date:20120818

*Each to its own. If the shoe fits, wear it. The spoiled baby boomer
remains a baby, needing to put someone down in vain attempts to bolster
themselves. Judgmental forays are worshiped as a commandment. However, take
care*!

To respond to a theory is a very friendly act. It shows that the theory is
granted the respect that comes from attention. The author of the theory can
use friendly criticism to perfect his thinking. The worst thing that can
happen is that the theory causes the thread to be deleted, the author
banned from the site and the theory to be classified as a product of a con
man.



Respectfully: Axil


On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Te Chung  wrote:

> Meanwhile,
>
> Back in the Florida swamps LENR pioneer
> http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.i-b-r.org/NeutronSynthesis.pdf&sa=U&ei=nv4tUKGVHKSgywHMqYHQDw&ved=0CBkQFjAC&sig2=2jnJ7E68bs8RTEvQ80nLXA&usg=AFQjCNHrasQAwAaBEkfYm1IQ61UuUIym_g
>  gets rich via NASDAQ
> http://magnegas.com/announcing-the-purchase-of-manufacturing-facilities
>  (Price Quote: $3.08 Aug. 16, 2012 Market Closed)
>
> Winners earn a living, take risks, scrimp and get their hands dirty while
> losers idle time away rattling a tin cup for a few "bob" and breaking wind
> with verbal diarrhea without self support.
>
> Each to its own. If the shoe fits, wear it. The spoiled baby boomer
> remains a baby, needing to put someone down in vain attempts to bolster
> themselves. Judgmental forays are worshiped as a commandment. However, take
> care!
>
> Noble Gas Engine stock also offered at about $3. Sounds like a " Variation
> on a Theme of Rossi".
>
> Easy, easy ...
>
> Chung
>
> --- On *Thu, 8/16/12, Axil Axil * wrote:
>
>
> From: Axil Axil 
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Date: Thursday, August 16, 2012, 6:48 PM
>
>
> Like most predictions of string theory; super-symmetric particles, micro
> black holes, no one (AKA CERN) has detected them yet at any energy. CERN is
> way beyond any energy the cold fusion can reach or hot fusion for that
> matter. The prospects are grim. The string people are disappointed.
> Stringologists produce theory by the ton and none has been experimentally
> verified. Don’t stake your theories on strings. Strings are fringe science.
>  Cheers: Axil
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Stewart Simonson 
> http://mc/compose?to=cheme...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> Always slept well at night
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Harry Veeder 
> http://mc/compose?to=hveeder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Chemical Engineer 
> http://mc/compose?to=cheme...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > OK, you are right, it did wake me up at night.
>
> Did you start having these dreams before or after you first read about
> quantum singularities?
>
> harry
>
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Harry Veeder 
> > http://mc/compose?to=hveeder...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Chemical Engineer 
> >> http://mc/compose?to=cheme...@gmail.com>
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> > No, I am not making it up and it was not a dream
> >>
> >> Physics is ultimately a work of the imagination. Over time some of
> >> those imaginings are retained and studied while others are
> >> dismissed or forgotten for lack of evidence and other times for
> >> reasons of fashion or politics and religion.
> >>
> >> Physics is not out there, it lives in you.
> >>
> >> Harry
> >>
> >>
> >> > A charged black hole is a black hole that possesses electric charge.
> >> > Since
> >> > the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged
> >> > mass is
> >> > dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40
> >> > orders
> >> > of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant
> >> > electric charge will be formed in nature.
> >> >
> >> > A charged black hole is one of three possible types of black holes
> that
> >> > could exist in the theory of gravitation called general relativity.
> >> > Black
> >> > holes can be characterized by three (and only three) quantities, its
> >> >
> >> > mass M (called a Schwarzschild black hole if it has no angular
> momentum
> >> > and
> >> > no electric charge),
> >> > angular momentum J (called a Kerr black hole if it has no charge), and
> >> > electric charge Q (charged black hole or Reissner-Nordström black hole
> >> > if
> >> > the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr-Newman black hole if it has
> both
> >> > angular momentum and electric charge).
> >> >
> >> > A special, mathematically-oriented article describes the
> >> > Reissner-Nordström
> >> > metric for a charged, non-rotating black hole.
> >> >
> >> > The solutions of Einstein's field equation for the gravitational field
> >> > of an
> >> > electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty
> >> > space
> >> > was obtained in 1918 by Hans Reissner andGunnar Nordström, not long
> >> > after
> >> > Karl Schwarzschild found the Schwarzschild metric as a solution f

Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?

Once matter collapses it will still obey quantum mechanic and thermodynamic
laws.  I am going to do some calculations and see what I come up with.

Once matter collapses, it is no longer part of this unicerse, and as such,
no longer obeys quantum mexhanics and thermodynamic laws.

A *gravitational singularity* or *spacetime singularity* is a location
where the quantities that are used to measure the
gravitationalfield become
infinite  in a way that does not
depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant
curvatures of
spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter.

According to general
relativity,
the initial state of the universe ,
at the beginning of the Big Bang ,
was a singularity. Both general
relativityand quantum
mechanics  break down in
describing the Big Bang, but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit
particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths. Another type
of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black
hole:
any star  collapsing beyond a certain
point (the Schwarzschild
radius)
would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event
horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point
(or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating). This is again
according to general relativity without quantum mechanics, which forbids
wavelike particles entering a space smaller than their wavelength. These
hypothetical singularities are also known as curvature singularities.

