Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Last Chance - Submit Your Nominations NOW

[Horace Heffner]

Hi Frank,

Nomination categories are: "Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal and  
Hydropower".


No free energy or nuclear energy categories.


On Dec 30, 2011, at 1:16 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:


vote for me


-Original Message-
From: RenewableEnergyWorld.com 
To: Frank Znidarsic Website Contact 
Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2011 11:35 am
Subject: Last Chance - Submit Your Nominations NOW


Having trouble viewing this email - Click HERE



Presented by the editors of RenewableEnergyWorld.com and Renewable  
Energy World North America magazine, these awards recognize the  
most outstanding projects, programs and technologies in the wind,  
solar, biomass, geothermal and hydroelectric technology sectors.


Awards will be presented in the following categories:
Projects of the Year — Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Bioenergy and  
Hydropower

Innovation — Technology, Finance, Policy
Leadership — Technology, Finance, Policy
Readers' Choice — Readers get a chance to select one winner for the  
coveted Readers' Choice Award


Submit Nominations Today — Click HERE!
All winners in all categories will be announced LIVE at Renewable  
Energy World North America Conference & Expo/Solar POWER-GEN  
Conference & Exhibition in Long Beach, California on Feb 14-16, 2012.


All Nominations Must Be Submitted By Midnight Eastern Time on  
December 31st, 2011.


For more information visit: RenewableEnergyWorld.com/rea/awards/2012


You are invited to view this message because you are a registered  
reader of RenewableEnergyWorld.com.
If you no longer wish to receive these emails please click here to  
manage your subscription or send an email to  
rem...@renewableenergyworld.com


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 30, 2011, at 9:58 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:


Horace:
The reference to the chicken-n-egg was not with your theory...  
sorry for the

misunderstanding.



My mistake.  Sorry.  Any excuse to post on my theory.  8^)

Best regards,

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

RE: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

SVJ wrote:

"As far as I'm concerned the war against the "fusion" word is nothing more
than a petty self-serving theoretical product placement war.  WTF cares."

 

I wholeheartedly agree Steven, but it's not you and I that needed convincing
these past 20+ years; it's the physics establishment.  I asked a close
friend (PhD physicist) and he said the same thing as Krivit; that fusion has
a *very* specific meaning *to a physicist*, and neutron capture is not
'fusion' as far as they're concerned.  Now, if I was a physicist, I would
hope that I'd be more concerned about whether the LENR/CF data was rigorous
enough and not be concerned about what it was being called. but then, my job
and my field of expertise is not likely to be ridiculed for delaying the
dawn of a new era for 20+ years.  Humans are interesting indeed.

 

Fortunately, there are so many non-physicists now who are aware of LENR,
that the physics establishment's influence is severely undermined.  Those
non-technical, influential people being advised by the physicists are now
going to want to get a piece of the action in the next revolutionary
technology, and will be getting second and third opinions from
non-physicists.

-Mark

 

 

From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 5:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR
politics

 

>From Jed:

 

...

 

> The researcher quoted here has it right:

> 

>
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/29/lenr-researcher-refuses-to-abandon
-fusion-term/

 

> "I feel it would be much better to allow people to use the terms

> they are comfortable with. Let people use dozens of terms if they like.

> Let history decide what term sticks after another 20 years or so.  

> It is better to view terms and other people as how their statements

> can be true instead of trying to force others to use your terms and

> then assume others wrong. Nature does not care what we call these

> events."

 

When I was still a New Energy Times BoD member I recall at one time emailing
Krivit and the rest of the BoD members asking Krivit why he was spending so
much of his editorial skills going after the "cold fusion" word. What was
the point of trying to prove to the world that the "fusion" word was such a
terribly inaccurate description of what was alleged to be happening on the
nuclear level? IMO, I never got a straight answer from Krivit. Alas, none of
the other BoD members seemed inclined to question Krivit the same matter
either, so obviously my concerns were never addressed. I was left with the
impression that either the other BoD members agreed with Mr. Krivit's
philosophy - or perhaps they just didn't care. I suspect it was the latter.

 

I have no bone to pick with the W-L theory itself. I'm not knowledgeable
enough to pass judgment for or against it. Privately, however, I have
received an earful from certain individuals who I realize are far more
knowledgeable than I on prevailing theories pertaining to nuclear reactions.
What these critics have had to say would suggest to me that the W-L theory
appears to have certain fundamental problems that in their view have not
been adequately addressed. Whatever... If it eventually turns out that the
W-L theory accurately depicts the way of nuclear reactions. particularly
when it comes to LENR (or "cold fusion"), then that is the way of things and
the W-L camp can have their cake and eat it too.

 

However, I detest attempts originating from the W-L camp and Krivit to cast
researchers and other prevailing theories in a bad light, especially since
at present it seems to me that nobody really knows for sure which theory is
probably the most accurate one. As for my involvement with Krivit and NET,
everything came to a head when I privately complained (in a confrontational
email) to Krivit about his criticism of McKubre, after Krivit had indirectly
inferred on a radio program that McKubre had lied about some of his
experimental data. I think at that point Krivit had had had enough of me.
Krivit forwarded my confrontational email, which as a courtesy had been
intended for Krivit's eyes only, to all the other BoD members - presumably,
I would speculate, to show everyone what an asshole I was being towards him.
Quite frankly, I didn't give a damn what Krivit had done with my private
email. I really had nothing to hide. I sent the email to Krivit privately
was a matter of professional courtesy. What he did with it was his business.
What Krivit did with it was tack on a message of his own. an ultimatum
telling me in front of all the other BoD members that I ought to resign if I
couldn't behave in a more civil manner towards him. I was more than happy to
resign. It was, in fact, a tremendous relief to resign. Incidentally,
several former NET BoD members have also experienced similar fates. What I
encountered is by no means unique.

 

Years ago my brother drove a 

RE: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Horace:
The reference to the chicken-n-egg was not with your theory... sorry for the
misunderstanding.

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 4:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-

There is no Chicken and egg problem with my theory for the following
reasons:

1. The electron is periodically close to the nucleus.  When the electron is
close to the nucleus, at the range indicated, the magnetic fields are super
intense, and spin coupling occurs.

2. An external magnetic field, while it can not add to an electron's
momentum, it can greatly increase the probability of spin alignment of
deflated state hydrogen and a magnetic nucleus, thus increasing the
probability of tunneling of the deflated hydrogen into the nucleus.

3. In the media suggested, the nanoparticles are smaller than typical
magnetic domains in iron.

4. The presence of very fine magnetic gradients, as from nano- particles
separated by dielectrics, further increases the magnetic potential and adds
to the energy gained by the tunneling

To understand why magnetic binding occurs just get a couple small strong
magnets a throw them up into the air together and at each other.  If they
get close enough they will always attract and smash together.

When two charged particles with spin approach, they act like a couple
magnets spinning about their magnetic axis.  If not already aligned, their
poles will experience a force which brings unlike poles in orientation with
each other.  In the process of changing their spin axes the particles can
(in a non QM interpretation) precess, due to  
torque on the spin axis.   When this happens the particles can  
radiate, and flip their spins into alignment.  In a magnetic field the spins
of (quantum) particles tend to be aligned either with the magnetic field, or
opposed to it.  If opposed, a particle will tend to eventually flip into a
matching spin.

Two particles can experience an attracting force if their poles are aligned

N-S N-S

However, if they are in orbitals, they align with opposed spin, like so:

N  S
|  |
S  N

which is still an attracting mode.   If they aligned in the opposing  
directions they would repel.  This is partially the basis of the Pauli
Exclusion principle. The spin axes of electrons tend to align with an
orbital axis, not perpendicular to it. A pair of electrons sharing other
quantum states in an atom will have one spin up and the other down, i.e
opposed spins.  They will have a magnetic attraction force, a negative
potential, but one which at atomic size distances is nominal. At nuclear
distances magnetic forces become very large.

This tendency of particle spins to align in a magnetically attracting way,
creating a potential energy, is called spin coupling.



On Dec 30, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Robin:
> Thanks for the comments, and I see your chicken-n-egg argument...
>
> As I prefaced my comment about Horace's calcs, "I'm not sure if this 
> is relevant either..."
> Please note that in many cases I am just doing a brain-dump in the 
> hopes of triggering some creative thinking. :-)
>
> OTOH, I'm not so sure I agree that, as you say, "... in an ordinary 
> magnet many (most?) of the atomic [magnetic] fields are aligned..."
>
> Magnetic materials are composed of 'magnetic domains'; regions where 
> the
> magnetic moments are more or less aligned in the same direction.   
> However,
> adjacent domains are randomly oriented, diminishing the effect for the 
> bulk material and, thus, the *external* magnetic field is *much less* 
> than what one would find in an individual domain.
>
> I am curious... if one were to look at the individual atoms (10^6 to 
> 10^9) in one of these 'magnetic domains', what percentage of the 
> magnetic moments are parallel???
>
> -Mark
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 1:13 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-
>
> In reply to  Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint's message of Fri, 30 Dec 2011
> 11:08:00
> -0800:
> Hi Mark,
> [snip]
>
> Horace's calculation has nothing to do with alignment of magnetic 
> fields in clusters, which can't produce such huge fields anyway. 
> (Consider that in an ordinary magnet many (most?) of the atomic fields 
> are aligned, and the total field is pitiful by comparison to what 
> would be needed.)
>
>> Robin:
>>
>> If one looks at it macroscopically, then your criticism is 
>> understandable, however, one must keep in mind the environment of the 
>> H or D loaded lattice at the dimensions of a few atoms.  When you get 
>> ALL magnetic domains aligned in a small region (a few 10s, 100s of 
>> atoms), magnetic fields can become quite large...
>>
>> I'm not sure if this is relevant either, but here is what Horace 
>> calculated in his model:
>>

Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

Bout time for some to wake up and stop claiming as fact what is 
obviously not fact. What is fact is we do not know what is happening and 
until we do know what is happening there is no point in claiming what is 
and is not fact.


What we know as fact:

1) It is called the Fleischmann and Ponds Effect (FPE).

2) The FPE generates excess heat.

3) The FPE does not generate significant radiation.

4) The FPE generates element transmutations, both up and down scale. 
(shall we call in Cold Fission as well?)


5) The FPE works in both Palladium / D2O and Nickel / H2.

AG


On 12/31/2011 2:44 PM, James Bowery wrote:
The "war" against the phrase "cold fusion" seems to derive from some 
sort of attempt at spin control on the whole affair.  At some level, 
if the phrase "cold fusion" can be "debunked" then the physics 
establishment can save face in the eyes of the vast majority of the 
population.  It is that concern that is behind the strong emotions 
about WL theory -- even though WL theory doesn't debunk the FPE and 
the FPE is all that is needed to see that the nuclear physics 
establishment is rotten to the core.


Public relations is insane, which is why sensible people are rarely 
successful.

Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

[James Bowery]

The "war" against the phrase "cold fusion" seems to derive from some sort
of attempt at spin control on the whole affair.  At some level, if the
phrase "cold fusion" can be "debunked" then the physics establishment can
save face in the eyes of the vast majority of the population.  It is that
concern that is behind the strong emotions about WL theory -- even though
WL theory doesn't debunk the FPE and the FPE is all that is needed to see
that the nuclear physics establishment is rotten to the core.

Public relations is insane, which is why sensible people are rarely
successful.

