, when it comes to heavy element  
transmutation.


My theory provides some answers to this missing transmutation  
energy.  Too bad no one has focused on that.  I suspect few if any  
were even aware of it, until I posted it.  Even then, I think it was  
ignored.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 27, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


At 01:01 PM 12/27/2011, Horace Heffner wrote:


On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


Transmutations are not observed with any clean correlation with
excess heat. Some experiments produce more, some less. Levels of
transmuted products other than helium are produced at far lower
levels than helium, many orders of magnitude lower.


This is far from true.  Transmutation products have been detected by
chemical means, and XRF.  This requires large quantities of product.


Horace, can you provide a reference for this. It contradicts what  
I've understood.



As I noted, this was discussed with references on page 1 of:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf

See references: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20.   Reference 14 is  
good, for example:


http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatiob.pdf

"Transmutation of Cs into Pr was demonstrated in more than 60 cases,  
with reproducibility close to 100%."


Thus the results were highly repeatable.  No electrolysis was used to  
accomplish the transmutations, just gas flow. "The Pr was cross- 
checked by various methods such as XPS, TOF-SIMS (Time of Flight  
Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry), XANES (X-ray Absorption Near Edge  
Structure), XRF and ICP-MS (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass  
Spectrometry)."


Analysis was performed in situ, before and after using XREF, thus  
avoiding contamination. Check the references at the end of this and  
other articles for more information.





To be sure, I'm talking about widely reported results, not about  
isolated reports.



Baloney.  What widely reported results of a single experiment are  
there in this field?  Lack f interest in replication has always been  
a problem in this field.   Every researcher wants to get in his "ego  
mods".  There are more theories than researchers.  The fact is almost  
any researcher that looks for transmutations in LENR experiments  
finds them.






This is one of the great mysteries of LENR - the vast amount of
nuclear reactions involved in heavy element transmutation, without
the corresponding excess heat.  It is explanation of this
experimental observation that is one of the strong points of
deflation fusion theory.


Please specify the "experimental observation." Quantitatively.  
Various techniques have been used to detect extremely small  
quantities of transmuted elements on cathode surfaces, but this  
work is hampered by the "garbage collector" characteristic of an  
electrolytic cathode, it attracts cations from the tiniest  
impurities in cell materials, one can find almost anything on a  
cold fusion cathode. However, my understanding has been that the  
detected quantities, compared to the helium found to be correlated  
with the FPHE, are far lower. I.e., typical tritium results might  
be a production of about 10^11 atoms of tritium, compared to, say,  
10^14 atoms of helium. That's about three orders of magnitude down.


Take a look at Fig. 2 of reference 10:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHreviewoftr.pdf

The y axis is in units of 10^14 atoms/cm^2.  Many transmutation  
results exceed He concentrations from D+D experiments, and the  
products are much easier to count reliably.


Theories that account for D+D-->He account for only a tiny part of  
the mysteries of cold fusion, a little corner of the field.


The major mystery is the lack of corresponding heat and very high  
energy particles that can be expected from heavy element  
transmutation.  This is what my theory addresses.  It also happens to  
cover the more "ordinary" X+p, X+D and D+D results.


A lack of heat from various heavy element experiments constitutes a   
violation of conservation of energy.  Pretty darn strange this gets  
swept under the rug, ignored, isn't it!  That puts a twist in some  
knickers I'll bet.  Its a huge elephant in the room.  I stinks and  
bellows and breaks china, yet is completely ignored. It is a  
potential source of derision. Life was difficult enough on folks like  
Bockris at TAMU, just from the cold fusion fiasco.





My understanding has been that in most reports, other transmuted  
elements are at even lower numbers.


Most reports is not all reports, it still leaves many reports, some  
focused strictly on heavy LENR.   Light water experiments can produce  
transmutations, and helium is not even an issue.  Also, there is much  
literature on transmutation observations. It seems you are up on D+D  
in Pd but not much on heavy element transmutation.  It is well worth  
the trouble to read up on it.  I think the real mysteries of LENR,  
and the greatest opportunities for amateur work, lie in the heavy  
element transmutations.  Overcoming the Coulomb barrier is much more  
difficult to explain when it happens into a nucleus with 28 protons,  
vs just one.  With long run times transmutatin experiments might be  
much better subject matter for high school l

RE: [Vo]:Attenuation of decay rate in E-Cat

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Axil:

Thanks for increasing the signal-to-noise ratio!  

It’s been going up steadily for the last two days, thanks to the ‘ol-timers…

 

-Mark

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 9:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Attenuation of decay rate in E-Cat

 

Reference:
http://neutrons.ornl.gov/workshops/ian2006/eV/eV_IAN2006oct_Dreismann.pdf

The Scattering cross section ratio σH/σD should not be affected by angle of the 
particle collision or the percentage of hydrogen saturation, but it is and by 
as much as 50%.

This indicates that hydrogen bonds are entangled in many materials.

Energy is transferred at the time of decoherence (the time of particle impact) 
to the entangled partner.


On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:37 PM,  wrote:

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 9 Dec 2011 02:27:21 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]

>Several neutron Compton scattering (NCS) experiments on liquid and solid
>samples containing protons or deuterons show a striking anomaly, namely, a
>shortfall in the intensity of energetic neutrons scattered by the protons.

Since neutrons and protons have about the same mass, wouldn't one expect a
neutron encountering a proton to pass considerable part of it's energy to the
proton, thus slowing down considerably (and thus not showing up as a scattered
neutron)?


>In condensed matter containing hydrogen, theoretical considerations suggest
>the presence of attosecond entanglement, in which the quantum dynamics of
>the scattering protons and the surrounding particles are all connected;
>this in turn changes the nature of the scattering results.
>
>
>
>
>

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

 

Re: [Vo]:Attenuation of decay rate in E-Cat

[Axil Axil]

Reference:
http://neutrons.ornl.gov/workshops/ian2006/eV/eV_IAN2006oct_Dreismann.pdf

The Scattering cross section ratio σH/σD should not be affected by angle of
the particle collision or the percentage of hydrogen saturation, but it is
and by as much as 50%.

This indicates that hydrogen bonds are entangled in many materials.

Energy is transferred at the time of decoherence (the time of particle
impact) to the entangled partner.




On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:37 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 9 Dec 2011 02:27:21 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Several neutron Compton scattering (NCS) experiments on liquid and solid
> >samples containing protons or deuterons show a striking anomaly, namely, a
> >shortfall in the intensity of energetic neutrons scattered by the protons.
>
> Since neutrons and protons have about the same mass, wouldn't one expect a
> neutron encountering a proton to pass considerable part of it's energy to
> the
> proton, thus slowing down considerably (and thus not showing up as a
> scattered
> neutron)?
>
> >In condensed matter containing hydrogen, theoretical considerations
> suggest
> >the presence of attosecond entanglement, in which the quantum dynamics of
> >the scattering protons and the surrounding particles are all connected;
> >this in turn changes the nature of the scattering results.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>  Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012

[Peter Gluck]

Titanic step forward? Better is gigantic management strategy blunder!
To use mild euphemisms- this plan is naive, childish, primitive savage
capitalistic thinking and self-destructive strategy.
To use dumping on an endless, insatiable market- you cannot succeed even
with a hundred million E-cats.
And to kill (!) the competition is as counter-productive as impossible.
It is very surprising that Rossi accepts now that the competition exists.
This plan is similar with thinking in the '70s that the Trabant car can
eliminate all the other cars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant
 or now that the Tata Nano car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano
can conquer the world market.
Selling price is just one factor of many...
This is a fantastic plan, in the worst sense of this adjective.
Peter

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 4:40 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
wrote:

> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-**physics.com/?p=563&cpage=7#**
> comment-157900
>
>  *
>   Andrea Rossi
>   December 27th, 2011 at 2:33 PM
>    cpage=7#comment-157900
> >
>
>
>   Dear Gherardo:
>   The price will be enough low to forbid any competition. At that
>   point the reverse engineering will be a hobby, not a source of
>   competition, so that everything will become easier. This is the
>   battle we won during these days: we made a titanic step forward,
>   derived from a lucky idea and from the huge possibilities our new
>   Partners have opened to us. The price will be much lower than you
>   said, but we will declare the price when we will be ready: remember,
>   if I say one thing, I have to do it. Anyway: the first version will
>   produce hot water and heating, but it will be able to be retrofitted
>   with the electric power generation when we will be ready also with it.
>   Warm Regards,
>   A.R.
>
>  *
>   Andrea Rossi
>   December 27th, 2011 at 2:25 PM
>    cpage=7#comment-157894
> >
>
>
>   Dear Frank Acland:
>   1- We are making it
>   2- We will necessaruly have to do this.
>   Warm Regards,
>   A.R.
>
>  *
>   Frank Acland
>   December 27th, 2011 at 2:06 PM
>    cpage=7#comment-157890
> >
>
>
>   Dear Andrea,
>
>   You mention the need to produce 1 million e-cats immediately in
>   order to meet your goals. This is certainly ambitious, but it would
>   be very exciting for you to be able to do this.
>
>   1. Do you have the production infrastructure (including outsourcing)
>   to build this many plants?
>   2. Are you process enough nickel powder to fuel this many e-cats?
>
>   Wishing you the very best for 2012!
>
>   Frank Acland
>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Charles Hope]

I'm going through Takahashi this week. How could a BEC exist at room 
temperature?




On Dec 27, 2011, at 22:41, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

> Bose-Einstein Condensate

Re: [Vo]:Attenuation of decay rate in E-Cat

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 9 Dec 2011 02:27:21 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Several neutron Compton scattering (NCS) experiments on liquid and solid
>samples containing protons or deuterons show a striking anomaly, namely, a
>shortfall in the intensity of energetic neutrons scattered by the protons.

Since neutrons and protons have about the same mass, wouldn't one expect a
neutron encountering a proton to pass considerable part of it's energy to the
proton, thus slowing down considerably (and thus not showing up as a scattered
neutron)?

>In condensed matter containing hydrogen, theoretical considerations suggest
>the presence of attosecond entanglement, in which the quantum dynamics of
>the scattering protons and the surrounding particles are all connected;
>this in turn changes the nature of the scattering results.
>
>
>
>
>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[mixent]

In reply to  Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:03:10 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>At 11:39 PM 12/26/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
>>In reply to  Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:32:07 -0500:
>>Hi,
>>[snip]
>> >Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of
>> >super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately
>> >for this battery idea, ... helium.
>>
>>You appear to have ignored the possibility of super-chemistry, a la Mills or
>>IRH.
>
>Hydrinos, i.e., "a la Mills," would not produce helium unless they 
>catalyze a nuclear reaction.

True, but Rossi isn't producing Helium, which AFAIK is only produced in
experiments using Deuterium. The D-D fusion reaction is one of the easiest to
achieve, so it's no surprise that, when D is available, a lot of heat (perhaps
most of it) comes from that reaction.
OTOH when no D is available, then only the very smallest Hydrinos may be able to
fuse resulting in very little if any of the energy release coming from fusion
reactions (H-H has such a low cross section that I doubt it makes any
significant contribution).

>
>Helium demonstrates "nuclear," by whatever mechanism. It's a 
>transmuted element.

Agreed.

>
>Look, I can't rule out hydrinos, but I'd expect hydrino-catalyzed 
>fusion to produce the same branching ratio as muon-catalyzed fusion. 
>I.e., the same as hot fusion.

Not necessarily. The shrunken electron(s) may carry away the energy thus
conserving momentum while allowing the formation of He4, or a hydrino molecule
may be involved in a fusion reaction allowing half to fuse while the other half
carries away the reaction energy, or clusters of molecules may be involved (same
effect).

>
>Mills doesn't look quite as nuts as Rossi, but I do get a bit, ah, 
>... impatient ... at announcements of products that are ready any day 
>now, for years. Blacklight Power is, again, *secret* process, like 
>Rossi. What is Rowan University up to now? ...

I don't think Blacklight Power is especially secretive, beyond the normal
commercial secretiveness that one might reasonably expect. In fact I think that
they have revealed a great deal more than others in their position might have.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Rich Murray]

Hello Mary Yugo,

I've looked at all of your posts for months, and appreciate your
candor, spunk, restraint, keenness, patience and persistence -- it
seems that the desire for a major game changing breakthrough since
1989 leads to premature big gambles that so far always fail -- so the
whole enterprise develops a traumatic history with many cycles of
flash and fizzle for each new device -- so there isn't support for
gradual basic research that establishes tiny beachheads, one after
another -- the research that led to the game changing discovery of
uranium fission in early 1939 was fairly routine, straightforward
simple nuclear chemistry, and it took months before the correct
paradigm was found -- likewise the evolution of transistor technology
after 1948 depended on advances in growing extremely pure crystals of
germanium and silicon via "zone refining", and finding and eliminating
nano level impurities that poisoned the electronic properties of n and
p conducting regions -- very painstaking, detailed baroque recipe work
that usually was trial and error -- however, the evolving frontier of
science and technology is a forever evolving and expanding complex
fractal horizon -- so if CF is possible, someday it will unpredictably
show up in some arcane corner in the fractal -- perhaps in "water
tree" corrosion in dense polyethylene insulation in high voltage power
cables?

Merry Christmas and a vigorous New Year!  Rich

Re: [Vo]:LENR & 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[mixent]

In reply to  Mary Yugo's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:31:21 -0800:
Hi,

The reasons you give have little to do with the reason for being there, as
indicated by the fact that the current incumbents are not much better. Basically
the problems you describe are part of the culture of the local people, and have
little to do with who is actually running the country. Note also that these
problems are typically used as an excuse for waging the war, because they go
down well with the simplistic mindset of Joe Sixpack.

You are however correct about the post not being appropriate to the list, so
this will be my last on the matter.

>On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:07 PM,  wrote:
>
>> I
>> You already do...in Afghanistan. ;) What do you think was the real reason
>> for
>> fighting the Taliban (under whom Opium production nearly died out).
>>
>
>This isn't a good place for politics but I can't let something that stupid
>get by.  Regardless of how you feel about the wisdom of the US fighting at
>all in Afghanistan, the real reason for fighting the Taliban is that they
>are a bunch of cruel Stone Age savages who suppress all human rights,
>especially those of the weak, minorities and women.  They also destroy all
>art, dance and culture.  They perpetuate beastiality, sexually abuse young
>boys systematically and with social approval, they rape and torture and
>murder women with impunity, and they actively prevent education, science,
>and any advancement of human progress.  Other than that, they're fine--
>let's leave them alone.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 05:13 PM 12/27/2011, Charles HOPE wrote:

As to the opinion of quantum physicists on the possibility of there 
being unknown effects in the solid state, there was a recent 
revision of a textbook on solid state nuclear models, and it has a 
section on LENR, and it turns out that the author had written 
something pointing to the lack of "impossibility" back around 1990.



I don't quite follow. Do you mean that he first wrote that it was 
not impossible, and then was forced to delete the statement?


No. He wrote sometime around 1990 that LENR could not be considered 
impossible, we simply didn't know enough about the complexities of 
the solid state.


He recently produced an updated edition of his textbook on nuclear 
models that covers LENR as a reality. Published as a major physics 
textbook by a major publisher, Springer? I forget. 

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 03:28 PM 12/27/2011, Charles Hope wrote:
If the helium levels are "what they should be" compared to the heat, 
that assumes some theory that correlates them. Which theory is that?


This is an experimental observation, and what you are asking was 
stated. Helium is produced in PdD cells, when the FPHE effect is 
observed and heat is measured, and helium is collected and measured, 
at what Storms estimates as 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4.


If deuterium is converted to helium, the energy released is 23.8 
MeV/He-4. So the hypothesis here would be that the reaction is 
somehow converting deuterium into helium. For this purpose it is not 
necessary to know what the reaction is, as long as there are no other 
energy sinks. (For example, energy lost to neutrino emission.)


Krivit has criticised the work that was the basis for Storms' 
estimate, mostly over details of little consequence. Regardless, when 
Miles reported energy/He-4 that was within an order of magnitude of 
the value expected for deuterium fusion, Huizenga, who might be 
considered the leader of the skeptics, he did more to torpedo cold 
fusion in the early days than anyone else, as co-chair of the 1989 
ERAB panel, thought the Miles work was astonishing, solving a major 
riddle of cold fusion (the ash!), but he then added his expecation 
that Miles would not be confirmed. After all, there were no gamma 
rays, which would certainly be expected from d + d -> He-4.


He was obviously assuming that if there was a reaction, it would be 
straight, normal d+d fusion. Obviously, it isn't.


But *any reaction that converts deuterium to helium* will produce 
that much energy. This is not a proof, but reactions that produce 
that much energy per helium nuclear product are rare. I'm not aware 
of any. Of course, this is indeed an "unknown nuclear reaction," so 
... we don't know.