If a singularity would ever form on earth, that would be the end of earth
in this universe.

Cheers:Axil

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:36 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> I agree.  Basically I am talking about collapsed matter as the primary
> trigger for all of the secoondary reactions which Abd is working on
> figuring out.   In quantum mechanics this is effected by the strength of
> quantum scale gravity and also the hoop effect caused by a void.  Once
> matter collapses it will still obey quantum mechanic and thermodynamic
> laws.  I am going to do some calculations and see what I come up with.
>
> I see a similarity in what Axil is calling ultra high density inverted
> rydberg matter and what I am talking about.  I of course have done a top
> down approach.
>
> The thing I am also concerned with now is does any of this stuff stay
> around in the environment and not evaporate or decay completely which I
> think would be very bad for the surroundings, including people.
>
> I just put the theory out there last week.  I am going to continue
> developing it.
>
> One last thought that I am adding to my theory regarding the big picture:
>  If this anomalous heat effect is basically evaporating matter under
> relatively normal conditions then basically that tells us that all of the
> matter in the universe will evaporate over time.  And since hawking showed
> that matter and anti-matter particles pop out of the vacuum and either
> destroy each other or the anti-matter particle might get sucked into a
> singularity to aid in its evaporation and leave a particle of matter that
> escapes into space then the universe might be stuck in sort of an endless
> do-loop of matter creation and evaporation to and from the quantum field.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:
>
>> **
>> CE, I think you need to gather your thoughts in one place, write a
>> comprehensive paper and flesh out many lacking details to your theory,
>> instead of repeating yourself ad nauseam here in Vortex, and interject your
>> theory at every post.
>>
>> Your theory as posted in your blog is glaringly incomplete.  I read your
>> theory and I found it a bit lacking.  I would like to see some mathematical
>> support to your suppositions.  Mathematical computations as to energy
>> levels required, creation rates and evaporation rates.  If you can come up
>> with these, it would go a long ways in providing guidance for
>> experimentation, which I would be willing to do if it is within my
>> capability.
>>
>> Also an explanation with mathematical data as to why a singularity is
>> formed in a void or crack as you propose instead of fusion occuring.
>> Saying that "quantum gravity is large, hence it creates a singularity"
>> ain't gonna cut it.
>>
>> I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, of course, and assuming that
>> you are serious about developing your theory and not just playing with your
>> colleages here in Vortex, seeing how many

RE: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?

2012-08-18 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Robin stated,
" Other factors to take into consideration are that a neutral black hole
would oscillate back and forth through the planet"

Funny, that's exactly how electrons behave in my physical model... with the
electron 'hole' being the other half of the electron.  So whatever is
oscillating is constantly traversing the nucleus, only it is traveling so
fast that it is only 'inside' the nuclear volume for a very short time
(10^-30s).  

Robin, do you have a ref for your above statement?

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 7:39 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?

What I had in mind was a formula for the rate at which Hawking radiation
causes it to evaporate, which is apparently size dependant. Other factors to
take into consideration are that a neutral black hole would oscillate back
and forth through the planet, so in order to remain stuck in a lattice, it
would have to be charged. Furthermore, the resulting chemical binding forces
would need to at least counteract the gravitational force trying to draw it
to the center of the Earth, so that would place a limit on the mass.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device

2012-08-18 Thread Daniel Rocha

The problem is Rossi :D

2012/8/19 Jeff Berkowitz 

>  right, the author has nothing nice to say about W-L.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> Better save it before Krivit purges that!
>>
>>
>> 2012/8/19 Jeff Berkowitz 
>>
>>> If you open this link:
>>>
>>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf
>>>
>>> It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR
>>> papers stuck together end to end.
>>>
>>> The second of the three papers is analysis of the applicability of W-L
>>> to the Rossi Ni+H device.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device

 right, the author has nothing nice to say about W-L.

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

> Better save it before Krivit purges that!
>
>
> 2012/8/19 Jeff Berkowitz 
>
>> If you open this link:
>>
>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf
>>
>> It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR
>> papers stuck together end to end.
>>
>> The second of the three papers is analysis of the applicability of W-L to
>> the Rossi Ni+H device.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device

2012-08-18 Thread Daniel Rocha

Better save it before Krivit purges that!

2012/8/19 Jeff Berkowitz 

> If you open this link:
>
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf
>
> It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR
> papers stuck together end to end.
>
> The second of the three papers is analysis of the applicability of W-L to
> the Rossi Ni+H device.
>
> Jeff
>
>


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

[Vo]:Analysis of W-L theory as applicable to Rossi device

If you open this link:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf

It turns out that the PDF contains three separate and unrelated LENR papers
stuck together end to end.

The second of the three papers is analysis of the applicability of W-L to
the Rossi Ni+H device.

Jeff

Re: [Vo]:Nano-particle sodium borohydride encased in nickel shells

On the one hand I think there may be some bad science reporting at work
here - the abstract (as opposed to the phys.org summary) doesn't use the
term "energy release", only "hydrogen release" and "hydrogen
absorption/desorption".

On the other hand, I recognized "hydroborate" from the ICCF papers on
Krivit's site, went back and found this:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Vysotskii-Stimulated-LENR-Paper.pdf


Jeff

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> "Nano-structures to realise hydrogen's energy potential"
>
> http://phys.org/news/2012-08-nano-structures-realise-hydrogen-energy-potential.html
>
> It seems they're seeing "remarkable improvements in the thermodynamic and
> kinetic properties of their material," including a significant energy
> release at 350 C.  I don't have a clear sense of whether the effects that
> are being seen are due to LENR, per se.  But I wonder how many researchers
> either stumble upon LENR and don't realize it or suspect that it might be
> occurring but are reluctant to say so.
>
> Eric
>

[Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?

