[Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling
Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
element nucleus with high probability in collisions with energies well
below those required to breach this barrier?
This curiosity has been observed is heavy low energy ion collision studies.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1393.pdf
This letter presents evidence that (1) 2p transfer (and
not _-particle transfer) is the dominant transfer process
leading to _Z = 2 events in the reaction 16O+208Pb at
energies well below the fusion barrier, and (2) 2p transfer
is significantly enhanced compared to predictions assum-
ing the sequential transfer of uncorrelated protons, with
absolute probabilities as high as those of 1p transfer at
energies near the fusion barrier.
Measurements of transfer probabilities in various reac-
tions and at energies near the fusion barrier have there-
fore been utilized to investigate the role of pairing corre-
lations between the transferred nucleons. Pairing effects
are believed to lead to a significant enhancement of pair
and multi-pair transfer probabilities [2, 4{7]. Closely re-
lated to the phenomenon of pairing correlations is the
nuclear Josephson effect [8], which is understood as the
tunneling of nucleon pairs (i.e. nuclear Cooper-pairs)
through a time-dependent barrier at energies near but be-
low the fusion barrier. This effect is believed to be similar
to that of a supercurrent between two superconductors
separated by an insulator. An enhancement of the trans-
fer probability at sub-barrier energies is therefore com-
monly related to the tunneling of (multi-)Cooper-pairs
from one superfluid nucleus to the other [2].
NOTE: this experiment was done with both nuclei being doubly-magic with a
closed shell of protons and neutrons…just like nickel.
Re: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot
You should not hold the champagne. Rossi said that once his reaction was going out of control and Levi, I think it was him, injected Nitrogen to stop the reaction. So, I don't think this is exclusive to Argon, rather, it is by cutting off H and substituting it for something else. 2012/1/31 ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com Ta-Da ... yes it is argon. It is a Mills catalyst, and we know they use it. Hold the champagne.. Piantelli says argon stops the nuclear process... http://www.rexresearch.com/piantelli/piantelli.htm In the pictures the yellow tubing appears to be for vacuum. But later in the video a tube goes into the T and out up towards the ceiling.. which hints towards venting.. not the addition of a secret gas ingredient. At 0:21 there is a picture of a lead going into the center of the reactor? Almost looks like a spark plug lead. High voltage? If I'm not mistaken, the variac goes into a big (blue with yellow stripe) transformer. (variac also appears to be on max). - Brad -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
So Ni micropowder mixed with a dielectric micropowder, hydrogen and argon mixture under elevated pressure and temperature and a Champion spark plug... I think i saw a big old ground wire connected to the reactor to prevent a shocking discovery On Monday, January 30, 2012, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Ni62 and Ni64 enrichment is an assumption. I will now be pleased to offer another possible reason for a catalyst change. My theory of operation regarding the Rossi reaction indicates that the job of the catalyst is to produce Rydberg atoms so that they can be used as feedstock in the production of H+; protons. Proton loading on or near the micro powder surface must be as high as can be managed. Patch electrostatic charge on the surface of the Micro powder strips the high orbiting electron from the Rydberg H. Most elements will produce Rydberg atoms if properly excited but the way that these elements are excited will differ based on their quantum mechanical configurations. There are excellent indications that Rossi’s catalyst uses heat as the excitant. The alkaline family having a electronic low work function at its surface, heat excitation will produce Rydberg atoms. But in contrast, other elements may be more appropriately excited by radio frequency stimulation (another alkaline family member), or spark electric discharge (argon, or anther noble gas), or laser irradiation (calcium, nitrogen, beryllium, magnesium … a few among many). I have always through that heat was a poor choice for a Rydberg atom stimulant because of the counterproductive feedback disadvantages heat control provides. Some stimulant that can be turned off and on easily and immediately without feedback disadvantage would be a better systems choice overall especially if regulated in real time by a computerize control system. Maybe now that the basic Rossi based system is well understood and ready for production, it might be time to take the next design step in product improvement with a more controllable and predictable systems design. The people in RD might need something new to hold their interest a while longer. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Two problems with that assessment, Robert. First, look at fission reactors as metaphor. 235U is found in a similar ratio to 64Ni in the natural metal (slightly less), and yet a fission reactor using natural U will not work reliably over time, without heavy water – or unless the U has been enriched to about triple its natural abundance. It would take a few volumes of information to explain why this is the case, employing random walks and Monte Carlo statistics and other boring background – and yet, the situation is only metaphorical anyway. But this is a very strong metaphor and the message for both kinds of reactors could be the same: There is a minimum level of the active reactant needed for reliable reaction rates to occur over time. The second possible error is to assume this minimum level (needed for continuity) applies to the situation where 64Ni transmutes into 65Cu - as is generally thought and promoted by Rossi and Focardi. That could be the case, but OTOH it seems clearly false that any transmutation has occurred - since the ash should be radioactive, and Rossi admits it is not. (and the Swedes turned up no radioactivity either). No radioactive ash, no nickel to copper transmutation. I have presented what I think is a strong case for “proton average mass depletion” as the source of excess energy in Ni-H reactions - in past postings. The connection of “proton mass depletion” to 64Ni would be that this metal isotope is the heaviest in all of nature, compared to the most common isotope. Since it is anomalously heavy, and the proton becomes anomalous light after giving up some of its mass – is there a cross connection there? It is a stretch for sure – but QCD can then be employed to explain bosonic transfer and the depletion of one wrt the other. That is fodder for another long posting. From: Robert Lynn
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: So Ni micropowder mixed with a dielectric micropowder, hydrogen and argon mixture under elevated pressure and temperature and a Champion spark plug... Plus, possibly, potassium. (And alliteration and assonance.) T
RE: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling
Wow, this is a provocative paper Axil - but can it be relevant to Ni-H,
given the energies involved?
That is the $64 question. In short, do oxygen atoms accelerated to 10s of
MeV indicate that anything similar will happen when 10 million times less
energy is employed, such as in LENR?
In this paper - the beam used is almost 80 MeV which is considered low
energy in accelerator physics, but is a factor of 10^8 more than the
'thermal triggering' of Rossi in the 350C range. That is one problem of
quoting the authors mention of the phrase low energy out of context.
Surprisingly, the answer could still be yes - in the sense that QM is
probability driven as opposed to thermodynamically driven. Yet, it is not
black-and-white comparison in this case, since there is only the one paper
standing on its own. But still, enhanced tunneling of nuclear pairs is a
most intriguing hypothesis, and moreover, is more easily falsifiable in
LENR, than in hot physics.
However, another relevance to a nickel-based reactor, found in this
particular paper - where oxygen is the active reactant - could involve
oxygen pairing in nickel-oxide instead of, or in addition to, proton pairing
!
There is a double relevance, and that part too is falsifiable. But the
larger problem is that there is little indication that Rossi (or DGT) use
NiO nanometric powder (as opposed to Ni unoxidized). And Piantelli - who
is inaccurate about his pronouncements on so many issues (like argon), says
over and over oxygen in a no-no! He could NOT BE MORE WRONG!
In fact, several of us have read the soon-to-be published report - mentioned
by Brian Ahern to another group - where NiO nanopowder, which is
commercially available at 10 nm (from QSI) is extraordinarily active for
thermal gain. In fact it is the most active nanopowder ever tested in this
line of RD !
But caveat: it is far from Rossi's claimed results in terms of
watts-per-gram of reactant. And yet Piantelli, who is going sideways on many
issues, says that the reactor must be thorough purged many times to get rid
of nickel oxide! IOW - he wants to eliminate the most active ingredient.
What does it all mean? Do we see a hint of entanglement of one species
(proton pairs) bleeding over into entanglement of another (oxygen pairs)?
That is most provocative!
Side note, does that kind of double entanglement violate conservation of
miracles? g
In fact, given the implications of a QM probability field affecting a
spatial domain, it would seem at first like this kind of cross-entanglement
is conceptually possible - although to be honest, a quick googling turns up
nothing.
This is one more detail where a thorough isotopic analysis (from Sweden)
would solve many lingering issues. If nothing else, I hope that this
particular thread will convince Rossi that he can benefit from public
disclosure of this analysis ! Ask yourself this (Andrea, or Sven, or Hanno)
would you have recognized the significance of 18O if it should turns up in
your analysis?
I think not. Nor would anyone else prior to today likely notice of this
arcane detail, other than the few dozen specialist in Ivory-Towers somewhere
who have read the paper. It seems on its surface to have little relevance to
anything practical and who would have thought that paired protons tunnel far
easier than alphas?
The bottom line: None of us is as smart as all of us and it is extremely
doubtful that this important connection to Rossi/DGT/Thermacore, if it does
turn up in a thorough isotopic analysis, would even have been noticed
without direct access to this paper.
So thanks again Axil (even if you were right for the wrong reason :-))
Jones
From: Axil
Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
element nucleus with high probability in collisions with energies well below
those required to breach this barrier?
This curiosity has been observed is heavy low energy ion collision studies.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1393.pdf
This letter presents evidence that (1) 2p transfer (and
not _-particle transfer) is the dominant transfer process
leading to _Z = 2 events in the reaction 16O+208Pb at
energies well below the fusion barrier, and (2) 2p transfer
is significantly enhanced compared to predictions assum-
ing the sequential transfer of uncorrelated protons, with
absolute probabilities as high as those of 1p transfer at
energies near the fusion barrier.
