date:20120102

Hi Horace,

I noticed that the sums of the released photons plus the terms in brackets
are close, but not really the same. Why?

What is the meaning of that sum? I cannot figure out, I'm sorry.

2011/12/17 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net

 Deflation fusion theory provides a potential solution to the riddle of why
 the radioactive byproducts 59CU29, 61Cu29 and 62Cu29 to the Ni + p
 reactions do not appear in Rossi's byproducts.  This solution of the
 specific radioactive byproducts problem is manifest if the following rules
 are obeyed by the environment, except in extremely improbable instances:


   1.  The initial wavefunction collapse involves the Ni nucleus plus two p*

   2.  As with all LENR, radioactive byproducts are energetically
 disallowed.

 Here p* represents a deflated hydrogen atom, consisting of a proton and
 electron in a magnetically bound orbital, and v represents a neutrino.

 The above two rules result in the following energetically feasible
 reactions:

  58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV [-0.085]

  60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 2 v + 16.852 MeV [-1.842]
  60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-10.786]
  60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 61Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 7.038 MeV [-11.657]

  61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 9.814 MeV [-8.777]

  62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Ni28 + 2 v + 14.931 Mev [-3.560]
  62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-4.656]
  62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 4He2 + 9.879 MeV [-8.612]
  62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV [-12.369]
  62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 59Co27 + 4He2 + 1H1 + 00.346 MeV [-18.145]

  64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-1.918]
  64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV [-6.497]
  64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV [-10.843]

   Ni28 + 2 p* --- 2 1H1 + 0 MeV

 Note that in the case where the second p* is rejected and results in 1H1,
 ultimately a hydrogen atom, that the electron and proton are not ejected at
 the same time.  The large positive nuclear charge ejects the proton
 immediately with approximately 6 MeV kinetic energy.

 This kind of zero point energy fueled proton ejection should result in
 detectible brehmstrahlung.  This energy is in addition to the mass change
 energy listed above.  The approximately 6 MeV free energy so gained is made
 up from the zero point field via uncertainty pressure expanding any
 remaining trapped electron's wavefunction. Such energy may also be obtained
 from the direct magnetic attraction of a pair of deflated protons, without
 the aid of a lattice nucleus.  This is of the form:

   p* + P* -- 2 1H1

 However, the repulsion of a proton from a proton is far less than from a
 large nucleus, and the electrons in this case are not trapped when the
 protons separate. However, some EuV radiation can be expected from the
 ensemble breakup. A very very small rate of pep reactions may occur:

  p + p* -- D + e+ + v + 0.42 MeV

  p* + p* -- D + e- + e+ + v + 0.42 MeV


 These are followed immediately by:

  e- + e+ -- 2 gamma + 0.59 MeV

 and this gamma producing reaction was not observed above background in the
 Rossi E-cats.

 The following represent energetically feasible initial strong reactions
 based on deflation fusion theory:

 Compare to 18.822 MeV:

  58Ni28 + p* -- 59Cu29 * + 3.419 MeV [-4.867 MeV]

  58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 56Ni28 * + 4He2 + 5.829 MeV [-10.650 MeV]
  58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Zn30 * + 8.538 MeV [-7.941 MeV]

 Compare to: 16.852 MeV:

  60Ni28 + p* -- 61Cu29 * + 4.801 MeV [-3.394 MeV]

  60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-8.391 MeV]
  60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Zn30 * + 11.277 MeV [-5.022 MeV]

 Compare to: 9.814 MeV

  61Ni28 + p* -- 58Co27 * + 4He2 + 00.489 MeV [-7.661 MeV]
  61Ni28 + p* -- 62Cu29 * + 5.866 MeV [-2.284 MeV]

  61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 59Ni28 * + 4He2 + 9.088 MeV [-7.125 MeV]
  61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Cu29 * + 1H1 + 5.866 MeV [-10.347 MeV]
  61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 63Zn30 * + 12.570 MeV [-3.643 MeV]

 Compare to: 14.931 Mev

  62Ni28 + p* -- 59Co27 + 4He2 + 00.346 MeV [-7.760 MeV]
  62Ni28 + p* -- 63Cu29 + 6.122 MeV [-1.984 MeV]
  62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-2.293 MeV]