I agree.  Basically I am talking about collapsed matter as the primary
trigger for all of the secoondary reactions which Abd is working on
figuring out.   In quantum mechanics this is effected by the strength of
quantum scale gravity and also the hoop effect caused by a void.  Once
matter collapses it will still obey quantum mechanic and thermodynamic
laws.  I am going to do some calculations and see what I come up with.

I see a similarity in what Axil is calling ultra high density inverted
rydberg matter and what I am talking about.  I of course have done a top
down approach.

The thing I am also concerned with now is does any of this stuff stay
around in the environment and not evaporate or decay completely which I
think would be very bad for the surroundings, including people.

I just put the theory out there last week.  I am going to continue
developing it.

One last thought that I am adding to my theory regarding the big picture:
 If this anomalous heat effect is basically evaporating matter under
relatively normal conditions then basically that tells us that all of the
matter in the universe will evaporate over time.  And since hawking showed
that matter and anti-matter particles pop out of the vacuum and either
destroy each other or the anti-matter particle might get sucked into a
singularity to aid in its evaporation and leave a particle of matter that
escapes into space then the universe might be stuck in sort of an endless
do-loop of matter creation and evaporation to and from the quantum field.

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Jojo Jaro

> wrote:

> **
> CE, I think you need to gather your thoughts in one place, write a
> comprehensive paper and flesh out many lacking details to your theory,
> instead of repeating yourself ad nauseam here in Vortex, and interject your
> theory at every post.
>
> Your theory as posted in your blog is glaringly incomplete.  I read your
> theory and I found it a bit lacking.  I would like to see some mathematical
> support to your suppositions.  Mathematical computations as to energy
> levels required, creation rates and evaporation rates.  If you can come up
> with these, it would go a long ways in providing guidance for
> experimentation, which I would be willing to do if it is within my
> capability.
>
> Also an explanation with mathematical data as to why a singularity is
> formed in a void or crack as you propose instead of fusion occuring.
> Saying that "quantum gravity is large, hence it creates a singularity"
> ain't gonna cut it.
>
> I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, of course, and assuming that you
> are serious about developing your theory and not just playing with your
> colleages here in Vortex, seeing how many your can loop around for a spin.
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* ChemE Stewart 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com  'vortex-l@eskimo.com');>
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 18, 2012 8:09 PM
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
>
> They are proposed to range from the largest of 6.6 billion solar masses
> down to 23 micrograms, the planck mass, about a grain of sand, but
> collapsed.  I propose that they are not really "stable" they are always
> emitting some form of Ultra Low Momentum Radiation (see I can event my own
> terms also!)   Whenever they come close enough to external matter or are
> fed energy of any kind they instaneously convert that matter to energy and
> evaporate it back to their environment, going back to a stable
> thermodynamic state.
>
> Large black holes belch higher levels of radiation when they consume a
> star or other matter that comes close enough all I am saying is that their
> babies do the same.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3208
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particles
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, August 17, 2012, wrote:
>
>> In reply to  ChemE Stewart's message of Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:53:15 -0400:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >Feed yor gremlin a steady diet of hydrogen without any powder and you
>> will
>> >not get neutrons.  This thing is ripping atoms apart
>> [snip]
>>
>> How big/heavy does a gremlin have be in order to remain stable, i.e. for
>> the
>> mass consumption rate to equal the evaporation rate?
>>
>> (I realize that the mass consumption rate is variable, but please provide
>> some
>> reasonable limits.)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>

[Vo]:Nano-particle sodium borohydride encased in nickel shells

"Nano-structures to realise hydrogen's energy potential"
http://phys.org/news/2012-08-nano-structures-realise-hydrogen-energy-potential.html

It seems they're seeing "remarkable improvements in the thermodynamic and 
kinetic properties of their material," including a significant energy release 
at 350 C.  I don't have a clear sense of whether the effects that are being 
seen are due to LENR, per se.  But I wonder how many researchers either stumble 
upon LENR and don't realize it or suspect that it might be occurring but are 
reluctant to say so.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation

This is a very refreshing response. I certainly hope you are correct.
Jeff

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:
>
>
>> I suppose that if this work all holds up, the mainstream scientific
>> community may get what it deserves for shunning the discipline: all the key
>> results may be locked up behind an impenetrable veil of trade secrecy.
>>
>
> That subject came up in the panel discussion; the panel of which I was a
> member. An audience member expressed concerns that if cold fusion
> transmogrifies into something like the semiconductor industry, how will
> scientific information spread from what Berkowitz calls "an impenetrable
> veil of trade secrecy." I address this question. I don't recall exactly
> what I said, but the gist of it is that trade secrecy is not impenetrable.
> It is a sieve. In industry, proprietary information floods out by well
> known means such as reverse engineering of machine and poaching top
> employees who have technical knowledge.
>
> (I believe the whole thing is on video, so you might find I blurted out
> something quite different, but that is what I mean to say.)
>
> There is nothing more ephemeral that a vitally important trade secret.
> Trade secrets about unimportant technology sometimes last for decades.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi FIRST?? 1MW : gas-fired COP = 3 minimum 6 maximum

2012-08-18 Thread Alan Fletcher

> From: "Jeff Berkowitz" 
> Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 2:39:47 PM
> I think the point of (b) in the original message was that today's
> posting by Rossi talks about a 1MW plant using the future tense. Which
> seems to conflict with some prior statements by Rossi.
> Jeff

Trying to translate Rossispeak  he's probably moved on, so he might be 
talking about the FIRST 1MW HOT-CAT.