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 7:42 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> From Jed:
>
> ** **
>
> ...
>
> ** **
>
> > The researcher quoted here has it right:
>
> >** **
>
> >
> http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/29/lenr-researcher-refuses-to-abandon-fusion-term/
> 
>
> ** **
>
> > "I feel it would be much better to allow people to use the terms
>
> > they are comfortable with. Let people use dozens of terms if they like.*
> ***
>
> > Let history decide what term sticks after another 20 years or so.  
>
> > It is better to view terms and other people as how their statements
>
> > can be true instead of trying to force others to use your terms and
>
> > then assume others wrong. Nature does not care what we call these
>
> > events."
>
> ** **
>
> When I was still a New Energy Times BoD member I recall at one time
> emailing Krivit and the rest of the BoD members asking Krivit why he was
> spending so much of his editorial skills going after the "cold fusion"
> word. What was the point of trying to prove to the world that the "fusion"
> word was such a terribly inaccurate description of what was alleged to be
> happening on the nuclear level? IMO, I never got a straight answer from
> Krivit. Alas, none of the other BoD members seemed inclined to question
> Krivit the same matter either, so obviously my concerns were never
> addressed. I was left with the impression that either the other BoD members
> agreed with Mr. Krivit's philosophy - or perhaps they just didn't care. I
> suspect it was the latter.
>
> ** **
>
> I have no bone to pick with the W-L theory itself. I'm not knowledgeable
> enough to pass judgment for or against it. Privately, however, I have
> received an earful from certain individuals who I realize are far more
> knowledgeable than I on prevailing theories pertaining to nuclear
> reactions. What these critics have had to say would suggest to me that the
> W-L theory appears to have certain fundamental problems that in their view
> have not been adequately addressed. Whatever... If it eventually turns out
> that the W-L theory accurately depicts the way of nuclear reactions…
> particularly when it comes to LENR (or “cold fusion”), then that is the way
> of things and the W-L camp can have their cake and eat it too.
>
> ** **
>
> However, I detest attempts originating from the W-L camp *and Krivit* to
> cast researchers and other prevailing theories in a bad light, especially
> since at present it seems to me that nobody really knows for sure which
> theory is probably the most accurate one. As for my involvement with Krivit
> and NET, everything came to a head when I privately complained (in a
> confrontational email) to Krivit about his criticism of McKubre, after
> Krivit had indirectly inferred on a radio program that McKubre had lied
> about some of his experimental data. I think at that point Krivit had had
> had enough of me. Krivit forwarded my confrontational email, which as a
> courtesy had been intended for Krivit’s eyes only, to all the other BoD
> members – presumably, I would speculate, to show everyone what an asshole I
> was being towards him. Quite frankly, I didn’t give a damn what Krivit had
> done with my private email. I really had nothing to hide. I sent the email
> to Krivit privately was a matter of professional courtesy. What he did with
> it was his business. What Krivit did with it was tack on a message of his
> own… an ultimatum telling me in front of all the other BoD members that I
> ought to resign if I couldn’t behave in a more civil manner towards him. I
> was more than happy to resign. It was, in fact, a tremendous relief to
> resign. Incidentally, several former NET BoD members have also experienced
> similar fates. What I encountered is by no means unique.
>
> ** **
>
> Years ago my brother drove a delivery truck supplying beer and wine
> coolers to various grocery stores in the Bend, Oregon area. He constantly
> complained about how other delivery personnel, when they came through,
> would shove or hide his product brands to the back of the shelves. There
> was a constant product placement war going on amongst all the delivery men
> as they maneuvered to get their merchandise optimally placed. As far as I’m
> concerned the war against the "fusion" word is nothing more than a petty
> self-serving t

Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

Well said. It is what it is, the FPE which:

1) Generates excess heat.

2) Generates very little radiation.

3) Transmutes elements up and down the scale.

Maybe call it the PSE (Philosopher's Stone Effect)? Nah calling it the 
FPE is good enough. BTW pass another box of hot buttered popcorn while 
we watch the FPE "Days Of Our Lives" soap opera.


AG


On 12/31/2011 12:12 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
As far as I’m concerned the war against the "fusion" word is nothing 
more than a petty self-serving theoretical product placement war.


WTF cares.

Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 8:42 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
 wrote:

> As far as I’m
> concerned the war against the "fusion" word is nothing more than a petty
> self-serving theoretical product placement war.

It's all quite absurd actually.  SK appears to be anti-semantic.  A
rose by any other name . . .

T

RE: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Jed:

 

...

 

> The researcher quoted here has it right:

> 

>
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/29/lenr-researcher-refuses-to-abandon
-fusion-term/

 

> "I feel it would be much better to allow people to use the terms

> they are comfortable with. Let people use dozens of terms if they like.

> Let history decide what term sticks after another 20 years or so.  

> It is better to view terms and other people as how their statements

> can be true instead of trying to force others to use your terms and

> then assume others wrong. Nature does not care what we call these

> events."

 

When I was still a New Energy Times BoD member I recall at one time emailing
Krivit and the rest of the BoD members asking Krivit why he was spending so
much of his editorial skills going after the "cold fusion" word. What was
the point of trying to prove to the world that the "fusion" word was such a
terribly inaccurate description of what was alleged to be happening on the
nuclear level? IMO, I never got a straight answer from Krivit. Alas, none of
the other BoD members seemed inclined to question Krivit the same matter
either, so obviously my concerns were never addressed. I was left with the
impression that either the other BoD members agreed with Mr. Krivit's
philosophy - or perhaps they just didn't care. I suspect it was the latter.

 

I have no bone to pick with the W-L theory itself. I'm not knowledgeable
enough to pass judgment for or against it. Privately, however, I have
received an earful from certain individuals who I realize are far more
knowledgeable than I on prevailing theories pertaining to nuclear reactions.
What these critics have had to say would suggest to me that the W-L theory
appears to have certain fundamental problems that in their view have not
been adequately addressed. Whatever... If it eventually turns out that the
W-L theory accurately depicts the way of nuclear reactions. particularly
when it comes to LENR (or "cold fusion"), then that is the way of things and
the W-L camp can have their cake and eat it too.

 

However, I detest attempts originating from the W-L camp and Krivit to cast
researchers and other prevailing theories in a bad light, especially since
at present it seems to me that nobody really knows for sure which theory is
probably the most accurate one. As for my involvement with Krivit and NET,
everything came to a head when I privately complained (in a confrontational
email) to Krivit about his criticism of McKubre, after Krivit had indirectly
inferred on a radio program that McKubre had lied about some of his
experimental data. I think at that point Krivit had had had enough of me.
Krivit forwarded my confrontational email, which as a courtesy had been
intended for Krivit's eyes only, to all the other BoD members - presumably,
I would speculate, to show everyone what an asshole I was being towards him.
Quite frankly, I didn't give a damn what Krivit had done with my private
email. I really had nothing to hide. I sent the email to Krivit privately
was a matter of professional courtesy. What he did with it was his business.
What Krivit did with it was tack on a message of his own. an ultimatum
telling me in front of all the other BoD members that I ought to resign if I
couldn't behave in a more civil manner towards him. I was more than happy to
resign. It was, in fact, a tremendous relief to resign. Incidentally,
several former NET BoD members have also experienced similar fates. What I
encountered is by no means unique.

 

Years ago my brother drove a delivery truck supplying beer and wine coolers
to various grocery stores in the Bend, Oregon area. He constantly complained
about how other delivery personnel, when they came through, would shove or
hide his product brands to the back of the shelves. There was a constant
product placement war going on amongst all the delivery men as they
maneuvered to get their merchandise optimally placed. As far as I'm
concerned the war against the "fusion" word is nothing more than a petty
self-serving theoretical product placement war.

 

WTF cares.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Randy Hekman for Senate blog

[Daniel Rocha]

The problem it is that merely adding neutrons do not much. You cannot even
make He4 out of D.

2011/12/30 

> Larsen has a website with slide presentations at:
> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen
>
> He provides a lot of hypotheses which could be tested for what seems
> modest expense.  Most would involve looking for transmutations - which
> would be a lot less contentious than calorimetry results.
>
> Many have claimed presence of anomalous transmutations already.
> Why people spend time arguing the subject puzzles me.
> Why not just run a few more experiments, in financially/academically
> disinterested labs, to confirm or reject W-L theory?
>
> Akira Shirakawa wrote:
> > On 2011-12-30 22:05, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> >> See:
> >>
> >>
> http://randyhekman2012.com/_blog/Blog/post/Energy_America's_Next_'Space_Race'_/
> >
> >  From the link above:
> >
> >> [...] It took a man I met at a conference in France five years ago to
> >> discover the answer.  Lewis Larsen, now CEO of Lattice Energy LLC in
> >> Chicago
> >
> > Maybe it's not the right thread for these questions, but I was
> > wondering: does Lattice Energy LLC have a website? Besides theories, do
> > Widom and Larsen have prototypes, working products or a roadmap for
> > future projects/plans? I was thinking yes, since they are so certain
> > that theirs is the correct theory for LENR and that they get mentioned
> > often. But is it actually the case?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > S.A.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Randy Hekman for Senate blog

[pagnucco]

Larsen has a website with slide presentations at:
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen

He provides a lot of hypotheses which could be tested for what seems
modest expense.  Most would involve looking for transmutations - which
would be a lot less contentious than calorimetry results.

Many have claimed presence of anomalous transmutations already.
Why people spend time arguing the subject puzzles me.
Why not just run a few more experiments, in financially/academically
disinterested labs, to confirm or reject W-L theory?

Akira Shirakawa wrote:
> On 2011-12-30 22:05, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>> See:
>>
>> http://randyhekman2012.com/_blog/Blog/post/Energy_America's_Next_'Space_Race'_/
>
>  From the link above:
>
>> [...] It took a man I met at a conference in France five years ago to
>> discover the answer.  Lewis Larsen, now CEO of Lattice Energy LLC in
>> Chicago
>
> Maybe it's not the right thread for these questions, but I was
> wondering: does Lattice Energy LLC have a website? Besides theories, do
> Widom and Larsen have prototypes, working products or a roadmap for
> future projects/plans? I was thinking yes, since they are so certain
> that theirs is the correct theory for LENR and that they get mentioned
> often. But is it actually the case?
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-

[Horace Heffner]

I wrote: "However, if they are in orbitals, they align with opposed  
spin, like so:


N  S
|  |
S  N

which is still an attracting mode."

I should note that should say "opposed poles", not "opposed spin".  A  
nucleus with negative mu has spin reversed with respect to the poles.


I  explained this on page 14 of:

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


Best regards,

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

[Vo]:Same material can be optically transparent or absorptive...

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Another FYI:

  http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-graphene-intense-laser-pulses.html

 

The researcher said:

"We found from ultrafast spectroscopy measurements that dispersed graphene
sheets switch their behavior from induced optical transparency which is
well-known, to induced optical absorption depending on its environment. This
is a remarkable finding that shows graphene can still surprise!"

 

So the same sheet of graphene will NOT interact with photons (optically
transparent), OR, the opposite, become strongly optically absorptive,
depending on the surrounding environment.

 

-Mark

 

Re: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-

[Horace Heffner]

There is no Chicken and egg problem with my theory for the following  
reasons:


1. The electron is periodically close to the nucleus.  When the  
electron is close to the nucleus, at the range indicated, the  
magnetic fields are super intense, and spin coupling occurs.


2. An external magnetic field, while it can not add to an electron's  
momentum, it can greatly increase the probability of spin alignment  
of deflated state hydrogen and a magnetic nucleus, thus increasing  
the probability of tunneling of the deflated hydrogen into the nucleus.


3. In the media suggested, the nanoparticles are smaller than typical  
magnetic domains in iron.


4. The presence of very fine magnetic gradients, as from nano- 
particles separated by dielectrics, further increases the magnetic  
potential and adds to the energy gained by the tunneling


To understand why magnetic binding occurs just get a couple small  
strong magnets a throw them up into the air together and at each  
other.  If they get close enough they will always attract and smash  
together.


When two charged particles with spin approach, they act like a couple  
magnets spinning about their magnetic axis.  If not already aligned,  
their poles will experience a force which brings unlike poles in  
orientation with each other.  In the process of changing their spin  
axes the particles can (in a non QM interpretation) precess, due to  
torque on the spin axis.   When this happens the particles can  
radiate, and flip their spins into alignment.  In a magnetic field  
the spins of (quantum) particles tend to be aligned either with the  
magnetic field, or opposed to it.  If opposed, a particle will tend  
to eventually flip into a matching spin.