Measurements of transfer probabilities in various reac-
tions and at energies near the fusion barrier have there-
fore been utilized to investigate the role of pairing corre-
lations between the transferred nucleons. Pairing effects
are believed to lead to a significant enhancement of pair
and multi-pair transfer probabilities [2, 4{7]. Closely re-
lated to the phenomenon of pairing correlations is the
nuclear Josephson effect [8], which is understood as the
tunneling of nucleon pairs (i.e. nuclear Cooper-pairs)
through a time-dependent barrier at energies near
[Vo]:Ian Bryce's Agenda
Hi Vortex, as it seems, Ian Bryce got hold of the possiblities of the Internet and tries to spread his word... He makes appearances in some of the Ecat-News-Site's comment sections as well as, e.g., on the Defkalion forum. To be honest - i am a little bit surprised by the effort that he puts into of spreading his prove (or whatever you wanna call it). I am currently thinking about his motivation. 1. He is a philanthropist and wants to save people from wasting their money. 2. He is just what he claims to be: A skeptic and wants to spread the word... 3. He has some kind of hidden agenda...? Although I don't know what this might be... Perhaps he was mocked by some Ecat-fanboys...? ;) I am just curious about the fact that he seemingly posts everywhere that he finds the opportunity to do so. Especially with the kind of prove that he got (there is nothing new, some of the things seem to be based on speculations and the rest is word of mouth). Details can be seen in http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=956 Also I wonder how a person which claims to have lectured for 7 years and holds a BSc (physics) and a BE (Hons), bases his prove on claims and word of mouth instead of really doing his homework, looking at the numbers and facts and then, based on that, draw conclusions. But perhaps this is, what skepticism is all about today: If you cannot prove the definitive existence of the thing, you have to be against it absolutely. There is no room for for interpretation. Wolf
[Vo]:The Antagonists - Documentary about CF History.
The Antagonists is a better-directed epithet. Although pseudo-skeptics does capture an important dimension of the crime against humanity, it doesn't get as close to the heart of the matter. Perhaps a phrase involving establishment would be even better. The Inquisitors might be better than The Antagonists. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: sorry, the correct link is http://www.137films.org/NewsDetailPage/Work-in-progress-screening.aspx Harry On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: - http://www.137films.org/NewsDetailPage/Work-in-progress-screening. The Believers test screening February 11 Work-in-Progress Screening of The Believers at The Gene Siskel Film Center If you've been waiting to see our new film, The Believers, now is your chance! The Chicago Council on Science and Technology is presenting a work-in-progress screening of The Believers on Saturday, February 11 at noon at the Gene Siskel Film Center, and filmmakers Monica Ross and Clayton Brown will be in attendance for a Q A session after the film. You can attend for free by becoming a 137 Films Backer. Click here for information on how to do it. We hope to see you on February 11! --- Harry
Re: [Vo]:Ian Bryce's Agenda
This is annoying stuff. Years ago I would have tried to answer him but I am so tired of this nonsense I will not. This is particularly annoying: Re the waste water running down the drain – all nuclear processes create a long chain of isotopes, many of which have to be unstable and hence radioactive. To produce 3000 W as claimed would require at least 10 to the 12 reactions per second – leaving gross radioactivity. Scientists measured none above background. He knows nothing about cold fusion, and not much about fission reactors. The cooling water from the secondary loop at a nuclear plant is flushed into the ocean in Japan, and into the atmosphere in the U.S. The cooling water flowing through Rossi's device is comparable to the secondary cooling water in a fission reactor. it goes around the outside of the cell and does not touch the active material. - Jed
[Vo]:WL
I've a problem with the WL theory. I read carefully their published paper http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw. I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check. It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics. My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one million of millions V/m appears. Too much, I told myself. As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less. So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion. In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the square root. So the term to be evaluated reads: 4 |e| / 3 a^2 This term provides us with a numerical value equal to 7.63 V/m, that is 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper. That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold criteria for electron capture Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can not be produced. Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations? Best regards GDM
Re: [Vo]:WL
Right, the unit they are using is V/m, bohr darius is ~ 1/2*10^-10m. That gives ~50V for the bohr radius. The ionization energy for the H atom is 13.6V. But I think the value you cited is a bit smaller. 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com I've a problem with the WL theory. I read carefully their published paper http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw. I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check. It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics. My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one million of millions V/m appears. Too much, I told myself. As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less. So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion. In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the square root. So the term to be evaluated reads: 4 |e| / 3 a^2 This term provides us with a numerical value equal to 7.63 V/m, that is 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper. That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold criteria for electron capture Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can not be produced. Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations? Best regards GDM -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:WL
I mean 50V/(bohr radius) 2012/1/31 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com Right, the unit they are using is V/m, bohr darius is ~ 1/2*10^-10m. That gives ~50V for the bohr radius. The ionization energy for the H atom is 13.6V. But I think the value you cited is a bit smaller. 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com I've a problem with the WL theory. I read carefully their published paper http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw. I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check. It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics. My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one million of millions V/m appears. Too much, I told myself. As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less. So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion. In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the square root. So the term to be evaluated reads: 4 |e| / 3 a^2 This term provides us with a numerical value equal to 7.63 V/m, that is 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper. That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold criteria for electron capture Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can not be produced. Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations? Best regards GDM -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling
Let me address one issue that is muddled from prior posting - the significance of 18O ... (should it turn up in analysis) since the verbal description was a bit confused (my apology as I get up very early and it takes a while for the caffeine to take effect). * This is one more detail where a thorough isotopic analysis (from Sweden) would solve many lingering issues. If nothing else, I hope that this particular thread will convince Rossi that he can benefit from public disclosure of this analysis ! Ask yourself this (Andrea, or Sven, or Hanno) would you have recognized the significance of 18O if it should turns up in your analysis? OK, First of all there is no indication that Rossi uses NiO at all, so it is unlikely that 18O or 16O will be found in any analysis other than as an assumed contaminant, and even then - before either isotope could be characterized, the researcher must be aware that this is an issue and look at the oxygen isotopes specifically. The natural assumption is that any oxygen seen would be a contaminant so it would be ignored. If and when oxygen is analyzed: the natural ratio of 18O to16O is about ~2 parts per thousand, and if it were found to be significantly different in a sample of used nickel - then it could indicate one of several possible reactions. There is one reaction in particular that could leave little trace in terms of radioactive ash. Specifically - and extrapolating from the paper in the previous thread, we might find a scenario where paired oxygen ions tunnel into the nickel electron cloud, and then towards the nucleus, via the Coulomb well of the heavy 64Ni - and only one of the two oxygen nuclei gets a slingshot boost towards a point where it can take away two neutrons from the anomalously heavy nickel halo nucleus, leaving 62Ni and 18O. This is the only ash. It is not radioactive. The reaction can be endothermic on paper and still produce excess heat since the tunneling is free and mass is converted. The reason that only 64Ni would work for this scenario is negation of some of the normal Coulomb repulsion (positive charge) of the nucleus, in that the near-field would be partially shielded due to the extra neutrons (two of which are eventually shed). As mentioned, this particular isotope 64Ni is a singularity in the periodic table, having the highest percentage of excess neutron mass of any metal (using the criterion of ratio of excess mass of the isotope, compared to the mass of the most stable isotope of that element). Yes, this reaction is beyond bizarre, on the scale of things in hot physics - and the probability of it happening is remote (to the mainstream). You will not find it mentioned anywhere else. But the probability of this happening is not quite as remote as the probability of achieving many month (or even days) of robust thermal gain from an E-Cat... (not yet proved MY). Jones To answer a lingering question raised previously: No, the nucleus that is tunneling (usually protons but here we mention oxygen nuclei) does not know how to find the heavy nucleon (i.e. 64 Ni). In fact, sequential and rapid (but unsuccessful) tunneling occurs in all isotopes, all the time. Nuclear tunneling where any net gain or loss is noticed is extremely low probability normally. Electron tunneling is commonplace. The two can work together. Tunneling of both varieties is a continuous background reaction; and it has no net effect unless the reactant can occasionally get close enough for QCD probabilities to materialize due to quark alignment. This only happens with 64Ni (in this hypothesis) and no other nickel isotope, due to the excess mass singularity. attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:Operation MiG-22 and Celani comments.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=www.greenstyle.it%2FFe-cat-greco-defkalion-mostra-in-video-lhyperion-in-funzione-7299.html http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=enrurl=translate.google.comsl=autotl=enu=http://22passi.blogspot.com/2012/01/ancora-una-email-da-francesco-celani.htmlusg=ALkJrhj8tEVWcuuMjkStbvpP7wKdHBRGBQ In the first link, great information on Passerini fundraising for a visit to Defkalion, Celani's upcoming visit to CERN. In the second link, Celani further discusses the negative temperature coefficient of resistivity: comparison's to Esaki's tunnel diodes.