Just guessing.

Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?

2012-08-18 Thread mixent

In reply to  ChemE Stewart's message of Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:09:52 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>They are proposed to range from the largest of 6.6 billion solar masses
>down to 23 micrograms, the planck mass, about a grain of sand, but
>collapsed.  I propose that they are not really "stable" they are always
>emitting some form of Ultra Low Momentum Radiation (see I can event my own
>terms also!)   Whenever they come close enough to external matter or are
>fed energy of any kind they instaneously convert that matter to energy and
>evaporate it back to their environment, going back to a stable
>thermodynamic state.
>
>Large black holes belch higher levels of radiation when they consume a star
>or other matter that comes close enough all I am saying is that their
>babies do the same.
[snip]
What I had in mind was a formula for the rate at which Hawking radiation causes
it to evaporate, which is apparently size dependant. Other factors to take into
consideration are that a neutral black hole would oscillate back and forth
through the planet, so in order to remain stuck in a lattice, it would have to
be charged. Furthermore, the resulting chemical binding forces would need to at
least counteract the gravitational force trying to draw it to the center of the
Earth, so that would place a limit on the mass.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:McKubre clarifies his view of the Celani demonstration

I sent Mike a copy of the message I posted here, along with Robert Lynn's
analysis. He responded:

"It would be fair to say that I have some concerns and am working with
others to see if these can be resolved.  I also think that the core of the
experiment is a very clever idea and look forward to seeing more
quantitative data."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: Stunning slide from Technova

2012-08-18 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> That would violate what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles
> principle.

But not the call to "maximize miracles"!

T

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation

Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:

> I suppose that if this work all holds up, the mainstream scientific
> community may get what it deserves for shunning the discipline: all the key
> results may be locked up behind an impenetrable veil of trade secrecy.
>

That subject came up in the panel discussion; the panel of which I was a
member. An audience member expressed concerns that if cold fusion
transmogrifies into something like the semiconductor industry, how will
scientific information spread from what Berkowitz calls "an impenetrable
veil of trade secrecy." I address this question. I don't recall exactly
what I said, but the gist of it is that trade secrecy is not impenetrable.
It is a sieve. In industry, proprietary information floods out by well
known means such as reverse engineering of machine and poaching top
employees who have technical knowledge.

(I believe the whole thing is on video, so you might find I blurted out
something quite different, but that is what I mean to say.)

There is nothing more ephemeral that a vitally important trade secret.
Trade secrets about unimportant technology sometimes last for decades.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR and Fermi Acceleration

2012-08-18 Thread Harry Veeder

BTW, I appear to contradict myself when I said "measuring cannot
increase the energy of the particle"
vs I agree with the claim that measuring can concentrate energy in a
system. In the former, I mean I don't accept the idea that measuring
can somehow increase the energy the particle without the transfer of
energy from somewhere else.

Harry

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
> Hi LP,
>
> I haven't read the paper, but I don't disagree with claim. In fact it
> should not be unexpected.
>
> Even in a macroscopic system a concentration energy can come about as
> a result of energy being transferred from the measuring system  to the
> system being measured. Of course, such a measuring system would be
> considered defective because it provides a distorted picture of the
> energy content of system being measured. However, classical mechanics
> says a measuring system can be designed in theory to have an
> arbitrarily small distorting effect, whereas quantum mechanics says
> this is not possible in theory.
>
> Harry
>
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:44 PM,   wrote:
>> Hello Harry,
>>
>> To be really precise, though, an energy measurement of a particle in a
>> superposition of energy eigenstates might find it in one of the states
>> higher than the weighted average energy of its wavefunction.  So, you
>> might say that the measurement increased its energy, but over many such
>> measurements would just produce the mean energy of the wavefunction.
>>
>> While I am not convinced they are correct, the authors of the paper I
>> referenced end with the conclusion -
>>
>> "From a general perspective a phenomenon like the energy concentration in
>> a composite quantum system can indeed be motivated physically. There exist
>> processes, where there is a redistribution of energy among different
>> system degrees of freedom making possible some amounts of system
>> self-organization. In particular, one could examine the possibility of
>> concentrating the total energy of the system into a subset of degrees of
>> freedom producing a decrease of its entropy, which in order to avoid a
>> violation of the second law of thermodynamics, would compel the release of
>> energy to the environment, thus keeping the free energy constant. This is
>> possible only if the system is open..."
>>
>> "Concentrating Energy by Measurement"
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5868
>>
>> Interesting theory.
>>
>> -- LP
>>
>> Harry Veeder wrote:
>>> Actually, I tend agree with Robin that measuring cannot increase the
>>> energy of the particle. My question reflects my own attempt to
>>> understand why it is so. Now that I have thought about it, it is
>>> because one doesn't measure energy per se. Most measurements are
>>> really the result of calculations based on measurements of length and
>>> time plugged into a formula. BTW, the same is true of measurements of
>>> momentum. The modern physicists habit of refering to energy and
>>> momentum as "observables" is a perscription for phenomenological
>>> confusion. The resulting measures of length and time  are only
>>> consistent with the supposed law-like properties of energy and
>>> momemtum on a statiscal level.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM,   wrote:
 Hello Harry,

 You asked --
 "So, the measuring instrument itself will produce energy, if it is used
 to precisely measure the energy of a particle?"