Two particles can experience an attracting force if their poles are  
aligned


N-S N-S

However, if they are in orbitals, they align with opposed spin, like so:

N  S
|  |
S  N

which is still an attracting mode.   If they aligned in the opposing  
directions they would repel.  This is partially the basis of the  
Pauli Exclusion principle. The spin axes of electrons tend to align  
with an orbital axis, not perpendicular to it. A pair of electrons  
sharing other quantum states in an atom will have one spin up and the  
other down, i.e opposed spins.  They will have a magnetic attraction  
force, a negative potential, but one which at atomic size distances  
is nominal. At nuclear distances magnetic forces become very large.


This tendency of particle spins to align in a magnetically attracting  
way, creating a potential energy, is called spin coupling.




On Dec 30, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:


Robin:
Thanks for the comments, and I see your chicken-n-egg argument...

As I prefaced my comment about Horace's calcs, "I'm not sure if  
this is

relevant either..."
Please note that in many cases I am just doing a brain-dump in the  
hopes of

triggering some creative thinking. :-)

OTOH, I'm not so sure I agree that, as you say, "... in an ordinary  
magnet

many (most?) of the atomic [magnetic] fields are aligned..."

Magnetic materials are composed of 'magnetic domains'; regions  
where the
magnetic moments are more or less aligned in the same direction.   
However,
adjacent domains are randomly oriented, diminishing the effect for  
the bulk
material and, thus, the *external* magnetic field is *much less*  
than what

one would find in an individual domain.

I am curious... if one were to look at the individual atoms (10^6  
to 10^9)
in one of these 'magnetic domains', what percentage of the magnetic  
moments

are parallel???

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 1:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-

In reply to  Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint's message of Fri, 30 Dec 2011  
11:08:00

-0800:
Hi Mark,
[snip]

Horace's calculation has nothing to do with alignment of magnetic  
fields in
clusters, which can't produce such huge fields anyway. (Consider  
that in an
ordinary magnet many (most?) of the atomic fields are aligned, and  
the total

field is pitiful by comparison to what would be needed.)


Robin:

If one looks at it macroscopically, then your criticism is
understandable, however, one must keep in mind the environment of  
the H
or D loaded lattice at the dimensions of a few atoms.  When you  
get ALL
magnetic domains aligned in a small region (a few 10s, 100s of  
atoms),

magnetic fields can become quite large...

I'm not sure if this is relevant either, but here is what Horace
calculated in his model:

"If you look at the spreadsheet I provided in 2007, you will see the
magnetic field of the electron on the deuteron in the D+e deflated
state is given as 4.0210e+14 Tesla."

That's about 6 orders of magnitude greater than your 225e6.


I haven't checked Horace's calculation, but let's take it at face  
value.


1) That doesn't necessaril

RE: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Robin:
Thanks for the comments, and I see your chicken-n-egg argument...

As I prefaced my comment about Horace's calcs, "I'm not sure if this is
relevant either..."
Please note that in many cases I am just doing a brain-dump in the hopes of
triggering some creative thinking. :-)

OTOH, I'm not so sure I agree that, as you say, "... in an ordinary magnet
many (most?) of the atomic [magnetic] fields are aligned..."

Magnetic materials are composed of 'magnetic domains'; regions where the
magnetic moments are more or less aligned in the same direction.  However,
adjacent domains are randomly oriented, diminishing the effect for the bulk
material and, thus, the *external* magnetic field is *much less* than what
one would find in an individual domain.

I am curious... if one were to look at the individual atoms (10^6 to 10^9)
in one of these 'magnetic domains', what percentage of the magnetic moments
are parallel??? 

-Mark
 

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 1:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-

In reply to  Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint's message of Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:08:00
-0800:
Hi Mark,
[snip]

Horace's calculation has nothing to do with alignment of magnetic fields in
clusters, which can't produce such huge fields anyway. (Consider that in an
ordinary magnet many (most?) of the atomic fields are aligned, and the total
field is pitiful by comparison to what would be needed.)

>Robin:
>
>If one looks at it macroscopically, then your criticism is 
>understandable, however, one must keep in mind the environment of the H 
>or D loaded lattice at the dimensions of a few atoms.  When you get ALL 
>magnetic domains aligned in a small region (a few 10s, 100s of atoms), 
>magnetic fields can become quite large...
>
>I'm not sure if this is relevant either, but here is what Horace 
>calculated in his model:
>
>"If you look at the spreadsheet I provided in 2007, you will see the 
>magnetic field of the electron on the deuteron in the D+e deflated 
>state is given as 4.0210e+14 Tesla."
>
>That's about 6 orders of magnitude greater than your 225e6.

I haven't checked Horace's calculation, but let's take it at face value.

1) That doesn't necessarily mean that such an orbital is possible.
2) It is a far cry from the intent of the original author that you quoted,
who proposed applying an external magnetic field.

This is becoming a form of circular reasoning:

If we had a strong field we could force the electron into a tight orbital
that would then produce a strong magnetic field.

Perhaps the Lenz effect means that what one is actually calculating may be
the degree to which the electron fights the field, i.e. the field strength
one would need to enforce to ensure that the electron remained in the
orbital?
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

[Jed Rothwell]

There have been many disputes in the history of cold fusion. They have been
about theory, experimental results, and in some cases politics and
personality. In my opinion, this dispute, as carried on by Larsen and
Krivit, is the most absurd. It is the most pointless. I do not mean that
theory is unimportant. I refer to these bizarre notions:

1. You should fight for a theory. Nope. If the theory is right, it will
prove itself over time. There is no point to trying to shove it down
people's throats.

2. That there is some sort of conspiracy by people who think this is a form
of fusion, and some of them such as McKubre have fabricated data to support
that hypothesis. I regard that as the single most idiotic notion in the
history of this field, and this field has produced a cornucopia of stupid
notions.

3. It matters what you call cold fusion. Correct terminology is important.
It isn't! This issue is about language, not physics. I know more about
language than Larsen does. If the WL theory is right, and if in the future
enough people agree the technical terminology should be adjusted to reflect
reality, they will change the name.

The researcher quoted here has it right:

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/29/lenr-researcher-refuses-to-abandon-fusion-term/

"I feel it would be much better to allow people to use the terms they are
comfortable with. Let people use dozens of terms if they like.  Let history
decide what term sticks after another 20 years or so.   It is better to
view terms and other people as how their statements can be true instead of
trying to force others to use your terms and then assume others wrong.
Nature does not care what we call these events."


I have been reading more books about the history of electricity from 1880
to 1910, especially this one, which my daughter got me for Christmas:
"Empires of Light: Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, and the Race to Electrify
the World." Two things about this stand out in my mind:

First, the terminology for light bulbs, filaments, transformers and many
other things changed quite a bit in the early years.

Second, while this history is inspiring and the work of genius in some
ways, it is also chock full of politics, theft of intellectual property,
ignorance, stupidity, hubris, jealousy, mismanagement, wasted opportunity,
and all of the other problems that plague cold fusion. It makes me feel
better about cold fusion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:FYI: How to Describe Electromagnetic Momentum Density in Matter

[Harry Veeder]

Notice this was all resolved using calculations and computers.
Now we need not worry making materials that do not conform to physical law. ;-)

Harry

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
 wrote:
> FYI: just a heads-up for the theorists in the group…
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
> Collaboration Resolves Century-Long Debate Over How to Describe
> Electromagnetic Momentum Density in Matter
>
> December 28, 2011
>
>
>
> Researchers from the NIST Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology and
> the University of British Columbia have shown that the interaction between a
> light pulse and a light-absorbing object, including the momentum transfer
> and resulting movement of the object, can be calculated for any positive
> index of refraction using a few, well-established physical principles
> combined with a new model for mass transfer from light to matter.*  This
> work creates a foundation for understanding light absorption in
> metamaterials, artificially tailored materials of intense interest in
> nanophotonics and microwave engineering that can have negative indices of
> refraction, and have potential applications in high resolution imaging,
> lithography, optical sensing, high gain antennas, and stealth radar
> coatings.
>
>
>
> Light carries momentum and can transfer momentum to matter via radiation
> pressure. However, for the past century, there has been an ongoing debate
> over the correct form of the electromagnetic momentum density in matter.  In
> the “Minkowski formulation,” the momentum density is proportional to the
> index of refraction; in direct contrast, the “Abraham formulation” finds it
> to be inversely proportional.  While light is known to carry mass, a
> detailed model for mass transfer from light to a medium that absorbs light
> had not been formulated to date.  The researchers propose a set of
> postulates for light-matter interaction that encompass: a) the Maxwell
> equations, which govern classical electromagnetic behavior; b) a generalized
> Lorentz force law, which describes the force felt by matter in the presence
> of an electromagnetic field; c) a model for electromagnetic mass density
> transfer to an absorbing medium; and d) the Abraham formulation of momentum
> density.  Using both closed-form calculations and numerical simulations of
> the interaction between an electromagnetic pulse and a test slab, the
> researchers demonstrated that their postulates yield results that are
> consistent with conservation of energy, mass, momentum, and center-of-mass
> velocity at all times. They further showed that satisfaction of the last two
> conservation laws unambiguously identifies the Abraham form as the true form
> of momentum density in a positive-index medium.  In addition to the
> theoretical significance of these results and the implications for
> metamaterials, the results will enable more accurate modeling of
> light-matter interaction at the nanoscale and open new routes to optical
> control of nano-mechanical systems incorporating light absorbing materials.
>
>

[Vo]:Fwd: Last Chance - Submit Your Nominations NOW

[fznidarsic]

vote for me



-Original Message-
From: RenewableEnergyWorld.com 
To: Frank Znidarsic Website Contact 
Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2011 11:35 am
Subject: Last Chance - Submit Your Nominations NOW





 Having trouble viewing this email - Click HERE 
 







Presented by the editors of RenewableEnergyWorld.com and Renewable Energy World 
North America magazine,  these awards recognize the most outstanding 
projects, programs and technologies in the wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and 
hydroelectric technology sectors. 
 
  Awards will be presented in the following categories:  
 Projects of the Year — Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Bioenergy and Hydropower
 Innovation — Technology, Finance, Policy 
 Leadership — Technology, Finance, Policy
 Readers' Choice — Readers get a chance to select one winner for the coveted 
Readers' Choice Award
 
 Submit Nominations Today — Click HERE!
 All winners in all categories will be announced LIVE at Renewable Energy World 
North America Conference & Expo/Solar POWER-GEN Conference & Exhibition in Long 
Beach, California on Feb 14-16, 2012.
 
 All Nominations Must Be Submitted By Midnight Eastern Time on December 31st, 
2011. 
 
 For more information visit: RenewableEnergyWorld.com/rea/awards/2012







 You are invited to view this message because you are a registered reader of 
RenewableEnergyWorld.com.  
 If you no longer wish to receive these emails please click here to manage your 
subscription or send an email torem...@renewableenergyworld.com


 
 

Re: [Vo]:Randy Hekman for Senate blog

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2011-12-30 22:05, Jed Rothwell wrote:

See:

http://randyhekman2012.com/_blog/Blog/post/Energy_America's_Next_'Space_Race'_/


From the link above:


[...] It took a man I met at a conference in France five years ago to discover 
the answer.  Lewis Larsen, now CEO of Lattice Energy LLC in Chicago


Maybe it's not the right thread for these questions, but I was 
wondering: does Lattice Energy LLC have a website? Besides theories, do 
Widom and Larsen have prototypes, working products or a roadmap for 
future projects/plans? I was thinking yes, since they are so certain 
that theirs is the correct theory for LENR and that they get mentioned 
often. But is it actually the case?


