[Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 Coldfusionnow.org posted the following video today: 68 minutes April, 2012 Robert Duncan discusses experiments at Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance http://coldfusionnow.org/robert-duncan-discusses-experiments-at-sidney-kimmel-institute-for-nuclear-renaissance/ Robert V. Duncan shows a slide from SPAWAR Navy lab (Pamela Mosier-Boss) that claims a 6 kv DC electric field from plates external to a wet conducting electrolyte has effects within the electrolyte -- but the reality in simple electrostatics is the electric field exists in the two plastic walls of the cell, between the liquid and the two external plates, i.e., a simple double capacitor setup, with no field in the conductor (electrolyte) that connects the two charged capacitors. There may be small leakage currents through the plastic walls that short out the two capacitors, allowing unexpected currents to flow through the electrolyte, applying high voltages to many tiny locations, creating localized and evolving damage, thus generating sporatic unexpected local heat and depositing elements from all parts of the cell within these complex, scattered micro regions. If micro and nano bubbles of H2 and O2 start forming and moving around in the cell, their recombination on the increasingly corroded, complex surfaces of the cathode can be shown to easily generate enough energy to melt tiny volumes on the surface -- exactly the problem with nozzle erosion in the engineering of H2-O2 liquid fuel rockets. SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2012/03/spawar-has-yet-to-respond-re-simple.html http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/94 within mutual service, Rich Murray 505-819-7388 Imperial Beach, CA 91932
Re: [Vo]:LERN in an oil-based economy - the epic clash
One point about high temperature LENR that is very important is the ability of a 1000C reactor to efficiently produce hydrogen through a simple chemical cycle. Hydrogen is required to crack heavy crude into a “sweet” crude product. Pumping H2 down a well hole is the best way to reduce the viscosity of the crude by refining it in the hole. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Caveat: ... just finished watching the fabulous BBC series "State of Play" > which is fiction, of course, but so close to perceived reality that the > oil-tainted message "resistance is futile" comes through loud and clear ... > U-EX is the Borg. Get used to it and submit. AYBABTU ! > > Looking at the 'big picture' geopolitically, and starting with the > assumption that in 2012 a person or group, but probably not Rossi or DGT, > will introduce an independently validated, robust and replicable version of > Ni-H in prototype form (none of which criteria are met thus far, despite > hints and claims) here is the utopian/dystopian tradeoff that is > emerging from looking at the implications of this development. > > First - the belief that this technology is not fully compatible with oil is > completely misguided, if not ironic. In fact, it is very likely that the > biggest early users of LENR, possibly the exclusive early users, will be > the > oil-shale and tar sands industry in the USA and Canada, and especially in > the Orinoco tar belt of Venezuela. > > BTW - Together these previously out-of-reach petroleum resource offer > triple the capacity of ALL of the World's present day conventional oil > reserves All you need to get 4 trillion barrels of thick, gooey gunk > to > market is ... ta da... cheap heat. Otherwise, it is tar. > > Sure, if LENR were to come out of the gates as a safe, mature and ready > source of electrical power, with zero radiation threat and at a net cost > lower than oil, then the new technology would supplant petroleum > eventually, > but not quickly. That will take decades, even if prototype LENR does happen > this year. It always takes many years to go from prototype to mass market, > and "sunk costs" and inertia are a huge issue for supplanting any old > technology. In the meantime there could be a nasty compromise. > > It takes capital to get to market, and it is no secret who has most of the > available investment capital as well as the largest potential need for > thermal energy (if that energy can be placed in a deep hole to make tar > pumpable) ... not to mention the political connections. Now, who would that > be? If you guessed the shale, heavy oil and tar-sands industry, then move > to > the head of the geopolitical class. Plus, they do not mind if it is > slightly > radioactive since it is going in a well. > > Many LENR advocates, naively seem to think that Big Oil wants to kill the > new technology, when on the contrary they will embrace it, invest heavily > in > it, and become the biggest customer for decades. A more careful appraisal > of > the future situation, based on probabilities and economic realities, would > include the following facts and