Just as an example of a different reaction that would produce the 
same energy, though, Takahashi's Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate 
"motion" causes, in theory, collapse and fusion of four deuterons to 
form a single excited Be-8 nucleus. What happens then is unclear. 
Normally, Be-8 has a very short lifetime, on the order of a 
femtosecond, decaying into two helium nuclei plus 47.6 MeV.


The magic number, 23.8 MeV/He-4. No gamma would be expected.

However, still no cigar, Takahashi hasn't earned his Nobel yet, 
perhaps. If the energy appears in the helium nuclei, if they were 
23.8 MeV each, as kinetic energy, there would observable effects that 
are not observed. Those would be very hot alpha particles, they would 
Do Stuff, to use the technical term. To give an idea of why Something 
Completely Different might happen, that Be-8 is formed inside of a 
Bose-Einstein Condensate, and we have no idea what to expect as the 
behavior of a highly unstable radioisotope that forms inside a BEC. 
One possibility that looms is that the energy would be distributed 
among all the consituents of the BEC, which, for starters, might be 
larger than four deuterons. The deuterium in the BEC is molecular 
deterium, possibly. It includes the electrons. They might carry away 
quite a bit of the energy.


And studying this stuff, experimentally, is apparently very, very 
difficult. Especially without funding! 

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:07 PM 12/27/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:


On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
<a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
It's been called "fusion confusion." Look, Aussie Guy is 
anonymous, what he writes is next to meaningless. Don't mix this up 
with the huge corpus of work from hundreds of scientists around the world.



Hi Abd,

Thanks for the citations and suggestions.  I will look into them in 
the future.  I am hopeful that the work you describe is valid and 
will lead to something useful.


To restate, my interest here is limited.  I find it amazing and 
amusing that anyone believes Rossi and Defkalion on the strength of 
what they have done (and not done) thus far.


I don't believe them. I finally concluded that Occam's Razor was that 
Rossi was deliberately deceptive. That is not a proof, and I'm not, 
for example, aware of anything illegal from him, specifically. 
However, I don't know what representations he has made to others, 
involved in binding contracts. Puffery and even straight-out lying 
are not necessarily illegal, a lot of people don't understand that. 
Fraud is illegal, but there must be someone actually defrauded, not 
merely fooled.


  So I follow their story, hoping it will get better but finding 
out it keeps getting worse.


I've seen no sign of improvement since early this year. It's amazing 
how badly these demonstrations could be run. I concluded that Rossi's 
goal might very well be to (1) attract attention, while (2) appearing 
to be a fraud. As Jed knows, there could be some sane reasons for him 
to do that. Or at least not totally insane.


  And if Aussie Guy really has cells that run continuously and 
indefinitely at a COP of 5x over a 1 Watt input, I'd find that 
interesting as well.


It's just a claim, and it might be naive, we know nothing about 
Aussie Guy except that he doesn't seem particularly familiar with the 
field of LENR.


  I sort of doubt that he has such cells and that they will work 
the way he hopes.  I am also amused by his claim that he is going 
to get an E-cat to test.  I have no idea why he believes that given 
that nobody else in the world has said they have.


We can't tell. He might have a contractual commitment, or he might 
merely be making optimistic statements. People do that, you know.


In summary, I am interested in robust, rather large claims to cold 
fusion/LENR demonstrations.


Rossi claims that, but that was not, and cannot be considered to be, 
the state of the science. There is clear evidence that LENR is 
possible, enough that it is quite foolish for it to be unfunded, 
particularly given the horrendously poor showing, so far, through hot 
fusion approaches. I've opined that it's possible this will never be 
commercially practical, but that's why we do pure science. You can't 
know till you know!


The position of the particle physicists in 1989-1990 was pretty sad. 
It was basically, "This is impossible because we cannot understand 
how this could possibly work. Those chemists don't understand nuclear 
physics. It must be a mistake."


It's one of the basic bonehead mistakes to make in science, the kind 
of thing Feynman warned about. Dismissing experimental evidence on 
purely theoretical grounds is generally a Bad Idea.


Here is what I suggest taking home, but if you really want to know 
this independently of my suggestion, you'll need to do a *lot* of 
reading. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions are possible, and they do 
include fusion, i.e., the conversion of deuterium to helium, with the 
release of enormous energy *per reaction.* However, we are -- unless 
Rossi or other independent approaches pan out -- far from being able 
to reliably set up the reaction conditions so that the energy is 
robust and predictable, what you want to see.


It took twenty years of development of the state of the art to come 
to the point where someone who is willing to put in the time and 
money, to learn how to do it, can see the FPHE. Many many early 
replication attempts failed, for reasons that are now fairly well 
known. What puzzled many was that what seemed to be *the very same 
conditions* would sometimes produce the result and sometimes not.


Turns out that what may seem to be "the same" isn't necessarily the 
same. I've become fond of the graph published by SRI for P13/14. 
Unfortunately, they did not publish what needed to be published, for 
what they show is the "chimera of cold fusion," the appearance of a 
very clear, unmistakeable heat signal. That graph shows excess heat 
from two cells operated in series, same current through each, as a 
current excursion in the deuterium cell produces a tracking excess 
heat signal, but the same excursion in a hydrogen cell produces only 
more noise. The signal is very well elevated above the noise, it's 
quite clear. What people don't see is that the same pair of cells was 
put through the same protocol three times, and the excess heat signal 
only appeare

[Vo]:Rossi announces a titanic step forward, how he will deal with competitors and 1m E-Cats for 2012

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563&cpage=7#comment-157900

 *
   Andrea Rossi
   December 27th, 2011 at 2:33 PM
   


   Dear Gherardo:
   The price will be enough low to forbid any competition. At that
   point the reverse engineering will be a hobby, not a source of
   competition, so that everything will become easier. This is the
   battle we won during these days: we made a titanic step forward,
   derived from a lucky idea and from the huge possibilities our new
   Partners have opened to us. The price will be much lower than you
   said, but we will declare the price when we will be ready: remember,
   if I say one thing, I have to do it. Anyway: the first version will
   produce hot water and heating, but it will be able to be retrofitted
   with the electric power generation when we will be ready also with it.
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.

 *
   Andrea Rossi
   December 27th, 2011 at 2:25 PM
   


   Dear Frank Acland:
   1- We are making it
   2- We will necessaruly have to do this.
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.

 *
   Frank Acland
   December 27th, 2011 at 2:06 PM
   


   Dear Andrea,

   You mention the need to produce 1 million e-cats immediately in
   order to meet your goals. This is certainly ambitious, but it would
   be very exciting for you to be able to do this.

   1. Do you have the production infrastructure (including outsourcing)
   to build this many plants?
   2. Are you process enough nickel powder to fuel this many e-cats?

   Wishing you the very best for 2012!

   Frank Acland

Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:01 PM 12/27/2011, Horace Heffner wrote:


On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


Transmutations are not observed with any clean correlation with
excess heat. Some experiments produce more, some less. Levels of
transmuted products other than helium are produced at far lower
levels than helium, many orders of magnitude lower.


This is far from true.  Transmutation products have been detected by
chemical means, and XRF.  This requires large quantities of product.


Horace, can you provide a reference for this. It contradicts what 
I've understood.


To be sure, I'm talking about widely reported results, not about 
isolated reports.



This is one of the great mysteries of LENR - the vast amount of
nuclear reactions involved in heavy element transmutation, without
the corresponding excess heat.  It is explanation of this
experimental observation that is one of the strong points of
deflation fusion theory.


Please specify the "experimental observation." Quantitatively. 
Various techniques have been used to detect extremely small 
quantities of transmuted elements on cathode surfaces, but this work 
is hampered by the "garbage collector" characteristic of an 
electrolytic cathode, it attracts cations from the tiniest impurities 
in cell materials, one can find almost anything on a cold fusion 
cathode. However, my understanding has been that the detected 
quantities, compared to the helium found to be correlated with the 
FPHE, are far lower. I.e., typical tritium results might be a 
production of about 10^11 atoms of tritium, compared to, say, 10^14 
atoms of helium. That's about three orders of magnitude down.


My understanding has been that in most reports, other transmuted 
elements are at even lower numbers. However, looking through Storms, 
I do see some reports of higher production rates. One of the problems 
with transmuation reports are that the techniques are all over the 
map, and when we are looking for what are usually very low quantities 
of material, and with many of the reported elements, contamination is 
a real problem. Earthtech showed fairly well how some reported 
transmutations were do to cell contaminants, and Storms cautions 
about the problem studying electrolytic cells re transmutation.


There are many research avenues which have not been explored, it's a 
problem related to the widespread rejection of cold fusion, it became 
very difficult to get funding for this work, so many promising 
avenues of exploration have never been followed. Some quite amazing 
work has been done, as an example, involving biological 
transmutation, specifically the work of Vyosotskii. The work, as 
reported, seems definitive. But I've not seen or heard of any attempt 
to replicate what should be a fairly simple experiment, one merely 
needs access to Mossbauer spectroscopy, and one of the reported 
cultures (deinococcus radiodurans has been used, quite a fascinating 
little bug all by itself. What would be the evolutionary advantage to 
being astonishingly resistant to radiation? Could it be because the 
organism does a little nuclear chemistry?


If cold fusion results from cavities of a certain size, with loading 
of the cavities with available elements, it simply wouldn't be 
utterly beyond the pale for biology to figure out a way to do it, but 
if there is very short-range radiation, and if the reaction takes 
place inside a cell, there would be radiation damage.


Many cold fusion researchers look for the exits when someone starts 
talking about biological transmutation, because, after all, isn't 
that crazy? But it is not really any crazier than cold fusion itself, 
i.e., highly unexpected, but sometimes nature does what we don't expect.


What I've come to is an understanding, a sense of probability that 
there are many reactions involved, not just one. Some reactions do 
one thing, other reactions do other things. One of the assumptions 
that made it difficult to establish cold fusion findings, originally, 
is exactly the assumption that there was only one reaction. With that 
assumption, then, but widely differing reported phenomena, the sum of 
those reports looked to skeptics like proof that CF reseatchers were 
just imagining things. This experiment produces tritium, that one 
doesn't. Well, does cold fusion produce tritium or not? Make up your minds!


"Cold fusion" means, in practice, any nuclear reaction, other than 
possible accelerated decay (known for some beta-capture examples to 
be possible to influence with chemistry), that takes place with 
excitation energies below those of thermonuclear fusion. However, the 
popular usage implies condensed matter temperatures, i.e., below the 
vaporization temperature of elements, and mostly below the melting 
point for metals. Other names that are related are LANR, 
Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions. Presumably the lattice provides 
what Storms calls the Nuclear Active Environment, NAE.


It appears that palladium does

Re: [Vo]:care less

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:57 PM,   wrote:
> In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011
> 10:56:38 -0600:
> Hi,
>
> Quote:
> "I think they will care less about any theoretical arguments that"
>
> This is one of my pet peeves with Americans. ;)
>
> The expression is "couldn't care less" not "could care less".
>
> "couldn't care less" is short for "It isn't possible for me to care less about
> this subject because I don't care about it at all" (and I'm sure you don't ;)
>
> If you "could care less", then it means you must care about it to some extent 
> as
> it is possible for you to care less than the amount that you now do.

Hey, don't steal my pet peeve.  I have posted on this frequently.

Stealing my pet peeve is so gay.

;-)

T

Re: [Vo]:LENR & 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Never, never, never. This is essentially why SPAWARS is being closed.

SPAWAR is not being closed.  Perhaps you refer to only the CF tests.
SPAWAR is large:

http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pages/default.aspx

T

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 27, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Charles HOPE wrote:



On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Horace Heffner  
 wrote:



The conventional D+D fusion reaction, using mass differences, is:

 D + D --> 4He + 23.847 MeV



OK, I get it. Am I correct that the conventional theory says this  
reaction doesn't really occur (it's either 3He + n, or 3H + H), or  
if it did somehow, the energy would be emitted as gamma ray, and  
not as heat?


As noted on page 9 of:

http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf

the standard branching ratios are:


D + D --> T(1.01 MeV) + p(3.03 MeV) (4.03 MeV, 50%)
D + D --> 3He(0.82 MeV) + n(2.45 MeV) (3.27 MeV, 50%)
D + D --> 4He( 76 keV) + gamma (23.8 MeV) (23.9 MeV, 1x10-6)

The D+D --> 4He happens about 1 time in a million.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:care less

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Robin sez:

> Hi,
> 
> Quote:
> "I think they will care less about any theoretical arguments that"
> 
> This is one of my pet peeves with Americans. ;)
> 
> The expression is "couldn't care less" not "could care less".
> 
> "couldn't care less" is short for "It isn't possible for me to care
> less about this subject because I don't care about it at all" (and
> I'm sure you don't ;)
> 
> If you "could care less", then it means you must care about it to some
> extent as
> it is possible for you to care less than the amount that you now do.
> 

Yo, Robin.

I noz what I sez. So duz you.

Nuf sed.

Meanwhile I leev the linguistics to peeved-off schalers.

Happy NY, Robin. C U in 2012! ;-)

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Charles HOPE]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

> At 01:35 AM 12/27/2011, Charles Hope wrote:
>
>
>  On Dec 26, 2011, at 22:10, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Then there is that pesky Coulomb barrier. What I found, though, was
>> that there was ample opinion among quantum physicists that it was possible
>> that the unexplored conditions of condensed matter just might provide some
>> pathway around that, some kind of tunneling or alternate reaction. Recent
>> work has actually predicted fusion from a physical arrangement of deuterium
>> that *might* be present, quite rarely, in highly loaded PdD. That's using,
>> apparently, standard quantum mechanics, but that theory is as yet
>> unverified.
>>
>> Oh? Citation, please?
>>
>
> Akito Takahashi, multiple publications, going back into the early 1990s.
> For example, see "Study on 4D/Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate Condensation
> Motion by Non-Linear Langevin Equation," Akito Takahashi and Norio
> Yabuuchi, in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, ed Marwan and Krivit,
> American Chemical Society and Oxford University Press, 2008.
>
> See also the Storms review, which mentions this work, "Status of cold
> fusion (2010)," Naturwissenschaften, October 2010. For abstract, see
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/**pubmed/20838756,
> for a preprint, see http://www.lenr-canr.org/**
> acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf
>
>

Thank you, I will have a look at these papers.



> As to the opinion of quantum physicists on the possibility of there being
> unknown effects in the solid state, there was a recent revision of a
> textbook on solid state nuclear models, and it has a section on LENR, and
> it turns out that the author had written something pointing to the lack of
> "impossibility" back around 1990.



I don't quite follow. Do you mean that he first wrote that it was not
impossible, and then was forced to delete the statement?

[Vo]:National Security and Population Structure

[James Bowery]

A young Nebraska farmer's son went to war against Germany and came back
with code-breaking skills, as well as good DoD contacts.  His name was
William Norris.  He started Control Data Corporation with a young engineer
named Seymour Cray and, with 34 people out on Seymour's farm in Wisconsin
(only one of whom was a PhD and he was a Jr. programmer) built what is
widely regarded as the first supercomputer
-- even as IBM's armies of PhD's and
unlimited resources foundered in the
effort much to the dismay of IBM's CEO, Thomas Watson, Jr.

Somewhere along the line, they hired me.

What I learned was that both Bill and Seymour had very strong feelings
about the national security implications of an increasingly urbanized
population.  That's one reason Seymour had his lab out in the north woods
of Wisconsin.  Bill, as CEO of CDC, had made this allowance for Seymour
while keeping CDC HQ in Minneapolis St. Paul (right across from the
airport).

The reason I signed on with them was the promise that I could fulfill part
of Bill's vision for America:

National security through dispersed population structure -- both its
preservation as an American heritage and its promotion as recovery from the
recent urbanization that threatened that heritage.  Basically, its
virtually impossible to take out a decentralized society -- whether you are
a nuclear superpower or an international terrorist organization.

My particular part in this effort was that I was to prototype a
mass-marketable version of the PLATO network, which I did circa 1980.  I
won't go into the details of that network except to say that the
contribution it would have made to national security would have been to
connect "smart" rural homesteads with information, education and business
resources that would contribute to their self-sufficiency.  Yes, I know,
this is starting to be realized today, but a lot of water has passed under
the bridge since 1980, no?

The rest of Bill's vision was that these smart homesteads would be energy
and food self-sufficient.

The reason you never heard of these things is that they were in direct
conflict with Wall Street's interests and Wall Street made no secret of its
hatred of Bill's vision.

I succeeded in prototyping the mass market PLATO system and it was quashed
by a mutinous middle management more identified with Wall Street than the
"crazy old koot" in the executive suite.  Unlike many of Bill's other
technology directions in support of decentralized population structure, the
PLATO system was poised to make immediate profits and roll out mass
produced Macintosh equivalent network computers for a service that would
have cost $40/month in 1980 dollars -- and that includes terminal rental.
 So it was particularly egregious that this technology was killed for the
noble purpose of making America vulnerable to 9/11 type attacks.