Cheers,
S.A.

[Vo]:FYI: How to Describe Electromagnetic Momentum Density in Matter

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

FYI: just a heads-up for the theorists in the group.

-Mark

 

Collaboration Resolves Century-Long Debate Over How to Describe
Electromagnetic Momentum Density in Matter

December 28, 2011

 

Researchers from the NIST Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology and
the University of British Columbia have shown that the interaction between a
light pulse and a light-absorbing object, including the momentum transfer
and resulting movement of the object, can be calculated for any positive
index of refraction using a few, well-established physical principles
combined with a new model for mass transfer from light to matter.*  This
work creates a foundation for understanding light absorption in
metamaterials, artificially tailored materials of intense interest in
nanophotonics and microwave engineering that can have negative indices of
refraction, and have potential applications in high resolution imaging,
lithography, optical sensing, high gain antennas, and stealth radar
coatings.

 

Light carries momentum and can transfer momentum to matter via radiation
pressure. However, for the past century, there has been an ongoing debate
over the correct form of the electromagnetic momentum density in matter.  In
the "Minkowski formulation," the momentum density is proportional to the
index of refraction; in direct contrast, the "Abraham formulation" finds it
to be inversely proportional.  While light is known to carry mass, a
detailed model for mass transfer from light to a medium that absorbs light
had not been formulated to date.  The researchers propose a set of
postulates for light-matter interaction that encompass: a) the Maxwell
equations, which govern classical electromagnetic behavior; b) a generalized
Lorentz force law, which describes the force felt by matter in the presence
of an electromagnetic field; c) a model for electromagnetic mass density
transfer to an absorbing medium; and d) the Abraham formulation of momentum
density.  Using both closed-form calculations and numerical simulations of
the interaction between an electromagnetic pulse and a test slab, the
researchers demonstrated that their postulates yield results that are
consistent with conservation of energy, mass, momentum, and center-of-mass
velocity at all times. They further showed that satisfaction of the last two
conservation laws unambiguously identifies the Abraham form as the true form
of momentum density in a positive-index medium.  In addition to the
theoretical significance of these results and the implications for
metamaterials, the results will enable more accurate modeling of
light-matter interaction at the nanoscale and open new routes to optical
control of nano-mechanical systems incorporating light absorbing materials.

 

Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

[Harry Veeder]

It is unfortunate that WL refuses to acknowledge the many difficulties
associated with their own theory.

harry

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
> I am told by cold fusioneers (as WL calles them) that the WL theory
> makes many wrong predictions. You will only hear from WL  the correct
> predictions.
> harry
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM,   wrote:
>> Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF
>> dogmatists ironic.
>>
>> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cold-fusioneers-new-ploy-ad-hoc-redefinition-of-technical-term-fusiondec-30-2011
>>
>> Too bad it's human nature to form opposing-warring factions.
>> Perhaps some relic of Darwinian selection?
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

[Harry Veeder]

I am told by cold fusioneers (as WL calles them) that the WL theory
makes many wrong predictions. You will only hear from WL  the correct
predictions.
harry

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM,   wrote:
> Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF
> dogmatists ironic.
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cold-fusioneers-new-ploy-ad-hoc-redefinition-of-technical-term-fusiondec-30-2011
>
> Too bad it's human nature to form opposing-warring factions.
> Perhaps some relic of Darwinian selection?
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Randy Hekman for Senate blog

[Daniel Rocha]

WOW! He can make 2 basketball teams with his sons

His political instances are diametrically opposed to mine. He has neocon
views of things.

2011/12/30 Jed Rothwell 

> This web site was linked from a press release, as follows:
>
>  *Energy: America's Next 'Space Race'*
>
> Grand Rapids, Michigan - December 30, 2011. Could a new form of virtually
> limitless energy that promises national security, economic strength and
> environmental sustainability be in our future? According to energy experts,
> the answer is a resounding 'Yes' in a form called Low Energy Nuclear
> Reactions (LENR). LENR refers to nuclear reactions that happen at room
> temperature. While nuclear, they involve neither fusion nor fission and
> require little shielding as they produce negligible radiation.
>
>
> The significance of LENR technology, according to proponents, is that it
> has the potential to power virtually everything with little cost and no
> environmental damage, including the ability to power your home and
> everything in it, for just pennies a day.
>
>
>
> LENR research has the potential to solve climate and energy problems,
> Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist of NASA's Langley Research Center said in
> a June interview with EV World, a sustainability publication.
>
>
>
> While claims like these bring a healthy skepticism, there is also growing
> evidence that this technology can be exploited. In fact, LENR is finding
> some unlikely allies in political candidates these days including Bruce
> Tarr, State Senator from Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, Presidential candidate
> and Randy Hekman, US Senate Candidate from Michigan.
>
>
>
> "The simple reality is that our economy depends on energy that now is
> primarily derived from coal, oil and natural gas to function," Hekman
> states. "Energy exploration--mining and drilling--provide needed jobs, and
> the energy these industries produce keep our economy moving. We need to end
> the policies that subsidize inefficient sources of energy such as ethanol,
> wind and geothermal. The best alternative energy program is Low Energy
> Nuclear Reactions (LENR). Scientists in China and India are hard at work to
> overcome the technical hurdles and turn this scientific theory into useful
> consumer products. We need America to be the world leader in this."
>
>
> Hekman is no stranger to LENR, graduating from MIT and, in 1996 started
> his own research company around LENR.  In 2004, he was part of a team to
> appear before a  Department of Energy (DoE) panel to present research
> findings and seek scientific support. While campaigning for US Senate full
> time, Hekman continues to speak about LENR and is working to connect
> private funding sources with top LENR researchers in the U.S.
>
>
>
> "This is a new, potentially trillion dollar industry that has the ability
> to solve our nation's energy crisis, secure our country by not depending on
> foreign oil and turn America into an energy and technology exporter," says
> Hekman. "This is our version of the 'space-race' where we need to develop
> this technology and get it to market first. Can someone explain to me again
> why this isn't a top priority?"
>
> Some institutions, such as U.S. Navy SPAWAR and NASA have been funding
> LENR research along with new interest from the likes of Royal Dutch Shell,
> the University of Missouri and others.
>
>
>
> "But we need much more private investment in this new energy resource,"
> said Hekman. "The US Department of Energy (DoE) and the current
> administration has a dismal record in picking winners and losers in the
> energy area. We do not need more Solyndras. I believe in allowing private
> investment and market forces to drive new energy technologies like LENR."
>
>
>
> For more on this subject, visit Randy Hekman's blog at
>
>
> http://randyhekman2012.com/_blog/Blog/post/Energy_America's_Next_'Space_Race'_/
>
>
> Randy Hekman is a Navy veteran, former prosecutor, juvenile court judge,
> author and administrative pastor. In early 2011, Hekman announced his
> intentions to run for the United States Senate with a practical plan to
> bring healing to our nation. He is a Republican candidate running for the
> position currently held by Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow. He has been
> married to his best friend, Marcia, for 42 years and together, the have 12
> children, ages 18 to 40, and 21 grandchildren.
>
>
>



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

Re: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-

[mixent]

In reply to  Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint's message of Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:08:00
-0800:
Hi Mark,
[snip]

Horace's calculation has nothing to do with alignment of magnetic fields in
clusters, which can't produce such huge fields anyway. (Consider that in an
ordinary magnet many (most?) of the atomic fields are aligned, and the total
field is pitiful by comparison to what would be needed.)

>Robin:
>
>If one looks at it macroscopically, then your criticism is understandable,
>however, one must keep in mind the environment of the H or D loaded lattice
>at the dimensions of a few atoms.  When you get ALL magnetic domains aligned
>in a small region (a few 10s, 100s of atoms), magnetic fields can become
>quite large...
>
>I'm not sure if this is relevant either, but here is what Horace calculated
>in his model:
>
>"If you look at the spreadsheet I provided in 2007, you will see the
>magnetic field of the electron on the deuteron in the D+e deflated state is
>given as 4.0210e+14 Tesla."
>
>That's about 6 orders of magnitude greater than your 225e6.

I haven't checked Horace's calculation, but let's take it at face value.

1) That doesn't necessarily mean that such an orbital is possible.
2) It is a far cry from the intent of the original author that you quoted, who
proposed applying an external magnetic field.

This is becoming a form of circular reasoning:

If we had a strong field we could force the electron into a tight orbital that
would then produce a strong magnetic field.

Perhaps the Lenz effect means that what one is actually calculating may be the
degree to which the electron fights the field, i.e. the field strength one would
need to enforce to ensure that the electron remained in the orbital?
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Randy Hekman for Senate blog

[Jed Rothwell]

This web site was linked from a press release, as follows:

*Energy: America's Next 'Space Race'*

Grand Rapids, Michigan - December 30, 2011. Could a new form of virtually
limitless energy that promises national security, economic strength and
environmental sustainability be in our future? According to energy experts,
the answer is a resounding 'Yes' in a form called Low Energy Nuclear
Reactions (LENR). LENR refers to nuclear reactions that happen at room
temperature. While nuclear, they involve neither fusion nor fission and
require little shielding as they produce negligible radiation.


The significance of LENR technology, according to proponents, is that it
has the potential to power virtually everything with little cost and no
environmental damage, including the ability to power your home and
everything in it, for just pennies a day.



LENR research has the potential to solve climate and energy problems,
Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist of NASA's Langley Research Center said in
a June interview with EV World, a sustainability publication.



While claims like these bring a healthy skepticism, there is also growing
evidence that this technology can be exploited. In fact, LENR is finding
some unlikely allies in political candidates these days including Bruce
Tarr, State Senator from Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, Presidential candidate
and Randy Hekman, US Senate Candidate from Michigan.



"The simple reality is that our economy depends on energy that now is
primarily derived from coal, oil and natural gas to function," Hekman
states. "Energy exploration--mining and drilling--provide needed jobs, and
the energy these industries produce keep our economy moving. We need to end
the policies that subsidize inefficient sources of energy such as ethanol,
wind and geothermal. The best alternative energy program is Low Energy
Nuclear Reactions (LENR). Scientists in China and India are hard at work to
overcome the technical hurdles and turn this scientific theory into useful
consumer products. We need America to be the world leader in this."


Hekman is no stranger to LENR, graduating from MIT and, in 1996 started his
own research company around LENR.  In 2004, he was part of a team to appear
before a  Department of Energy (DoE) panel to present research findings and
seek scientific support. While campaigning for US Senate full time, Hekman
continues to speak about LENR and is working to connect private funding
sources with top LENR researchers in the U.S.



"This is a new, potentially trillion dollar industry that has the ability
to solve our nation's energy crisis, secure our country by not depending on
foreign oil and turn America into an energy and technology exporter," says
Hekman. "This is our version of the 'space-race' where we need to develop
this technology and get it to market first. Can someone explain to me again
why this isn't a top priority?"

Some institutions, such as U.S. Navy SPAWAR and NASA have been funding LENR
research along with new interest from the likes of Royal Dutch Shell, the
University of Missouri and others.



"But we need much more private investment in this new energy resource,"
said Hekman. "The US Department of Energy (DoE) and the current
administration has a dismal record in picking winners and losers in the
energy area. We do not need more Solyndras. I believe in allowing private
investment and market forces to drive new energy technologies like LENR."



For more on this subject, visit Randy Hekman's blog at

http://randyhekman2012.com/_blog/Blog/post/Energy_America's_Next_'Space_Race'_/


Randy Hekman is a Navy veteran, former prosecutor, juvenile court judge,
author and administrative pastor. In early 2011, Hekman announced his
intentions to run for the United States Senate with a practical plan to
bring healing to our nation. He is a Republican candidate running for the
position currently held by Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow. He has been
married to his best friend, Marcia, for 42 years and together, the have 12
children, ages 18 to 40, and 21 grandchildren.