 Compare to: 16.378 MeV

  64Ni28 + p* -- 65Cu29 + 7.453 MeV [-0.569 MeV]
  64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [00.415 MeV]

 In all cases the net reaction energies of the proposed reactions exceed
 those the net energies from reactions that produce radioactive isotopes.
 This makes rule 2 reasonable and understandable on an energy only basis.
  The mechanism that enforces the rule is more difficult to understand.
  Understanding the mechanism requires understanding the initial energy
 deficit due to the trapped electron. This deficit is shown in brackets
 above.  This deficit provides a limit to how far an energetically ejected
 electron can travel out of the coulomb well before being pulled back.  If
 an electron is in the nucleus at the site of the initial reaction, then a
 large part of the energy that normally goes into ejecting a gamma goes into
 ejecting the trapped electron. However, given that this energy is

Re: [Vo]:Jed and others 2012 predictions please

2012-01-02 Thread Nick Palmer

Alain Sepeda wrote:
many (not all) Green will try to oppose LENR because it is agains their 
agenda. it is breaking their plot to make a better world by reducing comfort, 
energy, consumption, sins, and corruption of the nature



You don't know what you are talking about. You are just parroting 
misrepresentative B.S. peddled by ideologically, politically or financially 
biased propagandists. Greens are used to being traduced like this.

The mainstream green movement does not yet acknowledge the reality of LENR 
because we have been approached by an endless stream of people claiming magic 
100mpg carburettors, magic magnet motors, overunity hydrogen generators, MEGs 
etc etc etc over many decades. In short, all magic solutions so far have been 
lies and bullshit so, until conclusively demonstrated and accepted, we're not 
going to change any priorities yet.

I can assure you that around 15 years ago, a motion was taken to the Friends of 
the Earth Conference:

This Conference notes the recent proliferation of reliable scientific evidence 
for the reality of Cold Fusion energy and many other similar devices. As they 
herald the rapid end of both the nuclear and fossil fuelled industries, and 
hold out the prospect of cheap, abundant, pollution free energy, free from the 
control of individual nations or large corporations, they will obviously have a 
dramatic effect on most of our campaigning.
 This Conference calls upon the Board of Friends of the Earth to investigate 
the scientific reports, satisfy themselves as to the  validity and potential of 
the new energy sources and then to rewrite our basic campaign strategies to 
take the coming revolution in energy supply into account and, further, to 
actively promote the new devices as a solution to global warming and pollution. 
When these devices become mainstream we will be fully prepared to hit the 
ground running.

Unfortunately, back then, the evidence was by no means clear cut and, although 
there was plenty of interest (and some excitement) in the concept, the view was 
that the best thing to do was to wait it out.

Decentralisation of energy supply and the cost and energy effective 
conservation and recycling of materials is an incredibly deep aspect of green 
thought, all of which would be achievable with LENR devices. In 1996 I wrote an 
article for Infinite Energy (click for link) that speculated that, although 
there could be some novel problems if everyone had as much energy as they 
desired, that overall the environemental effect of LENR would be beneficial as 
it would enable the Green movement to concentrate more on habitat and 
biodiversity protection and all the other stuff apart from climate change and 
peak oil.


Nick Palmer

On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it

Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer
http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Jed and others 2012 predictions please

2012-01-02 Thread Alain Sepeda

You cannot imagine how green I am in fact(because of the 70s and 1974
energy saving campaign in Europe).

but these days things are getting crazy, and the green that you depict are
no more influent.
visible greens are no more like what you say. it has became an apocalyptic
sect, highly competent in influencing media .
on many domains, they are just  behaving like propagandizing priest,
irrational frighteners, pathologic liars, manipulating humans feeling,
using media...
when you know the environmental problems, the technology, it is frightening
to see how thing evolves and lies spread quickly with media support...
they terrorize and racket scientist and business... who submit and adapt to
survive... (same reason LENR get buried for 20 years).
maybe is there a need for irrationality, dogma, guiltiness, absolutism, and
since we have tamed the religions, something else have to take the business.

maybe things are different for you in your country, and your green are
better, but in France things are getting rough for the truth.
it is frightening to see the propaganda spreading in my near, and it is
hard to explain the facts...
I see the parallel with the way some other countries evolve about another
green religion.

anyway that is not the problem here.
we will just see how things will evolve soon. hope the rational greens win.
my experience is that first the extremist will win with the help of the
crony elite, then be guillotined by the moderates, on demand of the crowd
demanding more comfort...