assumptions, all of which are defensible. > > 1) The cheapest old oil can be produced for very little cost, but is > declining in availability. It provides lots of cash flow which ideally > would > go into replacement resources, if there were any. > 2) Most new oil (from shale, tar or offshore wells, etc) has a high > production cost, often a factor of 20 times more than the old, onshore > wells. Only one segment of high cost oil can employ LENR to expedite its > production, creating an internal problem for OPEC. > 3) The cheap heat from LENR should make new oil from tar extremely > competitive, and could destroy the offshore oil business. Being able to > drop > a small reactor into a hole and use copious heat to soften the tar so that > it can be pumped - wow - this turns the tables on all prior economic > assumptions. > 4) This is a new paradigm, which segments of the industry will embrace > and others will ignore. There could a future internal schism of major > proportions in Big Oil - based on the availability of LENR to expedite tar > and shale. > 5) Fossil fuel production from well-to-road produces massive tax > revenue. This is true even if the industry also receives lots of tax > breaks. > Politicians always favor proved tax revenue flow over alternatives. No help > there for LENR. > 6) There are possibly half a billion motor vehicles burning fossil > fuel, world-wide, with at least ten years of useful life remaining. This is > a sunk cost. > 7) Most consumers with $20k to $30k of value invested in a vehicle > will > not abandon that vehicle, or abandon oil, to save a thousand per year in > fuel cost - even if the comparative fuel cost for LENR was zero. The > overhead of LENR will be substantial. The tree-hugger market is > insufficient. > 8) The unholy combinati
Re: [Vo]:LERN in an oil-based economy - the epic clash
For the gamer challenged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us T
[Vo]:National Instruments and LENR
National Instruments Deeply Involved With Many LENR Projects (Briefed EU) http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/national-instruments-deeply-involved-with-many-lenr-projects/ Thanks to E-Cat World reader un passante who sent the report of a talk given by Stefano Concezzi, director of National Instruments Science and Big Physics Segment. The talk was given at yet another meeting about LENR Towards a non-polluting energy revolution a meeting held today, July 2 in Rome, Italy. A recording of the meetings proceedings is available (in Italian) here. http://www.radioradicale.it/scheda/355900/verso-una-rivoluzione-energetica-non-inquinante "He was cautious when expressing certanties about the phenomenon but he said (specifying it was his opinion) that he was optimist that both a working mathematical model for the phenomenon will be developed and that the experimental data showing excess heat are not measuring errors. He also said that NI had the same presentation in front of the European Community ten days ago." (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- and the defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:LERN in an oil-based economy - the epic clash
Jones Beene: This is a remarkably naive analysis. I really think you will only be slightly right if the LENR technology improves very very little for a long time, say decades. That also seems very unlikely. Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Jul 2, 2012, at 3:54 PM, "Jones Beene" wrote: > Caveat: ... just finished watching the fabulous BBC series "State of Play" > which is fiction, of course, but so close to perceived reality that the > oil-tainted message "resistance is futile" comes through loud and clear ... > U-EX is the Borg. Get used to it and submit. AYBABTU ! > > Looking at the 'big picture' geopolitically, and starting with the > assumption that in 2012 a person or group, but probably not Rossi or DGT, > will introduce an independently validated, robust and replicable version of > Ni-H in prototype form (none of which criteria are met thus far, despite > hints and claims) here is the utopian/dystopian tradeoff that is > emerging from looking at the implications of this development. > > First - the belief that this technology is not fully compatible with oil is > completely misguided, if not ironic. In fact, it is very likely that the > biggest early users of LENR, possibly the exclusive early users, will be the > oil-shale and tar sands industry in the USA and Canada, and especially in > the Orinoco tar belt of Venezuela. > > BTW - Together these previously out-of-reach petroleum resource offer > triple the capacity of ALL of the World's present day conventional oil > reserves All you need to get 4 trillion barrels of thick, gooey gunk to > market is ... ta da... cheap heat. Otherwise, it is tar. > > Sure, if LENR were to come out of the gates as a safe, mature and ready > source of electrical power, with zero radiation threat and at a net