[Vo]:Randy Hekman for Senate blog

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

http://randyhekman2012.com/_blog/Blog/post/Energy_America's_Next_'Space_Race'_/

Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

[Daniel Rocha]

You can find it here, a google translation, which is what I used:

http://www.ecatplanet.net/content.php?142-Frontiers-of-Cold-Fusion-Eng

2011/12/30 

> Again, I am not sure.
>
> Looking at the slide on p.105 at JCF12 Abstracts at--
>
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2011/JCF12/JCF12ExtendedAbstracts.pdf
> -- I see the reaction "59Ni + e- > 59Co + v + Q"
> I cannot read Japanese, but this looks like a "heavy electron" capture,
> but that is just a guess.  Pardon if I misinterpreted.
>
> Daniel Rocha wrote:
> > No, Takashi used the weak force in the sense of  finding a cross section
> > for the reaction electron proton, but he laid a very harsh criticism on
> WL
> >  theory and make it clear the difference between the approaches. In fact,
> > he didn't take WL seriously.
> >
> > 2011/12/30 
> >
> >> Daniel, you may be correct.
> >> I do not know.
> >>
> >> However, both Akito Takahashi and Hideo Kozima may regard W-L viable.
> >> See --  "Second “Cold Fusion” Theorist Cites Widom-Larsen Theory"
> >>
> >>
> http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/23/second-cold-fusion-theorist-cites-widom-larsen-theory/
> >>
> >> Takahashi appears to be one of the founding members of the Cold Fusion
> >> Energy, Inc. (CFEI) consortium - along with Hagelstein, McKubre,
> >> Storms,...
> >> See --  http://www.cfeis.com/
> >>
> >> Daniel Rocha wrote:
> >> > I started with stage 2 of negation and went to 1...
> >> >
> >> > 2011/12/30 
> >> >
> >> >> Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF
> >> >> dogmatists ironic.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cold-fusioneers-new-ploy-ad-hoc-redefinition-of-technical-term-fusiondec-30-2011
> >> >>
> >> >> Too bad it's human nature to form opposing-warring factions.
> >> >> Perhaps some relic of Darwinian selection?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Daniel Rocha - RJ
> >> > danieldi...@gmail.com
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Rocha - RJ
> > danieldi...@gmail.com
> >
>
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

[pagnucco]

Again, I am not sure.

Looking at the slide on p.105 at JCF12 Abstracts at--
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2011/JCF12/JCF12ExtendedAbstracts.pdf
-- I see the reaction "59Ni + e- > 59Co + v + Q"
I cannot read Japanese, but this looks like a "heavy electron" capture,
but that is just a guess.  Pardon if I misinterpreted.

Daniel Rocha wrote:
> No, Takashi used the weak force in the sense of  finding a cross section
> for the reaction electron proton, but he laid a very harsh criticism on WL
>  theory and make it clear the difference between the approaches. In fact,
> he didn't take WL seriously.
>
> 2011/12/30 
>
>> Daniel, you may be correct.
>> I do not know.
>>
>> However, both Akito Takahashi and Hideo Kozima may regard W-L viable.
>> See --  "Second “Cold Fusion” Theorist Cites Widom-Larsen Theory"
>>
>> http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/23/second-cold-fusion-theorist-cites-widom-larsen-theory/
>>
>> Takahashi appears to be one of the founding members of the Cold Fusion
>> Energy, Inc. (CFEI) consortium - along with Hagelstein, McKubre,
>> Storms,...
>> See --  http://www.cfeis.com/
>>
>> Daniel Rocha wrote:
>> > I started with stage 2 of negation and went to 1...
>> >
>> > 2011/12/30 
>> >
>> >> Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF
>> >> dogmatists ironic.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cold-fusioneers-new-ploy-ad-hoc-redefinition-of-technical-term-fusiondec-30-2011
>> >>
>> >> Too bad it's human nature to form opposing-warring factions.
>> >> Perhaps some relic of Darwinian selection?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> > danieldi...@gmail.com
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

[Alan J Fletcher]

Krivit finally convinced me : LENR Researcher Refuses to Abandon "Fusion" Term

that "neutron capture" (and subsequent decay to a proton) is NOT 
fusion, per wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_capture  textbooks etc.


(Not that I'm going with his WL or die position).

So I've reluctantly decided to give up on "CF"   (see my previous 
rant 
at:  http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg47696.html ) 
and stick with "LENR" or maybe "UNR" (Unexplained Nuclear Reactions).


That or Alchemistic Transmutations.

Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

[Daniel Rocha]

No, Takashi used the weak force in the sense of  finding a cross section
for the reaction electron proton, but he laid a very harsh criticism on WL
 theory and make it clear the difference between the approaches. In fact,
he didn't take WL seriously.

2011/12/30 

> Daniel, you may be correct.
> I do not know.
>
> However, both Akito Takahashi and Hideo Kozima may regard W-L viable.
> See --  "Second “Cold Fusion” Theorist Cites Widom-Larsen Theory"
>
> http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/23/second-cold-fusion-theorist-cites-widom-larsen-theory/
>
> Takahashi appears to be one of the founding members of the Cold Fusion
> Energy, Inc. (CFEI) consortium - along with Hagelstein, McKubre,
> Storms,...
> See --  http://www.cfeis.com/
>
> Daniel Rocha wrote:
> > I started with stage 2 of negation and went to 1...
> >
> > 2011/12/30 
> >
> >> Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF
> >> dogmatists ironic.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cold-fusioneers-new-ploy-ad-hoc-redefinition-of-technical-term-fusiondec-30-2011
> >>
> >> Too bad it's human nature to form opposing-warring factions.
> >> Perhaps some relic of Darwinian selection?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Rocha - RJ
> > danieldi...@gmail.com
> >
>
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

[pagnucco]

Daniel, you may be correct.
I do not know.

However, both Akito Takahashi and Hideo Kozima may regard W-L viable.
See --  "Second “Cold Fusion” Theorist Cites Widom-Larsen Theory"
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/23/second-cold-fusion-theorist-cites-widom-larsen-theory/

Takahashi appears to be one of the founding members of the Cold Fusion
Energy, Inc. (CFEI) consortium - along with Hagelstein, McKubre,
Storms,...
See --  http://www.cfeis.com/

Daniel Rocha wrote:
> I started with stage 2 of negation and went to 1...
>
> 2011/12/30 
>
>> Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF
>> dogmatists ironic.
>>
>>
>> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cold-fusioneers-new-ploy-ad-hoc-redefinition-of-technical-term-fusiondec-30-2011
>>
>> Too bad it's human nature to form opposing-warring factions.
>> Perhaps some relic of Darwinian selection?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

[Daniel Rocha]

I started with stage 2 of negation and went to 1...

2011/12/30 

> Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF
> dogmatists ironic.
>
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cold-fusioneers-new-ploy-ad-hoc-redefinition-of-technical-term-fusiondec-30-2011
>
> Too bad it's human nature to form opposing-warring factions.
> Perhaps some relic of Darwinian selection?
>
>
>
>
>


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

[Vo]:Lewis Larsen (Lattice Energy) discusses irony of LENR politics

[pagnucco]

Lewis Larsen considers some of the criticisms of LENR theory by CF
dogmatists ironic.

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cold-fusioneers-new-ploy-ad-hoc-redefinition-of-technical-term-fusiondec-30-2011

Too bad it's human nature to form opposing-warring factions.
Perhaps some relic of Darwinian selection?

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

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 30, 2011, at 9:15 AM, Charles HOPE wrote:




On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Horace Heffner  
 wrote:




The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state  
energy.   It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever  
state the hydrogen nucleus and associated electron occupy in the  
lattice.




How can the ground state be degenerate?  Do you have any arguments  
using bra-ket notation?



There are two orbital modes, one the normal atomic mode, the other  
the deflated state mode.   The mean orbital radius of the two states  
differs, and differs for multiple circumnavigations of the nucleus.
They are distinct sates.  It takes no energy to hop between the two  
states, and no radiation occurs between states.  The two states are  
thus degenerate.  The two states are, or should be,  part of the same  
Hamiltonian.  However, absorbed hydrogen is not like atomic or  
molecular hydrogen.  There is not room at a normal lattice site for  
either atomic or molecular hydrogen orbitals.  The electron  
(statistically) associated with the absorbed hydrogen is essentially  
ionically bonded,  populates conduction bands.  The partial orbital  
structure I think exists there differs from ordinary molecular  
orbitals, that the electrons involved have a dual conduction band and  
partial orbital existence.  For some notes from 1999 see p. 13 ff of:


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

This analysis has a significant relationship with degenerate lattice  
electrons . Unfortunately, it has been long overdue for a rewrite,  
and melding with the rest of my theory.


In any case, on top of having to account for relativistic effects,  
and magnetic binding potentials, this kind of *additional* electron  
dual existence makes defining a Hamiltonian difficult.








Preferable to what for describing what?


Isn't the Takahashi approach preferable to the deflation fusion  
approach


Preferable for describing what?  Preferable for answering which  
questions regarding the lack of signature events, or conservation of  
energy?



because it maintains the standard model? The only reference to  
deflated hydrogen comes from vortex.


I assume you mean the problem is deflation fusion theory only comes  
from an amateur?


As for external references, did you not see the reference I provided  
you to "Deflation Fusion, Speculations Regarding the Nature of Cold  
Fusions", Infinite Energy (I.E.), Volume 14, Issue 80, July/August 2008:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HeffnerIE80.pdf

The table of contents is here:

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue80/index.html

Also, see "Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions", Journal of Nuclear Physics  
(Nuclear experiments blog),  March 28, 2010:


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=179

The pdf version is no longer available there without authorization,  
but I keep a copy here in which some typos etc are fixed:


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

Perhaps you are referring to Journals referencing my work?  No chance  
of *that* happening!









Huge numbers of atoms are involved in heavy element  
transmutation.  Can you imagine Bockris' surprise when he found  
them? there was no prior indication that such energetic events  
were taking place.




I see.  There really are several phenomena all confusingly anomalous!


Yes, much more anomalous than deuterium fusion.






I would guess people want more math. It's hard to convey over  
email, but I have a solution for that I'll write up this weekend.



I do not think the problem is a lack of math. The problem is that I  
have not explained the processes with enough simplicity that a  
child can follow them.  I sincerely doubt that anyone on this list,  
at any rate, wants or needs more math for convincing.  Math only  
obscures the underlying concepts.



I've never heard a scientist express this sentiment before.  For  
me, I find rather the opposite.  My eyes glaze over when confronted  
by paragraph after paragraph of prose, without equations to really  
explain what's going on. I don't think children should understand  
this material!





You should keep in mind that I am an amateur writing for an amateur  
audience.  As I wrote on my web page: "It has been said ideas are  
only one percent inspiration vs the 99 percent that is perspiration.  
Given that, if anything here provides even 1 percent of the  
inspiration for something truly important to mankind, then the effort  
has all been worthwhile. Similarly, if the outlandish thoughts here  
make anyone, especially a self learning physics student like me,  
question what we really know about the universe, and that leads on to  
meaningful investigations, then that too makes the effort worthwhile.  
If a concept is flawed, why is it flawed?"


I think in the end, if deflation fusion concepts are useful for  
leading the way to any successful experiments and devices,  they will  
be consid

RE: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Robin:

If one looks at it macroscopically, then your criticism is understandable,
however, one must keep in mind the environment of the H or D loaded lattice
at the dimensions of a few atoms.  When you get ALL magnetic domains aligned
in a small region (a few 10s, 100s of atoms), magnetic fields can become
quite large...

I'm not sure if this is relevant either, but here is what Horace calculated
in his model:

"If you look at the spreadsheet I provided in 2007, you will see the
magnetic field of the electron on the deuteron in the D+e deflated state is
given as 4.0210e+14 Tesla."

That's about 6 orders of magnitude greater than your 225e6.