 Probably not.
 But maybe there are subtleties that obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics,
 but allow for some counterintuitive effects.  For example, refer to --

 "Concentrating Energy by Measurement"
 http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5868

 -- LP

 Harry Veeder wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:57 PM,   wrote:
>> In reply to  pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Fri, 17 Aug 2012
>> 13:11:31
>> -0400 (EDT):
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>>>Pardon for this very late postscript, time is hard to find.
>>>
>>>I believe you assume a wave function totally confined in all
>>> 3-dimensions.
>>> This is probably not what was intended.  It is easy to find papers
>>>describing crystal/lattice channel conduction of much higher energy
>>>particles (electrons, protons, ...). These are extended states - only
>>>confined in one or two dimensions.  High energy particles do not
>>>necessarily break the lattice structure.
>>>
>>>-- LP
>>
>> What I meant to do was calculate the momentum (assuming a kinetic
>> energy
>> of
>> 0.782 MeV for the proton), and divide it into h-bar/2. However it
>> appears I got
>> something slightly wrong the first time around. The value I get now is
>> 2.57 fm
>> for a proton, and 0.93 fm for the deuteron.
>>
>> However I don't really stand behind the entire concept. I don't think
>> the energy
>> of particles magically increases when they are confined. I do think
>> the
>> measure

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation

I saw this too. It's a quote. The word "proprietary" actually appears 6
times in the Godes document, in relation to this and other aspects of the
work. It seems unlikely to be an accident or temporary.

Celani also describes the "large" help of an unnamed Italian company with
respect to processing the CONSTANTAN wire - in particular, the exact wire
("wire #2") that was shown at both conferences, NI and ICCF. It's unclear
whether he plans to provide the information required to replicate, either.
Certainly it is not in the ICCF paper.

And you have Piantelli apparently withdrawing from ICCF at the last moment,
rumor has it to protect proprietary information ...

I suppose that if this work all holds up, the mainstream scientific
community may get what it deserves for shunning the discipline: all the key
results may be locked up behind an impenetrable veil of trade secrecy.

Jeff

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:
>
>
>> Certain electrical
>>> inputs to the cell were changed deliberately in a
>>> proprietary manner effecting Q frequency content.
>>>
>>
>> In other words, we aren't being told enough information so that this
>> finding could be independently replicated.
>>
>
> Is the first comment a quote from the paper, or a report? Anyway, ask the
> authors. Maybe it is not longer proprietary.
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

> Certain electrical
>> inputs to the cell were changed deliberately in a
>> proprietary manner effecting Q frequency content.
>>
>
> In other words, we aren't being told enough information so that this
> finding could be independently replicated.
>

Is the first comment a quote from the paper, or a report? Anyway, ask the
authors. Maybe it is not longer proprietary.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: Stunning slide from Technova

Terry Blanton  wrote:

Or, they are two totally different, unrelated reactions.
>

That would violate what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles
principle.

Okay, that's just a rule of thumb, or a gut feeling.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:RE: Stunning slide from Technova

Le Aug 18, 2012 à 4:28 PM, Jouni Valkonen  a écrit :

> But have we looked for helium in Ni-H systems? I would doubt that because 
> Ni-H is rather new way to produce excess heat and it is not well established.

When I looked for helium as an ash from the Ni-H systems sometime back, I could 
not find anything in Ed Storms's book, and I haven't seen anything since in 
papers and notes, except a possible negative finding mentioned in the recent 
slides from Defkalion. But I also wonder whether people have systematically 
sought it out yet.  Much of the focus has been on the possibility of Ni + p -> 
Cu reactions, in line with Andrea Rossi's explanation.  With Celani's use of Cu 
in the initial mix, however, we have additional reason to be skeptical about 
this particular pathway.

> My bets are still that both systems are based on light element fusion 
> reactions. Also helium, helium-3, lithium and boron should be researched 
> well. I think that the evidence for any transmutations of heavy elements is 
> just too weak and erratic although it should be easily detectable e.g. from 
> Celani's cell.

I am not in a position to assert an opinion here, but the impression I get is 
that the evidence for transmutations to stable isotopes is solid; see Ed 
Storms's book for a good discussion.  An important difficulty, however, is that 
the amounts detected cannot explain the levels of excess power observed.  (For 
those wondering whether a shift to unstable isotopes is also possible under 
certain circumstances, I'm not sure, although I have only seen this reported in 
two instances by two related groups.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation

Thanks for writing this, I was also scratching my head trying to figure out
whether Godes and W-L were saying the same thing or not.

Minor comment: I think you typo'd "782MeV" when meaning 782KeV.