[Vo]:LENR research posted at CERN
searching LENR on the CERN website http://cernsearch.web.cern.ch/cernsearch/Default.aspx?query=LENRcollections=WebPages|People|CDS|Indico|TwikiPages Harry
Re: [Vo]:LENR research posted at CERN
CERN used to store preprint like the arxiv. Not anymore, as far as I know. These are one of these old files. Nothing new too see here... 2012/1/31 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com searching LENR on the CERN website http://cernsearch.web.cern.ch/cernsearch/Default.aspx?query=LENRcollections=WebPages|People|CDS|Indico|TwikiPages Harry -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling
Jones, I still share some of Piantelli's fear of oxidizing the reactants instead of oscillating back and forth between molecular and atomic forms of hydrogen like Moller and Lyne proscribe. I can understand that other endless reactions including oxygen may be possible that still harness these same changes in geometry and dispersion forces. If the reaction is clean and reversible without adversely affecting the surrounding geometry or Casimir quality factor then I can accept oxygen as beneficial to the process. The fear was that the oxides would plate out as a solid and not be able to migrate as a gas between changing values of geometry to reverse the reaction. [snip] who would have thought that paired protons tunnel far easier than alphas?[/snip] I never went so far as to suggest that hydrinos are entangled but my relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect [based on Naudts paper on the hydrino as relativistic hydrogen] did lead me to suggest that the fractional orbits were displaced on the time axis and that the columb barrier might be reduced between hydrogen with different fractional values. I suspect that the molecular bond of fractional h2 can temporarily maintain the fractional value of h2 even when the relativistic value induced by the local Ni geometry changes. This then would allow for a fractional h1 that translates instantly to reflect the local geometry to collide with a fractional h2 of a different fractional value [a temporal axis displacement]. It is this temporal displacement that I believe allowed Naudts to use math normally reserved for photons that can occupy the same state because from our perspective they occupy the same spatial coordinates only displaced on the time axis. This time axis displacement is also what I posit reduces the columb barrier where the protons displacement beach other is both spatial and temporal allowing the spatial displacement to fall much lower than normal without opposition. Regards Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 9:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling Wow, this is a provocative paper Axil - but can it be relevant to Ni-H, given the energies involved? That is the $64 question. In short, do oxygen atoms accelerated to 10s of MeV indicate that anything similar will happen when 10 million times less energy is employed, such as in LENR? In this paper - the beam used is almost 80 MeV which is considered low energy in accelerator physics, but is a factor of 10^8 more than the 'thermal triggering' of Rossi in the 350C range. That is one problem of quoting the authors mention of the phrase low energy out of context. Surprisingly, the answer could still be yes - in the sense that QM is probability driven as opposed to thermodynamically driven. Yet, it is not black-and-white comparison in this case, since there is only the one paper standing on its own. But still, enhanced tunneling of nuclear pairs is a most intriguing hypothesis, and moreover, is more easily falsifiable in LENR, than in hot physics. However, another relevance to a nickel-based reactor, found in this particular paper - where oxygen is the active reactant - could involve oxygen pairing in nickel-oxide instead of, or in addition to, proton pairing ! There is a double relevance, and that part too is falsifiable. But the larger problem is that there is little indication that Rossi (or DGT) use NiO nanometric powder (as opposed to Ni unoxidized). And Piantelli - who is inaccurate about his pronouncements on so many issues (like argon), says over and over oxygen in a no-no! He could NOT BE MORE WRONG! In fact, several of us have read the soon-to-be published report - mentioned by Brian Ahern to another group - where NiO nanopowder, which is commercially available at 10 nm (from QSI) is extraordinarily active for thermal gain. In fact it is the most active nanopowder ever tested in this line of RD ! But caveat: it is far from Rossi's claimed results in terms of watts-per-gram of reactant. And yet Piantelli, who is going sideways on many issues, says that the reactor must be thorough purged many times to get rid of nickel oxide! IOW - he wants to eliminate the most active ingredient. What does it all mean? Do we see a hint of entanglement of one species (proton pairs) bleeding over into entanglement of another (oxygen pairs)? That is most provocative! Side note, does that kind of double entanglement violate conservation of miracles? g In fact, given the implications of a QM probability field affecting a spatial domain, it would seem at first like this kind of cross-entanglement is conceptually possible - although to be honest, a quick googling turns up nothing. This is one more detail where a thorough isotopic analysis (from Sweden) would solve many lingering
Re: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling
Wow, this is a provocative paper Axil - but can it be relevant to Ni-H, given the energies involved? The paper we are discussing indicates to me that superconductive processes exist even at many millions of degrees in temperature. IOW, Quantum mechanical tunneling can exist in super-hot places. This tunneling process may even exist inside the sun where it makes nuclear reactions that should not happen…proceed with great vigor. LENR may well be a kind of superconductivity, where proton pair formation and associated tunneling is a key causative agent. If tunneling through the coulomb barrier happens at extreme temperatures, then it is logical to suspect that this superconductive quantum mechanical process will become even more productive and probable as the temperatures fall. In a nutshell, quantum theory tells us that two entangled particles behave as a single physical object, no matter how far apart they are. This effect leads to quantum nonlocality. To make a long story short, it is as if quantum particles live outside space-time – and experiments confirm this. It seems to me that the ability of entangled protons to tunnel is increased in proportion as the numbers of pairs join an increasingly huge and growing macro-entangled assemblage. This does not happen at extreme temperatures but will happen at “Rossi reactor operating temperatures” This new theory informs us about how some perplexing and puzzling processes happen in a NiH reactor. In my mind, one of the important and mysterious unanswered questions in the behavior of the NiH reactor is how a NiH reactor meltdown occurs. More specifically this story may well go as follows: the increased power produced in a Ni-H reaction as the temperature increases beyond a critical limit even to and beyond the meltdown threshold may well be caused by the increase in collision speed between the given proton pair and the increasing blackbody vibrational speed of the nickel atom confined in the lattice. There may well be a large reservoir of entangled proton pairs formed by the micro powder that will cause a high temperature reaction beyond the melting point of nickel. In other words, the micro powder creates a supply of proton pairs stored in an abundant backlog to such an extended level that once ignited will cause the destruction of the powder that produced it. This example illustrates what may happen. First a billion proton pairs are formed in and around the micro-powder. In steady state operation, the Brownian motion in the nickel lattice produces a steady state fusion level in which the NiH reactor produces power at a constant rate. For some reason...say operator error, a temperature rise increases the collision rate between the proton pairs and the nickel atoms in the lattice. The reaction reinforces itself because more heat begets more collision based fusions which produce even more heat. The powder will melt, at 700C but the reaction does not depend on the powder to continue; it uses the backlog of proton pairs that have built up over time. The reaction continues up to the melting point of bulk nickel and continues until the backlog of proton pairs are reduced below the reaction threshold. So the job of the Micro powder is to produce proton pairs in abundance and not to cause the fusion reaction. This temperature based reaction will happen even when the nickel is reduced to the bulk state. In addition, the effect of the Radio frequency generator may well be to magnetically stabilize the vibrational rate of the proton pair ensemble whose constant EM frequency affects a steadying of the rate of fusion reactions thus discouraging a meltdown runaway. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Wow, this is a provocative paper Axil - but can it be relevant to Ni-H, given the energies involved? That is the $64 question. In short, do oxygen atoms accelerated to 10s of MeV indicate that anything similar will happen when 10 million times less energy is employed, such as in LENR? In this paper - the beam used is almost 80 MeV which is considered low energy in accelerator physics, but is a factor of 10^8 more than the 'thermal triggering' of Rossi in the 350C range. That is one problem of quoting the authors mention of the phrase low energy out of context. Surprisingly, the answer could still be yes - in the sense that QM is probability driven as opposed to thermodynamically driven. Yet, it is not black-and-white comparison in this case, since there is only the one paper standing on its own. But still, enhanced tunneling of nuclear pairs is a most intriguing hypothesis, and moreover, is more easily falsifiable in LENR, than in hot physics. However, another relevance to a nickel-based reactor, found in this particular paper - where oxygen is the active reactant - could involve oxygen pairing in nickel-oxide instead of, or in addition to, proton pairing ! There is
[Vo]:Rama Found?