Bottom line, as technology advances, there is an increasing call for
oppression to maintain the centralized population structure, just as there
was to create it by moving the boomers out of their small midwestern towns,
through universities and into the sterilizing urban environments in which
they could not afford children  --
but the attack on national security was conducted by Wall Street against
the traditional American way of life.  Any discussion, nowadays, about the
threat to national security represented by attacks against centralized
symbols like the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 is utter misdirection.

Re: [Vo]:care less

[Charles HOPE]

http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html




On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:57 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Tue, 27 Dec
> 2011
> 10:56:38 -0600:
> Hi,
>
> Quote:
> "I think they will care less about any theoretical arguments that"
>
> This is one of my pet peeves with Americans. ;)
>
> The expression is "couldn't care less" not "could care less".
>
> "couldn't care less" is short for "It isn't possible for me to care less
> about
> this subject because I don't care about it at all" (and I'm sure you don't
> ;)
>
> If you "could care less", then it means you must care about it to some
> extent as
> it is possible for you to care less than the amount that you now do.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>


-- 
Never did I see a second sun
Never did my skin touch a land of glass
Never did my rifle point but true
But in a land empty of enemies
Waiting for the tick-tick-tick of the want
A uranium angel
Crying “behold,”
This land that knew fire is yours
Taken from Corruption
To begin anew

Re: [Vo]:LENR & 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-12-27 04:31 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:



On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:07 PM, > wrote:


I
You already do...in Afghanistan. ;) What do you think was the real
reason for
fighting the Taliban (under whom Opium production nearly died out).


This isn't a good place for politics but I can't let something that 
stupid get by.  Regardless of how you feel about the wisdom of the US 
fighting at all in Afghanistan, the real reason for fighting the 
Taliban is that they are a bunch of cruel Stone Age savages who 
suppress all human rights, especially those of the weak, minorities 
and women.  They also destroy all art, dance and culture.  They 
perpetuate beastiality, sexually abuse young boys systematically and 
with social approval, they rape and torture and murder women with 
impunity, and they actively prevent education, science, and any 
advancement of human progress.  Other than that, they're fine-- let's 
leave them alone.



You folks seem to be postulating various "reasons" for why the U.S. went 
into Afghanistan.   Did either of you ever hear, by any chance, of an 
event commonly referred to as "9/11"?


I still remember the little stickers which were being sold on the 
Internet for a (very brief) period just after 9/11, and before anybody 
in the government even admitted the United States was thinking about 
attacking anybody.   They were shaped like Afghanistan, sticky on the 
back, made to be stuck to a common-sized world globe.  They had just one 
change over the usual country image as it appears on a globe:  The name 
on the country was "Toast".


Wasn't it amazing how the folks selling those stickers guessed the U.S. 
was about to invade, if the "real reason" really had nothing to do with 
9/11??  What a coincidence!


There may have been other justifications for going after the Taliban, 
either conspiracy-based or morality-based, but if the air force had been 
on the stick that day and had shot down all four planes before they hit 
their targets, I don't think we'd be wondering how we got into this mess 
today ... because we wouldn't be in it.

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Charles HOPE]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

>
>
> The conventional D+D fusion reaction, using mass differences, is:
>
>  D + D --> 4He + 23.847 MeV
>
>

OK, I get it. Am I correct that the conventional theory says this reaction
doesn't really occur (it's either 3He + n, or 3H + H), or if it did
somehow, the energy would be emitted as gamma ray, and not as heat?

[Vo]:care less

[mixent]

In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011
10:56:38 -0600:
Hi,

Quote:
"I think they will care less about any theoretical arguments that"

This is one of my pet peeves with Americans. ;)

The expression is "couldn't care less" not "could care less".

"couldn't care less" is short for "It isn't possible for me to care less about
this subject because I don't care about it at all" (and I'm sure you don't ;)

If you "could care less", then it means you must care about it to some extent as
it is possible for you to care less than the amount that you now do.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:If I Had Free Energy/Politics

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 27, 2011, at 12:22 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:


In reply to  Zell, Chris's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:14:56 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
some pretend LENR can incinerate, with the produced neutrons), and  
also for cleaning and recycling plants... but basically nuclear  
industry will move to cleaning mode for 40-60 years.


Actually protons would be far better than neutrons, because they  
can convert
unstable isotopes into stable ones. Essentially all isotopes  
resulting from
fission reactions are neutron rich, so adding a proton or two tends  
to convert

them to stable isotopes.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html




For loaded lattices, high energy electrons might be as useful,  
because they are so easy to provide.  Following are some very old  
posts of mine and quotes which I think are relevant to this subject  
(nuclear remediation):


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pockets of compressed hydrogen at defects created by hydrogen
implantation of metals, esp. aluminum, have been shown to be fusion
sites when bombarded by either electron beams (Kamada et al), or
deuteron beams (Kasagi et al).  The strong containment may be
significant at the time of fusion catalysis due to the need to give
secondary electrons time to work.

The Kasagi experiment created protons with anomalous energies of up
to 17 MeV using a beam that was less than 150 KeV.  The Kasagi
experiment involved the bombardment of a deuterium loaded titanium
rod target with deuterium ions at up to 150 KeV.  One possible
explanation for the above was that somehow the incident deuteron
frequently, for unexplained reasons, would interact with two target
deuterons:

   D + D + D   --->p + n + alpha + 21.62 MEV

One possible explanation for such a phenomenon is that in the lattice
deuterons tend to form Bose condensates which, when struck by a
deuteron, tend to react as a single entity.

Kamada obtained high energy particles and excess heat evidence using
electron bombardment of deuterated targets.  The fact fusion can be
triggered by electron beam bombardment is an indication of or
confirmation of electron catalysed fusion.  The exciting thing is the
requirement for the electron catalysis to happen at highly compressed
pockets of deuterium.

The high energy electron beam used by Kamada may have been primarily
needed in order to obtain the required penetration. Perhaps this is
an indication that the best way to obtain a volume CF effect, as
opposed to a surface CF effect, is to bombard the deuterated target
with xrays.  The xrays can then, at depth, provide the needed
catalytic electrons of the required energy.  It would be of great
interest to correlate fusion events with x-ray energy for deuterated
targets of varying thickness.

One of the interesting results obtained by Kamada:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Vol. 35 (1996) pp. 738-747
Part 1, No. 2A, February 1996

Anomalous Heat Evolution of Deuteron-Implanted Al
upon Electron Bombardment

Kohji KAMADA, Hiroshi KINOSHITA [1] and Heishitiro TAKAHASHI [1]
National Institute for Fusion Science, Nagoya 464-01, Japan
[1] Center of Advanced Research Energy Technology, Hokkaido University,
Sapporo 062, Japan

(Received December 7, 1994; accepted for publication November 6, 1995)

  Anomalous heat evolution was observed for the first time in
deuteron- implanted Al foils upon 175 keV electron bombardment.
Local regions with linear dimension of more than 100 nm showed
simultaneous transformation from single-crystalline to
polycrystalline structure within roughly one minute during the
electron bombardment, indicating a temperature rise to above the
melting point of Al from room temperature.  The amount of energy
evolved was estimated to be typically 160 MeV for each transformed
region. The transformation was never observed in proton-implanted Al
foils.  Micro- structures in the subsurface layer of the implanted
Al, investigated by elastic recoil detection (ERD) method and
transmission electron microscopy (TEM), were presented for numerical
discussions of the experimental results.

Possible causes of the surface melting, such as the heating effect of
the electron beam, size effect of the melting point, difference in
the implanted depth profiles between hydrogen and deuterium, and
possible chemical reactions due to the bombardment in D2 collections,
were investigated.  We consider that some kind of nuclear reaction
occurring in the D2 collections is the only explanation for the
observed melting.  The reaction was esti- mated to continue for only
a short time, presumably less than 10E-10 s, and the energy gain,
which is defined as the ratio between the amount of energy evolved
and the energy loss of the impinging electrons through the Al
spec

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-12-26 11:12 PM, Alberto De Souza wrote:
I'm a new member of the list, but I'm reading the posts since January. 
I'm addicted...


If we have a large COP (10-100), I believe we can use thin film 
thermogenerators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectricity) such 
as these http://www.micropelt.com/down/datasheet_mpg_d651_d751.pdf to 
make a self sustain wet cell... We can put thousands of those around a 
wet cell. They produce useful power with as little as 10 degrees 
Celsius (see datasheet).


With a 10 degree rise, operating at room temperature, you'd need a COP 
of around 30 to make the cell self sustain, if you were using an ideal 
thermoelectric generator and you were capturing all the generated heat.  
Using a real world generator and real world heat transfer mechanisms, 
the COP would need to be substantially higher than that.


10 degrees over room temperature gives you about 3.5% conversion 
efficiency, in the best possible "ideal" case.


If you run the cell hotter and continue to get a 10 degree temp boost 
out of it, the 10 degree rise will be smaller (proportionately 
speaking), and you get even worse efficiency as a result.


Unfortunately real-world PdD cells don't operate with a COP anywhere 
near 30.  So, no, you can't do what you're proposing.

Re: [Vo]:LENR & 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 27, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:




On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:07 PM,  wrote:
I
You already do...in Afghanistan. ;) What do you think was the real  
reason for

fighting the Taliban (under whom Opium production nearly died out).

This isn't a good place for politics but I can't let something that  
stupid get by.


Sure you can.  Just try hard. 8^)

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:LENR & 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


Horace,

I considered this point (no neutron chain reaction nor obvious  
substitute)
but am convinced that there is no need for the kind of chain  
reaction we are

familiar with in fission. If you understand subcritical neutron
multiplication, you will see that massive gain is possible without  
true

chain reaction dynamics.


Subcritical neutron generation merely makes expanded use of each  
neutron supplied by an external source. If the neutrons themselves  
generate more than a neutron on average, then the reaction is a chain  
reaction.  If not, the energy is limited in the extreme, by the input  
flux, which in the case under discussion is cosmic rays. A large  
explosion is not feasible without a chain reaction.





Obviously, my theory for gain is not the same as yours, although  
there is

some similarity.

In this hypothesis, which borrows from Mills but is very different,  
and also
from Robin's version of Mills - there is dense hydrogen  
accumulation via
Mills' catalysis - not unlike the Holmlid/Miley model, and protons  
reside on
a dielectric surface, ala Lawandy. Even with maximum pitting  
(Casimir pits)

the IRH is too transitory, without cryogenics. Cryogenics is one major
limitation for weaponization (thankfully). Precision is another.


Planar configurations are not condusive to criticality.


Without cryogenics to quench during the IRH accumulation stage, and  
the
occasional cosmic ray - you would likely have a Rossi-type of  
reaction that

cannot go far beyond the meltdowns he claims to have seen.


Yes.  Thermally driven slow (non-cahin) reactions necessarily die off  
when the lattice melts.





Mirror electrons in the dielectric keep the protons close to each  
other.

They can be degenerate or deflated.


They can form ordinary atoms in that case, i.e. being on a surface  
with spare electrons.




There is no primary fusion nor fission.
Gain comes from non-quark nuclear boson depletion, is instigated by  
strong

force attraction, followed by Coulomb repulsion - and depends on quark
statistics.


As Robin says, this make no sense.


Gain is in the range of tens to hundreds of keV per proton.
There are secondary nuclear reactions but most of the energy gain  
is from

accelerated protons.

The leap of faith is that net proton mass is an average, not  
quantized like
quark mass, and can vary a fractional percent. Of course, some of  
the mass
variation is convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted  
against
Coulomb repulsion. The suggested P-e-P reaction is absurd except  
under solar
conditions - and is discarded in place of strong force attraction,  
followed

by energetic repulsion when the two cannot bind.


I am not sure what you mean here.  If you are referring to:

I said "A very very small rate of pep reactions may occur ...".  This  
I think is obviously true. "Very very small" is very very small.   
8^)  I also noted that "... this gamma producing reaction was not  
observed above background in the Rossi E-cats."





In a weapon, a surrounding ballotechnic (nano-thermite??) would be  
needed to

implode a target with great spherical precision, so that a uniform
statistical "first wave" is instigated. This would be followed by the
functional equivalent of (slowly decreasing waves) of neutron  
multiplication

in a subcritical reactor

This result depends on rapid timing and high initial energy density  
in the
surround. The required level of precision would be another  
limitation for
terrorist groups, since none of them would likely put up the  
millions needed

for tooling - not to mention many years of development.


I don't see a neutron based chain reaction as feasible at all.  For  
that fast neutron fissioning material is needed. LENR stuff would  
merely make that kind of thing even more difficult.






Rossi or DGT may change that situation.

Jones


-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner

It seems to me that LENR cannot be weaponized.  The stuff that
permits chain reactions accumulates slowly, if it even exists at
all.  This permits cosmic rays to limit the accumulation.





Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


> Arata ran a small motor with one heated by a self-sustaining gas-loaded
> cell.
>
>
> Jed, could you possibly give a URL for the paper (if Arata published one
> and if it's been uploaded anywhere)?
>

I do not think he ever published that. It was just something he did during
his demonstration in 2008. It is not important.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR & 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:07 PM,  wrote:

> I
> You already do...in Afghanistan. ;) What do you think was the real reason
> for
> fighting the Taliban (under whom Opium production nearly died out).
>

This isn't a good place for politics but I can't let something that stupid
get by.  Regardless of how you feel about the wisdom of the US fighting at
all in Afghanistan, the real reason for fighting the Taliban is that they
are a bunch of cruel Stone Age savages who suppress all human rights,
especially those of the weak, minorities and women.  They also destroy all
art, dance and culture.  They perpetuate beastiality, sexually abuse young
boys systematically and with social approval, they rape and torture and
murder women with impunity, and they actively prevent education, science,
and any advancement of human progress.  Other than that, they're fine--
let's leave them alone.

Re: [Vo]:If I Had Free Energy/Politics

[mixent]

In reply to  Zell, Chris's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:14:56 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>some pretend LENR can incinerate, with the produced neutrons), and also for 
>cleaning and recycling plants... but basically nuclear industry will move to 
>cleaning mode for 40-60 years.

Actually protons would be far better than neutrons, because they can convert
unstable isotopes into stable ones. Essentially all isotopes resulting from
fission reactions are neutron rich, so adding a proton or two tends to convert
them to stable isotopes.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Horace Heffner]

I wrote: "The heavy lattice atoms are closer to absorbed hydrogen  
than hydrogen in adjacent lattices."


That should say: "Absorbed hydrogen nuclei are closer to adjacent  
heavy lattice atom nuclei than to hydrogen nuclei in adjacent lattice  
sites."



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-12-26 10:24 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

At 05:31 PM 12/26/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:


On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Jed Rothwell 
<jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
Arata ran a small motor with one heated by a self-sustaining 
gas-loaded cell.



Cool!  Did anyone verify this or replicate it?  And how long did it 
run and at what output level?


Mary! You can find this stuff yourself. Arata cells generate a low 
level of heat, without any input, and the experimental runs I've seen 
end at 3000 minutes, still cranking out the heat.


OK, you've seen papers, please post a link!  Not for MY:  For the rest 
of us.


Again, call me lazy, but I don't want to waste a lot of time digging 
through Lenr-Canr just to come up with what I'll be told later was "the 
wrong paper".

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Horace Heffner]

Excuse me.  I didn't realize your level of understanding.

Mass and energy are related by E = m c^2.  If the inputs and outputs  
have a mass difference, then that mass is converted to energy, in  
kinetic form, radiant form, or both.


This is the basis of most all nuclear reaction energy calculations,  
and the energy calculations I provided for many hundreds of feasible  
(though most of them improbable) reactions here:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt

Note the deuterium reactions here:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RptC

By this investigation I cam up with an entirely new form of LENR,  
namely "nuclear catalytic" action, exemplified by the many reactions  
in Report C.  These are reactions of the form:


  X + 2 D* --> X + 4He + 23.847 MeV

The conventional D+D fusion reaction, using mass differences, is:

  D + D --> 4He + 23.847 MeV

The heavy lattice atoms are closer to absorbed hydrogen than hydrogen  
in adjacent lattices. The tunneling probability of a deflated  
hydrogen nucleus to the vicinity of a heavy nucleus is higher than to  
an adjacent lattice site. If immediate strong reaction does not  
occur, as is the case for heavy nuclei where it is not energetically  
feasible, then the second catalytic action, producing a helium  
nucleus (alpha particle) is feasible. This kind of reaction might be  
engineered to produce a high rate of energy production using the  
right kind of lattice with deuterium.


In any case, as you can see, the mass deficit is 23.847 MeV/c for D+D  
--> 4He, no matter by what pathway this occurs.



On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Charles Hope wrote:

If the helium levels are "what they should be" compared to the  
heat, that assumes some theory that correlates them. Which theory  
is that?