Jeff

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> At 03:06 PM 8/17/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
>
>> At 01:17 PM 8/17/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>>
>>> Unreadable for me.
>>>
>>
>> Full paper :
>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/**conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-**
>> 17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-**Capture-Paper.pdf
>>
>> Appendix A just lists a bunch of reactions ... with NO  direct reference
>> to WL (may be in the other Godes papers).
>>
>
> Interesting paper.
>
> This is *not* W-L theory compatible. However, first things first. This
> paper is most of all an experimental report. The abstract does not mention
> theory. The title, however, and the opening paragraph talk about the fusion
> theory they had in mind. The conclusion, however, doesn't make a claim that
> they proved the theory, only that they found certain operating
> characteristics.
>
>  We conclude that the reaction producing excess power
>> in the nickel hydride is related to and very dependent
>> upon the frequency of the Q pulses applied. We have
>> thus demonstrated that there is a repeatable and
>> measurable relationship between excess heat production
>> from the stimulated nickel hydride in the test cell and the
>> repetition rate of the applied electronic pulses. When the
>> repetition rate is changed from the optimum frequency,
>> excess power production ceases in the nickel hydride
>> lattice. When that repetition rate is restored, significant
>> excess power production resumes.
>>
>
> I'm very interested in this work for the same reasons I've been very
> interested in the THz (dual laser) stimulation work of Dennis Letts et al.
> Control over the reaction is being demonstrated. There is a fly in the
> ointment, though.
>
>  Certain electrical
>> inputs to the cell were changed deliberately in a
>> proprietary manner effecting Q frequency content.
>>
>
> In other words, we aren't being told enough information so that this
> finding could be independently replicated.
>
>  We started with the hypothesis that metal hydrides
>> stimulated at frequencies related to the lattice phonon
>> resonance would cause protons or deuterons to undergo
>> controlled electron capture. If this hypothesis is true then
>> less hydride material would be needed to produce excess
>> power. Also, this should lead to excess power (1) on
>> demand, (2) from light H2O electrolysis, and (3) from the
>> hydrides of Pd, Ni, or any matrix able to provide the
>> necessary confinement of hydrogen and obtain a
>> Hamiltonian value greater than 782KeV. Also, the excess
>> power effect would be enhanced at high temperatures and
>> pressures.
>> Brillouin's lattice stimulation reverses the natural
>> decay of neutrons to protons and Beta particles,
>> catalyzing this endothermic step. Constraining a proton
>> spatially in a lattice causes the lattice energy to be highly
>> uncertain. With the Hamiltonian of the system reaching
>> 782KeV for a proton or 3MeV for a deuteron the system
>> may be capable of capturing an electron, forming an
>> ultra-cold neutron or di-neutron system. The almost
>> stationary ultra-cold neutron(s) occupies a position in the
>> metal lattice where another dissolved hydrogen is most
>> likely to tunnel in less than a nanosecond, forming a
>> deuteron / triton / quadrium by capturing the cold neutron
>> and releasing binding energy.
>> This would lead to helium through a Beta decay. The
>> expected half-life of the beta decay: if J_(4H)=
>> 0-, 1-, 2-,t1/2=10 min; if J_(4H)=0+, 1+, t1/2=0.03 sec[1].
>> Personal correspondence with Dr. D. R. Tilley confirmed
>> that the result of such a reaction would be ß¯ decay to
>> 4He.
>>
>
> The only resemblance to W-L theory is that neutron formation from electron
> capture by a proton is being hypothesized. W-L proposes a surface
> mechanism, Brillouin is proposing a lattice mechanism, but that might be an
> inconsequential detail, i.e., the actual reaction site might be near or at
> the surface.
>
> W-L propose that ULM neutrons form by capture of "heavy electrons" have a
> high capture cross-section (expected, if I'm correct, from the very low
> momentum), but they have these neutrons react with lots of different stuff
> in the surface region.
>
> Brillouin has the ULM neutron sitting in the site where it was formed (as
> it would, initially at least), where it would be targeted by another
> proton, as, with the original proton's charge gone, this would be the
> preferred location for a new proton to occupy.
>
> Thus, with hydrogen, the initial (and doubtless main) reaction product
> would be deuterium.
>
> This is somewhat similar to Storms' proposal, except for the site. Storms
>

Re: [Vo]:RE: Stunning slide from Technova

I am curious about the "weak and erratic" comment. What about evidence like
this -

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20of%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf

This doesn't look that hard to reproduce - the main problem is access to
the spectrometer-equipped SEM, which is not the sort of power tool found in
the average garage.  ;-)  I've no idea how common these devices are.
Anyway, have their been attempts/failures to reproduce this kind of work?

Jeff

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

>
>
> On 17 August 2012 19:58, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> 5)  Helium ash is often seen with Pd-D but no helium is seen with
>> Ni-H.
>>
>> But have we looked for helium in Ni-H systems? I would doubt that because
> Ni-H is rather new way to produce excess heat and it is not well
> established. There are not much scientific papers published on Ni-H system
> and I would guess that there are zero scientific papers, where
> helium/tritium was searched from Ni-H system that sustained clear anomalous
> heat effect, such as Celani's cell.
>
> My bets are still that both systems are based on light element fusion
> reactions. Also helium, helium-3, lithium and boron should be researched
> well. I think that the evidence for any transmutations of heavy elements is
> just too weak and erratic although it should be easily detectable e.g. from
> Celani's cell.
>
> –Jouni
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR and Fermi Acceleration

2012-08-18 Thread Harry Veeder

Hi LP,

I haven't read the paper, but I don't disagree with claim. In fact it
should not be unexpected.

Even in a macroscopic system a concentration energy can come about as
a result of energy being transferred from the measuring system  to the
system being measured. Of course, such a measuring system would be
considered defective because it provides a distorted picture of the
energy content of system being measured. However, classical mechanics
says a measuring system can be designed in theory to have an
arbitrarily small distorting effect, whereas quantum mechanics says
this is not possible in theory.