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/28/world/europe/swedish-shipwreck-hunters/index.html eep down on the bottom of the Baltic Sea, Swedish treasure hunters think they have made the find of a lifetime. The problem is, they're not exactly sure what it is they've uncovered. Out searching for shipwrecks at a secret location between Sweden and Finland, the deep-sea salvage company Ocean Explorer captured an incredible image more than 80 meters below the water's surface. At first glance, team leader and commercial diver Peter Lindberg joked that his crew had just discovered an unidentified flying object, or UFO. I have been doing this for nearly 20 years so I have a seen a few objects on the bottom, but nothing like this, said Lindberg. We had been out for nine days and we were quite tired and we were on our way home, but we made a final run with a sonar fish and suddenly this thing turned up, he continued. Using side-scan sonar, the team found a 60-meter diameter cylinder-shaped object, with a rigid tail 400 meters long. The imaging technique involves pulling a sonar towfish -- that essentially looks sideways underwater - behind a boat, where it creates sound echoes to map the sea floor below. On another pass over the object, the sonar showed a second disc-like shape 200 meters away. more
Re: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling
A few more items if you please… Rossi said that once his reaction was going out of control, Levi injected Nitrogen to stop the reaction. Piantelli used deuterium and later Nitrogen. I think Argon will serve this function as well. The reason these gases will stop the reaction is because they short circuit and destroy the coherence of the proton pairs. Also, this is the reason why DGT must flush the hydrogen envelop periodically. Nitrogen, oxygen, argon and other trace amount of gases will eventually poison the reaction by suppressing the proton pair formation process. In the DGT maintenance procedure, the powder also must be cleaned by vacuum cleaned of trace gases regularly to keep the powder fresh in terms of quantum mechanical proton pair coherence formation capability. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Wow, this is a provocative paper Axil - but can it be relevant to Ni-H, given the energies involved? The paper we are discussing indicates to me that superconductive processes exist even at many millions of degrees in temperature. IOW, Quantum mechanical tunneling can exist in super-hot places. This tunneling process may even exist inside the sun where it makes nuclear reactions that should not happen…proceed with great vigor. LENR may well be a kind of superconductivity, where proton pair formation and associated tunneling is a key causative agent. If tunneling through the coulomb barrier happens at extreme temperatures, then it is logical to suspect that this superconductive quantum mechanical process will become even more productive and probable as the temperatures fall. In a nutshell, quantum theory tells us that two entangled particles behave as a single physical object, no matter how far apart they are. This effect leads to quantum nonlocality. To make a long story short, it is as if quantum particles live outside space-time – and experiments confirm this. It seems to me that the ability of entangled protons to tunnel is increased in proportion as the numbers of pairs join an increasingly huge and growing macro-entangled assemblage. This does not happen at extreme temperatures but will happen at “Rossi reactor operating temperatures” This new theory informs us about how some perplexing and puzzling processes happen in a NiH reactor. In my mind, one of the important and mysterious unanswered questions in the behavior of the NiH reactor is how a NiH reactor meltdown occurs. More specifically this story may well go as follows: the increased power produced in a Ni-H reaction as the temperature increases beyond a critical limit even to and beyond the meltdown threshold may well be caused by the increase in collision speed between the given proton pair and the increasing blackbody vibrational speed of the nickel atom confined in the lattice. There may well be a large reservoir of entangled proton pairs formed by the micro powder that will cause a high temperature reaction beyond the melting point of nickel. In other words, the micro powder creates a supply of proton pairs stored in an abundant backlog to such an extended level that once ignited will cause the destruction of the powder that produced it. This example illustrates what may happen. First a billion proton pairs are formed in and around the micro-powder. In steady state operation, the Brownian motion in the nickel lattice produces a steady state fusion level in which the NiH reactor produces power at a constant rate. For some reason...say operator error, a temperature rise increases the collision rate between the proton pairs and the nickel atoms in the lattice. The reaction reinforces itself because more heat begets more collision based fusions which produce even more heat. The powder will melt, at 700C but the reaction does not depend on the powder to continue; it uses the backlog of proton pairs that have built up over time. The reaction continues up to the melting point of bulk nickel and continues until the backlog of proton pairs are reduced below the reaction threshold. So the job of the Micro powder is to produce proton pairs in abundance and not to cause the fusion reaction. This temperature based reaction will happen even when the nickel is reduced to the bulk state. In addition, the effect of the Radio frequency generator may well be to magnetically stabilize the vibrational rate of the proton pair ensemble whose constant EM frequency affects a steadying of the rate of fusion reactions thus discouraging a meltdown runaway. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Wow, this is a provocative paper Axil - but can it be relevant to Ni-H, given the energies involved? That is the $64 question. In short, do oxygen atoms accelerated to 10s of MeV indicate that anything similar will happen when 10 million times less energy is employed, such
Re: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling
How would you explain the double pulse in the DGT video? T
[Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
At the denouement of the recent kerfuffle here, Bill Beaty wrote a message to Mary Yugo that described the situation perfectly. It is a sort of pocket history of the cold fusion dispute. A haiku history, if you will. It was quoted in the Defkalion forum. It is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg62237.html He nailed it. I could not agree more. - Jed
[Vo]:Information on Defkalion
From the forum, here is a document in Greek: http://www.metaphysics.gr/metaforum/viewtopic.php?t=675postdays=0postorder=ascstart=10 Google does a good translation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling
In the context of the theory we are discussing and as a speculation, the temperature of the proton pairs is directly proportional to the rate of fusion with nickel. Accordingly, the temperature (Brownian vibration frequency) of the proton pairs can be adjusted using an increased (higher) frequency output from the frequency generator. An upward adjustment of this frequency will produce an increased probability of tunneling and an associated increase in the fusion rate. The purpose of this DGT experiment may well be to see how responsively the NiH reaction can follow adjustments in the frequency generators output in terms of increased frequency output. This is important to quantify as it is an important input to the computerized control system software setup. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: How would you explain the double pulse in the DGT video? T
[Vo]:Name that tune
At 1:23 in the DGT video - there is seen a blue and yellow block on the floor with wires going to the variac. What is it?
Re: [Vo]:Information on Defkalion
Who run the Defkalion SA? George Sortikos CEO Engineer. . Former banker and industrialist (ceramic high tech). Former Chairman of State Bank ETVA (Greek Bank of Industrial Development) ’80-’90 and founder of Omega Bank ’90. . He was also chairman of the TIF (International Fair of Thessaloniki). David Christian Aurel CEO Swiss Banker with extensive experience in project finance and logistics. Former president of Bank of Montenegro. ———– Alexander Xanthoulis Board Member Economist (Macroeconomics). Greek-Canadian. Former official of the EU heads the Energy and Financial Reconstruction of the EU delegation in Central Asia (90). Chris Stremmenos Board Member Chemical Engineer. Professor (retired) at the University of Bologna, Italy, former ambassador of Greece to Italy. John Hatzichristos Board Member Mathematician. Extensive experience in software development, Management Information Systems and Project Management. From 1992 to 1999 he served as CEO of computer systems Telemedia SA, while from 1991 to 1992 general manager of software systems Cibar AU. From 1990 to 1991 he worked at Marketing Sales Intrasoft SA as a responsible banking sector. - Mouafak Saouachni Board Member Doctor Ophthalmologist. Greek-Israeli. Former member of the National Council of PASOK. - Andreas Drougas Board Member Mathematics / Computer Systems. Former Executive Director in LARCO (Greek nickel mining company, now owned by the State), wide experience as a consultant on business management and information technology. Larco is a leading producer of ferronickel o in Europe and one of the five largest producers worldwide. The Larco explores, extracts, produces and sells its product worldwide. On 2/1/12, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: From the forum, here is a document in Greek: http://www.metaphysics.gr/metaforum/viewtopic.php?t=675postdays=0postorder=ascstart=10 Google does a good translation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:WL
can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the author. maybe is there a typo in the formulas, is it corrected in a newer version? i confirm the computation beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway. the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9... maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf in(89) I see the same huge looking like a mistake (I compute 4.55V/m) and same for 87 maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine, and I could not check units coherency it is a key point, and I hope they check it. it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed. note that in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge diameter (8.8e-16m) while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m officially so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem... his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding... have to find a professionnal 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com I've a problem with the WL theory. I read carefully their published paper http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw. I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check. It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics. My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one million of millions V/m appears. Too much, I told myself. As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less. So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion. In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the square root. So the term to be evaluated reads: 4 |e| / 3 a^2 This term provides us with a numerical value equal to 7.63 V/m, that is 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper. That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold criteria for electron capture Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can not be produced. Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations? Best regards GDM
Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
Jed: This post prompted a reply from Maryugo. Since MY is banned here and at the Defkalion site and since I converse with MY (by email) occasionally, she sent me her reply to Bill Beaty which I presume he received and did not elect to post. She has requested that I post her reply and I hesitate principally because this site has a right in my opinion to censor and a right to ban and if Bill has decided to both ban and censor MY, I conclude that I too would be in violation of his censor and ban on this occasion if I without authority posted her response. However, I am sympathetic with the rights of someone to defend themselves (being a lawyer) and it seems to me that if members of this site continue to post about MY, maybe she should be given a limited right to respond. Further, while I deem MY to be annoyingly repetitive, had she only occasionally pointed out the problem with the current state of Mr. Rossi's affairs, I for one would not have been troubled. MY does make valid points, it is just after reading the same point about 1,000 times, one has to say ENOUGH. I hesitated to join the Vortex because I see it as a what if site dedicated to discussing the possible science behind Cold Fusion (I like that Moniker better then LENR) and I am not really qualified (as a lawyer) to add much. However, even before joining I reviewed to posts almost daily and really enjoy the dialogue which has improved since the banning. I think site works best assuming Cold Fusion is real and dialoguing about why it works. Anyway, I leave it to Bill and the other members of Vortex as to whether I post MY's reply. If the answer is NO, I have it available for anyone interested. Ransom - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:20 PM Subject: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power At the denouement of the recent kerfuffle here, Bill Beaty wrote a message to Mary Yugo that described the situation perfectly. It is a sort of pocket history of the cold fusion dispute. A haiku history, if you will. It was quoted in the Defkalion forum. It is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg62237.html He nailed it. I could not agree more. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The purpose of this DGT experiment may well be to see how responsively the NiH reaction can follow adjustments in the frequency generators output in terms of increased frequency output. But, they claim they use no RFG and none was evident in the video. T
Re: [Vo]:Name that tune
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: At 1:23 in the DGT video - there is seen a blue and yellow block on the floor with wires going to the variac. What is it? An isolation (1:1) transformer is my guess. T
RE: [Vo]:The Antagonists - Documentary about CF History.