2012/1/2 Nick Palmer ni...@wynterwood.co.uk

 You don't know what you are talking about. You are just parroting
 misrepresentative B.S. peddled by ideologically, politically or financially
 biased propagandists. Greens are used to being traduced like this.

Re: [Vo]:Jed and others 2012 predictions please

2012-01-02 Thread Vorl Bek

I sent a reply to vortex-b

The sig should have read:


http://wattsupwiththat.com 
For a Better World, With Fewer Mouths To Feed - They will be worth
more.

Re: [Vo]:COLD FUSION - The Answer to all our energy problems ?

2012-01-02 Thread fznidarsic

Yes I did, however, as Jones and many others will tell you that I am a crank. 


Too bad we cant do a video conference.  I what to see Horace.  Horace, please 
call me on Skype. 
name Frank.Znidarsic,  see the dot you need it.



-Original Message-
From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 1, 2012 4:35 pm
Subject: [Vo]:COLD FUSION - The Answer to all our energy problems ?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3eOWIvb6vMnoredirect=1
Hey Frank Z you get a nice mention.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle



On Jan 2, 2012, at 4:24 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:


Hi Horace,

I noticed that the sums of the released photons plus the terms in  
brackets are close, but not really the same. Why?


What is the meaning of that sum? I cannot figure out, I'm sorry.


The sums in brackets are estimates of the initial energy deficits due  
to the trapped electrons.


E = x*(Z-x)*(1.44E-9 ev m)/r

r = 0.85*(1.25E-15 m) * A^(1/3) ]

The reactions you discuss are posted and discussed in the The Rossi  
Ni + p Byproduct Riddle article here:


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

These deficits are calculated based on 2 simultaneous trapped  
electrons, as opposed to one at a time trapping that I compute for  
thousands of of potential initial strong reactions here:


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

as well as the in the various strong force only equations in the  
The Rossi Ni + p Byproduct Riddle article, and for Pd reactions here:


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

The formula used for computing the initial electron trapping energy  
is provided at the end of various reports in the dfRpt page.


When more than one electron can be trapped  at a time, or weak  
reactions occur in the process, then things get complicated.  Mutiple  
scenarios evolve that end up with the same final reaction energy, but  
differing trapping energies.  I only provide one computation to check  
feasibility of the trapping reaction, and thus the feasibility of  
follow-on weak reactions.


I should note that the  trapping energies I provide in brackets in my  
equations are approximations.   The trapping energy can be greatly  
increased depending on the nature of the deflated state prior to  
tunneling into the nucleus.  Further, all the variables involved are  
stochastic.


Electron trapping and the impact of the resulting energy deficit,  
especially the impact on branching ratios, was discussed on pages  
2-10 of:


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

The trapping energy for single electron reactions, (Z-1) (1.44 x 10-9  
ev m) / r, is discussed in the above.  This provides an energy  
deficit that can only be made up from the zero point field. The  
energy deficit from deflation fusion was also discussed on p. 10 ff of


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

The initial Coulomb trapping energy formula for multiple simultaneous  
electron trapping is given in the referenced report:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PdFusion2.pdf

as follows:

Note: Deflated Electectron binding energy computed using E = x*(Z-x)* 
(1.44E-9 ev m)/r
[ Initial average electron nuclear radius r estimated using r = 0.85* 
(1.25E-15 m) * A^(1/3) ]


Here x is the number of deflated hydrogen atoms added  
simultaneously.  This is the formula noted above.  This estimate of  
the initial trapping energy can be way too low, depending on the  
nature of the deflated state prior to tunneling.


I should also note, that if two electrons are initially involved,  
i.e. one in the heavy nucleus, and one in the deflated state  
hydrogen, that the initial magnetic potential probably should be  
subtracted from the binding energy, because this energy may be  
imparted in part as kinetic to the electron/proton pair upon  
tunneling. When only an electron and ordninary heavy nucleus magnetic  
moment are involved I think this correction is not important.


I could of course have clerical errors.