Harry

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:44 PM,   wrote:
> Hello Harry,
>
> To be really precise, though, an energy measurement of a particle in a
> superposition of energy eigenstates might find it in one of the states
> higher than the weighted average energy of its wavefunction.  So, you
> might say that the measurement increased its energy, but over many such
> measurements would just produce the mean energy of the wavefunction.
>
> While I am not convinced they are correct, the authors of the paper I
> referenced end with the conclusion -
>
> "From a general perspective a phenomenon like the energy concentration in
> a composite quantum system can indeed be motivated physically. There exist
> processes, where there is a redistribution of energy among different
> system degrees of freedom making possible some amounts of system
> self-organization. In particular, one could examine the possibility of
> concentrating the total energy of the system into a subset of degrees of
> freedom producing a decrease of its entropy, which in order to avoid a
> violation of the second law of thermodynamics, would compel the release of
> energy to the environment, thus keeping the free energy constant. This is
> possible only if the system is open..."
>
> "Concentrating Energy by Measurement"
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5868
>
> Interesting theory.
>
> -- LP
>
> Harry Veeder wrote:
>> Actually, I tend agree with Robin that measuring cannot increase the
>> energy of the particle. My question reflects my own attempt to
>> understand why it is so. Now that I have thought about it, it is
>> because one doesn't measure energy per se. Most measurements are
>> really the result of calculations based on measurements of length and
>> time plugged into a formula. BTW, the same is true of measurements of
>> momentum. The modern physicists habit of refering to energy and
>> momentum as "observables" is a perscription for phenomenological
>> confusion. The resulting measures of length and time  are only
>> consistent with the supposed law-like properties of energy and
>> momemtum on a statiscal level.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM,   wrote:
>>> Hello Harry,
>>>
>>> You asked --
>>> "So, the measuring instrument itself will produce energy, if it is used
>>> to precisely measure the energy of a particle?"
>>>
>>> Probably not.
>>> But maybe there are subtleties that obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics,
>>> but allow for some counterintuitive effects.  For example, refer to --
>>>
>>> "Concentrating Energy by Measurement"
>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5868
>>>
>>> -- LP
>>>
>>> Harry Veeder wrote:
 On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:57 PM,   wrote:
> In reply to  pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Fri, 17 Aug 2012
> 13:11:31
> -0400 (EDT):
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>Pardon for this very late postscript, time is hard to find.
>>
>>I believe you assume a wave function totally confined in all
>> 3-dimensions.
>> This is probably not what was intended.  It is easy to find papers
>>describing crystal/lattice channel conduction of much higher energy
>>particles (electrons, protons, ...). These are extended states - only
>>confined in one or two dimensions.  High energy particles do not
>>necessarily break the lattice structure.
>>
>>-- LP
>
> What I meant to do was calculate the momentum (assuming a kinetic
> energy
> of
> 0.782 MeV for the proton), and divide it into h-bar/2. However it
> appears I got
> something slightly wrong the first time around. The value I get now is
> 2.57 fm
> for a proton, and 0.93 fm for the deuteron.
>
> However I don't really stand behind the entire concept. I don't think
> the energy
> of particles magically increases when they are confined. I do think
> the
> measurement uncertainty increases, but that's not the same thing as
> their actual
> energy. Instead, I see it as a limitation on our ability to measure,
> not
> a
> change in the actual properties of the particle itself.
> IOW the restriction applies to us, not to the particles.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>

 So, the measuring instrument itself will produce energy, if it is used
 to precisely measure the energy

Re: [Vo]:RE: Stunning slide from Technova

2012-08-18 Thread Jouni Valkonen

On 17 August 2012 19:58, Jones Beene  wrote:

> 5)  Helium ash is often seen with Pd-D but no helium is seen with Ni-H.
>
> But have we looked for helium in Ni-H systems? I would doubt that because
Ni-H is rather new way to produce excess heat and it is not well
established. There are not much scientific papers published on Ni-H system
and I would guess that there are zero scientific papers, where
helium/tritium was searched from Ni-H system that sustained clear anomalous
heat effect, such as Celani's cell.

My bets are still that both systems are based on light element fusion
reactions. Also helium, helium-3, lithium and boron should be researched
well. I think that the evidence for any transmutations of heavy elements is
just too weak and erratic although it should be easily detectable e.g. from
Celani's cell.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:RE: Stunning slide from Technova


At 11:58 AM 8/17/2012, Jones Beene wrote:

Further on this point (with some rewording):

IMPLICATION - there are 20+ years of positive experiments
with palladium-deuterium, most of them using hydrogen as a control. Hydrogen
does not seem to work at all in pure palladium. If H worked at all, then the
thermal gain with D is even more than we realize, since it is used as a
control.

BUT deuterium seems to work better than hydrogen ONLY in
palladium (possibly better in Titanium but that is less clear). Surprisingly
D is much poorer in side-by-side comparison in Ni-Cu (but is still gainful).
Most interesting, since much faith has been put in the 'boson connection'
prior to recently!

THERE IS A LESSON HERE ... but damn, I'm not sure exactly
what it is !


We won't know for sure until we know much more than we currently 
know. Various people propose this and that, but nothing, so far, has 
truly been confirmed.


Hydrogen is used as a control, but there are lots of reports that 
hydrogen is not a completely "clean" control. I.e., all the way back 
to Pons and Fleischmann, it was reported that small amounts of heat 
were sometimes seen with light water controls. I don't know if they 
tried deuterium-depleted water, because it's possible that light 
water heat was from the normal light water deuterium contamination.