What about a sequel called the Agonists ... a documentary about the drama of ditto-skepticism on the vortex forum... up to the infamous Purge of 2012 ... Agony being the operative word and 'Agonism' being the political doctrine of embracing conflict and acknowledging the positive value of inherent discord, including bloody debates, nasty name-calling, and class warfare... or better yet, what about a hairy tragedy: Vortex Agonistes :-) The punage being a nod to Milton's Samson Agonistes known in Lit circles as a closet drama. No kidding - the term tragic closet drama it is apt for the times, no? ... at least it is pretty clear that we were never intended to perform onstage. On the brighter side, Milton's classic was followed by Paradise Regained ... and just as we are enacting the Last Temptation of Rossi... In forty days we will know if the Snake wins, or the new chosen-one is to be with us in these final days ... From: James Bowery The Antagonists is a better-directed epithet. Although pseudo-skeptics does capture an important dimension of the crime against humanity, it doesn't get as close to the heart of the matter. Perhaps a phrase involving establishment would be even better. The Inquisitors might be better than The Antagonists. Harry Veeder wrote: http://www.137films.org/NewsDetailPage/Work-in-progress-screening. The Believers test screening February 11 Work-in-Progress Screening of The Believers at The Gene Siskel Film Center If you've been waiting to see our new film, The Believers, now is your chance! The Chicago Council on Science and Technology is presenting a work-in-progress screening of The Believers on Saturday, February 11 at noon at the Gene Siskel Film Center, and filmmakers Monica Ross and Clayton Brown will be in attendance for a Q A session after the film. You can attend for free by becoming a 137 Films Backer. Click here for information on how to do it. We hope to see you on February 11! --- Harry attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:WL
They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius. That seems correct. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the author. maybe is there a typo in the formulas, is it corrected in a newer version? i confirm the computation beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway. the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9... maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf in(89) I see the same huge looking like a mistake (I compute 4.55V/m) and same for 87 maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine, and I could not check units coherency it is a key point, and I hope they check it. it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed. note that in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge diameter (8.8e-16m) while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m officially so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem... his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding... have to find a professionnal 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com I've a problem with the WL theory. I read carefully their published paper http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw. I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check. It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics. My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one million of millions V/m appears. Too much, I told myself. As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less. So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion. In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the square root. So the term to be evaluated reads: 4 |e| / 3 a^2 This term provides us with a numerical value equal to 7.63 V/m, that is 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper. That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold criteria for electron capture Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can not be produced. Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations? Best regards GDM
Re: [Vo]:WL
I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to learn more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and understand their main content. I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are describing in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed in a electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small displacement u. The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a distance on the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 as a definition of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this quantity is used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio between small displacement and this a. So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if the small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on). Nothing wrong in the equation. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.comwrote: They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius. That seems correct. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the author. maybe is there a typo in the formulas, is it corrected in a newer version? i confirm the computation beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway. the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9... maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf in(89) I see the same huge looking like a mistake (I compute 4.55V/m) and same for 87 maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine, and I could not check units coherency it is a key point, and I hope they check it. it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed. note that in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge diameter (8.8e-16m) while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m officially so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem... his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding... have to find a professionnal 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com I've a problem with the WL theory. I read carefully their published paper http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw. I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check. It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics. My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one million of millions V/m appears. Too much, I told myself. As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less. So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion. In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the square root. So the term to be evaluated reads: 4 |e| / 3 a^2 This term provides us with a numerical value equal to 7.63 V/m, that is 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper. That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold criteria for electron capture Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can not be produced. Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations? Best regards GDM
RE: [Vo]:Name that tune
Mine too, and now ... the real reason for this inquiry - why do you need one? Coincidentally, as you mentioned in the preceding message, they claim NOT to use an RFG. Which technically does not mean they do not have a fair amount of RF noise in the reactor, does it? It means only that they have no dedicated RF generator. There are other reasons for having an isolation transformer than to protect your Variac and other instruments and computers from a source of disruptive electrical spikes, so it's not a smoking gun - but is there a good reason not to suspect either a spark gap or glow discharge arrangement inside the reactor somewhere? After all, if we were talking about resistance heating elements (ala AR) being your thermal input and your P-in, then an isolation transformer would not be needed, correct ? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton At 1:23 in the DGT video - there is seen a blue and yellow block on the floor with wires going to the variac. What is it? An isolation (1:1) transformer is my guess.
Re: [Vo]:Name that tune
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Mine too, and now ... the real reason for this inquiry - why do you need one? You normally use an isolation transformer to avoid earthing the load. That way you avoid ground loops. Why they use it could be as you surmise; but, variacs are fairly rugged. Yes, there could be a lot of RF noise in the reactor. I'll ask them. T
Re: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling
Some excitant caused a temperature spike, and a temperature based excitation would be very gradual and not quenched. This leads to the assumption that the excitant is fast acting an easily quenched; one that can be turned off and on quickly. The excitant most probably is a electrical based one, magnetic, electrostatic, spark discharge, photonic or the like. I still think that the FR is a possibility. What one person in an organization said yesterday does not apply to what another one may be doing today. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The purpose of this DGT experiment may well be to see how responsively the NiH reaction can follow adjustments in the frequency generators output in terms of increased frequency output. But, they claim they use no RFG and none was evident in the video. T
Re: [Vo]:WL
Well, the electric field makes sense if that 10^12V/m has the size of an atom bohr, not of a proton. Just scale that field for that of bohr atom, r~5*10^-11m, which gives 2V/bohr atom. That's not far away from a typical working function of a metal. 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to learn more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and understand their main content. I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are describing in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed in a electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small displacement u. The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a distance on the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 as a definition of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this quantity is used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio between small displacement and this a. So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if the small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on). Nothing wrong in the equation. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius. That seems correct. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the author. maybe is there a typo in the formulas, is it corrected in a newer version? i confirm the computation beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway. the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9... maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf in(89) I see the same huge looking like a mistake (I compute 4.55V/m) and same for 87 maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine, and I could not check units coherency it is a key point, and I hope they check it. it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed. note that in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge diameter (8.8e-16m) while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m officially so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem... his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding... have to find a professionnal 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com I've a problem with the WL theory. I read carefully their published paper http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw. I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check. It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics. My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one million of millions V/m appears. Too much, I told myself. As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less. So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion. In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the square root. So the term to be evaluated reads: 4 |e| / 3 a^2 This term provides us with a numerical value equal to 7.63 V/m, that is 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper. That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold criteria for electron capture Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can not be produced. Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations? Best regards GDM -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
NO, for goodness sake! 2012/1/31 Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com ** Jed: This post prompted a reply from Maryugo. Since MY is banned here and at the Defkalion site and since I converse with MY (by email) occasionally, she sent me her reply to Bill Beaty which I presume he received and did not elect to post. She has requested that I post her reply and I hesitate principally because this site has a right in my opinion to censor and a right to ban and if Bill has decided to both ban and censor MY, I conclude that I too would be in violation of his censor and ban on this occasion if I without authority posted her response. However, I am sympathetic with the rights of someone to defend themselves (being a lawyer) and it seems to me that if members of this site continue to post about MY, maybe she should be given a limited right to respond. Further, while I deem MY to be annoyingly repetitive, had she only occasionally pointed out the problem with the current state of Mr. Rossi's affairs, I for one would not have been troubled. MY does make valid points, it is just after reading the same point about 1,000 times, one has to say ENOUGH. I hesitated to join the Vortex because I see it as a what if site dedicated to discussing the possible science behind Cold Fusion (I like that Moniker better then LENR) and I am not really qualified (as a lawyer) to add much. However, even before joining I reviewed to posts almost daily and really enjoy the dialogue which has improved since the banning. I think site works best assuming Cold Fusion is real and dialoguing about why it works. Anyway, I leave it to Bill and the other members of Vortex as to whether I post MY's reply. If the answer is NO, I have it available for anyone interested. Ransom - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:20 PM *Subject:* [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power At the denouement of the recent kerfuffle here, Bill Beaty wrote a message to Mary Yugo that described the situation perfectly. It is a sort of pocket history of the cold fusion dispute. A haiku history, if you will. It was quoted in the Defkalion forum. It is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg62237.html He nailed it. I could not agree more. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:WL
for srivastava paper, equation (25) is not clear about a value but for the 2006 w-l papers (25) they preted a value of a which does nor match the result... a=50nm (about bohr radius), but the computation seemes to use around a femtometer (proton size). anyway now all the papers, seems coherent if a=~1fm (the charge size of a proton) anyway, this does not seems to hurt critics, who moans on other subjects ( http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/critique/GrabiakCritique-Widom-LarsenFeb4-2010.pdf...) 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to learn more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and understand their main content. I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are describing in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed in a electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small displacement u. The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a distance on the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 as a definition of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this quantity is used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio between small displacement and this a. So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if the small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on). Nothing wrong in the equation. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius. That seems correct. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the author. maybe is there a typo in the formulas, is it corrected in a newer version? i confirm the computation beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway. the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9... maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf in(89) I see the same huge looking like a mistake (I compute 4.55V/m) and same for 87 maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine, and I could not check units coherency it is a key point, and I hope they check it. it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed. note that in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge diameter (8.8e-16m) while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m officially so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem... his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding... have to find a professionnal 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com I've a problem with the WL theory. I read carefully their published paper http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw. I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check. It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics. My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one million of millions V/m appears. Too much, I told myself. As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less. So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion. In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the square root. So the term to be evaluated reads: 4 |e| / 3 a^2 This term provides us with a numerical value equal to 7.63 V/m, that is 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper. That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold criteria for electron capture Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can not be produced. Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations? Best regards GDM
Re: [Vo]:WL