2011/12/17 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
Deflation fusion theory provides a potential solution to the riddle  
of why the radioactive byproducts 59CU29, 61Cu29 and 62Cu29 to the  
Ni + p reactions do not appear in Rossi's byproducts.  This  
solution of the specific radioactive byproducts problem is manifest  
if the following rules are obeyed by the environment, except in  
extremely improbable instances:



  1.  The initial wavefunction collapse involves the Ni nucleus  
plus two p*


  2.  As with all LENR, radioactive byproducts are energetically  
disallowed.


Here p* represents a deflated hydrogen atom, consisting of a proton  
and electron in a magnetically bound orbital, and v represents a  
neutrino.


The above two rules result in the following energetically feasible  
reactions:


 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV [-0.085]

 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 2 v + 16.852 MeV [-1.842]
 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-10.786]
 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 61Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 7.038 MeV [-11.657]

 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 9.814 MeV [-8.777]

 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Ni28 + 2 v + 14.931 Mev [-3.560]
 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-4.656]
 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 4He2 + 9.879 MeV [-8.612]
 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV [-12.369]
 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 59Co27 + 4He2 + 1H1 + 00.346 MeV [-18.145]

 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-1.918]
 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV [-6.497]
 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV [-10.843]

  Ni28 + 2

Re: [Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle

Alright, so the most probable reactions are those that minimize the energy
spent at any given time. That is, those that require the least binding
energy for the deflated proton. But, shouldn't that mean that Ni58 is the
one that gives more energy? After all the number in bracket is the smallest
energy in the bracket.

2012/1/2 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net

On Jan 2, 2012, at 4:24 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Hi Horace,

I noticed that the sums of the released photons plus the terms in
brackets are close, but not really the same. Why?

What is the meaning of that sum? I cannot figure out, I'm sorry.

The sums in brackets are estimates of the initial energy deficits due to
the trapped electrons.

E = x*(Z-x)*(1.44E-9 ev m)/r

r = 0.85*(1.25E-15 m) * A^(1/3) ]

The reactions you discuss are posted and discussed in the The Rossi Ni +
p Byproduct Riddle article here:

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

These deficits are calculated based on 2 simultaneous trapped electrons,
as opposed to one at a time trapping that I compute for thousands of of
potential initial strong reactions here:

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

as well as the in the various strong force only equations in the The
Rossi Ni + p Byproduct Riddle article, and for Pd reactions here:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/PdFusion.pdfhttp://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PdFusion.pdf

The formula used for computing the initial electron trapping energy is
provided at the end of various reports in the dfRpt page.

When more than one electron can be trapped at a time, or weak reactions
occur in the process, then things get complicated. Mutiple scenarios
evolve that end up with the same final reaction energy, but differing
trapping energies. I only provide one computation to check feasibility of
the trapping reaction, and thus the feasibility of follow-on weak reactions.

I should note that the trapping energies I provide in brackets in my
equations are approximations. The trapping energy can be greatly
increased depending on the nature of the deflated state prior to tunneling
into the nucleus. Further, all the variables involved are stochastic.

Electron trapping and the impact of the resulting energy deficit,
especially the impact on branching ratios, was discussed on pages 2-10 of:

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

The trapping energy for single electron reactions, (Z-1) (1.44 x 10-9 ev
m) / r, is discussed in the above. This provides an energy deficit that
can only be made up from the zero point field. The energy deficit from
deflation fusion was also discussed on p. 10 ff of

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

The initial Coulomb trapping energy formula for multiple simultaneous
electron trapping is given in the referenced report:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/PdFusion2.pdfhttp://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PdFusion2.pdf

as follows:

Note: Deflated Electectron binding energy computed using E =
x*(Z-x)*(1.44E-9 ev m)/r
[ Initial average electron nuclear radius r estimated using r =
0.85*(1.25E-15 m) * A^(1/3) ]

Here x is the number of deflated hydrogen atoms added simultaneously.
This is the formula noted above. This estimate of the initial trapping
energy can be way too low, depending on the nature of the deflated state
prior to tunneling.

I should also note, that if two electrons are initially involved, i.e. one
in the heavy nucleus, and one in the deflated state hydrogen, that the
initial magnetic potential probably should be subtracted from the binding
energy, because this energy may be imparted in part as kinetic to the
electron/proton pair upon tunneling. When only an electron and ordninary
heavy nucleus magnetic moment are involved I think this correction is not
important.

I could of course have clerical errors.