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 11:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-

In reply to  Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint's message of Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:48:59
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Primarily for the theorists in the Collective.
>
>This from the Ni-H yahoo group...
>
>-Mark
>
>
>I try to explain it:
>All you have to do is, to put the electron from the H-atom nearer to 
>the nucleus and Fusion will happen.
>From the K-electron capture from Be-7 I know, that a faktor 4 is enough.
>So, how can this be done? Idea comes from Muon, where it is proved, so 
>just enhance the effective mass of the surrounding electron.
>
>Vektorpotential A = 1/2 B  *  r
>
>(B orthogonal A,  B=const,  r is distance)
>
>For Fusion,  A >= sqr(5.405961)*mc/e=0.004 Tesla*meter 
>  (to enlarge elektron energy about 782.333keV from proton to Neutron)

You can't enlarge the energy with a static magnetic field.

Even if all the potential energy existing between electron and proton were
converted to kinetic energy, you would still be 782 keV short.

Furthermore, "r" if I'm not mistaken needs to be 1/4 the size of an atom, in
order to get shrinkage by a factor or 4, not several cm (or I have
completely misunderstood how this is supposed to work). Such a small radius
would require a magnetic field vastly stronger than anything humanity has so
far managed to create. (225 million tesla for a 782 keV electron). Actually
this takes no account of the fact that the electron would be relativistic at
that energy, but it gives a rough idea of what would be needed.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Daniel Rocha]

Phase II of his theory. The eigenvalue radius of the ground state
dynamically shrinks due to the screening of protons and electrons. It just
happen with a very specific tetrahedron configuration of protons/deuterons
and electrons.

2011/12/30 Charles Hope 

> What is Takahashi analogue to the deflated electron?
>
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2011, at 13:21, Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>
> Your theory is just too similar to what I imagine that should happen in
> Phase III that I get confused. You are correct in your stuff, but you don't
> use many equations, mostly your intuition. So, I get lost reading your
> papers.
>
> Right, to be clear. a-e. Just show me where I can find in your papers. I
> will surely read it, because I just could start to figure out anything from
> you only when I had a similar idea.
>
> 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner 
>
>>  What part do you not understand:
>>
>>a.  the mechanism of trapping of the post fusion nuclear electron
>>b.  the low energy state of the post fusion nuclear electron
>>c.  the mechanism by which the trapped electron absorbs the fusion
>> energy
>>d.  why the fusion energy is not sufficient to eject the post fusion
>> nuclear electron
>>e.  the ability of the post fusion trapped nuclear electron to radiate
>>
>> Just to be clear, I am talking about my theory here, deflation fusion,
>> not any other. I think these things have been described in my articles, but
>> often when I look back I find material that was posted but not included in
>> any article, but which I had assumed was included in an article.
>> Sometimes it takes me months to find things, and in the interim I think
>> maybe they were figments of my imagination.
>>
>>
>> On Dec 30, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>
>> I didn't understand this part "from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in
>> small increments by a trapped electron."
>>
>> 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner 
>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't
>>> go to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot know. I am happy
>>> that I got to similar conclusions as you did independently. Several people
>>> reaching the same conclusions, in similar ways, is a sign of things going
>>> into the right direction.
>>>
>>> But I am still not sure how to get rid of the gamma rays.
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't have to worry about big gammas if there are none produced.
>>>  You don't have to worry about getting rid of gamma rays if they are
>>> released from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a
>>> trapped electron.
>>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Horace Heffner
>> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Eatlim claims 50% thermal to electrical conversion efficiency

[James Bowery]

1000C input temperature can achieve 50% Carnot efficiency with an exhaust
temperature of 362C

Not quite hot enough for input to MHD

;-)

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> At 01:31 AM 12/30/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
>
>> http://www.technologyreview.**com/energy/32267/
>>
>
> But :
>
> A second prototype that aims for 20 to 30 percent efficiency at 500 °C is
> expected this spring.
> 
> "To get from 40 percent to 50 percent, we need to raise the temperature to
> 1,000 °C, and that requires some use of ceramics."
>

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

[Charles Hope]

What is Takahashi analogue to the deflated electron?



On Dec 30, 2011, at 13:21, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Your theory is just too similar to what I imagine that should happen in Phase 
> III that I get confused. You are correct in your stuff, but you don't use 
> many equations, mostly your intuition. So, I get lost reading your papers. 
> 
> Right, to be clear. a-e. Just show me where I can find in your papers. I will 
> surely read it, because I just could start to figure out anything from you 
> only when I had a similar idea.
> 
> 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner 
> What part do you not understand:
> 
>a.  the mechanism of trapping of the post fusion nuclear electron
>b.  the low energy state of the post fusion nuclear electron
>c.  the mechanism by which the trapped electron absorbs the fusion energy
>d.  why the fusion energy is not sufficient to eject the post fusion 
> nuclear electron
>e.  the ability of the post fusion trapped nuclear electron to radiate
> 
> Just to be clear, I am talking about my theory here, deflation fusion, not 
> any other. I think these things have been described in my articles, but often 
> when I look back I find material that was posted but not included in any 
> article, but which I had assumed was included in an article.   Sometimes it 
> takes me months to find things, and in the interim I think maybe they were 
> figments of my imagination.
> 
> 
> On Dec 30, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> 
>> I didn't understand this part "from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in 
>> small increments by a trapped electron."  
>> 
>> 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner 
>> 
>> On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>> 
>>> Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't go 
>>> to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot know. I am happy 
>>> that I got to similar conclusions as you did independently. Several people 
>>> reaching the same conclusions, in similar ways, is a sign of things going 
>>> into the right direction.
>>> 
>>> But I am still not sure how to get rid of the gamma rays.
>> 
>> 
>> You don't have to worry about big gammas if there are none produced.  You 
>> don't have to worry about getting rid of gamma rays if they are released 
>> from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped 
>> electron. 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
> 

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

[Daniel Rocha]

Your theory is just too similar to what I imagine that should happen in
Phase III that I get confused. You are correct in your stuff, but you don't
use many equations, mostly your intuition. So, I get lost reading your
papers.

Right, to be clear. a-e. Just show me where I can find in your papers. I
will surely read it, because I just could start to figure out anything from
you only when I had a similar idea.

2011/12/30 Horace Heffner 

> What part do you not understand:
>
>a.  the mechanism of trapping of the post fusion nuclear electron
>b.  the low energy state of the post fusion nuclear electron
>c.  the mechanism by which the trapped electron absorbs the fusion
> energy
>d.  why the fusion energy is not sufficient to eject the post fusion
> nuclear electron
>e.  the ability of the post fusion trapped nuclear electron to radiate
>
> Just to be clear, I am talking about my theory here, deflation fusion, not
> any other. I think these things have been described in my articles, but
> often when I look back I find material that was posted but not included in
> any article, but which I had assumed was included in an article.
> Sometimes it takes me months to find things, and in the interim I think
> maybe they were figments of my imagination.
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
> I didn't understand this part "from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in
> small increments by a trapped electron."
>
> 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner 
>
>>
>> On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>
>> Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't
>> go to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot know. I am happy
>> that I got to similar conclusions as you did independently. Several people
>> reaching the same conclusions, in similar ways, is a sign of things going
>> into the right direction.
>>
>> But I am still not sure how to get rid of the gamma rays.
>>
>>
>> You don't have to worry about big gammas if there are none produced.  You
>> don't have to worry about getting rid of gamma rays if they are released
>> from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped
>> electron.
>>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>
>


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

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

[Horace Heffner]

What part do you not understand:

   a.  the mechanism of trapping of the post fusion nuclear electron
   b.  the low energy state of the post fusion nuclear electron
   c.  the mechanism by which the trapped electron absorbs the  
fusion energy
   d.  why the fusion energy is not sufficient to eject the post  
fusion nuclear electron
   e.  the ability of the post fusion trapped nuclear electron to  
radiate


Just to be clear, I am talking about my theory here, deflation  
fusion, not any other. I think these things have been described in my  
articles, but often when I look back I find material that was posted  
but not included in any article, but which I had assumed was included  
in an article.   Sometimes it takes me months to find things, and in  
the interim I think maybe they were figments of my imagination.



On Dec 30, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

I didn't understand this part "from the intermediate nucleus  
vicinity in small increments by a trapped electron."


2011/12/30 Horace Heffner 

On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I  
didn't go to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot  
know. I am happy that I got to similar conclusions as you did  
independently. Several people reaching the same conclusions, in  
similar ways, is a sign of things going into the right direction.


But I am still not sure how to get rid of the gamma rays.



You don't have to worry about big gammas if there are none  
produced.  You don't have to worry about getting rid of gamma rays  
if they are released from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in  
small increments by a trapped electron.


Best regards,

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

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

[Charles HOPE]

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

>
>
>
> The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state energy.
>   It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever state the
> hydrogen nucleus and associated electron occupy in the lattice.
>



How can the ground state be degenerate?  Do you have any arguments using
bra-ket notation?




>
> Preferable to what for describing what?
>


Isn't the Takahashi approach preferable to the deflation fusion approach
because it maintains the standard model? The only reference to deflated
hydrogen comes from vortex.



> Huge numbers of atoms are involved in heavy element transmutation.  Can
> you imagine Bockris' surprise when he found them? there was no prior
> indication that such energetic events were taking place.
>
>

I see.  There really are several phenomena all confusingly anomalous!



>
> I would guess people want more math. It's hard to convey over email, but I
> have a solution for that I'll write up this weekend.
>
>
>
> I do not think the problem is a lack of math. The problem is that I have
> not explained the processes with enough simplicity that a child can follow
> them.  I sincerely doubt that anyone on this list, at any rate, wants or
> needs more math for convincing.  Math only obscures the underlying
> concepts.
>


I've never heard a scientist express this sentiment before.  For me, I find
rather the opposite.  My eyes glaze over when confronted by paragraph after
paragraph of prose, without equations to really explain what's going on. I
don't think children should understand this material!




-- 
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]:Eatlim claims 50% thermal to electrical conversion efficiency

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 01:31 AM 12/30/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/32267/


But :

A second prototype that aims for 20 to 30 percent 
efficiency at 500 °C is expected this spring.


"To get from 40 percent to 50 percent, we need to 
raise the temperature to 1,000 °C, and that requires some use of ceramics."  

Re: [Vo]:Eatlim claims 50% thermal to electrical conversion efficiency

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 01:31 AM 12/30/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/32267/




http://www.technologyreview.com/files/53183/engine_x220.jpg

It's a DALEK!!  Exterminate!  Exterminate! 

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

[Daniel Rocha]

I didn't understand this part "from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in
small increments by a trapped electron."

2011/12/30 Horace Heffner 

>
> On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
> Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't go
> to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot know. I am happy
> that I got to similar conclusions as you did independently. Several people
> reaching the same conclusions, in similar ways, is a sign of things going
> into the right direction.
>
> But I am still not sure how to get rid of the gamma rays.
>
>
> You don't have to worry about big gammas if there are none produced.  You
> don't have to worry about getting rid of gamma rays if they are released
> from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments by a trapped
> electron.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>
>


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

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

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:21 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I  
didn't go to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot  
know. I am happy that I got to similar conclusions as you did  
independently. Several people reaching the same conclusions, in  
similar ways, is a sign of things going into the right direction.


But I am still not sure how to get rid of the gamma rays.



You don't have to worry about big gammas if there are none produced.   
You don't have to worry about getting rid of gamma rays if they are  
released from the intermediate nucleus vicinity in small increments  
by a trapped electron.


Best regards,

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

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

[Daniel Rocha]

Oh, nice! That's why he also congratulated you in that report. I didn't go
to the talk or take part in the CMNS list, so I cannot know. I am happy
that I got to similar conclusions as you did independently. Several people
reaching the same conclusions, in similar ways, is a sign of things going
into the right direction.