We can analyze the paper together, but what is discussed in that section is what happens when an electron is absorbed inside a proton. The proton would oscillate because of the presence of the electric field distributed over the volume of the proton. So the relevant scale is the size of a proton. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Well, the electric field makes sense if that 10^12V/m has the size of an atom bohr, not of a proton. Just scale that field for that of bohr atom, r~5*10^-11m, which gives 2V/bohr atom. That's not far away from a typical working function of a metal. 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to learn more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and understand their main content. I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are describing in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed in a electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small displacement u. The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a distance on the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 as a definition of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this quantity is used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio between small displacement and this a. So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if the small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on). Nothing wrong in the equation. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius. That seems correct. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the author. maybe is there a typo in the formulas, is it corrected in a newer version? i confirm the computation beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway. the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9... maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf in(89) I see the same huge looking like a mistake (I compute 4.55V/m) and same for 87 maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine, and I could not check units coherency it is a key point, and I hope they check it. it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed. note that in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge diameter (8.8e-16m) while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m officially so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem... his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding... have to find a professionnal 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com I've a problem with the WL theory. I read carefully their published paper http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw. I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check. It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics. My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one million of millions V/m appears. Too much, I told myself. As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less. So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion. In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the square root. So the term to be evaluated reads: 4 |e| / 3 a^2 This term provides us with a numerical value equal to 7.63 V/m, that is 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper. That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold criteria for electron capture Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can not be produced. Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations? Best regards GDM -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot
Hi Brad Ive been able to purchase most of the instruments to do my own experiments on Ni H Because (as usual) money is tight , Im struggling to find a reasonable priced Element thatproduces 400 to 600 C , has hot zone of 100 mm and can handle a very high psi Can you recomend any products or companies that might fit the bill Thanks for you help Pete Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:48:34 -0800 Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot From: ecatbuil...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Ta-Da ... yes it is argon. It is a Mills catalyst, and we know they use it. Hold the champagne.. Piantelli says argon stops the nuclear process... http://www.rexresearch.com/piantelli/piantelli.htm In the pictures the yellow tubing appears to be for vacuum. But later in the video a tube goes into the T and out up towards the ceiling.. which hints towards venting.. not the addition of a secret gas ingredient. At 0:21 there is a picture of a lead going into the center of the reactor? Almost looks like a spark plug lead. High voltage? If I'm not mistaken, the variac goes into a big (blue with yellow stripe) transformer. (variac also appears to be on max). - Brad
Re: [Vo]:WL
Absorption, in WL, happens because of a mysterious collective oscillation of surface plasmons which cause some of the electrons to be tunnel into a proton, it's like thousands of plasmons together pushing 1 electron inside a 1 proton. The order of magnitude of plasmons is bound by the workfunction, otherwise, the electron would be removed from the metal. 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com We can analyze the paper together, but what is discussed in that section is what happens when an electron is absorbed inside a proton. The proton would oscillate because of the presence of the electric field distributed over the volume of the proton. So the relevant scale is the size of a proton. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Well, the electric field makes sense if that 10^12V/m has the size of an atom bohr, not of a proton. Just scale that field for that of bohr atom, r~5*10^-11m, which gives 2V/bohr atom. That's not far away from a typical working function of a metal. 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to learn more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and understand their main content. I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are describing in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed in a electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small displacement u. The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a distance on the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 as a definition of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this quantity is used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio between small displacement and this a. So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if the small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on). Nothing wrong in the equation. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius. That seems correct. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the author. maybe is there a typo in the formulas, is it corrected in a newer version? i confirm the computation beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway. the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9... maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf in(89) I see the same huge looking like a mistake (I compute 4.55V/m) and same for 87 maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine, and I could not check units coherency it is a key point, and I hope they check it. it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed. note that in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge diameter (8.8e-16m) while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m officially so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem... his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding... have to find a professionnal 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com I've a problem with the WL theory. I read carefully their published paper http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw. I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check. It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics. My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one million of millions V/m appears. Too much, I told myself. As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less. So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion. In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the square root. So the term to be evaluated reads: 4 |e| / 3 a^2 This term provides us with a numerical value equal to 7.63 V/m, that is 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper. That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold criteria for electron capture Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can not be produced. Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations? Best regards GDM -- Daniel Rocha - RJ
Re: [Vo]:WL
Ok, let me read the paper and reply. I need to understand it better. But what I said before it is right in terms of using 25) to define a. To make sense of the numbers then a has to be on the order of a nucleus. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Absorption, in WL, happens because of a mysterious collective oscillation of surface plasmons which cause some of the electrons to be tunnel into a proton, it's like thousands of plasmons together pushing 1 electron inside a 1 proton. The order of magnitude of plasmons is bound by the workfunction, otherwise, the electron would be removed from the metal. 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com We can analyze the paper together, but what is discussed in that section is what happens when an electron is absorbed inside a proton. The proton would oscillate because of the presence of the electric field distributed over the volume of the proton. So the relevant scale is the size of a proton. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Well, the electric field makes sense if that 10^12V/m has the size of an atom bohr, not of a proton. Just scale that field for that of bohr atom, r~5*10^-11m, which gives 2V/bohr atom. That's not far away from a typical working function of a metal. 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to learn more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and understand their main content. I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are describing in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed in a electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small displacement u. The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a distance on the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 as a definition of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this quantity is used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio between small displacement and this a. So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if the small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on). Nothing wrong in the equation. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius. That seems correct. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the author. maybe is there a typo in the formulas, is it corrected in a newer version? i confirm the computation beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway. the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9... maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf in(89) I see the same huge looking like a mistake (I compute 4.55V/m) and same for 87 maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine, and I could not check units coherency it is a key point, and I hope they check it. it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed. note that in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge diameter (8.8e-16m) while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m officially so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem... his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding... have to find a professionnal 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com I've a problem with the WL theory. I read carefully their published paper http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw. I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check. It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics. My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one million of millions V/m appears. Too much, I told myself. As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less. So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion. In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the square root. So the term to be evaluated reads: 4 |e| / 3 a^2 This term provides us with a numerical value equal to 7.63 V/m, that is 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper. That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the
Re: [Vo]:WL
Well, 10^11 - 10^12 seems to be the right order of magnitude for the electric field to trap a surface electron. At the classical proton radius, ~2fm, it should be around 10^(~-22)V/M. 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com Ok, let me read the paper and reply. I need to understand it better. But what I said before it is right in terms of using 25) to define a. To make sense of the numbers then a has to be on the order of a nucleus. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Absorption, in WL, happens because of a mysterious collective oscillation of surface plasmons which cause some of the electrons to be tunnel into a proton, it's like thousands of plasmons together pushing 1 electron inside a 1 proton. The order of magnitude of plasmons is bound by the workfunction, otherwise, the electron would be removed from the metal. 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com We can analyze the paper together, but what is discussed in that section is what happens when an electron is absorbed inside a proton. The proton would oscillate because of the presence of the electric field distributed over the volume of the proton. So the relevant scale is the size of a proton. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Well, the electric field makes sense if that 10^12V/m has the size of an atom bohr, not of a proton. Just scale that field for that of bohr atom, r~5*10^-11m, which gives 2V/bohr atom. That's not far away from a typical working function of a metal. 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to learn more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and understand their main content. I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are describing in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed in a electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small displacement u. The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a distance on the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 as a definition of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this quantity is used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio between small displacement and this a. So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if the small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on). Nothing wrong in the equation. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius. That seems correct. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the author. maybe is there a typo in the formulas, is it corrected in a newer version? i confirm the computation beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway. the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9... maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf in(89) I see the same huge looking like a mistake (I compute 4.55V/m) and same for 87 maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine, and I could not check units coherency it is a key point, and I hope they check it. it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed. note that in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge diameter (8.8e-16m) while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m officially so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem... his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding... have to find a professionnal 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com I've a problem with the WL theory. I read carefully their published paper http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw. I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check. It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics. My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one million of millions V/m appears. Too much, I told myself. As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less. So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion. In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the square root. So the term to be
Re: [Vo]:WL
Ok, Daniel you are right. The order of magnitude of a field at the Bohr radius from a proton is 10^11 V/m. It seems also that the interpretation of the paper describes this situation where the electron sphere is the size of an average atom. I misunderstood what the paper was discussing. Gigi, did you use cgs units to do your calculation? Otherwise if you want to use mks you have to add the coulomb constant to the Coulomb equation in the Srivastava paper. I think this where you error was. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Well, 10^11 - 10^12 seems to be the right order of magnitude for the electric field to trap a surface electron. At the classical proton radius, ~2fm, it should be around 10^(~-22)V/M. 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com Ok, let me read the paper and reply. I need to understand it better. But what I said before it is right in terms of using 25) to define a. To make sense of the numbers then a has to be on the order of a nucleus. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Absorption, in WL, happens because of a mysterious collective oscillation of surface plasmons which cause some of the electrons to be tunnel into a proton, it's like thousands of plasmons together pushing 1 electron inside a 1 proton. The order of magnitude of plasmons is bound by the workfunction, otherwise, the electron would be removed from the metal. 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com We can analyze the paper together, but what is discussed in that section is what happens when an electron is absorbed inside a proton. The proton would oscillate because of the presence of the electric field distributed over the volume of the proton. So the relevant scale is the size of a proton. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Well, the electric field makes sense if that 10^12V/m has the size of an atom bohr, not of a proton. Just scale that field for that of bohr atom, r~5*10^-11m, which gives 2V/bohr atom. That's not far away from a typical working function of a metal. 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to learn more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and understand their main content. I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are describing in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed in a electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small displacement u. The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a distance on the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 as a definition of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this quantity is used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio between small displacement and this a. So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if the small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on). Nothing wrong in the equation. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius. That seems correct. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the author. maybe is there a typo in the formulas, is it corrected in a newer version? i confirm the computation beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway. the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9... maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf in(89) I see the same huge looking like a mistake (I compute 4.55V/m) and same for 87 maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine, and I could not check units coherency it is a key point, and I hope they check it. it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed. note that in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge diameter (8.8e-16m) while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m officially so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem... his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding... have to find a professionnal 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com I've a problem with the WL theory. I read carefully their published paper http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw. I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check. It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics. My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one
Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
Randy, i respect your wish to see george response published here, however unlike the vortex, george is not banned from the internet as far as i know. So i don't really see the point for him to request that you become his voice, unless being a lawyer makes you the perfect target for a proxy to talk through maybe ? Still there is one thing i kind of disagree with in your statement about the MY does make valid points part, those points where already known and established by jed, david, daniel, horace, bob and many others and i hope this is clear because it seems to be often forgotten in the flood. I don't know why but it seems to me some people felt like the vortex became Rossi's investors clubhouse, or DGT etc ... i believe this is not.