2011/12/17 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
Deflation fusion theory provides a potential solution to the riddle of
why the radioactive byproducts 59CU29, 61Cu29 and 62Cu29 to the Ni + p
reactions do not appear in Rossi's byproducts. This solution of the
specific radioactive byproducts problem is manifest if the following rules
are obeyed by the environment, except in extremely improbable instances:

1. The initial wavefunction collapse involves the Ni nucleus plus two p*

2. As with all LENR, radioactive byproducts are energetically
disallowed.

Here p* represents a deflated hydrogen atom, consisting of a proton and
electron in a magnetically bound orbital, and v represents a neutrino.

The above two rules result in the following energetically feasible
reactions:

58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV [-0.085]

Re: [Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle



On Jan 2, 2012, at 7:10 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Alright, so the most probable reactions are those that minimize the  
energy spent at any given time. That is, those that require the  
least binding energy for the deflated proton. But, shouldn't that  
mean that Ni58 is the one that gives more energy? After all the  
number in bracket is the smallest energy in the bracket.


First, each reaction line on page 1 is independent of the others.   
What happens to 58Ni is independent of what happens to other  
isotopes, and only dependent on its abundance in the lattice.


The trapping energy only ensures that follow-on weak reactions are  
feasible.   Note the large energy deficits and thus trapping energy  
that immediately results when one of the electrons is absorbed into a  
neutron.


In any case, the bottom line is the reaction:

   58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV [-0.085]

produces comparatively little enthalpy because about 18.5 MeV is  
carried away by the two neutrinos.  It is by far the most energetic  
reaction channel compared to the alternatives:


   58Ni28 + p* -- 59Cu29 # + 3.419 MeV [-4.867 MeV]
   58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 56Ni28 # + 4He2 + 5.829 MeV [-10.650 MeV]
   58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Zn30 # + 8.538 MeV [-7.941 MeV]

given the assumption that the initial intermediate nucleus was formed  
by a Ni+2p* reaction.


Best regards,

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

[Vo]:Out for a while

I have to take care of a rental in Anchorage that was just vacated.   
Makes me a little nervous considering Gene Mallove's  history with  
that kind of thing.


I will not be able to follow things here for a while.

Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle

How do you know how much go to photons and to neutrinos?

2012/1/2 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net


 On Jan 2, 2012, at 7:10 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

 Alright, so the most probable reactions are those that minimize the energy
 spent at any given time. That is, those that require the least binding
 energy for the deflated proton. But, shouldn't that mean that Ni58 is the
 one that gives more energy? After all the number in bracket is the smallest
 energy in the bracket.


 First, each reaction line on page 1 is independent of the others.  What
 happens to 58Ni is independent of what happens to other isotopes, and only
 dependent on its abundance in the lattice.

 The trapping energy only ensures that follow-on weak reactions are
 feasible.   Note the large energy deficits and thus trapping energy that
 immediately results when one of the electrons is absorbed into a neutron.

 In any case, the bottom line is the reaction:

58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV [-0.085]

 produces comparatively little enthalpy because about 18.5 MeV is carried
 away by the two neutrinos.  It is by far the most energetic reaction
 channel compared to the alternatives:

58Ni28 + p* -- 59Cu29 # + 3.419 MeV [-4.867 MeV]
58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 56Ni28 # + 4He2 + 5.829 MeV [-10.650 MeV]
58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Zn30 # + 8.538 MeV [-7.941 MeV]

 given the assumption that the initial intermediate nucleus was formed by a
 Ni+2p* reaction.

 Best regards,

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







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

Re: [Vo]:Anyone have the paper A. Carnera, S. Focardi, A. Rossi, to be published on Arxiv?

I assume the principal author is Alberto Carnera of Padua U. See:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=8804559

Defkalion says they got an important clue from U. Padua mass spec results.
My guess is that these results are in this unpublished paper. Rossi was
probably right that it reveals too much for his purposes.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Anyone have the paper A. Carnera, S. Focardi, A. Rossi, to be published on Arxiv?

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Akira Shirakawa
shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 2012-01-02 07:47, noone noone wrote:

 Does anyone know where the following paper can be located?


 Unfortunately, it isn't available anywhere.

 Rossi explained several months ago that he changed his mind about publicly
 publishing it because it would have revealed confidential information:

Or it was rejected by Arxiv.  They have gotten more picky of late in
what they will publish.