On Dec 27, 2011, at 12:24, Horace Heffner   
wrote:



It is not theory, it is experimental result.  Go to:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/

and enter "Miles helium" and "McKubre helium".


On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Charles Hope wrote:


How's that? According to what theory?



On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:01, Jed Rothwell   
wrote:



Jouni Valkonen wrote:

If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless,  
because there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of  
helium compared to observed heat.




You do not understand correctly. The amounts of helium are right  
what they should be compared to observed heat. Please read Miles  
or McKubre.


- Jed





Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/








Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:LENR & 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:41:55 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Gain comes from non-quark nuclear boson depletion, is instigated by strong
>force attraction, followed by Coulomb repulsion - and depends on quark
>statistics. Gain is in the range of tens to hundreds of keV per proton.
>There are secondary nuclear reactions but most of the energy gain is from
>accelerated protons. 

This implies close proximity between proton and target nucleus. However if such
a proximity exists, then there is no reason a conventional fusion reaction would
not take place.

Besides which, you posit Coulomb force repulsion *after* strong force
attraction, but this makes no sense, because the strong force goes as the sixth
power of distance whereas the Coulomb force goes as the second power, so once
the strong force gains the upper hand, it retains control. There is no
"followed".
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-12-26 05:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Mary Yugo mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com>> wrote:

"Cells running heat after death have closed the loop. Apart from
them, no laboratory scale device can produce electricity. "   The
implication is clear.  The cells can produce electricity.  If that
isn't what you meant, just say so.


Obviously I mean they produce heat in self sustaining mode. You have 
read nothing and you know nothing so you failed to understand that. 
You also fail to understand what anyone with elementary knowledge will 
know: any device which produces heat can be used to 
produce electricity with thermoelectric devices. Arata ran a small 
motor with one heated by a self-sustaining gas-loaded cell.


Jed, could you possibly give a URL for the paper (if Arata published one 
and if it's been uploaded anywhere)?


The lenr-canr search tools are not the best, IMHO, and using Google in a 
general web search to find a particular paper is a time consuming, 
generally frustrating experience.


When you post a link, it's *not* just for the benefit of MY.  A lot of 
us on this list, who are *not* hostile to anything involving CF (as long 
as it doesn't include Rossi as a team member), would love to read the 
papers associated with your references.  But I, for one, don't enjoy 
digging fruitlessly in lenr-canr.org for some paper which I typically 
don't end up finding anyway ... and which you very probably could have 
found in a few seconds.



All Seebeck calorimeters produce electricity, so any self-sustaining 
device inside of one is acting as electric generator, roughly on the 
scale of the plutonium-powered pacemakers of the 1970s.


(Before you lash out with snide comments about how plutonium-powered 
pacemakers never existed, I suggest you look them up.)


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR & 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[mixent]

In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011
14:05:01 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>Regarding the profitability of illegal businesses, like Afghani heroin, I'm
>going to suggest something outrageous. We should seriously consider growing
>our own poppy fields and the manufacture of our own "illegal" drugs. In a
>sense, this is already done in certain Scandinavian countries, like Denmark.

You already do...in Afghanistan. ;) What do you think was the real reason for
fighting the Taliban (under whom Opium production nearly died out).
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:


Horace,

Thanks for the comment.

What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations.
I will check out your theory.
Do you believe any "new physics" is required
- or does standard QM suffice?
I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all.

LP


I should have noted that my application of zero point energy to  
nuclear reactions is possibly "new" physics, though the concepts  
applied are not new at all, i.e. Casimir force, uncertainty energy,  
Fermi pressure, etc.  What is new is the concept of the energetic  
trapping of electrons in heavy nuclei.  This concept requires no new  
physics I think, just an understanding of a simple mechanism by which  
a net zero charge ensemble can enter the nucleus via tunneling and a  
net magnetic energy gain. That this is feasible is to me self evident.


The basic concept behind the deflated state is simple conventional  
physics - namely that the magnetic force, a 1/r^4 force, becomes  
larger than the 1/r^2 Coulomb force at close radii.


Feynman and Wheeler computed there is enough energy in the vacuum of  
a light bulb to boil the oceans of the earth.


The energy of the zero point field is vast.  More specifically, in:

http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PRAv49_678.pdf

Haisch, Reuda, and Puthoff give the spectral energy density rho by  
(virtual) photon angular frequency omega as:


   rho(omega) d omega = (h_bar/(2 Pi^2 c^3)) omega^3 d omega

Integrating for omega = 0 to omega1 obtains energy density E_rho:

   E_rho(omega1) =  (h_bar/(8 Pi^2 c^3))) omega1^4

   E_rho(omega1) =  4.95707 kg s m^-1 omega1^4

Using the Planck angular frequency, 1.85487x10^43 s^-1, for omega1 we  
have energy density:


   E_rho = 5.86784x10^111 J/m^3

Note that this also represents a pressure to the vacuum of  
5.8678x10^111 Pa.  Using m = E/c^2 that also represents


   M_rho = E_rho/c^2 = 6.5289x10^94 kg/m^3

This, to me, is and indication that the photons of the zero point  
field are virtual and have no mass.


Obtaining use of the vacuum pressure requires exclusion of the  
virtual photons from a given volume, the source of the Casimir  
force.  Uncertainty energy and the Casimir force can be viewed as  
different sides of the same coin.


There is a vast pool of energy all around us.  All we have to do is  
figure out a way to tap it.  The system is then no longer closed, and  
it is no longer a zero sum game. I think close electron-nucleus  
interaction may be the way to tap this energy. Such close  
interactions can be induced with low energies using various means,  
including resonant effects.


In 2007 I first estimated the magnetic binding force on a stable  
electron orbital on deuterium, one in which the electron deBroglie  
wavelength was less than the orbital radius:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf

This was referenced in my first article on deflation fusion,  
published in I.E.   The magnetic force was 4 orders of magnitude  
larger than the Coulomb force.


It seems to me that Jefimenko has it right when he shows magnetism is  
just the relativistic effects, the effects of retardation of the  
action of the Coulomb field.  It is retardation effects due to  
virtual photon velocity.   If so, then this is a key link into the  
energy sea of the zero point field.  This link may provide some of  
the energy of LENR.  The Casimir force may even provide some insight  
to the mechanisms of weak reactions.


The energy of a particle is constrained by Heisenberg to be

   delta KE ~= k2 / (delta x)^2

The Coulomb potential Uc is:

   Uc = k1 / x

so Heisenberg energy overcomes the Coulomb potential at some radius.

The magnetic potential Um is given by:

   Um = k3 / x^3

Here k1, k2 and k3 are constants.

Therefore, given that k2 is positive and k1 and k3 are negative, as  
distance between an electron and nucleus goes to zero, uncertainty  
energy opposes and overcomes the Coulomb potential, but eventually  
the magnetic potential opposes and overcomes the uncertainty energy.


All that is needed for a small magnetically bound hydrogen state to  
be entered is (1) wavefunction collapse, (2) tunneling of the  
electron to the magnetically bound state, or (3) the electron to act  
like a point particle in the wavefunction.


If itinerant electrons approach an absorbed hydrogen nucleus, with  
zero angular momentum, then a direct pass through of the nucleus will  
occur. It is notable here that angular momentum is quantized, so an  
approaching electron either will have some quantum of orbital angular  
momentum, or exactly zero orbital angular momentum, thus directly  
passing through the nucleus.  Further, the electron, if t has zero  
orbital angular momentum, and if not magnetically captured, or  
otherwise perturbed, can oscillate back and forth through the  
nucleus, increasing the exposure rate to magnetic capture.


When considering a zero angular mo

Re: [Vo]:LENR & 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:41:55 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Mirror electrons in the dielectric keep the protons close to each other.

As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have been
noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because "close" is much smaller than
atomic dimensions, which means that there is no (Lawandy) surface to speak of.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:LENR & 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Jones Beene]

Horace,

I considered this point (no neutron chain reaction nor obvious substitute)
but am convinced that there is no need for the kind of chain reaction we are
familiar with in fission. If you understand subcritical neutron
multiplication, you will see that massive gain is possible without true
chain reaction dynamics.

Obviously, my theory for gain is not the same as yours, although there is
some similarity.

In this hypothesis, which borrows from Mills but is very different, and also
from Robin's version of Mills - there is dense hydrogen accumulation via
Mills' catalysis - not unlike the Holmlid/Miley model, and protons reside on
a dielectric surface, ala Lawandy. Even with maximum pitting (Casimir pits)
the IRH is too transitory, without cryogenics. Cryogenics is one major
limitation for weaponization (thankfully). Precision is another.

Without cryogenics to quench during the IRH accumulation stage, and the
occasional cosmic ray - you would likely have a Rossi-type of reaction that
cannot go far beyond the meltdowns he claims to have seen.

Mirror electrons in the dielectric keep the protons close to each other.
They can be degenerate or deflated. There is no primary fusion nor fission.
Gain comes from non-quark nuclear boson depletion, is instigated by strong
force attraction, followed by Coulomb repulsion - and depends on quark
statistics. Gain is in the range of tens to hundreds of keV per proton.
There are secondary nuclear reactions but most of the energy gain is from
accelerated protons. 

The leap of faith is that net proton mass is an average, not quantized like
quark mass, and can vary a fractional percent. Of course, some of the mass
variation is convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against
Coulomb repulsion. The suggested P-e-P reaction is absurd except under solar
conditions - and is discarded in place of strong force attraction, followed
by energetic repulsion when the two cannot bind.

In a weapon, a surrounding ballotechnic (nano-thermite??) would be needed to
implode a target with great spherical precision, so that a uniform
statistical "first wave" is instigated. This would be followed by the
functional equivalent of (slowly decreasing waves) of neutron multiplication
in a subcritical reactor

This result depends on rapid timing and high initial energy density in the
surround. The required level of precision would be another limitation for
terrorist groups, since none of them would likely put up the millions needed
for tooling - not to mention many years of development.

Rossi or DGT may change that situation.

Jones


-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner 

It seems to me that LENR cannot be weaponized.  The stuff that  
permits chain reactions accumulates slowly, if it even exists at  
all.  This permits cosmic rays to limit the accumulation.

Re: [Vo]:LENR & 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance against
> LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD.
>
> *   I assume you mean as long as there is a DoE. I agree.
>
> No, I mean DoD - DoD has far more political clout. There is no
> inter-connection between the two - except via top politicians and the
> Cabinet - who hear from both.
>

I do not follow, but that's okay.



> *   I doubt that. The only people I know of who suspected there may be
> direct weapons applications Martin Fleischmann and Edward Teller. Granted,
> they know a lot about cold fusion and weapons, respectively.
>
> Yes, they do. Case closed.
>

The case does not seem closed to me. Many other people who know a lot about
cold fusion and weapons, such as Ed Storms, say there appears to be no
likelihood of a weapon. I do not think that the opinions of Fleischmann and
Teller automatically outweigh these other people's opinions.

Cold fusion does not appear to be a chain reaction, so I do not see how it
could be used in a weapon.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Jed Rothwell]

Charles Hope  wrote:

If the helium levels are "what they should be" compared to the heat, that
> assumes some theory that correlates them. Which theory is that?
>

Not a theory. It is an observation that deuterium is converted to helium to
produce heat in the same ratio as plasma fusion does.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Charles Hope]

If the helium levels are "what they should be" compared to the heat, that 
assumes some theory that correlates them. Which theory is that? 



On Dec 27, 2011, at 12:24, Horace Heffner  wrote:

> It is not theory, it is experimental result.  Go to:
> 
> http://www.lenr-canr.org/
> 
> and enter "Miles helium" and "McKubre helium".
> 
> 
> On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Charles Hope wrote:
> 
>> How's that? According to what theory?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:01, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>> 
>>> Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>>> 
 If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, because 
 there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to 
 observed heat.
 
>>> 
>>> You do not understand correctly. The amounts of helium are right what they 
>>> should be compared to observed heat. Please read Miles or McKubre.
>>> 
>>> - Jed
>>> 
>> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: [Vo]:LENR & 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Jones Beene]

From: Jed Rothwell 
 
A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance against
LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD.

*   I assume you mean as long as there is a DoE. I agree.
 
No, I mean DoD - DoD has far more political clout. There is no
inter-connection between the two - except via top politicians and the
Cabinet - who hear from both. 

In the case of LENR, DoD's objection puts DoE on the sidelines, regardless -
so even if the DoE did try to convert its prior objections, it would be
impossible
 
*   
*   SPAWAR is run by the U.S. Navy. The DoE has no authority over it.

Correct, that is DoD. That is the whole point I am making.

*   I doubt that. The only people I know of who suspected there may be
direct weapons applications Martin Fleischmann and Edward Teller. Granted,
they know a lot about cold fusion and weapons, respectively.

Yes, they do. Case closed.

Jones
<>

RE: [Vo]:LENR & 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Jones:

 

...

 

> The biggest threat to the West, in the eyes of the

> Pentagon, is a non-nuclear or "nuclear-optional" (less

> detectable) but near kiloton capable weapon in the hands

> of the Taliban (or next radical terrorist group with

> access to plenty of cash or a substitute like

> Afghani heroin)... and by extension, a weapon which is

> deliverable in the trunk of compact vehicle by a

> surrogate group in our backyard- like the Zetas,

> for instance. 

 

Regarding the profitability of illegal businesses, like Afghani heroin, I'm
going to suggest something outrageous. We should seriously consider growing
our own poppy fields and the manufacture of our own "illegal" drugs. In a
sense, this is already done in certain Scandinavian countries, like Denmark.
I realize this might seem to be a repugnant suggestion; however it would
also seem that the staunchest critics do not necessarily come from Europe
where these liberal drug policies are followed, but from our own back yard.
See:

 

http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/09so.htm

 

The point being: if we manufactured and sold our own "illegal" drugs we
could then permanently undercut the competition's cash flow and help destroy
terrorist funding. Again, I know it is repugnant to even suggest such a
tactic, except for the fact that it's probably likely that significant
portions of law enforcement have been in bed with the "enemy" aka: drug
cartels for a very long time. I doubt that relationship will change anytime
soon for the simple fact that there is too much money to be made on both
sides of the fence. Occasional token arrests and drug raids paraded out in
public do nothing more than help satisfy national morals that we are doing
the "right thing", while business-as-usual continues under the counter. So,
why not just come out of the closet and accept what is obviously a highly
profitable global business enterprise with a business strategy of our own:
Permanently undercut the competition's profit margin with our own line of
"products". I think that would go a long way towards defunding a lot of
terrorist activity. To make reparations for the terrible "sin" of selling
"illegal" drugs to adults (not minors!) I would certainly advocate that a
significant portion of the federal profits go towards funding rehabilitation
and education explaining the evils of drug addiction.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

 

Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:

Do we really know Obdenaker actually wrote the email attributed to him?


I expect he would complain if he did not write it. In the modern wired
world, he would soon find out someone is circulating a forged memo
attributed to him.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Alan Fletcher]

> Abd,
> 
> If you reject W-L theory, what would you regard as the most reasonable
> explanation for all of the transmutations reported? Is there a
> particular  paper that you could recommend. I'm too overwhelmed by the 
> complexity
> of  solid state reactions to take any side in the controversy.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lou Pagnucco

>From my "reading list" at 
>http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg58232.html

Fralik's 
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/NASA/20111209NASA-Fralick-GRC-LENR-Workshop.pdf
  slide 14
Has a brief summary of peer-reviewed contenders.

I'd start with :  
http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol4.pdf#page=40   OR at :
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedc.pdf
read the whole issue, while you're there

Includes latest by various authors, eg :
A. Meulenberg and K.P. Sinha 
Chubb & Chubb

- - - - 

For detailed papers I'd also look at :
Kim's Bose Einstein Condensates papers

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KimYEgeneralize.pdf 2011 Specifically 
addressing Rossi  Ni H
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KimYEboseeinste.pdf 2009 General theory, Pd D

Chubb's Band States 2009
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAovercoming.pdf
Note : they have a newer paper in iscmns Vol 4 

And to cover D-D interactions, screening and the like
Sinha :  http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SinhaKPamodelfore.pdf 
2008 D-D resonance, phonons, lochons, shielding, coulomb   
Note : they have a newer paper in iscmns Vol 4 

(I don't seem to have a link to Parmenter and Lamb, referenced by Fralik)
   
NOTE : I'm not skilled enough to pick a theory ... but all of these address the 
"impossible" argument.

Re: [Vo]:LENR & 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance against
> LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD.
>

I assume you mean as long as there is a DoE. I agree.



> Never, never, never. This is essentially why SPAWARS is being closed.


SPAWAR is run by the U.S. Navy. The DoE has no authority over it.

A few months ago, someone here describe how NASA might make an evaluation
of cold fusion and decide that it should be "banned" or regulated by the
NRC. NASA has absolutely no authority to make such decisions.