cost > lower than oil, then the new technology would supplant petroleum eventually, > but not quickly. That will take decades, even if prototype LENR does happen > this year. It always takes many years to go from prototype to mass market, > and "sunk costs" and inertia are a huge issue for supplanting any old > technology. In the meantime there could be a nasty compromise. > > It takes capital to get to market, and it is no secret who has most of the > available investment capital as well as the largest potential need for > thermal energy (if that energy can be placed in a deep hole to make tar > pumpable) ... not to mention the political connections. Now, who would that > be? If you guessed the shale, heavy oil and tar-sands industry, then move to > the head of the geopolitical class. Plus, they do not mind if it is slightly > radioactive since it is going in a well. > > Many LENR advocates, naively seem to think that Big Oil wants to kill the > new technology, when on the contrary they will embrace it, invest heavily in > it, and become the biggest customer for decades. A more careful appraisal of > the future situation, based on probabilities and economic realities, would > include the following facts and assumptions, all of which are defensible. > > 1)The cheapest old oil can be produced for very little cost, but is > declining in availability. It provides lots of cash flow which ideally would > go into replacement resources, if there were any. > 2)Most new oil (from shale, tar or offshore wells, etc) has a high > production cost, often a factor of 20 times more than the old, onshore > wells. Only one segment of high cost oil can employ LENR to expedite its > production, creating an internal problem for OPEC. > 3)The cheap heat from LENR should make new oil from tar extremely > competitive, and could destroy the offshore oil business. Being able to drop > a small reactor into a hole and use copious heat to soften the tar so that > it can be pumped - wow - this turns the tables on all prior economic > assumptions. > 4)This is a new paradigm, which segments of the industry will embrace > and others will ignore. There could a future internal schism of major > proportions in Big Oil - based on the availability of LENR to expedite tar > and shale. > 5)Fossil fuel production from well-to-road produces massive tax > revenue. This is true even if the industry also receives lots of tax breaks. > Politicians always favor proved tax revenue flow over alternatives. No help > there for LENR. > 6)There are possibly half a billion motor vehicles burning fossil > fuel, world-wide, with at least ten years of useful life remaining. This is > a sunk cost. > 7)Most consumers with $20k to $30k of value invested in a vehicle will > not abandon that vehicle, or abandon oil, to save a thousand per year in > fuel cost - even if the comparative fuel cost for LENR was zero. The > overhead of LENR will be substantial. The tree-hugger market is > insufficient. > 8)The unholy combination of the supply and profit cushion of low cost > old oil, the sunk cost of half a billion oil-burners, and the high tax > revenue, means that LENR
[Vo]:LERN in an oil-based economy - the epic clash
Caveat: ... just finished watching the fabulous BBC series "State of Play" which is fiction, of course, but so close to perceived reality that the oil-tainted message "resistance is futile" comes through loud and clear ... U-EX is the Borg. Get used to it and submit. AYBABTU ! Looking at the 'big picture' geopolitically, and starting with the assumption that in 2012 a person or group, but probably not Rossi or DGT, will introduce an independently validated, robust and replicable version of Ni-H in prototype form (none of which criteria are met thus far, despite hints and claims) here is the utopian/dystopian tradeoff that is emerging from looking at the implications of this development. First - the belief that this technology is not fully compatible with oil is completely misguided, if not ironic. In fact, it is very likely that the biggest early users of LENR, possibly the exclusive early users, will be the oil-shale and tar sands industry in the USA and Canada, and especially in the Orinoco tar belt of Venezuela. BTW - Together these previously out-of-reach petroleum resource offer triple the capacity of ALL of the World's present day conventional oil reserves All you need to get 4 trillion barrels of thick, gooey gunk to market is ... ta da... cheap heat. Otherwise, it is tar. Sure, if LENR were to come out of the gates as a safe, mature and ready source of electrical power, with zero radiation threat and at a net cost lower than oil, then the new technology would supplant petroleum eventually, but not quickly. That will take decades, even if prototype LENR does happen this year. It always takes many years to go from prototype to mass market, and "sunk costs" and inertia are a huge issue for supplanting any old technology. In the