T

Re: [Vo]:Anyone have the paper A. Carnera, S. Focardi, A. Rossi, to be published on Arxiv?

So, he is the guy who is specialist in materials science,  specially the
characterization of materials.

2012/1/2 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 I assume the principal author is Alberto Carnera of Padua U. See:

 http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=8804559

 Defkalion says they got an important clue from U. Padua mass spec results.
 My guess is that these results are in this unpublished paper. Rossi was
 probably right that it reveals too much for his purposes.

 - Jed




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

Re: [Vo]:Anyone have the paper A. Carnera, S. Focardi, A. Rossi, to be published on Arxiv?

There's the alternative vixra.org. Takahashi posted many papers there:

http://vixra.org/author/Akito_Takahashi

2012/1/2 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com

 On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Akira Shirakawa
 shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 2012-01-02 07:47, noone noone wrote:
 
  Does anyone know where the following paper can be located?
 
 
  Unfortunately, it isn't available anywhere.
 
  Rossi explained several months ago that he changed his mind about
 publicly
  publishing it because it would have revealed confidential information:

 Or it was rejected by Arxiv.  They have gotten more picky of late in
 what they will publish.

 T




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

[Vo]:FYI : tracks of Leonardo Corporation at National Instruments Site

2012-01-02 Thread Alain Sepeda

I find that cited in some comment :


*
http://digital.ni.com/worldwide/bwcontent.nsf/websearch/2c6b449a3f0f8f3a862579480060a07f
*http://digital.ni.com/worldwide/bwcontent.nsf/websearch/2c6b449a3f0f8f3a862579480060a07f

National Instruments Empowers Big Physics Solutions*NEWS RELEASE – Nov. 14,
2011* – National Instruments continues to empower the research and physics
industries with high-performance measurement and control technologies.
...LHC...Tokamak...
Additionally, the Leonardo Corporation has intentions to incorporate NI
tools in its control system.
...

RE: [Vo]:Out for a while

2012-01-02 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

HI Horace,

 I have to take care of a rental in Anchorage that was just vacated.
 Makes me a little nervous considering Gene Mallove's  history with
 that kind of thing.

You probably don't have anything to worry about. NTL, it wouldn't hurt to
take along a strapping handyman along. IOW, don't travel alone. ;-)

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

[Vo]:Defkalion : 5MW Container Version

2012-01-02 Thread Alan J Fletcher



(answering a question on the wired link)
Obviously the reporter is trying to present the story balanced, even
though there are some mistakes in it, like ...The first will be
a one-megawatt device, the same scale as the one in Rossi's demonstration
in October
The 45kW multi-reactor Hyperion's geometry and functionality allow us
to fit 115 rack mounted of such units within a 20ft typical cargo
container, leaving enough space for the heat management systems and the
external heat exchangers as well as the room needed for
inspection/maintenance/recharge. That is a 5175 kW (thermal) unit
scalable from 5kW to 5,175MW* for industrial applications, not a
one-megawatt device. 
The range of the MW Hyperion products will appear in the Greek market
first, following the 45kW Hyperion licence and entry in the market within
2012.
Happy new year to you and to all our forum members and guests
DGT
(*) arithmetic notation following the European/Greek system. 5,175 MW is
5MW and 175kW. 
- - - -
Followed by some speculation on using such units to power ships.

(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi,
google!)

[Vo]:[OT] N Korea's Secret Weapon

Or merely a photoshop error.  The nine ft tall soldier:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/12/9-foot-tall-supersoldier-mourns-kim-jong-il/250658/

T

Re: [Vo]:[OT] N Korea's Secret Weapon

It's SLENDERMAN!!! :D

2012/1/2 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com

 Or merely a photoshop error.  The nine ft tall soldier:


 http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/12/9-foot-tall-supersoldier-mourns-kim-jong-il/250658/

 T




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

Re: [Vo]:Out for a while

A word to the wise: do not announce that you will be away from home on the
Internet. Here in Atlanta, someone might break into your house.

We all live in goldfish bowl. See Jeremy Benthem's Panopticon Prison.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle



On Jan 2, 2012, at 7:38 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:


How do you know how much go to photons and to neutrinos?


Due to lack of time I'll cut and paste a lot of stuff from prior  
posts.  I do have to go. I hope it makes sense.