But I am still not sure how to get rid of the gamma rays.

2011/12/30 Horace Heffner 

>
> On Dec 30, 2011, at 5:09 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
> Yes, it does makes sense. But I would suggest you to study Takahashi's
> model. Your idea seems to work to explain what happens to the electrons in
> Phase III of his theory, that is, when the tetrahedron collapses. It is not
> clear to me what happens to the electrons. I pointed out Lerner's theory
> because it is about ground state of Landau's quantization. Some time ago I
> did this calculation, and at non relativistic regime around 10fm. The
> magnetic field is around 10 trillion Tesla.  Check it out.
>
>
> If you look at the spread sheet  I provided in 2007, you will see the
> magnetic field of the electron on the deuteron in the D+e deflated state is
> given as 4.0210e+14 T:
>
>  http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf
>
> I was "there" when he first proposed this more recent version of his
> theory.
>
> There is more to cold fusion than D+D-->He, or multiples thereof.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Eatlim claims 50% thermal to electrical conversion efficiency

[Rich Murray]

updated video December 5, 2011

remarkably efficient thermo electric conversion Sterling cycle
acoustic compression device, Etalim Inc.: Rich Murray  2011.12.30

"Very high efficiency -- almost twice the efficiency of other small engines
Operation from any available heat source or fuel
Zero mechanical friction or wear
Zero maintenance over an operating life of many decades
Very low cost - simple architecture using standard materials and
production processes
Micro-CHP Application

Micro Combined Heat and Power systems..."

"Etalim plans to provide second-generation TEG engines to developers
and integrators of renewable power projects. The Etalim innovation
provides the lowest cost of generated electricity and the availability
of solar energy is well matched to peak electrical demand"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyCZP3BsEHY

2:29 minutes
Uploaded by electronker on Dec 5, 2011
Etalim Inc.


http://www.etalim.com/news.php

June 2011: Etalim awarded Most Promising Pre-commercial Technology
2011 by the BC Technology Industry Association

February 2011: Etalim grows to 10 employees and relocates to larger
facilities in Vancouver, BC.

January 2011: Etalim is featured in the prestigious MIT Technology Review .

July 2010: Etalim is awarded a $2.2 million grant from Sustainable
Development Technology Canada.

January 2010: Etalim successfully completes the maiden run of the TEG prototype.

October 2009: Etalim receives a third round of R&D grant funding from
the NRC-IRAP program.

September 2009: Etalim is awarded 2nd prize for most promising
startup, out of 180 competitors in the BC Innovation Council New
Ventures BC competition. Etalim also receives the BC Hydro
Sustainability Prize.

March 2006: Etalim is founded.


Address Etalim Inc.
62 West 8th Avenue
Suite 400
Vancouver, BC V5Y 1M7
Canada
Phone   (604) 566-3487
Email   i...@etalim.com


Amos Michelson, M.B.A., B.S. Electrical Engineering
Chairman

Amos Michelson is Chairman of three high-tech start-ups and Director
in an additional five high-tech companies in the areas of life
sciences, energy, and Web 2.0.  Mr. Michelson was CEO of Creo, Inc.
from June 1995 until Kodak purchased Creo for C$ 1.2 Billion in May
2005.  Prior to joining Creo, he was CEO of Opal Inc., a
semi-conductor equipment company, and prior to this Mr. Michelson was
Chief Operating Officer of Optrotech Ltd., a developer and
manufacturer of optical and imaging systems for the electronics
industry.

Amos Michelson holds a Master of Business Administration from Stanford
Graduate School of Business and a Bachelor of Science in Electrical
Engineering from the Technion, Israel Institute of Technology.

Amos Michelson is a past member of the Premier’s Technology Council
and in 1999 was named Entrepreneur of the Year, along with Dan
Gelbart, by Ernst & Young.  In 2005, Mr. Michelson was named the
“BCTIA Person of the Year”, an award presented to an individual who
has made an outstanding contribution to the technology industry during
the year.


Ron Klopfer, M.B.A., B.S. Electrical Engineering
CEO

Mr. Klopfer is an experienced technology entrepreneur and manager,
having co-founded, financed and managed three successful technology
startups over the past eight years, two of which have been acquired by
larger companies to generate strong returns to seed-stage venture
investors. Mr. Klopfer has also consulted to various technology
companies on market strategy, sales, mergers and operations. Mr.
Klopfer's technology sales and business development background
originates in the Silicon Valley, where his sales team doubled a large
sales region and key Fortune-500 account revenues for a hardware
manufacturer. Mr. Klopfer holds an MBA in technology marketing from
Queen's University, and a Bachelor of Computer Engineering from the
University of British Columbia.


Dr. Thomas W. Steiner, PhD
Chief Scientist

After graduating with a PhD in experimental physics from Simon Fraser
University in 1986 Dr. Steiner spent a year and a half at IBM’s T.J.
Watson research lab before returning to British Columbia and
eventually working at Creo (later to become a division of Kodak). At
Creo he provided technical leadership and many of the core ideas in
the development of several world beating products including Creo’s
first thermal laser exposure head, an optical cross-connect switch and
a continuous inkjet printing head. Dr. Steiner held the position of
principal physicist at Kodak before founding Etalim to pursue his
interest in energy related topics. He is the author of more than 30
papers in peer reviewed journals and the holder of nine patents with
at least six more pending.


Briac de Chardon, P.Eng.
Engineering Project Manager & Business Development Analyst

Mr. de Chardon obtained a Bachelor in Mechanical Engineering from the
University of Victoria in 1999. He spent over six years working at
Creo (later Kodak) in product development roles and ink jet research.
In 2005 he then moved to start-up c

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

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 30, 2011, at 5:09 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Yes, it does makes sense. But I would suggest you to study  
Takahashi's model. Your idea seems to work to explain what happens  
to the electrons in Phase III of his theory, that is, when the  
tetrahedron collapses. It is not clear to me what happens to the  
electrons. I pointed out Lerner's theory because it is about ground  
state of Landau's quantization. Some time ago I did this  
calculation, and at non relativistic regime around 10fm. The  
magnetic field is around 10 trillion Tesla.  Check it out.


If you look at the spread sheet  I provided in 2007, you will see the  
magnetic field of the electron on the deuteron in the D+e deflated  
state is given as 4.0210e+14 T:


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

I was "there" when he first proposed this more recent version of his  
theory.


There is more to cold fusion than D+D-->He, or multiples thereof.

Best regards,

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

[Vo]:Another model for LENR

[Jones Beene]

"Theoretical Feasibility of Cold Fusion According to the BSM - Supergravitation 
Unified Theory"

Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev

Another model for LENR. This one makes an important prediction that should be 
subject to rapid verification: 

chromium should work in the same way as nickel

http://vixra.org/pdf/1112.0043v2.pdf

If chrome works - will Rossi call it a shiny snake?

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

[Daniel Rocha]

Yes, it does makes sense. But I would suggest you to study Takahashi's
model. Your idea seems to work to explain what happens to the electrons in
Phase III of his theory, that is, when the tetrahedron collapses. It is not
clear to me what happens to the electrons. I pointed out Lerner's theory
because it is about ground state of Landau's quantization. Some time ago I
did this calculation, and at non relativistic regime around 10fm. The
magnetic field is around 10 trillion Tesla.  Check it out.

2011/12/30 Horace Heffner 

>
> On Dec 29, 2011, at 8:18 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
> Horace, have you heard about the degenerate state in focus fusion device
> for pB11 fusion?
>
>
>
> This is a different use of the term "degenerate state".  The more specific
> term there is "Fermi degeneracy" as opposed to "degenerate quantum states",
> which describes linked quantum states of the same energy, dual states of
> existence, states which require no energy for transition and which release
> no radiant energy upon transition.
>
> Fermi degeneracy occurs in stars when the density is so high that Fermi
> pressure prevents further collapse.  Fermi pressure is said to be due to
> the fact that only one Fermion can occupy a given quantum state.
>
> It is also true that electrons in metals with absorbed hydrogen can, as
> the percent absorbed hydrogen increases to a sufficient level, occupy all
> the available quantum states.  Electrons in this state are also said to be
> degenerate.   I wrote about the possible relevance of this to cold fusion
> in the "ELECTRON FUGACITY" section of my I.E. cold fusion paper, page 6 ff,
> and in other places:
>
> http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf
>
> Now, coincidentally,  or not so much, outward orbital pressure is a result
> of quantum uncertainty.   As an electron orbital is compressed, the
> Heisenberg principle results in a kinetic energy increase which manifests
> as (outward) pressure.   It is this pressure in fact, that establishes the
> ground state energy and size  of hydrogen atoms (and many other states.)
> It is this pressure, and given the volume displacement involved, energy,
> that I say can "reinflate" the orbital of trapped electrons, electrons that
> escape the heavy nucleus that traps them, when they do not have the kinetic
> energy to escape otherwise.  This uncertainty pressure can be referred to
> as "Schroedinger pressure" or "quantum pressure".  I think it is also
> sometimes referred to as "Fermi pressure".
>
> There is an intimate relationship between Schrodinger pressure and the
> Casimir force.  I see these as different sides of the same coin, i.e of
> zero point energy.  The two effects come into play in the formation of
> EV's, electron charge clusters, for example.  See Puthoff's article:
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0408114
>
> The (expansive) energy due to Schrodinger pressure of the hydrogen atom,
> not so coincidentally,  just balances the (contractive) Coulomb force
> energy at the Bohr radius, and this is a minimum energy state, thus a
> stable state.  However, at the Bohr radius,  the magnetic force and
> potential between the electron and nucleus are near zero and ignored.
> Also, the particles are not relativistic.  At a small radius the magnetic
> binding energy can overcome the Coulomb binding energy and the Schrodinger
> pressure, at least momentarily.  The Schrodinger kinetic energy of a
> hydrogen electron is a stochastic variable.  This magnetic binding can
> happen for a short time but also at a high frequency, depending on lattice
> conditions.  In a magnetic orbital the uncertainty energy of the electron
> decreases by a factor of 1/gamma of the electron,  and the inverse square
> of r.  As r decreases gamma increases.  In the small orbital radii shown in
> my computations, the de Broglie wavelengths of the electron and nucleating
> body do not even overlap.  Schoredinger pressure is entirely eliminated by
> relativistic effects, i.e. by the increase in electron and nuclear mass.
>  This greatly increases the feasible lifetime of the configuration.
>
> When the highly magnetically bound electron plus nucleus jointly tunnel
> into a heavy nucleus, no kinetic energy is gained or lost via this
> tunneling  process of the neutral ensemble, other than the magnetic
> potential with the nucleus.  The hydrogen nucleus binds with the heavy
> nucleus by the strong force.  This leaves the electron with insufficient
> kinetic energy to escape the nucleus.  It is still magnetically bound with
> the nearby nuclear constituents, all of which have nuclear magnetic
> moments, and now suddenly bound by the Coulomb force of numerous protons.
>  This creates an initial energy deficit from the tunneling action, and a
> newly fused nucleus.
>
> I hope this makes some sense of these concepts and does not merely confuse
> everything.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ

Re: [Vo]:Radio24 interviews : 12/21 Rossi,Lewan 12/22 Giudice,Celani

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2011-12-30 01:34, Alan J Fletcher wrote:

In Italian, and no transcript that I can see. Anything interesting?


As far as I know, there was nothing new or worth of particular attention 
for informed people who have closely followed this since at least last 
January, hence no transcripts.


Cheers,
S.A.

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

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

Yes I heard Celani saying that as well.

AG


On 12/30/2011 3:43 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:


On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


Horace
ØOnce again - there is ZERO evidence of fusion. And for that matter - 
there is no evidence for any known nuclear reaction.
How about the detection  of gammas by Celani on start-up and shut 
down?  Celani is credible.  The gammas admittedly could be faked.