In short, there is an offshoot of LENR that can be weaponized. At least that
> is the only scenario that makes sense in the big picture.
>

I doubt that. The only people I know of who suspected there may be direct
weapons applications Martin Fleischmann and Edward Teller. Granted, they
know a lot about cold fusion and weapons, respectively.

I predict that cold fusion will have a tremendous impact on every kind of
military hardware, but it will be similar to the impact of the internal
combustion engine or electricity, rather than a direct method of causing an
explosion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:


Horace,

Thanks for the comment.

What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations.
I will check out your theory.
Do you believe any "new physics" is required
- or does standard QM suffice?
I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all.

LP


I should have noted that my application of zero point energy to  
nuclear reactions is possibly "new" physics, though the concepts  
applied are not new at all, i.e. Casimir force, uncertainty energy,  
Fermi pressure, etc.  What is new is the concept of the energetic  
trapping of electrons in heavy nuclei.  This concept requires no new  
physics I think, just an understanding of a simple mechanism by which  
a net zero charge ensemble can enter the nucleus via tunneling and a  
net magnetic energy gain. That this is feasible is to me self evident.


The basic concept behind the deflated state is simple conventional  
physics - namely that the magnetic force, a 1/r^4 force, becomes  
larger than the 1/r^2 Coulomb force at close radii.


The basic theory is very simple.  It has to be.  I'm a self trained  
simple minded amateur.  Of course it could be all wrong!  It does  
make useful predictions and suggest many experimental avenues of  
research, so it seems to me at least useful in that regard.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:LENR & 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Horace Heffner]

It seems to me that LENR cannot be weaponized.  The stuff that  
permits chain reactions accumulates slowly, if it even exists at  
all.  This permits cosmic rays to limit the accumulation.


Cosmic ray secondary muons might trigger conventional fusion in super  
high density pockets of hydrogen, but such pockets are rare, and  
cause fracturing if they get too big.


Even if large accumulations of potential energy were possible, say  
deep in a mine where cosmic rays are rare, this would be impractical,  
because a single cosmic ray could trigger it. Cosmic rays would also  
continue to rapidly erode stored material by generating small chains.  
Even short term storage would be infeasible.


Creation of mass/energy from the vacuum, where the real power lies,  
strikes me as useful for on demand use, such as providing impulse for  
a space craft.




On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance  
against

LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD.

Never, never, never. This is essentially why SPAWARS is being  
closed. They
were only supposed to be a token effort anyway - but instead they  
got too

close to exposing the shocking truth - with all of its neglected
implications.

In short, there is an offshoot of LENR that can be weaponized. At  
least that

is the only scenario that makes sense in the big picture.

Going back many years in the history of LENR, a few have voiced this
minority opinion about ulterior motives. Big oil in not the intended
beneficiary of "official neglect". The silent factor at the highest- 
level
(in decision making relative to LENR) is explainable solely in  
terms of

National Defense.

This goes well beyond the problem of nuclear proliferation - and it  
is not
necessarily 'nuclear' per se, but instead relates to extremely high  
energy
explosives of any varieties. Even though the P&F 'meltdown' in Utah  
was
under-publicized, it certainly was not un-noticed by those who look  
for

these things.

Never mind that the so-called 'red mercury' scare turned out to be an
obsession of one researcher - Samuel Cohen. At least that is what  
we are
supposed to believe. Even if 'red mercury' is now a generic code  
name for
any ballotechnic, I think that there is more hysteria than ever  
before in
top military circles about the repercussions of a tactical  
substitute, since

detection is more difficult.

Rossi has awakened these old nightmares from the early nineties.

In short, the biggest threat to the West, in the eyes of a few at the
Pentagon is not a nuclear weaponized Iran, nor even a nuke  
purchased by
others who do not share our values: Syria/Libya/Yemen/Somalia/etc.  
Almost

any sovereign country will have too much to lose to play that game.

The biggest threat to the West, in the eyes of the Pentagon, is a
non-nuclear or "nuclear-optional" (less detectable) but near  
kiloton capable
weapon in the hands of the Taliban (or next radical terrorist group  
with
access to plenty of cash or a substitute like Afghani heroin)...  
and by
extension, a weapon which is deliverable in the trunk of compact  
vehicle by

a surrogate group in our backyard- like the Zetas, for instance.

Scary indeed.

Jones


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene

... not to mention a few hints (re: supra-chemistry) coming direct  
from
National Labs ... years before nano-thermite made an impact, so to  
speak.


http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/437696-qcD7AM/webviewable/ 
437696.pd

f


Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com


Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of
super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately
for this battery idea, ... helium.


You appear to have ignored the possibility of super-chemistry, a la  
Mills or

IRH.









Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:05 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:


Horace,

Thanks for the comment.

What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations.
I will check out your theory.
Do you believe any "new physics" is required
- or does standard QM suffice?
I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all.

LP



I think it is presently not computationally feasible to analyze the  
deflated state using QM. This is due to the extreme relativistic  
effects combined with magnetic effects.  This is why I took the state  
down to such extremely low radii in my computations:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf

http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf

A QM description could describe a larger volume state.

At close radii, the deBroglie wavelengths of the entities are smaller  
than the orbital radius, thus describing a Rydberg like state,  
wherein QM need not be applied.  The state then is relativistic  
Newtonian.  It is the transition between states that requires a full  
QM treatment, and I don't know that such a treatment is feasible.  
However, since zero energy is required for the transition between  
deflated state and ordinary ground state, the two states are  
degenerate and QM permits the two states to be co-existent.  Co- 
existent degenerate electron states exist in some molecules, wherein  
the electron wavefunction is split between distant parts of the  
molecule, with forbidden zone(s) in between.  It seems to me not much  
of a stretch, without QM computations, for the deflated state to have  
a similar characteristic.


I realize my writing is not clear, and that some of the material in  
my articles is out of date, evolving, and needs correction.  I need  
to create a FAQ, or write a book.  I have been diverted from that by  
the Rossi circus. Now my personal life is overcoming my ability to  
spend time on physics.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

[Vo]:LENR & 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Jones Beene]

A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance against
LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD. 

Never, never, never. This is essentially why SPAWARS is being closed. They
were only supposed to be a token effort anyway - but instead they got too
close to exposing the shocking truth - with all of its neglected
implications. 

In short, there is an offshoot of LENR that can be weaponized. At least that
is the only scenario that makes sense in the big picture.

Going back many years in the history of LENR, a few have voiced this
minority opinion about ulterior motives. Big oil in not the intended
beneficiary of "official neglect". The silent factor at the highest-level
(in decision making relative to LENR) is explainable solely in terms of
National Defense. 

This goes well beyond the problem of nuclear proliferation - and it is not
necessarily 'nuclear' per se, but instead relates to extremely high energy
explosives of any varieties. Even though the P&F 'meltdown' in Utah was
under-publicized, it certainly was not un-noticed by those who look for
these things.

Never mind that the so-called 'red mercury' scare turned out to be an
obsession of one researcher - Samuel Cohen. At least that is what we are
supposed to believe. Even if 'red mercury' is now a generic code name for
any ballotechnic, I think that there is more hysteria than ever before in
top military circles about the repercussions of a tactical substitute, since
detection is more difficult. 

Rossi has awakened these old nightmares from the early nineties.

In short, the biggest threat to the West, in the eyes of a few at the
Pentagon is not a nuclear weaponized Iran, nor even a nuke purchased by
others who do not share our values: Syria/Libya/Yemen/Somalia/etc. Almost
any sovereign country will have too much to lose to play that game.

The biggest threat to the West, in the eyes of the Pentagon, is a
non-nuclear or "nuclear-optional" (less detectable) but near kiloton capable
weapon in the hands of the Taliban (or next radical terrorist group with
access to plenty of cash or a substitute like Afghani heroin)... and by
extension, a weapon which is deliverable in the trunk of compact vehicle by
a surrogate group in our backyard- like the Zetas, for instance. 

Scary indeed.

Jones


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 

... not to mention a few hints (re: supra-chemistry) coming direct from
National Labs ... years before nano-thermite made an impact, so to speak. 

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/437696-qcD7AM/webviewable/437696.pd
f


Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

>Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of 
>super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately 
>for this battery idea, ... helium. 

You appear to have ignored the possibility of super-chemistry, a la Mills or
IRH.

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Alberto De Souza]

After thinking a little bit about the calculations I did (see below) and
considering what I have learned from this year reading vortex, I came to
the conclusion that the engineering approach proposed by Aussie Guy (and
also Rossi) is the best approach forward in the LERN field... If one
manages to show a LERN device that runs for days on its own and that is
able to light a single small light (a LED would suffice) during its
operation, we will see proper resources employed to do good research on
LERN all over the World. This will result in the production of devices that
will really change the way we live.

Aussie Guy: please build your kits. They will sell a lot.

Cheers,

Alberto.

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Alberto De Souza <
alberto.investi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> After some calculations, I think it is better to use the MPG-D751. See
> below.
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat <
> aussieguy.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The 2.5 x 2.5 mm device has a max power output of approx 0.8 mW at 10 deg
>> K differential. Assuming 1 Watt excess with a COP 5 yields 200 mW input.
>> Would need around 300 of the MPG-D615 devices with fitted finned heat sinks
>> to each device's COLD side to get good thermal transfer into the air.
>>  Could be doable with 75 devices per finned heat sink assembly per side of
>> a square container.
>
>
> This is exactly the set up I had in mind.
>
>
>> Optimal load resistance could be a issue. Something to look at in the
>> future.
>>
>
> Using the data in http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DashJcoldfusion.pdf(slide 
> 20), one can estimate that the average voltage required in a PdD
> cell is about 5,7W / 1.5A = 3.8V (see also slide 11). One MPG-D751 can
> provide 1.2V at about 1mA with 10 deg K differential (see
> http://www.micropelt.com/down/datasheet_mpg_d651_d751.pdf voltage x
> current graph), i.e., 1.2mW. Using the circuit shown in
> http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM2621.html#Overview we can elevate that to
> 3.8V. Assuming an efficience of 50% (it should be better than that, see
> http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm2621.pdf), we have 0.6mW per MPG-D751.
>
> To achieve 5.7W, we have to put 5.7W / 0.6mW = 9,500 MPG-D751 in parallel
> (and use at least 2 LM2621 circuits). These will occupy about 9,500 x
> 4.248mm * 3.364mm = 135,758mm2. This is a square of ~368mm on each side.
> Using a rectangular recipient and putting these 9,500 units on its 4
> lateral sides, we have a minimum lateral side size of 184mm x 184mm, or
> ~18cm x ~18cm.
>
> If I did the math correctly, it is doable. But we need a COP of 20 or more
> (not considering peak power eventualy needed during reaction startup and/or
> control).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alberto.
>

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Mary Yugo]

On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Alberto De Souza <
alberto.investi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm a new member of the list, but I'm reading the posts since January. I'm
> addicted...
>
> If we have a large COP (10-100), I believe we can use thin film
> thermogenerators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectricity) such as
> these http://www.micropelt.com/down/datasheet_mpg_d651_d751.pdf to make a
> self sustain wet cell... We can put thousands of those around a wet cell.
> They produce useful power with as little as 10 degrees Celsius (see
> datasheet).
>


Interesting gadgets.  With proper placement and calibration, they'd convert
any appropriately designed cell into an envelope calorimeter similar to the
classical Seebeck Effect calorimeters (SEC's).  To overstate the obvious,
you would calibrate with an electrical heater and a precision power
supply.Of course, the devices would have to have repeatable, consistent
electrical output for the same heat input -- they'd have to be stable.

Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Mary Yugo]

Do we really know Obdenaker actually wrote the email attributed to him?
Has anyone checked with NASA's PR office or anyone else there?  I think it
was just from a post by an anonymous poster in a fan/enthusiast web site
run by a guy only known as "Ben".

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Mary Yugo]

On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> It's been called "fusion confusion." Look, Aussie Guy is anonymous,
> what he writes is next to meaningless. Don't mix this up with the huge
> corpus of work from hundreds of scientists around the world.
>

Hi Abd,

Thanks for the citations and suggestions.  I will look into them in the
future.  I am hopeful that the work you describe is valid and will lead to
something useful.

To restate, my interest here is limited.  I find it amazing and amusing
that anyone believes Rossi and Defkalion on the strength of what they have
done (and not done) thus far.  So I follow their story, hoping it will get
better but finding out it keeps getting worse.  And if Aussie Guy really
has cells that run continuously and indefinitely at a COP of 5x over a 1
Watt input, I'd find that interesting as well.  I sort of doubt that he has
such cells and that they will work the way he hopes.  I am also amused by
his claim that he is going to get an E-cat to test.  I have no idea why he
believes that given that nobody else in the world has said they have.

In summary, I am interested in robust, rather large claims to cold
fusion/LENR demonstrations. All the rest I've seen so far and all the
theory, I'd rather let other people investigate.  I am competent to judge
the quality and reliability of most types of thermal and electrical power
measurements and I have a sensitive nose for sniffing out scam
possibilities.  I don't really know the details of nuclear physics.   So,
apart from than that which I mentioned, I leave it to others.  As Clint
Eastwood's character once said, a person has to know their limitations.

I have never claimed that cold fusion/LENR does not exist or does not
work.  All I claim is that I don't know and that some of the papers that
others have suggested have been obscurely written and that for others,
knowledgeable people have raised counter explanations and objections to the
findings.  I think that remains true.   In any case, I am not interested in
arguing that.

I think the current evidence suggests that Rossi and Defkalion *could* both
be lying and scamming (not necessarily that they are) and I am quite
prepared to argue about that as I am sure you know!

Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)

[pagnucco]

Horace,

Thanks for the comment.

What is needed are some toy models with some simple simulations.
I will check out your theory.
Do you believe any "new physics" is required
- or does standard QM suffice?
I am getting pretty boggled by the complexity of it all.

LP

> There is no need for down-conversion to explain the lack of high
> energy gammas associated with excess heat of LENR, provided those
> gammas are not produced in the first place.  If an energetically
> trapped electron in the nucleus carries away the reaction heat away
> from the nucleus in the form of kinetic energy, but that energy is
> insufficient to overcome the trapping energy (shown in brackets in
> the deflation fusion reactions I provide) then the electron will
> radiate until zero point energy, uncertainty energy, expands its
> wavefunction sufficiently for it to escape the nucleus, or a weak
> reaction follows.
>
>
> On Dec 26, 2011, at 2:25 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
>
>> I think that the frequency of the outgoing down-converted photons will
>> remain the same whether the incoming high frequency photon is
>> absorbed by
>> one atom or collectively by N-atoms.  A coherent multi-atom absorption
>> will create a Schroedinger-Cat-like state of one excited atom and
>> (N-1)
>> ground state atoms, which should still radiate at the same lower
>> frequencies.  However, multi-atom absorption could result in strong
>> variation in emitted intensity bursts (superradiance).
>>
>> But, maybe there's more to it than that.
>> Some anomalous down-conversion of gamma-rays were reported in the
>> 1930s. I
>> do not know whether they have been explained since then.  If
>> interested,
>> the papers are at:
>>
>> "The Nature of the Interaction between Gamma-Radiation and the Atomic
>> Nucleus"
>> http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/136/830/662.full.pdf
>> +html
>>
>> "Phenomena Associated with the Anomalous Absorption of High Energy
>> Gamma
>> Radiation. II"
>> http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/143/850/681.full.pdf
>> +html
>>
>> "Phenomena Associated with the Anomalous Absorption of High Energy
>> Gamma
>> Radiation. III"
>> http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/143/850/706.full.pdf
>> +html
>>
>>
>>> Some insights from quantum mechanics…
>>>
>>> Spontaneous parametric down-conversion
>>>
>>> Reference:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion
>>>
>>> The rule that comes out of this quantum mechanical process is that
>>> energy
>>> is shared approximately equally between N entangled particles with
>>> each
>>> entangled particle getting 1/N amount of the energy.
>>>
>>> The originating frequency of the nuclear radiation is also shared
>>> between
>>> the N particles and is therefore divided approximately equally
>>> between the
>>> N particles and is therefore also divided in its calculation by 1/N.
>>>
>>> Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) is an important
>>> process in
>>> quantum optics, used especially as a source of entangled photon
>>> pairs, and
>>> of single photons.
>>> [...]
>>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


At 01:43 AM 12/27/2011, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> I'll comment on it: he went on to say, but it isn't fusion.
>
> That's apparently because he's swallowed, lock, stock, and sinker,
> Widom-Larsen theory, and isolated, idiosyncratic attempt to  
"explain"

> LENR by coming up with even more preposterous hypotheses, none of
> which have been tested and shown to be of predictive value.

Abd,

If you reject W-L theory, what would you regard as the most  
reasonable
explanation for all of the transmutations reported?  Is there a  
particular
paper that you could recommend.  I'm too overwhelmed by the  
complexity of

solid state reactions to take any side in the controversy.