Very little goes to photons because the electron does not have time  
to radiate.


When multiple particles are produced, a nuclear reaction splits the  
momentum across the products according to mass.  When a nuclear  
electron (or more) is present, there are always at least two product  
particles. The trapped electron thus avoids much energy going into  
fast gammas.  It does so without even being released as a beta if the  
energy deficit number (in brackets) is negative.   Neutral particles,  
like a neutrino, will carry off most of the prompt energy right away,  
due to the low neutrino rest mass. A trapped electron takes time to  
radiate energy. If a weak reaction takes place, that time is not  
available.


The weak force has an interaction range limited by the lifetime of  
the messenger particles, the W bosons, about 10^-18 m.  Using r = 2 *  
(1.25E-15 m) * A^(1/3), for 59Ni we have r ~= 4.87 x 10^-15 m.  The  
relativistic trapped electron passes through a cloud of 118 up quarks  
to cross the diameter of the nucleus of 59Ni in about 3x10^-23  
seconds. A  trapped relativistic electron in effect traverses the  
nucleus at an initial rate of about 30,000 times per attosecond.   
Electrons are not affected by the strong or color forces. They are  
affected by quark charges and magnetic fields however, so their paths  
should be eventually thermalized.  In that process they can cool  
reduce kinetic energy and then cool the nucleus via emission of many  
photons.


Assuming the electron is a point and the cross section of the up  
quark is Pi*(10^-18 m)^2 = 3x10^-36 m^2, and the nuclear density of  
the up quarks is 118/((4/3)*Pi*(4.87 x 10^-15 m)^3) = 2.4x10^44/m^3,  
we have a mean free path L of:


   L = 1/((2.4x10^44/m^3)*(3x10^-36 m^2)) = 1.39 x 10^-9 m

and a mean weak reaction time of about 5x10^-18 seconds, about 5  
attoseconds.


To understand the energy dynamics you have to distinguish between the  
deflated hydrogen state prior to tunneling to the nucleus via  
wavefunction collapse, and the state of the deflated hydrogen  
immediately following that tunneling, which involves the trapped  
electron state. The electron is trapped not by the hydrogen nucleus,  
but by the composite nucleus.


The combined kinetic plus mass plus potential energy qoes nowhere  
when the electron deflates, remains unchanged.  The deflated state is  
a degenerate state.  There is no energy exchange involved in the  
transition between the deflated state and the normal chemical state  
of the hydrogen. There are no x-rays emitted.  There are also no  
photons emitted from the tunneling process itself because it is a  
neutral entity tunneling. However, once the tunneling process is  
complete, the electrons are trapped.  The joint field energy between  
the electron and target nucleus, such energy being vacuum resident,  
is depleted.  The joint field energy between the the hydrogen's  
proton and the target nucleus, which is also vacuum resident, is  
increased by an amount equal to the loss of the joint target nucleus  
electron field energy.  However, the vacuum field energy gained by  
the proton's fusion is locked into place via the strong force -  
unless a fission can occur, such as an alpha emission.   No means  
exists for the nuclear potential to immediately transfer energy to  
photons from the tunneling process. The field adjustment for the  
energy deficit from the electrons is transmitted throughout the  
nucleus at light speed. It is especially notable that the potential  
energy stored up via the proton's EM field may eventually result in  
mass increase of the nucleus, once the electron departs, but does not  
result immediately in either a mass increase or released kinetic  
energy which can be converted into EM energy or trigger a fission,  
because the field energy of the proton is negated by the field energy  
of the electron by superposition.


The electron capture energy further subtracts from the energy deficit  
by in effect taking it from the trapped electron's kinetic energy.  
Ultimately, I think a net energy deficit from a fast electron capture  
reaction is made up by nuclear heat, i.e. zero point energy.  There  
are various heavy element transmutation reactions that have been  
observed without enthalpy corresponding to nuclear mass changes, and  
without high energy signatures. Only the energy deficit of the  
trapped electron can explain this. Some enthalpy may occur due to the  
photon radiation that occurs due to interaction of the trapped  
electron with the nucleus, but a weak reaction cuts this process  
short.  A heavy element transmutation can in theory produce no  
enthalpy or nuclear signatures at all.  Consider Kervan's chickens.