Yes Celani is credible, but this is evidence of a startup device and 
nothing more. He admits as much.



I seem to recall the gammas occurred at cool down too.

Best regards,

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

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

[Daniel Rocha]

Anyway, your theory is somewhat similar to the stage III that of Takashi,
when the nucleons of the TSC are captured by the nuclear force. TSC is
really a "deflated" ground state, simply because electrons screen to the
extreme the proton charge. But, the destiny of the electrons is not clear.

Takashi, in his report the 12th meeting of CF in japan, used one of the
electrons to be captured by one of the protons and yield He3 + p in NiH
loaded lattices. After, he makes considerations from Ni + p collisions, all
of them yield stable elements, although I am not sure about Ni60 not giving
readioactive remains.

2011/12/30 Daniel Rocha 

> Horace, have you heard about the degenerate state in focus fusion device
> for pB11 fusion?
>
>
> 2011/12/30 Horace Heffner 
>
>>
>> On Dec 29, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Charles Hope wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 29, 2011, at 20:09, Horace Heffner  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Charles HOPE wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Horace Heffner 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure why quantum mechanics couldn't analyze this state,
>>
>>
>> I think  ultimately it can.  I know of no analytic method available,
>> other than possibly FEA.   Naudt's relativistic orbital description has
>> gained little acceptance, and neither has Mulenberg's.   The addition of
>> spin coupling magnetic considerations  puts the complexity over the top, as
>> far as I know.  I think the key now is to focus on the gestalt,
>> experimental implications, and hope detailed analysis follows as experiment
>> dictates.  Also, as an amateur with limited life expectancy and education,
>> this is the only choice I have.
>>
>>
>> but I don't believe that the concept of deflation is mainstream physics,
>> is it?
>>
>>
>> No, deflation fusion is not mainstream, it is my concept.  However, the
>> deflated state itself can be, was, described using conventional physics.
>>
>>
>>
>> How so? It sounds like an electron level below the ground state,
>> forbidden by QM.
>>
>>
>>
>> The deflated state electron, pre-fusion, is not below ground state
>> energy.   It is a degenerate form of the ground state, or whatever state
>> the hydrogen nucleus and associated electron occupy in the lattice. A
>> prolonged small state is only "forbidden" by QM if magnetic binding force
>> and energy is excluded from the Hamiltonian.   I provided the deflated
>> deuteron calculation as reference 3 in "Deflation Fusion, Speculations
>> Regarding the Nature of Cold Fusions", Infinite Energy (I.E.), Volume 14,
>> Issue 80, July/August 2008:
>>
>> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HeffnerIE80.pdf
>>
>> It references this spread sheet:
>>
>> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionSpreadDualRel.pdf
>>
>> I later provided the additional deflated state calculations:
>>
>> http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf
>>
>> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf
>>
>> These are of course all rough approximations, but they demonstrate the
>> main points.   I expect to improve the calculations using custom code soon.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, what are your criticisms of Takahashi?
>>
>>
>> I see no use in criticizing Takahashi.   I gather it is culturally
>> difficult for him, especially coming from an amateur like me.  No need to
>> be even more socially insensitive than I already am.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't mean criticism of him personally, but his theory.
>>
>>
>> The difference is indiscernible.
>>
>>
>> Doesn't it have less New Physics, and so should be preferable?
>>
>>
>>
>> Preferable to what for describing what?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In general, I see the large number of variations of D+D -->  intermediate
>> product --> 4He theories, even my common sense X + 2D --> X + 4He "nuclear
>> catalysis" idea, as failing to describe the most important and mysterious
>> aspects of cold fusion, namely heavy element transmutation without the
>> abundant high energy signatures that should be observed, or even the
>> massive heat that should be observed if conservation of mass-energy is
>> necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought I understood you a few days ago to mean that the energy
>> difference (23MeV?) typically seen as a gamma ray, here is seen as heat.
>> That was my interpretation when you said the heat was the correct quantity
>> to the helium.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is correct, or correct to an approximation, as far as it goes.  Here
>> you are referring to helium creation.  This is the 

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

[Axil Axil]

Reference:

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



*Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems*



*Conclusion:*



We have presented experimental results for photon emission observed in
three different experiments

performed during a preliminary preparation step of a Ni-H heat production
system. In this section we briefly

reconsider the main phenomena detected in all these experiments.



*First experiment *A fast loading of hydrogen was observed (a typical
loading is shown in Fig. 12) which

involved large gas quantities. Radiation was emitted in an early time with
peaks that showed low intensities

for few days and extremely low intensity for 40 days. It disappeared before
the beginning of energy

production. No neutron emission was detected during this experiment.





Moreover, excess heat was observed [11-13] that persisted for 22 days with
a energy production of about

35 MJ. After the experiment, nickel samples were analysed with a Scanning
Electron Microscope (SEM) to

investigate morphological and elemental difference from a blank sample. The
measurements were performed

by using an energy dispersive X-ray system for elemental analysis. The most
interesting result is shown in

Fig. 13: new elements (Cr and Mn) were detected in a wide region of a sample



*Second experiment *A slow loading of hydrogen was observed (a typical
loading is shown in Fig. 14) which

involved small gas quantities. Radiation was emitted early in the run with
peaks that showed high intensities

for many days, they decreased slowly and persisted for 78 days (26 in H
atmosphere). No neutron emission or

excess heat production were detected during this experiment. No
quantitative changes were detected in

surface analysis.





*Third experiment *A very slow loading of hydrogen was observed which
involved very small gas quantities

(few tens of mbar, characteristic time of weeks). Radiation was always
present with peaks that showed low

intensities. A thermal excitation provoked a transient increasing in
radiation emitted. A spontaneous

increasing persisted for weeks. No neutron emission or excess heat
production was detected during this

experiment.



In our opinion, these experiments show the complexity of phenomena involved
in the physics of the Ni –H.







*This indicates to me that the emission of radiation is caused by a cold
lattice.*

* *

*As conjectured by Dr. Kim, the lattice must be above the curie temperature
of nickel indicating a magnetic connection associated with heat production:
i.e the formation of proton coherence. *

* *






On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:

>
>  On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>   Horace
> ** **
>   Ø  Once again - there is ZERO evidence of fusion. And for that matter -
> there is no evidence for any known nuclear reaction. 
> ** **
> How about the detection  of gammas by Celani on start-up and shut down?
>  Celani is credible.  The gammas admittedly could be faked. 
>  ** **
>
> Yes Celani is credible, but this is evidence of a startup device and
> nothing more. He admits as much.
>  ** **
> ** **
>
>
>
> I seem to recall the gammas occurred at cool down too.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Use magnetic fld to enhance effective mass of e-

[mixent]

In reply to  Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint's message of Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:48:59
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Primarily for the theorists in the Collective.
>
>This from the Ni-H yahoo group...
>
>-Mark
>
> 
>
>
>
>I try to explain it:
>All you have to do is, to put the electron from the H-atom nearer to the
>nucleus and Fusion will happen.
>From the K-electron capture from Be-7 I know, that a faktor 4 is enough.
>So, how can this be done? Idea comes from Muon, where it is proved, so just
>enhance the effective mass of the surrounding electron.
>
>Vektorpotential A = 1/2 B  *  r 
>
>(B orthogonal A,  B=const,  r is distance)
>
>
>
>For Fusion,  A >= sqr(5.405961)*mc/e=0.004 Tesla*meter 
>(to enlarge elektron energy about 782.333keV from proton to Neutron)

You can't enlarge the energy with a static magnetic field.

Even if all the potential energy existing between electron and proton were
converted to kinetic energy, you would still be 782 keV short.

Furthermore, "r" if I'm not mistaken needs to be 1/4 the size of an atom, in
order to get shrinkage by a factor or 4, not several cm (or I have completely
misunderstood how this is supposed to work). Such a small radius would require a
magnetic field vastly stronger than anything humanity has so far managed to
create. (225 million tesla for a 782 keV electron). Actually this takes no
account of the fact that the electron would be relativistic at that energy, but
it gives a rough idea of what would be needed.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Eatlim claims 50% thermal to electrical conversion efficiency

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/32267/
Video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43jv00l7pa0&feature=player_embedded

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

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 29, 2011, at 8:18 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Horace, have you heard about the degenerate state in focus fusion  
device for pB11 fusion?




This is a different use of the term "degenerate state".  The more  
specific term there is "Fermi degeneracy" as opposed to "degenerate  
quantum states", which describes linked quantum states of the same  
energy, dual states of existence, states which require no energy for  
transition and which release no radiant energy upon transition.


Fermi degeneracy occurs in stars when the density is so high that  
Fermi pressure prevents further collapse.  Fermi pressure is said to  
be due to the fact that only one Fermion can occupy a given quantum  
state.


It is also true that electrons in metals with absorbed hydrogen can,  
as the percent absorbed hydrogen increases to a sufficient level,  
occupy all the available quantum states.  Electrons in this state are  
also said to be degenerate.   I wrote about the possible relevance of  
this to cold fusion in the "ELECTRON FUGACITY" section of my I.E.  
cold fusion paper, page 6 ff, and in other places:


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

Now, coincidentally,  or not so much, outward orbital pressure is a  
result of quantum uncertainty.   As an electron orbital is  
compressed, the Heisenberg principle results in a kinetic energy  
increase which manifests as (outward) pressure.   It is this pressure  
in fact, that establishes the ground state energy and size  of  
hydrogen atoms (and many other states.)   It is this pressure, and  
given the volume displacement involved, energy, that I say can  
"reinflate" the orbital of trapped electrons, electrons that escape  
the heavy nucleus that traps them, when they do not have the kinetic  
energy to escape otherwise.  This uncertainty pressure can be  
referred to as "Schroedinger pressure" or "quantum pressure".  I  
think it is also sometimes referred to as "Fermi pressure".


There is an intimate relationship between Schrodinger pressure and  
the Casimir force.  I see these as different sides of the same coin,  
i.e of zero point energy.  The two effects come into play in the  
formation of EV's, electron charge clusters, for example.  See  
Puthoff's article:


http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0408114

The (expansive) energy due to Schrodinger pressure of the hydrogen  
atom, not so coincidentally,  just balances the (contractive) Coulomb  
force energy at the Bohr radius, and this is a minimum energy state,  
thus a stable state.  However, at the Bohr radius,  the magnetic  
force and potential between the electron and nucleus are near zero  
and ignored.   Also, the particles are not relativistic.  At a small  
radius the magnetic binding energy can overcome the Coulomb binding  
energy and the Schrodinger pressure, at least momentarily.  The  
Schrodinger kinetic energy of a hydrogen electron is a stochastic  
variable.  This magnetic binding can happen for a short time but also  
at a high frequency, depending on lattice conditions.  In a magnetic  
orbital the uncertainty energy of the electron decreases by a factor  
of 1/gamma of the electron,  and the inverse square of r.  As r  
decreases gamma increases.  In the small orbital radii shown in my  
computations, the de Broglie wavelengths of the electron and  
nucleating body do not even overlap.  Schoredinger pressure is  
entirely eliminated by relativistic effects, i.e. by the increase in  
electron and nuclear mass.  This greatly increases the feasible  
lifetime of the configuration.


When the highly magnetically bound electron plus nucleus jointly  
tunnel into a heavy nucleus, no kinetic energy is gained or lost via  
this tunneling  process of the neutral ensemble, other than the  
magnetic potential with the nucleus.  The hydrogen nucleus binds with  
the heavy nucleus by the strong force.  This leaves the electron with  
insufficient kinetic energy to escape the nucleus.  It is still  
magnetically bound with the nearby nuclear constituents, all of which  
have nuclear magnetic moments, and now suddenly bound by the Coulomb  
force of numerous protons.  This creates an initial energy deficit  
from the tunneling action, and a newly fused nucleus.


I hope this makes some sense of these concepts and does not merely  
confuse everything.


Best regards,

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