meantime there could be a nasty compromise. It takes capital to get to market, and it is no secret who has most of the available investment capital as well as the largest potential need for thermal energy (if that energy can be placed in a deep hole to make tar pumpable) ... not to mention the political connections. Now, who would that be? If you guessed the shale, heavy oil and tar-sands industry, then move to the head of the geopolitical class. Plus, they do not mind if it is slightly radioactive since it is going in a well. Many LENR advocates, naively seem to think that Big Oil wants to kill the new technology, when on the contrary they will embrace it, invest heavily in it, and become the biggest customer for decades. A more careful appraisal of the future situation, based on probabilities and economic realities, would include the following facts and assumptions, all of which are defensible. 1) The cheapest old oil can be produced for very little cost, but is declining in availability. It provides lots of cash flow which ideally would go into replacement resources, if there were any. 2) Most new oil (from shale, tar or offshore wells, etc) has a high production cost, often a factor of 20 times more than the old, onshore wells. Only one segment of high cost oil can employ LENR to expedite its production, creating an internal problem for OPEC. 3) The cheap heat from LENR should make new oil from tar extremely competitive, and could destroy the offshore oil business. Being able to drop a small reactor into a hole and use copious heat to soften the tar so that it can be pumped - wow - this turns the tables on all prior economic assumptions. 4) This is a new paradigm, which segments of the industry will embrace and others will ignore. There could a future internal schism of major proportions in Big Oil - based on the availability of LENR to expedite tar and shale. 5) Fossil fuel production from well-to-road produces massive tax revenue. This is true even if the industry also receives lots of tax breaks. Politicians always favor proved tax revenue flow over alternatives. No help there for LENR. 6) There are possibly half a billion motor vehicles burning fossil fuel, world-wide, with at least ten years of useful life remaining. This is a sunk cost. 7) Most consumers with $20k to $30k of value invested in a vehicle will not abandon that vehicle, or abandon oil, to save a thousand per year in fuel cost - even if the comparative fuel cost for LENR was zero. The overhead of LENR will be substantial. The tree-hugger market is insufficient. 8) The unholy combination of the supply and profit cushion of low cost old oil, the sunk cost of half a billion oil-burners, and the high tax revenue, means that LENR cannot penetrate that market effectively, no matter how clean it is. Thus anyone with this technology will be primed for takeover by oil companies, but NOT to suppress it: instead to embrace it. 9) With the advent of LENR, Venezuela can become the next Saudi Arabia, or even a mini-OPEC. That may not be a good thing. Venezuela has way over a trillion barrels of tar near the surface, and the reserves are close to ocean t
[Vo]:Grid Leveling Battery
http://blog.ted.com/2012/02/29/reinventing-the-battery-donald-sadoway-at-ted2012/ http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Topics/Energy/We-Need-A-Battery-Miracle http://lmbcorporation.com/about/ Not much you don't already know. T
Re: [Vo]:Repulsive interactions between neutrons
P theory, hydrinos, ZPE or the many other theories discussed on this site do supply the answer to my satisfaction. On edit, this should say P theory, hydrinos, ZPE or the many other theories discussed on this site do *not *supply the answer to my satisfaction. On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > http://ipdiscover.com/pipermail/newcandle_ipdiscover.com/2007-September/001017.html > > > > > > Back in 2007, Jones Beene asked a very good question that needed an > answer. Where exactly is that pot of energy that nuclear repulsion uses > ultimately comes from? > > > > > > In all good comradeship I felt his question needed an answer, so I decided > to anticipate and pre-answer his natural and essential objection to the > nuclear repulsion theory up front. > > > > > > Such an important objection must be cleared away before this alternate > theory that contradicts the standard model can be taken seriously. > > > > > > Manuel has been developing and zealously popularizing his theory > consistently since 2000 and no one to my knowledge has undercut the > fundamentals of his theory. > > > > > > I don’t yet buy the neutron core sun aspect of his theory. He developed > that idea to explain why meteorites have heavy isotopes signatures in them > that look to have been produced locally in the solar system. > > > > The shaky part of Manuel’s theory is that the sum formed over a neutron > star core which I find hard to believe. > > > > > > This could all be