RE: [Vo]:Name that tune
Why does everyone assume the heater elements use DC? A transformer would be the easiest way to adjust the voltage or current to larger rms values and would explain the isolation transformer. The blue control box then might simply gate this AC power through the transformer for longer or shorter durations. This wouldn't be called an RFG but it would have the same effect while simultaneously heating the reactor elements. Fran Jones Beene Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:09:19 -0800 Mine too, and now ... the real reason for this inquiry - why do you need one? Coincidentally, as you mentioned in the preceding message, they claim NOT to use an RFG. Which technically does not mean they do not have a fair amount of RF noise in the reactor, does it? It means only that they have no dedicated RF generator. There are other reasons for having an isolation transformer than to protect your Variac and other instruments and computers from a source of disruptive electrical spikes, so it's not a smoking gun - but is there a good reason not to suspect either a spark gap or glow discharge arrangement inside the reactor somewhere? After all, if we were talking about resistance heating elements (ala AR) being your thermal input and your P-in, then an isolation transformer would not be needed, correct ?
Re: [Vo]:The Antagonists - Documentary about CF History.
To place any sort of mailing list purge in the same context as the purge of rational scientific discourse that occurred within 40 days and 40 nights of the cold fusion announcement by Fleischmann and Pons is making a galaxy out of a mole hill. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: What about a sequel called the Agonists ... a documentary about the drama of ditto-skepticism on the vortex forum... up to the infamous Purge of 2012 ... Agony being the operative word and 'Agonism' being the political doctrine of embracing conflict and acknowledging the positive value of inherent discord, including bloody debates, nasty name-calling, and class warfare... or better yet, what about a hairy tragedy: Vortex Agonistes :-) The punage being a nod to Milton's Samson Agonistes known in Lit circles as a closet drama. No kidding - the term tragic closet drama it is apt for the times, no? ... at least it is pretty clear that we were never intended to perform onstage. On the brighter side, Milton's classic was followed by Paradise Regained ... and just as we are enacting the Last Temptation of Rossi... In forty days we will know if the Snake wins, or the new chosen-one is to be with us in these final days ... From: James Bowery The Antagonists is a better-directed epithet. Although pseudo-skeptics does capture an important dimension of the crime against humanity, it doesn't get as close to the heart of the matter. Perhaps a phrase involving establishment would be even better. The Inquisitors might be better than The Antagonists. Harry Veeder wrote: http://www.137films.org/NewsDetailPage/Work-in-progress-screening. The Believers test screening February 11 Work-in-Progress Screening of The Believers at The Gene Siskel Film Center If you've been waiting to see our new film, The Believers, now is your chance! The Chicago Council on Science and Technology is presenting a work-in-progress screening of The Believers on Saturday, February 11 at noon at the Gene Siskel Film Center, and filmmakers Monica Ross and Clayton Brown will be in attendance for a Q A session after the film. You can attend for free by becoming a 137 Films Backer. Click here for information on how to do it. We hope to see you on February 11! --- Harry
Re: [Vo]:Name that tune
I have always assumed that the heating elements within the Rossi ECAT are using AC. The frequency of the current is assumed to be 60 or 50 hertz, but I do not recall anyone measuring it. One interesting possibility to consider is that the large AC magnetic field associated with this current contained within the core might be strong enough to agitate the nickel due to its magnetic properties at modest temperatures. Also, do we know how electrically conductive the core materials are? I wonder if the core net resistive value is consistent enough to carry current for heating power? What if the extra spike that we observe in the waveform can be triggered by the large magnetic field or current that flows within the core region? A lot of questions and few answers. Maybe some of them will cause a light to shine within one of our collective minds. Dave -Original Message- From: francis froarty...@comcast.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 9:56 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Name that tune Why does everyone assume the heater elements use DC? A transformer would be the easiest way to adjust the voltage or current to larger rms values and would explain the isolation transformer. The blue control box then might simply gate this AC power through the transformer for longer or shorter durations. This wouldn’t be called an RFG but it would have the same effect while simultaneously heating the reactor elements. Fran Jones Beene Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:09:19 -0800 Mine too, and now ... the real reason for this inquiry - why do you need one? Coincidentally, as you mentioned in the preceding message, they claim NOT to use an RFG. Which technically does not mean they do not have a fair amount of RF noise in the reactor, does it? It means only that they have no dedicated RF generator. There are other reasons for having an isolation transformer than to protect your Variac and other instruments and computers from a source of disruptive electrical spikes, so it's not a smoking gun - but is there a good reason not to suspect either a spark gap or glow discharge arrangement inside the reactor somewhere? After all, if we were talking about resistance heating elements (ala AR) being your thermal input and your P-in, then an isolation transformer would not be needed, correct ?
RE: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
So MaryYugo was still using HIS female-sounding pseudonym instead of HIS real name??? HE must think we're really stupid. is HE not aware of the fact that HIS identity has been clearly established??? Randy, send me HIS response and I'll look it over. -Mark From: Randy Wuller [mailto:rwul...@freeark.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power Jed: This post prompted a reply from Maryugo. Since MY is banned here and at the Defkalion site and since I converse with MY (by email) occasionally, she sent me her reply to Bill Beaty which I presume he received and did not elect to post. She has requested that I post her reply and I hesitate principally because this site has a right in my opinion to censor and a right to ban and if Bill has decided to both ban and censor MY, I conclude that I too would be in violation of his censor and ban on this occasion if I without authority posted her response. However, I am sympathetic with the rights of someone to defend themselves (being a lawyer) and it seems to me that if members of this site continue to post about MY, maybe she should be given a limited right to respond. Further, while I deem MY to be annoyingly repetitive, had she only occasionally pointed out the problem with the current state of Mr. Rossi's affairs, I for one would not have been troubled. MY does make valid points, it is just after reading the same point about 1,000 times, one has to say ENOUGH. I hesitated to join the Vortex because I see it as a what if site dedicated to discussing the possible science behind Cold Fusion (I like that Moniker better then LENR) and I am not really qualified (as a lawyer) to add much. However, even before joining I reviewed to posts almost daily and really enjoy the dialogue which has improved since the banning. I think site works best assuming Cold Fusion is real and dialoguing about why it works. Anyway, I leave it to Bill and the other members of Vortex as to whether I post MY's reply. If the answer is NO, I have it available for anyone interested. Ransom - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:20 PM Subject: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power At the denouement of the recent kerfuffle here, Bill Beaty wrote a message to Mary Yugo that described the situation perfectly. It is a sort of pocket history of the cold fusion dispute. A haiku history, if you will. It was quoted in the Defkalion forum. It is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg62237.html He nailed it. I could not agree more. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
As someone who has watched Vortex since last February, I agree with your assessment that many on Vortex have raised valid objections to many of Rossi's demos and his business strategy. I would certainly not characterize the vortex as a Rossi investor clubhouse, far from it. And of course because most of you have shown reasonable skepticism concerning various issues, the posts which caused the bannings were very irratating, even to an outsider like me. Notwithstanding, some of MY's points are valid, not conclusive but valid. The problem with MY, once a point is made we get it, people don't need someone clubing them over the head ad naseaum. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:25 PM, zer tte c_foreig...@yahoo.com wrote: Randy, i respect your wish to see george response published here, however unlike the vortex, george is not banned from the internet as far as i know. So i don't really see the point for him to request that you become his voice, unless being a lawyer makes you the perfect target for a proxy to talk through maybe ? Still there is one thing i kind of disagree with in your statement about the MY does make valid points part, those points where already known and established by jed, david, daniel, horace, bob and many others and i hope this is clear because it seems to be often forgotten in the flood. I don't know why but it seems to me some people felt like the vortex became Rossi's investors clubhouse, or DGT etc ... i believe this is not.