Transmutations are not observed with any clean correlation with  
excess heat. Some experiments produce more, some less. Levels of  
transmuted products other than helium are produced at far lower  
levels than helium, many orders of magnitude lower.


This is far from true.  Transmutation products have been detected by  
chemical means, and XRF.  This requires large quantities of product.  
This is one of the great mysteries of LENR - the vast amount of  
nuclear reactions involved in heavy element transmutation, without  
the corresponding excess heat.  It is explanation of this  
experimental observation that is one of the strong points of  
deflation fusion theory.


The initial energy deficits in heavy element transmutation, due to  
the trapped electron, are typically very large. This is due to the  
large positive charge of the heavy nucleus involved. See:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt

for many examples.  For Rossi E-cat related examples see:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf

The large initial energy deficit makes follow-on weak reactions  
likely, involving the trapped electron(s) when energetically  
favorable. Most of the reaction energy, about 99%, is carried away by  
neutrinos in the case of the follow-on weak reactions. This, plus the  
initial energy deficit, is why heavy element LENR often produces no  
observable excess heat.  This was discussed with references on page 1  
of:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf

This lack of corresponding heat from heavy element transmutation,  
required by and corresponding to the mass deficit change, is also why  
the huge amount of transmutation that occurs was such a surprise to  
Bockris and others when it was first observed.  Explaining this is  
one of the strong points of deflation fusion theory.  It is an even  
stronger argument for deflation fusion theory than the fact it also  
explains the change in branching ratios in D+D fusion, and the 10^-8  
ratio of n/T observed in some LENR experiments.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Chemical energy storage with bulk Pd-D

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:55 AM 12/27/2011, you wrote:
There has been some confusion about the limits of chemical energy 
storage with bulk palladium loaded with deuterium or hydrogen. The 
limits are not "phenomenal." A typical cathode is about the size of 
a small wooden match. A cathode of this size holds roughly as much 
energy as a match (~1000 J), and produces maximum power of ~5 mW. 
Compare this to the first reported example of heat after death from 
a cathode of this size. It produced 1.1 MJ at 144 W, which greatly 
exceeds the limits of chemical energy storage. See:


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf 



See also p. 12, footnote 24:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf 



I revise my opinion. I'd never looked at the actual numbers. While 
the hydrogen contained in fully-load palladium is about as dense as 
hydrogen metal, if the cathode is, say, 10 grams, loaded 1:1, that 
would still be only 100 milligrams of hydrogen. About 30 KJ, for 
combustion, as I read the numbers. Plenty of room for error in that! 

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Alberto De Souza]

After some calculations, I think it is better to use the MPG-D751. See
below.

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
wrote:

> The 2.5 x 2.5 mm device has a max power output of approx 0.8 mW at 10 deg
> K differential. Assuming 1 Watt excess with a COP 5 yields 200 mW input.
> Would need around 300 of the MPG-D615 devices with fitted finned heat sinks
> to each device's COLD side to get good thermal transfer into the air.
>  Could be doable with 75 devices per finned heat sink assembly per side of
> a square container.


This is exactly the set up I had in mind.


> Optimal load resistance could be a issue. Something to look at in the
> future.
>

Using the data in
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DashJcoldfusion.pdf(slide 20), one
can estimate that the average voltage required in a PdD
cell is about 5,7W / 1.5A = 3.8V (see also slide 11). One MPG-D751 can
provide 1.2V at about 1mA with 10 deg K differential (see
http://www.micropelt.com/down/datasheet_mpg_d651_d751.pdf voltage x current
graph), i.e., 1.2mW. Using the circuit shown in
http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM2621.html#Overview we can elevate that to
3.8V. Assuming an efficience of 50% (it should be better than that, see
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm2621.pdf), we have 0.6mW per MPG-D751.

To achieve 5.7W, we have to put 5.7W / 0.6mW = 9,500 MPG-D751 in parallel
(and use at least 2 LM2621 circuits). These will occupy about 9,500 x
4.248mm * 3.364mm = 135,758mm2. This is a square of ~368mm on each side.
Using a rectangular recipient and putting these 9,500 units on its 4
lateral sides, we have a minimum lateral side size of 184mm x 184mm, or
~18cm x ~18cm.

If I did the math correctly, it is doable. But we need a COP of 20 or more
(not considering peak power eventualy needed during reaction startup and/or
control).

Cheers,

Alberto.


> AG
>
>
>
> On 12/27/2011 2:42 PM, Alberto De Souza wrote:
>
>> I'm a new member of the list, but I'm reading the posts since January.
>> I'm addicted...
>>
>> If we have a large COP (10-100), I believe we can use thin film
>> thermogenerators 
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Thermoelectricity)
>> such as these 
>> http://www.micropelt.com/down/**datasheet_mpg_d651_d751.pdfto
>>  make a self sustain wet cell... We can put thousands of those around a
>> wet cell. They produce useful power with as little as 10 degrees Celsius
>> (see datasheet).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Alberto.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Harry Veeder]

McKubre now acknowledges his 23.8 KeV was in error.

Harry

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Horace Heffner  wrote:
> It is not theory, it is experimental result.  Go to:
>
> http://www.lenr-canr.org/
>
> and enter "Miles helium" and "McKubre helium".
>
>
> On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Charles Hope wrote:
>
>> How's that? According to what theory?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:01, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>
>>> Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>>>
 If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, because
 there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to
 observed heat.

>>>
>>> You do not understand correctly. The amounts of helium are right what
>>> they should be compared to observed heat. Please read Miles or McKubre.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 03:53 AM 12/27/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman: » I have seen no peer-reviewed 
criticisms that manage to impeach the *correlation* of heat with helium.»


If I have understood correctly, the correlation 
is meaningless, because there are orders of 
magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to observed heat.


This is totally incorrect. Helium is generally 
found at roughly half that expected from the 
heat, in most experiments, and the difference is 
mostly ascribed to helium being "hidden" in the 
metal lattice. I.e., imagine that helium is being 
formed at or near the surface, and it is formed 
with some energy. Half the helium will have a 
vector inward to the lattice, and so will be 
buried, effectively "ion-implanted," and it can't move easily.


In one experiment at SRI, repeated flushing of 
the material with deuterium was done, as I 
understand, and they were able to recover, they 
claimed, most of the helium. From all the 
evidence, Storms estimates 25+/- 5 MeV/He-4 as 
the production Q value, compared to the 
theoretical value of 23.8 MeV for any kind of 
deuterium fusion to helium. Krivit contests all 
this, but often with a lack of understanding of the issues.


Capturing all the helium is quite difficult, 
apparently. The energy is known to much higher 
accuracy, generally. In the first work, Miles, 
the helium was only measured to one significant 
digit, or even to the order of magnitude. That 
was quite enough to show clear correlation.


 Therefore there is only one conclusion to 
make, that we have no idea what is going on 
there and we have no way to deduce the cause 
for the FPE. Not in a matter of degree that 
would differentiate it from Ni-H cold fusion.


As causality is not yet established and 
understood, DDSLA is the correct approach imo. 
And FPE refers into cold fusion heat anomaly in general.


Let's just say we don't use the term that way. 
"DDSLA"? I don't get the reference. 

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Daniel Rocha]

I'm reading his papers and I don't understand one thing:

1.What triggers the 4D/TSC? It looks like an ordinary configuration of D in
palladium...
2.Why does he use a value that is so precise "1.4007fs" to the 4D/TSC reach
the minimum state. His calculations are approximations and even if they
weren't the data used in the initial state like, proton mass, electron
mass, bohr radius, have less precision. It sounds odd for an experienced
scientist to do these things.

2011/12/27 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 

> At 01:35 AM 12/27/2011, Charles Hope wrote:
>
>
>  On Dec 26, 2011, at 22:10, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Then there is that pesky Coulomb barrier. What I found, though, was
>> that there was ample opinion among quantum physicists that it was possible
>> that the unexplored conditions of condensed matter just might provide some
>> pathway around that, some kind of tunneling or alternate reaction. Recent
>> work has actually predicted fusion from a physical arrangement of deuterium
>> that *might* be present, quite rarely, in highly loaded PdD. That's using,
>> apparently, standard quantum mechanics, but that theory is as yet
>> unverified.
>>
>> Oh? Citation, please?
>>
>
> Akito Takahashi, multiple publications, going back into the early 1990s.
> For example, see "Study on 4D/Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate Condensation
> Motion by Non-Linear Langevin Equation," Akito Takahashi and Norio
> Yabuuchi, in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, ed Marwan and Krivit,
> American Chemical Society and Oxford University Press, 2008.
>
> See also the Storms review, which mentions this work, "Status of cold
> fusion (2010)," Naturwissenschaften, October 2010. For abstract, see
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/**pubmed/20838756,
> for a preprint, see http://www.lenr-canr.org/**
> acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf
>
> As to the opinion of quantum physicists on the possibility of there being
> unknown effects in the solid state, there was a recent revision of a
> textbook on solid state nuclear models, and it has a section on LENR, and
> it turns out that the author had written something pointing to the lack of
> "impossibility" back around 1990. I went around and around all this on
> Wikipedia. Bottom line: don't bother me with facts, I'm a grad student and
> I know quantum physics, and it says it's impossible.
>
> Of course, it doesn't.
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)

[Horace Heffner]

There is no need for down-conversion to explain the lack of high  
energy gammas associated with excess heat of LENR, provided those  
gammas are not produced in the first place.  If an energetically  
trapped electron in the nucleus carries away the reaction heat away  
from the nucleus in the form of kinetic energy, but that energy is  
insufficient to overcome the trapping energy (shown in brackets in  
the deflation fusion reactions I provide) then the electron will  
radiate until zero point energy, uncertainty energy, expands its  
wavefunction sufficiently for it to escape the nucleus, or a weak  
reaction follows.



On Dec 26, 2011, at 2:25 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:


I think that the frequency of the outgoing down-converted photons will
remain the same whether the incoming high frequency photon is  
absorbed by

one atom or collectively by N-atoms.  A coherent multi-atom absorption
will create a Schroedinger-Cat-like state of one excited atom and  
(N-1)

ground state atoms, which should still radiate at the same lower
frequencies.  However, multi-atom absorption could result in strong
variation in emitted intensity bursts (superradiance).

But, maybe there's more to it than that.
Some anomalous down-conversion of gamma-rays were reported in the  
1930s. I
do not know whether they have been explained since then.  If  
interested,

the papers are at:

"The Nature of the Interaction between Gamma-Radiation and the Atomic
Nucleus"
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/136/830/662.full.pdf 
+html


"Phenomena Associated with the Anomalous Absorption of High Energy  
Gamma

Radiation. II"
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/143/850/681.full.pdf 
+html


"Phenomena Associated with the Anomalous Absorption of High Energy  
Gamma

Radiation. III"
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/143/850/706.full.pdf 
+html




Some insights from quantum mechanics…

Spontaneous parametric down-conversion

Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion

The rule that comes out of this quantum mechanical process is that  
energy
is shared approximately equally between N entangled particles with  
each

entangled particle getting 1/N amount of the energy.

The originating frequency of the nuclear radiation is also shared  
between
the N particles and is therefore divided approximately equally  
between the

N particles and is therefore also divided in its calculation by 1/N.

Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) is an important  
process in
quantum optics, used especially as a source of entangled photon  
pairs, and

of single photons.
[...]




Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:43 AM 12/27/2011, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> I'll comment on it: he went on to say, but it isn't fusion.
>
> That's apparently because he's swallowed, lock, stock, and sinker,
> Widom-Larsen theory, and isolated, idiosyncratic attempt to "explain"
> LENR by coming up with even more preposterous hypotheses, none of
> which have been tested and shown to be of predictive value.

Abd,

If you reject W-L theory, what would you regard as the most reasonable
explanation for all of the transmutations reported?  Is there a particular
paper that you could recommend.  I'm too overwhelmed by the complexity of
solid state reactions to take any side in the controversy.


Transmutations are not observed with any clean correlation with 
excess heat. Some experiments produce more, some less. Levels of 
transmuted products other than helium are produced at far lower 
levels than helium, many orders of magnitude lower.


Thus I ascribe transmuations to rare branches or side-reactions. Note 
that if fusion is actually taking place, it would only take a little 
"leakage" of the reaction energies to produce transmutations. As one 
example, suppose that Takahashi's TSC forms in the middle of a 
palladium lattice cell. When it collapses, it's a very small 
Bose-Einstein Condensate. It's conceivable that such a beastie could 
fuse with a nucleus, producing a +4 Z transmuted element.


Suppose that 4D doesn't happen, but 6D does. This would produce +6 Z 
nuclei, just what Iwamura has reported.


But this is all highly speculative. Bottom line, the main reaction in 
the FPHE is relatively simple. The apparent fuel, we can guess -- we 
cannot measure this, the amount consumed is way too low -- is 
deuterium. The energy and helium correlate roughly as expected, and 
no other products are produced detectably, except at levels way below 
the helium. Some of those other transmutation products can be 
detected, such as tritium, and there are many, many reports, enough 
that we can say that the FPHE does *sometimes* product a tiny amount 
of tritium.


McKubre points out in his recent video -- I highly recommend it -- 
that the DoE doesn't believe that this stuff works, because if they 
did believe it, they'd be all over him for producing tritium at SRI. 
I think you need a license for that! (and probably quantity doesn't matter).


In any case, sometimes tritium, sometimes higher-Z transmutation 
products, but *always* helium. 

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Horace Heffner]

It is not theory, it is experimental result.  Go to:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/

and enter "Miles helium" and "McKubre helium".


On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Charles Hope wrote:


How's that? According to what theory?



On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:01, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


Jouni Valkonen wrote:

If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless,  
because there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium  
compared to observed heat.




You do not understand correctly. The amounts of helium are right  
what they should be compared to observed heat. Please read Miles  
or McKubre.


- Jed





Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:35 AM 12/27/2011, Charles Hope wrote:



On Dec 26, 2011, at 22:10, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

> Then there is that pesky Coulomb barrier. What I found, though, 
was that there was ample opinion among quantum physicists that it 
was possible that the unexplored conditions of condensed matter 
just might provide some pathway around that, some kind of tunneling 
or alternate reaction. Recent work has actually predicted fusion 
from a physical arrangement of deuterium that *might* be present, 
quite rarely, in highly loaded PdD. That's using, apparently, 
standard quantum mechanics, but that theory is as yet unverified.


Oh? Citation, please?


Akito Takahashi, multiple publications, going back into the early 
1990s. For example, see "Study on 4D/Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate 
Condensation Motion by Non-Linear Langevin Equation," Akito Takahashi 
and Norio Yabuuchi, in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, ed 
Marwan and Krivit, American Chemical Society and Oxford University Press, 2008.


See also the Storms review, which mentions this work, "Status of cold 
fusion (2010)," Naturwissenschaften, October 2010. For abstract, see 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838756, for a preprint, see 
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf


As to the opinion of quantum physicists on the possibility of there 
being unknown effects in the solid state, there was a recent revision 
of a textbook on solid state nuclear models, and it has a section on 
LENR, and it turns out that the author had written something pointing 
to the lack of "impossibility" back around 1990. I went around and 
around all this on Wikipedia. Bottom line: don't bother me with 
facts, I'm a grad student and I know quantum physics, and it says 
it's impossible.


Of course, it doesn't. 

RE: [Vo]:If I Had Free Energy/Politics

[Zell, Chris]

Recent years showed that oil prices can't get much above $150 a barrel or it 
creates a downturn that drops the price, amidst layoffs and crashes.

What wasn't realized by experts, a few years back, is the degree of correlation 
that exists between markets today, The calls to invest in emerging markets to 
avoid the downturn in the developed nations turned out as a disaster. We're all 
stuck in this global economy together whether we like it or not. I found this 
out the hard way ($$).