explained if cold fusion is introduced as a rapid and > easy way of producing heavy elements in clouds of nebular gas through the > action of charge accumulation and coulomb barrier breakdown causing cold > fusion. > > > > > > This is to say that heavy elements were not produced in a super-nova > explosion but by the action of cold fusion in a pre-stellar nebula. > > > > > > This is also why ash from cold fusion reactors all look like they produce > isotopes that are consistent with natural abundance ratios as per the magic > number theories of Gorge Miley and Heinrich Hora. > > > > The other important question to answer is as follows: How come there is so > many light elements found in the ash of cold fission reactions when the > base material is heavy. What can be chopping up the nickel into such tiny > pieces? > > > > > > P theory, hydrinos, ZPE or the many other theories discussed on this site > do supply the answer to my satisfaction. > > > > > > Cheers: Axil > > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> I see that this quark mass value in question - comes from Wiki’s entry >> on quarks. >> >> ** ** >> >> Here is the significant problem with using that value: there is one >> hypothetical figure for “naked” or “current” quarks– unbound quarks which >> cannot exist for long on their own, and another very different value for >> quarks in a nucleus- “constituent quarks” … The difference is substantial. >> >> >> ** ** >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_quark_mass >> >> ** ** >> >> The problem in using the naked quarks values, or really any value outside >> a nucleus - is that there is no useful physical reality - and essentially >> “no one has a clue” since the lifetime is so short. >> >> ** ** >> >> Being precise on this is not a trivial pursuit. There is a fair chance >> that the statistical deviation in “average proton mass” can account for the >> energy seen in nickel hydrogen reactions – without the need for fusion, >> beta decay, low momentum neutrons - or any of the other problems brought on >> by “lack of gamma radiation.” >> >> ** ** >> >> IOW, in the Ni-H reaction, and only in reactions involving hydrogen >> (deuterium is excluded for other reasons) it can be reasonably asserted >> that gain can derived from a statistical reduction in “overage” in the >> average mass of the proton. It does not take much mass reduction, >> multiplied by lightspeed to provide sufficient energy that is hundreds of >> time in excess of chemical energy … (which is also dependent of a deviation >> in average molecular mass of reactants). >> >> ** ** >> >> The leap of faith is that that there is a significant range in proton >> mass which can be reduced slightly without consequence … by the tenets of >> quantum chromodynamics (QCD). >> >> ** ** >> >> In a way this is “nuclear” energy, and in a way it is not. The identity >> of the proton does not change, but its average mass is slightly reduced.* >> *** >> >> ** ** >> >> I’m now calling this the “P-Power Hypothesis” (“p” is for both pion and >> proton). >> >> ** ** >> >> The hypothesis is evolving into a useful competitor for the other >> explanations for gain in Ni-H involving fusion or decay, which should >> involve gamma radiation; yet in which gammas are not seen. Those hypotheses >> require two or more miracles to “hold water” so to speak… >> >> ** ** >> >> This name also gives Terry an opportunity to power-up with a p-pun
Re: [Vo]:Repulsive interactions between neutrons
http://ipdiscover.com/pipermail/newcandle_ipdiscover.com/2007-September/001017.html Back in 2007, Jones Beene asked a very good question that needed an answer. Where exactly is that pot of energy that nuclear repulsion uses ultimately comes from? In all good comradeship I felt his question needed an answer, so I decided to anticipate and pre-answer his natural and essential objection to the nuclear repulsion theory up front. Such an important objection must be cleared away before this alternate theory that contradicts the standard model can be taken seriously. Manuel has been developing and zealously popularizing his theory consistently since 2000 and no one to my knowledge has undercut the fundamentals of his theory. I don’t yet buy the neutron core sun aspect of his theory. He developed that idea to explain why meteorites have heavy isotopes signatures in them that look to have been produced locally in the solar system. The shaky part of Manuel’s theory is that the sum formed over a neutron star core which I find hard to believe. This could all be explained if cold fusion is introduced as a rapid and easy way of producing heavy elements in clouds of nebular gas through the action of charge accumulation and coulomb barrier breakdown causing cold fusion. This is to say that heavy elements were not produced in a super-nova explosion but by the action of cold fusion in a pre-stellar nebula. This is also why ash from cold fusion reactors all look like they produce isotopes that are consistent with natural abundance ratios as per the magic number theories of Gorge Miley and Heinrich Hora. The other important question to answer is as follows: How come there is so many light elements found in the ash of cold fission reactions when the base material is heavy. What can be chopping up the nickel into such tiny pieces? P theory, hydrinos, ZPE or the many other theories discussed on this site do supply the answer to my satisfaction. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > I see that this quark mass value in question - comes from Wiki’s entry > on quarks. > > ** ** > > Here is the significant problem with using that value: there is one > hypothetical figure for “naked” or “current” quarks– unbound quarks which > cannot exist for long on their own, and another very different value for > quarks in a nucleus- “constituent quarks” … The difference is substantial. > > > ** ** > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_quark_mass > > ** ** > > The problem in using the naked quarks values, or really any value outside > a nucleus - is that there is no useful physical reality - and essentially > “no one has a clue” since the lifetime is so short. > > ** ** > > Being precise on this is not a trivial pursuit. There is a fair chance > that the statistical deviation in “average proton mass” can account for the > energy seen in nickel hydrogen reactions – without the need for fusion, > beta decay, low momentum neutrons - or any of the other problems brought on > by “lack of gamma radiation.” > > ** ** > > IOW, in the Ni-H reaction, and only in reactions involving hydrogen > (deuterium is excluded for other reasons) it can be reasonably asserted > that gain can derived from a statistical reduction in “overage” in the > average mass of the proton. It does not take much mass reduction, > multiplied by lightspeed to provide sufficient energy that is hundreds of > time in excess of chemical energy … (which is also dependent of a deviation > in average molecular mass of reactants). > > ** ** > > The leap of faith is that that there is a significant range in proton mass > which can be reduced slightly without consequence … by the tenets of > quantum chromodynamics (QCD). > > ** ** > > In a way this is “nuclear” energy, and in a way it is not. The identity of > the proton does not change, but its average mass is slightly reduced. > > ** ** > > I’m now calling this the “P-Power Hypothesis” (“p” is for both pion and > proton). > > ** ** > > The hypothesis is evolving into a useful competitor for the other > explanations for gain in Ni-H involving fusion or decay, which should > involve gamma radiation; yet in which gammas are not seen. Those hypotheses > require two or more miracles to “hold water” so to speak… > > ** ** > > This name also gives Terry an opportunity to power-up with a p-pun, or if > not… > > ** ** > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P8mELzqQd0 > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Jones Beene > > ** ** > > This is off by more than an order of magnitude. > > ** ** > > Where did the quark mass value come from? > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Axil Axil > > ** ** > > For example, a proton has a mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which > the rest mass of its three valence quarks only contributes about 11 MeV/c2; > most of the remainder can be attributed to the glu
[Vo]:Robert Duncan Presentation Video
Coldfusionnow.org posted the following video today: Robert Duncan discusses experiments at Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance http://coldfusionnow.org/robert-duncan-discusses-experiments-at-sidney-kimmel-institute-for-nuclear-renaissance/
Re: [Vo]:Mills : Solid State eCat ?
Load one ecat unit with hydrogen and leave an identical ecat unit unloaded and compare the temperature difference after electricity is applied. harry On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > You would need control version that has same dimensions and electrical > inputs as the Ecat, but which lacks a nuclear active environment > (NAE). > > harry > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Patrick Ellul wrote: >> How would one measure COP in a "Solid State" e-cat? >> >> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Alan Fletcher wrote: >>> >>> The New Solid State E-Cat >>> http://pesn.com/2012/06/30/9602121_Solid_State_E-Cat/ >>> >>> When first introduced to the world, Andrea Rossi's E-Cat required a flow >>> of water to remain stable, even at low temperatures. Now, he has developed a >>> new "solid state" high temperature model that is stable at temperatures even >>> higher than 600C -- with no cooling needed! >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Patrick >> >> www.tRacePerfect.com >> The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! >> The quickest puzzle ever! >>
Re: [Vo]:Mills : Solid State eCat ?