RE: [Vo]:WL
Giovanni/Daniel: I just want to thank you both for taking time to analyze carefully the W-L paper. We could use more theoretical types in the 'Collective'. -Mark From: Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:WL Ok, Daniel you are right. The order of magnitude of a field at the Bohr radius from a proton is 10^11 V/m. It seems also that the interpretation of the paper describes this situation where the electron sphere is the size of an average atom. I misunderstood what the paper was discussing. Gigi, did you use cgs units to do your calculation? Otherwise if you want to use mks you have to add the coulomb constant to the Coulomb equation in the Srivastava paper. I think this where you error was. Giovanni
Re: [Vo]:WL
Gigi, The criticism in the link you gave doesn't seem very strong to me. The main point was that the fields involved are two strong to be realistic. I maybe missing something but the field density implied in the paper is about 1 electron per Bohr atom. It is true that to have such density in throughout the material you would have to have atoms basically touching each other but given we are talking about a metal I don't see this as a problem. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.comwrote: Ok, Daniel you are right. The order of magnitude of a field at the Bohr radius from a proton is 10^11 V/m. It seems also that the interpretation of the paper describes this situation where the electron sphere is the size of an average atom. I misunderstood what the paper was discussing. Gigi, did you use cgs units to do your calculation? Otherwise if you want to use mks you have to add the coulomb constant to the Coulomb equation in the Srivastava paper. I think this where you error was. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Well, 10^11 - 10^12 seems to be the right order of magnitude for the electric field to trap a surface electron. At the classical proton radius, ~2fm, it should be around 10^(~-22)V/M. 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com Ok, let me read the paper and reply. I need to understand it better. But what I said before it is right in terms of using 25) to define a. To make sense of the numbers then a has to be on the order of a nucleus. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Absorption, in WL, happens because of a mysterious collective oscillation of surface plasmons which cause some of the electrons to be tunnel into a proton, it's like thousands of plasmons together pushing 1 electron inside a 1 proton. The order of magnitude of plasmons is bound by the workfunction, otherwise, the electron would be removed from the metal. 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com We can analyze the paper together, but what is discussed in that section is what happens when an electron is absorbed inside a proton. The proton would oscillate because of the presence of the electric field distributed over the volume of the proton. So the relevant scale is the size of a proton. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Well, the electric field makes sense if that 10^12V/m has the size of an atom bohr, not of a proton. Just scale that field for that of bohr atom, r~5*10^-11m, which gives 2V/bohr atom. That's not far away from a typical working function of a metal. 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to learn more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and understand their main content. I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are describing in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed in a electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small displacement u. The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a distance on the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 as a definition of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this quantity is used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio between small displacement and this a. So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if the small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on). Nothing wrong in the equation. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius. That seems correct. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the author. maybe is there a typo in the formulas, is it corrected in a newer version? i confirm the computation beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway. the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9... maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf in(89) I see the same huge looking like a mistake (I compute 4.55V/m) and same for 87 maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine, and I could not check units coherency it is a key point, and I hope they check it. it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed. note that in http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge diameter (8.8e-16m) while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m officially so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem... his
Re: [Vo]:WL
Mark, You are welcome, it is actually fun. Hopefully I don't say too silly things. My field is gravitational waves so I'm rusty in atomic, nuclear physics but this is an opportunity to review/learn interesting physics. But away WL theory sound pretty sound to me so far. Anybody knows of any serious criticism of this? Giovanni On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Giovanni/Daniel: I just want to thank you both for taking time to analyze carefully the W-L paper… We could use more theoretical types in the ‘Collective’… -Mark ** ** *From:* Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:06 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:WL ** ** Ok, Daniel you are right. The order of magnitude of a field at the Bohr radius from a proton is 10^11 V/m. It seems also that the interpretation of the paper describes this situation where the electron sphere is the size of an average atom. I misunderstood what the paper was discussing. ** ** Gigi, did you use cgs units to do your calculation? Otherwise if you want to use mks you have to add the coulomb constant to the Coulomb equation in the Srivastava paper. I think this where you error was. Giovanni ** **
Re: [Vo]:Name that tune
The question illuminates, not the answer (Eugene Ionesco) Why you are not asking on the DGT forum? Peter On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:15 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have always assumed that the heating elements within the Rossi ECAT are using AC. The frequency of the current is assumed to be 60 or 50 hertz, but I do not recall anyone measuring it. One interesting possibility to consider is that the large AC magnetic field associated with this current contained within the core might be strong enough to agitate the nickel due to its magnetic properties at modest temperatures. Also, do we know how electrically conductive the core materials are? I wonder if the core net resistive value is consistent enough to carry current for heating power? What if the extra spike that we observe in the waveform can be triggered by the large magnetic field or current that flows within the core region? A lot of questions and few answers. Maybe some of them will cause a light to shine within one of our collective minds. Dave -Original Message- From: francis froarty...@comcast.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 9:56 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Name that tune Why does everyone assume the heater elements use DC? A transformer would be the easiest way to adjust the voltage or current to larger rms values and would explain the isolation transformer. The blue control box then might simply gate this AC power through the transformer for longer or shorter durations. This wouldn’t be called an RFG but it would have the same effect while simultaneously heating the reactor elements. Fran *Jones Beene* Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:09:19 -0800 Mine too, and now ... the real reason for this inquiry - why do you need one? Coincidentally, as you mentioned in the preceding message, they claim NOT to use an RFG. Which technically does not mean they do not have a fair amount of RF noise in the reactor, does it? It means only that they have no dedicated RF generator. There are other reasons for having an isolation transformer than to protect your Variac and other instruments and computers from a source of disruptive electrical spikes, so it's not a smoking gun - but is there a good reason not to suspect either a spark gap or glow discharge arrangement inside the reactor somewhere? After all, if we were talking about resistance heating elements (ala AR) being your thermal input and your P-in, then an isolation transformer would not be needed, correct ? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Name that tune
Good question Peter. I have asked a number of questions on the DGT forum in the past but they do not answer consistently. The Vortex has a number of excellent members with a great deal of knowledge about many subjects. A question such as the ones that I have presented are much more likely to fall upon fertile ground here. Dave -Original Message- From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 12:19 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Name that tune The question illuminates, not the answer (Eugene Ionesco) Why you are not asking on the DGT forum? Peter On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:15 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have always assumed that the heating elements within the Rossi ECAT are using AC. The frequency of the current is assumed to be 60 or 50 hertz, but I do not recall anyone measuring it. One interesting possibility to consider is that the large AC magnetic field associated with this current contained within the core might be strong enough to agitate the nickel due to its magnetic properties at modest temperatures. Also, do we know how electrically conductive the core materials are? I wonder if the core net resistive value is consistent enough to carry current for heating power? What if the extra spike that we observe in the waveform can be triggered by the large magnetic field or current that flows within the core region? A lot of questions and few answers. Maybe some of them will cause a light to shine within one of our collective minds. Dave -Original Message- From: francis froarty...@comcast.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 9:56 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Name that tune Why does everyone assume the heater elements use DC? A transformer would be the easiest way to adjust the voltage or current to larger rms values and would explain the isolation transformer. The blue control box then might simply gate this AC power through the transformer for longer or shorter durations. This wouldn’t be called an RFG but it would have the same effect while simultaneously heating the reactor elements. Fran Jones Beene Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:09:19 -0800 Mine too, and now ... the real reason for this inquiry - why do you need one? Coincidentally, as you mentioned in the preceding message, they claim NOT to use an RFG. Which technically does not mean they do not have a fair amount of RF noise in the reactor, does it? It means only that they have no dedicated RF generator. There are other reasons for having an isolation transformer than to protect your Variac and other instruments and computers from a source of disruptive electrical spikes, so it's not a smoking gun - but is there a good reason not to suspect either a spark gap or glow discharge arrangement inside the reactor somewhere? After all, if we were talking about resistance heating elements (ala AR) being your thermal input and your P-in, then an isolation transformer would not be needed, correct ? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