From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Alain Sepeda
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 12:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:If I Had Free Energy/Politics

The oil producers won't be the first victims of LENR (assuming it works as 
said).
Liquids fuel are very efficient per mass, easy to refill, and quite cheap 
(europe can affort it at 5x the price tax included, so the price limit is about 
300$/barel)

the first victim will be the inefficient, unpractical, unstorable energy like 
solar and wind.
the second will be biofuel and alike, who are dangerous for ecosystem and 
humanity (starvation fuel)
those energy will be killed instantly, because no investment will be made

also the future nuclear energy will be killed, like French 3rd generation EPR, 
downsized nuclear reactors, 4th generation reactors for production.
nuclear reactor will be kept alive  for the transition, with existing reactor, 
then retrofitted when it is cost efficient...
research will be made for incinerating reactors, if LENR reactors cannot do it 
(some pretend LENR can incinerate, with the produced neutrons), and also for 
cleaning and recycling plants... but basically nuclear industry will move to 
cleaning mode for 40-60 years.

oil can stay long, but the price will be capped, because if too expensive, the 
research will be affordable to replace oil by LENR in cars and transportation...
also many of it's use will be forgotten, like in fixed installation (power 
plant, UPS, home heating) , big vehicle (cargo, trains... trucks and bus 
maybe)...
sure it will kill the easy money to governments and 7 sisters, and the price 
will be the cost of extraction.
if oil start to get expensive to produce, LENR will replace it quickly...
this mean that non-conventional oil and gas will die slowly. reserve will 
quicky be reduced, without pain, and we will see the peak oil, like we have 
seen the "peak horse" in the 20th century, and the "peak hunt" at neolithic.



nickel will never be a limiting factor.
only safety delirium can (and probably will temporarily) limit it's spread to 
an elite of big business. all big business leaders will fight to forbide home 
usage, and will probably, like with fluocompact lamps, use the greens to spread 
Fear Uncertainty and Doubt like they did on GMO, antennas&alike.

about the impact on work, it will kill few business, start fewer new, make most 
better.
the limiting factor will be work (not resources, unlike oil. like nuclear), but 
LENR seems to be an easy technology, unlike nuclear energy.
IMHO the FUD will only work on rich societies, but will there be any rich 
society anymore... Europe ? US? maybe we won't be able to afford FUD.
at least countries in south and asia will ignore occidental FUD and develop 
easy small-scale clone version.
globally LENR will be good for workers, good for businesses (except the few 
losers, but there will be many winners).
unlike green jobs, the LENR jobs will be cost efficient, and less numerous than 
today's energy (because less expensive) but it will increase the efficiency of 
all business and workers... so the question will be if the benefit will be 
spread to the mass (like in the glorious 30s), or (like today with 
globalization) concentrated to a small elite.
I believe that the big business elite will try to capture the benefit, but it 
will leak to the workers and small businesses...

for me it will behave like the big productivity gains of the 50s-60s... be good 
for the weak too... unlike today.

2011/12/27 Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>>
Zell, Chris wrote:

At this point, I think many of us are so angry and disgusted by the greed and 
legal invulnerability of the ruling class, that I would give it away, just to 
end their misrule.

I do not see how this would end the misrule of the ruling class. Cold fusion 
has many potential benefits, but this does not seem to be among them.

It would put an end to OPEC and the political power of some countries in the 
Middle East, and Venezuela, but I do not see how we can predict the affect on 
the ruling class elsewhere. It might strengthen them, since it might 
concentrate power in the hands of technically well-educated people.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:03 AM 12/27/2011, Rich Murray wrote:

Hi Abd Lomax,

I'm glad to see you posting a lot now, and expressing strong doubts 
about Rossi.


Are you continuing to develop your low cost tiny CF kits for
electrolytic codeposition of Pd in deuterium heavy water electrolyte,
using plastic to record the impacts of any generated neutrons,
according to the SPAWAR paradigm?


Well, since you ask. I have preliminary results from one cell run. 
Unfortunately, this cell was run in a basement, and it's looking like 
radon levels may have been high, or else problems in developing the 
SSNTDs caused massive damage. I've only glanced at some detector images so far.


However, the electrolysis went well, the palladium deposition looked 
good, about what I'd expect.


The biggest problem with this class of experiment is that only one 
product is directly sought. The expected levels of heat would be, I 
think, too low to see a reliable heat signal, so neutron evidence 
would be all there is.


I need to fabricate more cells and run them myself and I think my 
partner will want to do it again. 

RE: [Vo]:If I Had Free Energy/Politics

[Zell, Chris]

At this point, I am nearly equating their rule with misrule.  The possibility 
that the Bill of Rights has now been repealed (the NDAA, no longer a 'tin hat' 
conspiracy idea) is shocking.

Free energy is a bit broader topic than Cold Fusion but the main point is a 
huge disruptive force that tends to trigger decentralization.  Iran and Arab 
states collapse into civil war and poverty.  Some will actually turn 
anti-clerical. The Islamic terrorist threat will recede, unfunded.  The 
financial system will endure more shocks based on the decline in oil/gas 
assets. Utilities will downsize.  Governments will have yet more revenue 
problems from the loss of oil related revenues and more layoffs.

Covering up the crimes of BP will end ( who needs 'em?). There will be articles 
published lamenting the loss of younger consumers, who having the internet, 
Facebook, free porn and now, free energy - mostly slack off from the mass 
economy, reducing demand.  Good luck with any VAT tax ideas in such an 
environment.

Do you know what the Too Big To Jail Banks are doing?  Straight from the Wall 
Street Jourrnal - Capital One is blatantly violating the law in 15,000 cases in 
which they simply ignore bankruptcy judgements and attack debtors.  The rest 
are attacking relatives of DEAD PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PAY, by 
harassing them on the phone and trying to guilt them into paying off credit 
card debt from the dead.  I'm not making this up.

The above tells me that the Banksters are desperate, as the mass/demand economy 
dries up. Hit them with free energy and watch the fun really start.

The idea that free energy might wreck strong governance is an old sci-fi theme. 
Godspeed to that.




Zell, Chris wrote:

At this point, I think many of us are so angry and disgusted by the greed and 
legal invunerability of the ruling class, that I would give it away, just to 
end their misrule.

I do not see how this would end the misrule of the ruling class. Cold fusion 
has many potential benefits, but this does not seem to be among them.

Re: [Vo]:If I Had Free Energy/Politics

[Alain Sepeda]

The oil producers won't be the first victims of LENR (assuming it works as
said).
Liquids fuel are very efficient per mass, easy to refill, and quite cheap
(europe can affort it at 5x the price tax included, so the price limit is
about 300$/barel)

the first victim will be the inefficient, unpractical, unstorable energy
like solar and wind.
the second will be biofuel and alike, who are dangerous for ecosystem and
humanity (starvation fuel)
those energy will be killed instantly, because no investment will be made

also the future nuclear energy will be killed, like French 3rd generation
EPR, downsized nuclear reactors, 4th generation reactors for production.
nuclear reactor will be kept alive  for the transition, with existing
reactor, then retrofitted when it is cost efficient...
research will be made for incinerating reactors, if LENR reactors cannot do
it (some pretend LENR can incinerate, with the produced neutrons), and also
for cleaning and recycling plants... but basically nuclear industry will
move to cleaning mode for 40-60 years.

oil can stay long, but the price will be capped, because if too expensive,
the research will be affordable to replace oil by LENR in cars and
transportation...
also many of it's use will be forgotten, like in fixed installation (power
plant, UPS, home heating) , big vehicle (cargo, trains... trucks and bus
maybe)...
sure it will kill the easy money to governments and 7 sisters, and the
price will be the cost of extraction.
if oil start to get expensive to produce, LENR will replace it quickly...
this mean that non-conventional oil and gas will die slowly. reserve will
quicky be reduced, without pain, and we will see the peak oil, like we have
seen the "peak horse" in the 20th century, and the "peak hunt" at neolithic.



nickel will never be a limiting factor.
only safety delirium can (and probably will temporarily) limit it's spread
to an elite of big business. all big business leaders will fight to forbide
home usage, and will probably, like with fluocompact lamps, use the greens
to spread Fear Uncertainty and Doubt like they did on GMO, antennas&alike.

about the impact on work, it will kill few business, start fewer new, make
most better.
the limiting factor will be work (not resources, unlike oil. like nuclear),
but LENR seems to be an easy technology, unlike nuclear energy.
IMHO the FUD will only work on rich societies, but will there be any rich
society anymore... Europe ? US? maybe we won't be able to afford FUD.
at least countries in south and asia will ignore occidental FUD and develop
easy small-scale clone version.
globally LENR will be good for workers, good for businesses (except the few
losers, but there will be many winners).
unlike green jobs, the LENR jobs will be cost efficient, and less numerous
than today's energy (because less expensive) but it will increase the
efficiency of all business and workers... so the question will be if the
benefit will be spread to the mass (like in the glorious 30s), or (like
today with globalization) concentrated to a small elite.
I believe that the big business elite will try to capture the benefit, but
it will leak to the workers and small businesses...

for me it will behave like the big productivity gains of the 50s-60s... be
good for the weak too... unlike today.

2011/12/27 Jed Rothwell 

>  Zell, Chris wrote:
>
>  At this point, I think many of us are so angry and disgusted by the
> greed and legal invulnerability of the ruling class, that I would give it
> away, just to end their misrule.
>
>
> I do not see how this would end the misrule of the ruling class. Cold
> fusion has many potential benefits, but this does not seem to be among them.
>
> It would put an end to OPEC and the political power of some countries in
> the Middle East, and Venezuela, but I do not see how we can predict the
> affect on the ruling class elsewhere. It might strengthen them, since it
> might concentrate power in the hands of technically well-educated people.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:39 PM 12/26/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:32:07 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of
>super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately
>for this battery idea, ... helium.

You appear to have ignored the possibility of super-chemistry, a la Mills or
IRH.


Hydrinos, i.e., "a la Mills," would not produce helium unless they 
catalyze a nuclear reaction.


Helium demonstrates "nuclear," by whatever mechanism. It's a 
transmuted element.


Look, I can't rule out hydrinos, but I'd expect hydrino-catalyzed 
fusion to produce the same branching ratio as muon-catalyzed fusion. 
I.e., the same as hot fusion.


Mills doesn't look quite as nuts as Rossi, but I do get a bit, ah, 
... impatient ... at announcements of products that are ready any day 
now, for years. Blacklight Power is, again, *secret* process, like 
Rossi. What is Rowan University up to now? ...

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Charles Hope]

How's that? According to what theory?



On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:01, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> 
>> If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, because 
>> there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to 
>> observed heat.
>> 
> 
> You do not understand correctly. The amounts of helium are right what they 
> should be compared to observed heat. Please read Miles or McKubre.
> 
> - Jed
> 

RE: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Abd:

 

...

 

> I'll comment on it: he [Bushnell] went on to say, but it isn't

> fusion.

> 

> That's apparently because he's swallowed, lock, stock, and sinker,

> Widom-Larsen theory, and isolated, idiosyncratic attempt to "explain"

> LENR by coming up with even more preposterous hypotheses, none of

> which have been tested and shown to be of predictive value.

 

But, Abd, you left out a really juicy part of the email:

 

As you point out, Opdenaker states, as a result of his conversations with
NASA scientist, Bushnell:

 

> ...MY CHANGE OF MIND WAS A DIRECT RESULT OF TALKING WITH 

> DR. DENNIS BUSHNELL, THE CHIEF SCIENTIST FOR NASA LANGLEY WHO

> HAS ASSURED ME THAT OVER 100 EXPERIMENTS WORLDWIDE INDICATE THAT

> LENR IS REAL, CAPABLE OF PRODUCING ENERGY MUCH GREATER THAT

> CHEMICAL REACTIONS, WITH MINIMAL RADIATION, THAT THEORIES

> INDICATE THAT WHAT IS HAPPENING IS WEAK INTERACTIONS, BETA DECAY

> AND NOT FUSION OF ANY KIND.

 

But then, Opdenaker goes on to say:

 

> FRANKLY, IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME TO MATTER WHAT WE CALL IT

> IF IT WORKS AND BUSHNELL SAYS IT DOES WORK.  

 

Opdenaker's brief little comment suggests to me that many who might take a
closer look will not necessarily buy into the W-L theory as the correct
theory. I think they will care less about any theoretical arguments that
claim that the heat can't be due to "fusion" - that the heat can only be due
to beta decay and ultra slow neutrons. I would even venture to say that
Opdenaker might have even picked up on the some of the unseemly theoretical
politics that seems to have attached itself to the WL camp as they go about
denigrating all the other theoretical camps that are also currently on the
table. Regardless to the ensuing politics, I gather Bushnell seems to be on
favorable terms with the W-L folks and has probably gotten an ear-full from
them. I suspect Opdenaker has already picked up on that. Meanwhile, I
suspect Opdenaker could care less about what kind of theoretical product
placement that might be occurring under the table. All Opdenaker would care
about would be how much heat is being produced through the exploitation of a
particular engineering process, and can that heat be produced consistently
and on demand. The ensuring politics that comes with the favorite
theory-of-the-day can come later.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> He knows, though, of the heat evidence, and, indeed, Jed's right,

> that evidence does show, once we look carefully at the reactions, at

> what is in the cells under study, heat far beyond that possible from

> chemical reactions in the cell -- unless they are totally unknown

> chemical reactions, between elements not known to be present in the

> cells, somehow being supplied.

> 

> One can imagine that with Rossi, many have attempted it. With

> standard FPHE, the chemistry is well-known, and if all the cell

> components were to be maximally reactions, we'd still be far, far

> short of what these cells have demonstrated.

> 

> Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of

> super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately

> for this battery idea, ... helium.

 

Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:39 PM 12/26/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
As I read Dr Bushnell, he is saying 5 things: 1) Excess heat is real 
and has been replicated in 100s of labs around the world.


Yes. It has. By a couple of years ago, there were 153 reports of 
excess heat in peer-reviewed journals, there is a complilation 
listing those papers on lenr-canr.org. Storms reviews all this in his 
book, The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, World Scientific, 2007.


This has little or nothing to do with Rossi, except in one way. Once 
one knows that LENR is possible, the immediate rejection of Rossi 
isn't quite so simple. Rossi still looks like a con. Note: "looks like."



 2) The scale of the heat generated is beyond current chemistry.


Yes. Note that this is not at all a claim that chemistry, if used in 
some fraudulent scheme, could not produce this amount of energy. It 
means that analysis of the experiment by experts in chemistry 
sometimes shows heat well beyond "current chemistry." Given that a 
nuclear product, helium, has been shown to be very strongly 
associated with the FPHE, Occam's Razor currently points to ... a 
nuclear reaction. That the energy ratio is right for deuterium fusion 
is frosting on the cake, and could be a red herring. Most in the 
field consider straight deuterium fusion, the direct fusion of two 
deuterons, to be impossible, just as did the physicists in 1989-1990. 
As Huizenga told us ad nauseum, on about every page, there are no 
neutrons, and, when he realized, as he did, the significance of 
Miles' work with helium, he pointed out, "but there are no gammas."


Right. No gammas! Get over it! "Unkknown nuclear reactions" don't 
follow the rules for known ones. The assumption of two reactants and 
a single helium nucleus as a product (which would indeed require a 
gamma or *something* to handle the energy and momentum balance) was 
just that: an assumption. For some very odd reason, the logic went, 
if this is a nuclear reaction, it must be d-d fusion, but since the 
branching ratio is obviously Wrong, since there are no gammas, well, 
the energy must be artifact and the helium is, of course, leakage 
from ambient, and we will stuff our ears so that we don't hear about 
why this is completely inconsistent with the experimental data. 
People still write ad-hoc Rube Goldberg explanations of how the 
helium and heat just happen to be consistent with deuterium fusion 
(by whatever mechanism, if, inside a black box, deuterium is somehow 
converted to helium, no other products, the energy must be 23.8 KeV 
per helium nucleus. It would be that if the deuterium is broken down 
into quarks and then reassembled as helium, it would be that if 
somehow some neutrons are produced from deuterium (i.e., D2 + e -> 
2n, or W-L mechanism), and then some transmutation in the cell 
produces an isotope that ends up ejecting an alpha, if the fuel is 
deuterium and the product is helium, regardless of what catalysts 
accomplish the feat,  the energy will be that.)


 3) What is being observed to occur is not Fusion (Hot or Cold) as 
it is currently understood.


Key word: "as it is currently understood." There is a lost 
performative there. Understood by whom? Whatever "cold fusion" LENR 
turns out to be, it is not what everyone thought of in 1989-1990. 
It's something else. But "fusion" does remain a simple and popular 
term that does describe, most likely, what's happening. Just not, 
most likely, d-d fusion. If it *is* d-d fusion, something is very, 
very odd about it. For example, the conditions that allow the fusion 
would have to also drastically modify the branching ratio, and 
suppress radiation. That's a tall order, one that I don't think Widom 
and Larsen really appreciate (they do possibly resolve the branching 
ratio problem, but wave a magic wand to get rid of the expected 
gammas from neutron activation.)


As an example of a possibility that may not be *it*, but that might 
be close, Takahashi has calculated 100% cross-section for fusion 
within a femtosecond of the formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate 
from four deuterons should they be found in a tetrahedral pattern 
with very low relative velocity, for even about a femtosecond. That 
is a *prediction* of fusion from quantum field theory, but what is 
unknown is how this pattern would form, and it is unverified that it 
actually forms, and the work to predict formation rate hasn't been 
done. This is solid state quantum mechanics, a field that I was 
taught was impossibly complex, beyond our capacities, unless perhaps 
you have a lot of time on some supercomputers. The reaction, then, 
would be 2 D2 -> Be-8 -> 2 He-4 (yes, two deuterium molecules, 
*molecular fusion*, which obviously could only occur at low 
temperatures), and because there are two products, there is no 
conservation of momentum problem. There is still an issue of how the 
energy is dumped. Suffice it to say that there are physicists working 
on this problem. There shoul

Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Horace Heffner]

If you had bothered to read he references provided you would know  
your statement is nonsense.