You would need control version that has same dimensions and electrical inputs as the Ecat, but which lacks a nuclear active environment (NAE). harry On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Patrick Ellul wrote: > How would one measure COP in a "Solid State" e-cat? > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Alan Fletcher wrote: >> >> The New Solid State E-Cat >> http://pesn.com/2012/06/30/9602121_Solid_State_E-Cat/ >> >> When first introduced to the world, Andrea Rossi's E-Cat required a flow >> of water to remain stable, even at low temperatures. Now, he has developed a >> new "solid state" high temperature model that is stable at temperatures even >> higher than 600C -- with no cooling needed! >> > > > > -- > Patrick > > www.tRacePerfect.com > The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! > The quickest puzzle ever! >
RE: [Vo]:Repulsive interactions between neutrons
I see that this quark mass value in question - comes from Wiki's entry on
quarks.
Here is the significant problem with using that value: there is one
hypothetical figure for "naked" or "current" quarks- unbound quarks which
cannot exist for long on their own, and another very different value for
quarks in a nucleus- "constituent quarks" . The difference is substantial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_quark_mass
The problem in using the naked quarks values, or really any value outside a
nucleus - is that there is no useful physical reality - and essentially "no
one has a clue" since the lifetime is so short.
Being precise on this is not a trivial pursuit. There is a fair chance that
the statistical deviation in "average proton mass" can account for the
energy seen in nickel hydrogen reactions - without the need for fusion, beta
decay, low momentum neutrons - or any of the other problems brought on by
"lack of gamma radiation."
IOW, in the Ni-H reaction, and only in reactions involving hydrogen
(deuterium is excluded for other reasons) it can be reasonably asserted that
gain can derived from a statistical reduction in "overage" in the average
mass of the proton. It does not take much mass reduction, multiplied by
lightspeed to provide sufficient energy that is hundreds of time in excess
of chemical energy . (which is also dependent of a deviation in average
molecular mass of reactants).
The leap of faith is that that there is a significant range in proton mass
which can be reduced slightly without consequence . by the tenets of quantum
chromodynamics (QCD).
In a way this is "nuclear" energy, and in a way it is not. The identity of
the proton does not change, but its average mass is slightly reduced.
I'm now calling this the "P-Power Hypothesis" ("p" is for both pion and
proton).
The hypothesis is evolving into a useful competitor for the other
explanations for gain in Ni-H involving fusion or decay, which should
involve gamma radiation; yet in which gammas are not seen. Those hypotheses
require two or more miracles to "hold water" so to speak.
This name also gives Terry an opportunity to power-up with a p-pun, or if
not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P8mELzqQd0
From: Jones Beene
This is off by more than an order of magnitude.
Where did the quark mass value come from?
From: Axil Axil
For example, a proton has a mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the
rest mass of its three valence quarks only contributes about 11 MeV/c2; most
of the remainder can be attributed to the gluons' QCBE.
RE: [Vo]:Repulsive interactions between neutrons
This is off by more than an order of magnitude. Where did the quark mass value come from? From: Axil Axil For example, a proton has a mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the rest mass of its three valence quarks only contributes about 11 MeV/c2; most of the remainder can be attributed to the gluons' QCBE.
Re: [Vo]:Repulsive interactions between neutrons
Axil, Quick clarification. In your proposed charge accumulation in a 1-dimensional structure ie. SWNTs, the electrons form a coherent huge wave on the SWNTs. The electron charge is "orbiting" "circling" the 1-dimensional structure. The way I understand this, the charge accumulation is on the SWNT. Hence, if the electron gets into the nucleus, they are getting into the nucleus of a Carbon atom. Are you then proposing fusion or fission of a Carbon atom? If you are, what is the expected by product of such a fusion or fission based on prevailing theories and/or "energy balance" formulas? How would the carbon atoms fission or fuse? What is the expected radiation? Alphas, Betas, X or gammas? or neutrons - fast or thermal? I would like to validate the SWNT mediated process by looking for these "expected" by products, which I presume would be quite different from H+ H+ fusion or Ni H+ fusion or Ni to Ni fusion. Feel free to speculate. I can then test the speculations with my experiments, with particular emphasis on looking for those by products. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Repulsive interactions between neutrons Hey, this is starting to sound like the L&W theory. But the electrons don’t need to form outside the nucleus. They get inside to do their mischief…which is the destabilization of the nucleus. Cheers: Axil