The

Re: [Vo]:Out for a while

2012-01-02 Thread Alan J Fletcher

It's OK to be Out for a while ... but NEXT time, could you leave 
Vortex up and running? =8-)

Re: [Vo]:Forbes: The Year of Cold Fusion

There may be a small indication of progress at Forbes. The author, Gibbs,
called out one of my comments. I believe this is the first time a
positive remark called out (featured).

I think there are fewer rabid attacks in the comments, but it is hard to
judge with only ~20 comments.

Also, miracle of miracles, Mary Yugo made a grudging concession that some
cold fusion research might be worthwhile. She should consider learning
something about it, so that she will some basis for this opinion.

I get a sense Gibbs may be thinking what if this really is true?!? He
seems a little less dismissive. He may be hedging his bets; thinking he
should not go too far out on a limb. This is wise. It is enough to be right
in a dispute. There is no point to being so arrogant in victory that people
resent you. And no matter how sure you are, it is always a good idea to
admit you might be wrong, just in case it turns out you are.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:[OT] N Korea's Secret Weapon

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
 It's SLENDERMAN!!! :D

I was not familiar with the myth.  Apparently, one movie has been made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5apy27bksGo

and another is in post production:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1658837/

T

Re: [Vo]:Jed and others 2012 predictions please

2012-01-02 Thread Nick Palmer

I see Vorl Bek is over on Vortex B talking to the Grok thing.

He/she wrote The 'green' people completely ignore our insanely large 
population thus proving beyond doubt that he/she knows absolutely nothing and 
just makes stuff up. Even more laughably, they also promote wattsupwiththat.com 
 - the biggest anti-science disinformation and propaganda site on the internet 
- as some sort of authority! 
 
Nick Palmer

On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it

Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer
http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:[OT] N Korea's Secret Weapon

Not only 1 movie, but several amateur made series. I think I keep track of
10 of them, ate least.

2012/1/2 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com

 On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  It's SLENDERMAN!!! :D

 I was not familiar with the myth.  Apparently, one movie has been made:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5apy27bksGo

 and another is in post production:

 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1658837/

 T




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

Re: [Vo]:Out for a while

2012-01-02 Thread Charles Hope

Enjoy your trip. Alaska must be quite an experience this time of year. I intend 
to have pondered your papers when you have returned. 

 

On Jan 2, 2012, at 11:37, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:

 I have to take care of a rental in Anchorage that was just vacated.  Makes me 
 a little nervous considering Gene Mallove's  history with that kind of thing.
 
 I will not be able to follow things here for a while.
 
 Best regards,
 
 Horace Heffner
 http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:[OT] N Korea's Secret Weapon

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
 Not only 1 movie, but several amateur made series. I think I keep track of
 10 of them, ate least.

So, do you think he is after Kim Jong Un (hopefully)?

T

Re: [Vo]:[OT] N Korea's Secret Weapon

Hopefully he will go after the american bases there too :)

2012/1/2 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com

 On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Not only 1 movie, but several amateur made series. I think I keep track
 of
  10 of them, ate least.

 So, do you think he is after Kim Jong Un (hopefully)?

 T




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

Re: [Vo]:[OT] N Korea's Secret Weapon

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hopefully he will go after the american bases there too :)

America has bases in N Korea?

T

[Vo]:Be a curling stone!

2012-01-02 Thread Harry Veeder

Why a curling stone curls remains controversial. Yes there are
computer models which generate similiar trajectories, but they rest on
assumptions of melt water, and other scientists who research ice
tribology find no evidence that ice melts at the associated
temperatures and pressures.

I believe the motion of curling stone is essentail to the emergence of
a new science of motion, i.e , as the motion of a cannon ball was to
the emergence of a science of mechanics in Galileo's time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sic7CckO-js


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Anyone have the paper A. Carnera, S. Focardi, A. Rossi, to be published on Arxiv?

Some info on Prof. Carnera:

http://www.matis.imm.cnr.it/view.php?nome=Carnera

Re: [Vo]:[OT] N Korea's Secret Weapon

2012-01-02 Thread David Roberson

Of course America does not have bases there.

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 2, 2012 8:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] N Korea's Secret Weapon

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hopefully he will go after the american bases there too :)
America has bases in N Korea?
T

Re: [Vo]:[OT] N Korea's Secret Weapon