"There is another type of battery that does not appear in the table  
above, since it is limited in the relative amount of current it can  
deliver. However, it has even higher energy storage per kilogram, and  
its temperature range is extreme, from -55 to +150°C. That type is  
Lithium Thionyl Chloride. It is used in extremely hazardous or  
critical applications such as space flight and deep sea diving."


On Dec 27, 2011, at 12:46 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

Horace, lithium batteries will explode in a high temperatures of  
ecat, especially if batterypack is thermally isolated. Only  
chemically plausible idea is to hide a bucketful of thermite or  
some other oxygen containing mixture of chemical compounds and an  
apparatus for controlled or catalyzed burning. Just ten liters  
would be enough for explaining the ecat.


But even with the thermite, there will be not just the myriads of  
engineering difficulties, but also physical limitations that the  
density of thermite is too low compared to measured 100 kg weight.  
Of course if there is stuffed some depleted uranium few liters,  
then we have no problems with the weight.


—Jouni

On Dec 27, 2011 11:11 AM, "Horace Heffner"   
wrote:


On Dec 26, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind  
of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that.  
Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium.


A Lithium Thionyl Chloride battery works out OK. See post below  
(archive down at the moment):


   Resent-From:  vortex-l@eskimo.com
   From: hheff...@mtaonline.net
   Subject:[Vo]:Duplicating Rossi is not worthwhile
   Date:   December 10, 2011 6:20:12 PM AKST
   Resent-To:undisclosed-recipients: ;
   To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com
   Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Duplicating Rossi's setup is not worthwhile.  If he is not a fraud  
it is likely Rossi has something extraordinary.  If there is a  
reasonable chance of actually duplicating that, or something  
similar, then that is worthwhile.  However success along those  
lines, developing a commercial quality LENR reactor without  
extensive research and good facilities is highly unlikely - even  
less likely than developing transistor technology in 1930 I would  
guess.


The notion that Rossi's device is self delusion has looked to me  
less and less likely day by day.


That leaves fraud as the remaining possibility to consider when  
designing such a test.  Such a test is ridiculous.  Of course the  
device can be faked, by numerous means.


Despite the fact Rossi removed the outer cover on the E-cat, no one  
was permitted to see inside the 30x30x30 cm inner box, or the  
reactor box(es) inside the inner box.  Four water tight conduits  
lead from the outside of the outer box to the inside of the inner  
box.  Anything can be inside the inner box. No one has seen the  
inside of that box.   The inner box has a volume of 27 liters. It  
can be water tight.


What can be put inside the inner box?  Lots of chemical things of  
course.


The simplest might be to use a lithium battery, perhaps a Lithium  
Thionyl Chloride battery.


http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html

"The specifications for Lithium Thionyl Chloride are $1.16 per watt- 
hour, 700 watts/kg, 2,000,000 Joules/kg, and 1100 watt-hours per  
liter. For more information of Lithium Thionyl Chloride please  
contact Tadiran Batteries."


The total kWh output produced by the 6 Oct 2011 E-cat was about 27  
kWh.  See:


http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Rossi6Oct2011noBias.pdf

Net output was about 18 kWh.

At 1100 wh/liter that is 29.7 kWh capacity in the 27 liter inner  
box. That leaves a lot of room for electronic control devices.   
Might need to route some of the cold water input so as to cool the  
battery. Also, the battery could be pressurized to prevent boiling.  
I don't think this was actually done because in one photo, after  
some processing, I could make out the water entry port on the  
inside of the box. Cool water I think flows under the box through a  
thin gap, and along the sides, mostly under the flanges that bolt  
together the top and bottom halves of the 27 liter inner box. I  
suspect it sits slightly elevated on a few short legs, possibly  
bolts which penetrate the bottom of the box, but which are sealed.


At 2 MJ/kg, or 00.56 kWH/kg,  the 29.7 kWh represents 53 kg, right  
about what is needed inside the inner box to be credible.


There are many ways to make a fake that can replicate the public  
tests Rossi has performed.  Actually building one doe not prove  
very much.  Better to to devote the time to experimenting with  
stuff that might actually work.


For some specific examples of stuff that might actually work, see  
the posts and associated threads here:

Re: [Vo]:If I Had Free Energy/Politics

[Jed Rothwell]

Zell, Chris wrote:

At this point, I think many of us are so angry and disgusted by the 
greed and legal invunerability of the ruling class, that I would give 
it away, just to end their misrule.


I do not see how this would end the misrule of the ruling class. Cold 
fusion has many potential benefits, but this does not seem to be among them.


It would put an end to OPEC and the political power of some countries in 
the Middle East, and Venezuela, but I do not see how we can predict the 
affect on the ruling class elsewhere. It might strengthen them, since it 
might concentrate power in the hands of technically well-educated people.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen wrote:

If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, 
because there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium 
compared to observed heat.




You do not understand correctly. The amounts of helium are right what 
they should be compared to observed heat. Please read Miles or McKubre.


- Jed

[Vo]:Chemical energy storage with bulk Pd-D

[Jed Rothwell]

There has been some confusion about the limits of chemical energy storage
with bulk palladium loaded with deuterium or hydrogen. The limits are not
"phenomenal." A typical cathode is about the size of a small wooden match.
A cathode of this size holds roughly as much energy as a match (~1000 J),
and produces maximum power of ~5 mW. Compare this to the first reported
example of heat after death from a cathode of this size. It produced 1.1 MJ
at 144 W, which greatly exceeds the limits of chemical energy storage. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

See also p. 12, footnote 24:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Jones Beene]

... not to mention a few hints (re: supra-chemistry) coming direct from
National Labs ... years before nano-thermite made an impact, so to speak. 

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/437696-qcD7AM/webviewable/437696.pd
f



-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

>Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of 
>super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately 
>for this battery idea, ... helium. 

You appear to have ignored the possibility of super-chemistry, a la Mills or
IRH.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

[Vo]:If I Had Free Energy/Politics

[Zell, Chris]

If I had a complete, working, practical free energy device - and wisely feared 
for my life - I would consider finding someone who is a staunch Zionist/Israeli 
patriot, with a scientific background and donating it to him. Political 
jiu-jitsu, I say.

At this point, I think many of us are so angry and disgusted by the greed and 
legal invunerability of the ruling class, that I would give it away, just to 
end their misrule.

Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Peter]

Am 27.12.2011 00:19, schrieb Aussie Guy E-Cat:

What no comment on this:

"My change of mind was a direct result of talking with Dr. Dennis 
Bushnell, the Chief Scientist for NASA Langley who has assured me that 
over 100 experiments worldwide indicate that LENR is real, capable of 
producing energy much greater that chemical reactions, with minimal 
radiation"


citation:
HOWEVER, IF ROSSI HAS ALREADY SOLD MORE THAN 10 OF THE 1 MW PLANTS AS I 
AM READING ON THE NET, AND IT TURNS OUT THAT THE PLANTS WORK, AND 
ROSSI'S CUSTOMERS ARE HAPPY WITH THEM, I DO NOT THINK THAT THE DOE NEEDS 
TO GET INTO THE MIX TO CONVINCE PEOPLE TO BUY A PRODUCT THAT OTHERS HAVE 
ALREADY BOUGHT AND ARE WILDLY HAPPY WITH.  IT IS JUST A MATTER OF A 
SHORT WAIT TO SEE WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.[snip]

OPDENAKER
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES
OFFICE OF SCIENCE
US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
301-903-4941 
albert.opdena...@science.doe.gov 
end citation.

Now this is a clever man. He comes to the final conclusion, "no action 
on this required, because the stone is already rolling and soon we will 
see".


This is a very diplomatic answer and not without fine irony, but 
obviously not everybody is able to understand this ;-)


Peter

Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Jouni Valkonen]

Horace, lithium batteries will explode in a high temperatures of ecat,
especially if batterypack is thermally isolated. Only chemically plausible
idea is to hide a bucketful of thermite or some other oxygen containing
mixture of chemical compounds and an apparatus for controlled or catalyzed
burning. Just ten liters would be enough for explaining the ecat.

But even with the thermite, there will be not just the myriads of
engineering difficulties, but also physical limitations that the density of
thermite is too low compared to measured 100 kg weight. Of course if there
is stuffed some depleted uranium few liters, then we have no problems with
the weight.

—Jouni
On Dec 27, 2011 11:11 AM, "Horace Heffner"  wrote:

>
> On Dec 26, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>
>>
>> Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of
>> super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for
>> this battery idea, ... helium.
>>
>
> A Lithium Thionyl Chloride battery works out OK. See post below (archive
> down at the moment):
>
>Resent-From:  vortex-l@eskimo.com
>From: hheff...@mtaonline.net
>Subject:[Vo]:Duplicating Rossi is not worthwhile
>Date:   December 10, 2011 6:20:12 PM AKST
>Resent-To:undisclosed-recipients: ;
>To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> Duplicating Rossi's setup is not worthwhile.  If he is not a fraud it is
> likely Rossi has something extraordinary.  If there is a reasonable chance
> of actually duplicating that, or something similar, then that is
> worthwhile.  However success along those lines, developing a commercial
> quality LENR reactor without extensive research and good facilities is
> highly unlikely - even less likely than developing transistor technology in
> 1930 I would guess.
>
> The notion that Rossi's device is self delusion has looked to me less and
> less likely day by day.
>
> That leaves fraud as the remaining possibility to consider when designing
> such a test.  Such a test is ridiculous.  Of course the device can be
> faked, by numerous means.
>
> Despite the fact Rossi removed the outer cover on the E-cat, no one was
> permitted to see inside the 30x30x30 cm inner box, or the reactor box(es)
> inside the inner box.  Four water tight conduits lead from the outside of
> the outer box to the inside of the inner box.  Anything can be inside the
> inner box. No one has seen the inside of that box.   The inner box has a
> volume of 27 liters. It can be water tight.
>
> What can be put inside the inner box?  Lots of chemical things of course.
>
> The simplest might be to use a lithium battery, perhaps a Lithium Thionyl
> Chloride battery.
>
> http://www.allaboutbatteries.**com/Battery-Energy.html
>
> "The specifications for Lithium Thionyl Chloride are $1.16 per watt-hour,
> 700 watts/kg, 2,000,000 Joules/kg, and 1100 watt-hours per liter. For more
> information of Lithium Thionyl Chloride please contact Tadiran Batteries."
>
> The total kWh output produced by the 6 Oct 2011 E-cat was about 27 kWh.
>  See:
>
> http://www.mtaonline.net/%**7Ehheffner/**Rossi6Oct2011noBias.pdf
>
> Net output was about 18 kWh.
>
> At 1100 wh/liter that is 29.7 kWh capacity in the 27 liter inner box. That
> leaves a lot of room for electronic control devices.  Might need to route
> some of the cold water input so as to cool the battery. Also, the battery
> could be pressurized to prevent boiling. I don't think this was actually
> done because in one photo, after some processing, I could make out the
> water entry port on the inside of the box. Cool water I think flows under
> the box through a thin gap, and along the sides, mostly under the flanges
> that bolt together the top and bottom halves of the 27 liter inner box. I
> suspect it sits slightly elevated on a few short legs, possibly bolts which
> penetrate the bottom of the box, but which are sealed.
>
> At 2 MJ/kg, or 00.56 kWH/kg,  the 29.7 kWh represents 53 kg, right about
> what is needed inside the inner box to be credible.
>
> There are many ways to make a fake that can replicate the public tests
> Rossi has performed.  Actually building one doe not prove very much.
>  Better to to devote the time to experimenting with stuff that might
> actually work.
>
> For some specific examples of stuff that might actually work, see the
> posts and associated threads here:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44662.**html
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg57397.**html
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg21943.**html
>
> It might 

Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 26, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind  
of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that.  
Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium.


A Lithium Thionyl Chloride battery works out OK. See post below  
(archive down at the moment):


Resent-From:  vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: hheff...@mtaonline.net
Subject:[Vo]:Duplicating Rossi is not worthwhile
Date:   December 10, 2011 6:20:12 PM AKST
Resent-To:undisclosed-recipients: ;
To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com
Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Duplicating Rossi's setup is not worthwhile.  If he is not a fraud it  
is likely Rossi has something extraordinary.  If there is a  
reasonable chance of actually duplicating that, or something similar,  
then that is worthwhile.  However success along those lines,  
developing a commercial quality LENR reactor without extensive  
research and good facilities is highly unlikely - even less likely  
than developing transistor technology in 1930 I would guess.


The notion that Rossi's device is self delusion has looked to me less  
and less likely day by day.


That leaves fraud as the remaining possibility to consider when  
designing such a test.  Such a test is ridiculous.  Of course the  
device can be faked, by numerous means.


Despite the fact Rossi removed the outer cover on the E-cat, no one  
was permitted to see inside the 30x30x30 cm inner box, or the reactor  
box(es) inside the inner box.  Four water tight conduits lead from  
the outside of the outer box to the inside of the inner box.   
Anything can be inside the inner box. No one has seen the inside of  
that box.   The inner box has a volume of 27 liters. It can be water  
tight.


What can be put inside the inner box?  Lots of chemical things of  
course.


The simplest might be to use a lithium battery, perhaps a Lithium  
Thionyl Chloride battery.


http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html

"The specifications for Lithium Thionyl Chloride are $1.16 per watt- 
hour, 700 watts/kg, 2,000,000 Joules/kg, and 1100 watt-hours per  
liter. For more information of Lithium Thionyl Chloride please  
contact Tadiran Batteries."


The total kWh output produced by the 6 Oct 2011 E-cat was about 27  
kWh.  See:


http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Rossi6Oct2011noBias.pdf

Net output was about 18 kWh.

At 1100 wh/liter that is 29.7 kWh capacity in the 27 liter inner box.  
That leaves a lot of room for electronic control devices.  Might need  
to route some of the cold water input so as to cool the battery.  
Also, the battery could be pressurized to prevent boiling. I don't  
think this was actually done because in one photo, after some  
processing, I could make out the water entry port on the inside of  
the box. Cool water I think flows under the box through a thin gap,  
and along the sides, mostly under the flanges that bolt together the  
top and bottom halves of the 27 liter inner box. I suspect it sits  
slightly elevated on a few short legs, possibly bolts which penetrate  
the bottom of the box, but which are sealed.


At 2 MJ/kg, or 00.56 kWH/kg,  the 29.7 kWh represents 53 kg, right  
about what is needed inside the inner box to be credible.


There are many ways to make a fake that can replicate the public  
tests Rossi has performed.  Actually building one doe not prove very  
much.  Better to to devote the time to experimenting with stuff that  
might actually work.


For some specific examples of stuff that might actually work, see the  
posts and associated threads here:


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44662.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg57397.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg21943.html

It might just be as simple as cycling the temperature about the Curie  
point in a mu-metal filament in high pressure hydrogen gas under the  
influence of an intense and slowly rotating magnetic field.


I might be as simple as loading powdered zeolites with a mu-metal  
like compound and stimulating with microwaves, or high intensity laser.


Despite the odds, there is a tiny possibility a useful and simple  
solution is available.


Better to spend time seeking that than debating the ridiculous. The  
odds of success may be small, but the payoff is vastly greater.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Jouni Valkonen]

Abd ul-Rahman: » I have seen no peer-reviewed criticisms that manage to
impeach the *correlation* of heat with helium.»

If I have understood correctly, the correlation is meaningless, because
there are orders of magnitude too tiny amounts of helium compared to
observed heat. Therefore there is only one conclusion to make, that we have
no idea what is going on there and we have no way to deduce the cause for
the FPE. Not in a matter of degree that would differentiate it from Ni-H
cold fusion.

As causality is not yet established and understood, DDSLA is the correct
approach imo. And FPE refers into cold fusion heat anomaly in general.

   —Jouni

Re: [Vo]:We have FPE cells

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 26, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

However, in open cells, the oxygen leaves the cell as it is  
generated, and in closed cells, excess oxygen is still vented, my  
understanding (otherwise the pressure would rise very high, as  
oxygen isn't loaded into palladium. Some of the oxygen combines  
with deuterium that bubbles up, in a closed cell, at the  
recombiner, but the amount of deuterium in a fully loaded piece of  
palladium is phenomenal.


Catalytic recombiners theoretically, and in some cases practically,  
can work and have worked indefinitely.  The problem is murphy's law.   
If water gets on some part of the the recombining catalyst surface  
then that part of the surface does not work. Explosions still can  
occur, even from combiners located remotely from the sealed cell.   
Flashback preventers fail.  Operating closed electrolytic cells is  
very dangerous. Operating high pressure electrolytic cells is even  
more dangerous.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/