However, this has little import with respect to levels of heat from 
deuterium, because that was independently determined. The calibration 
is not done with light water, but with other means. The light water 
controls are evidence that the calorimetry is, at least 
approximately, correct. It's not perfect, because deuterium and 
hydrogen do differ, slightly, in chemical/physical properties.



Among the possibilities are nuclear, magnetic and/or quantum properties.
Here are a few.
1)  The deuteron has spin +1 and is a nuclear boson, but two bound
protons is also a composite boson
2)  The NMR frequency of deuterium is significantly different from
hydrogen and nuclear magnetic moment is vastly less. NMR sensitivity is two
orders of magnitude less for D.
3)  Nickel, as a host is ferromagnetic, so NMR or another magnetic
property may play a major role in defining the difference.
4)  OTOH - Palladium is a paramagnetic but local ferromagnetism has been
documented in Pd! (could this relate to why these systems seem to be less
reliable than Ni-H ? (i.e. itinerate ferromagnetism)
5)  Helium ash is often seen with Pd-D but no helium is seen with Ni-H.

In short, it could be possible that deuterium reactions are fundamentally
different, and always result in nuclear ash, whereas Ni-H reactions, if they
are nuclear at all - depend on direct transfers of nuclear mass from the
proton to supply excess energy, resulting in no transmutation. However, both
systems depend on some kind of magnetic coupling to the host metal lattice -
and that coupling defines which metals or alloys work and which do not work.


Finding helium as the ash with strong NiH experiments would be quite 
unexpected. Finding helium with deuterium cold fusion was actually 
one of the most strongly suspected possibilities, early on, because 
of the rare d+d hot fusion branch, d+d -> He-4 plus gamma. To remind 
readers, there are three branched to that reaction:


d+d -> tritium + proton, 50%
d+d -> neutron + He-3, 50%
d+d -> He-4 + gamma, rare.

"cold fusion" was assumed to be, at first, d+d fusion. After all, the 
experiments were being done with deuterium oxide. But Pons and 
Fleischmann actually only proposed d+d fusion to explain their 
(erroneous) neutron findings. They claimed "unknown nuclear reaction" 
for the actual reaction causing all that heat.


The "triple miracle" was, as I recall,

1. That any nuclear reaction would take place at all, because of the 
Coulomb barrier.
2. That no neutrons or other major radiation was observed, 
commensurate with the heat.
3. That there appeared to be a single product, causing a problem with 
conservation of momentum.


However, if the hypothesis is "unknown reaction," there is no miracle 
necessary, beyond something being observed that may not have been 
observed before. Unknown "nuclear" reaction wasn't really much 
different, but enters the territory of Miracle 1, possibly. "Nuclear" 
was proposed because *chemists* concluded that the level of heat 
observed wasn't possible, under the circumstances, from a chemical reaction.


*Physicists* said that the *chemists* were wrong about their chemistry

It was a real mess, the "scientific fiasco of the century" (Huizenga).

In any case, we still don't know what the mechanism is, so the first 
miracle remains unexplained, as to anything proven.


When we talk about "cold fusion," however, we create a lot of 
confusion if we aren't specific about what we mean. We now have a 
reasonable basis for considering the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect to 
be the result of some kind of fusion, unkn

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation

At 03:06 PM 8/17/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote:

At 01:17 PM 8/17/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Unreadable for me.

Full paper :
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-Capture-Paper.pdf

Appendix A just lists a bunch of reactions ...
with NO direct reference to WL (may be in the other Godes papers).

Interesting paper.

This is *not* W-L theory compatible. However,
first things first. This paper is most of all an
experimental report. The abstract does not
mention theory. The title, however, and the
opening paragraph talk about the fusion theory
they had in mind. The conclusion, however,
doesn't make a claim that they proved the theory,
only that they found certain operating characteristics.

We conclude that the reaction producing excess power
in the nickel hydride is related to and very dependent
upon the frequency of the Q pulses applied. We have
thus demonstrated that there is a repeatable and
measurable relationship between excess heat production
from the stimulated nickel hydride in the test cell and the
repetition rate of the applied electronic pulses. When the
repetition rate is changed from the optimum frequency,
excess power production ceases in the nickel hydride
lattice. When that repetition rate is restored, significant
excess power production resumes.

I'm very interested in this work for the same
reasons I've been very interested in the THz
(dual laser) stimulation work of Dennis Letts et
al. Control over the reaction is being
demonstrated. There is a fly in the ointment, though.

Certain electrical
inputs to the cell were changed deliberately in a
proprietary manner effecting Q frequency content.

In other words, we aren't being told enough
information so that this finding could be independently replicated.

We started with the hypothesis that metal hydrides
stimulated at frequencies related to the lattice phonon
resonance would cause protons or deuterons to undergo
controlled electron capture. If this hypothesis is true then
less hydride material would be needed to produce excess
power. Also, this should lead to excess power (1) on
demand, (2) from light H2O electrolysis, and (3) from the
hydrides of Pd, Ni, or any matrix able to provide the
necessary confinement of hydrogen and obtain a
Hamiltonian value greater than 782KeV. Also, the excess
power effect would be enhanced at high temperatures and
pressures.
Brillouin's lattice stimulation reverses the natural
decay of neutrons to protons and Beta particles,
catalyzing this endothermic step. Constraining a proton
spatially in a lattice causes the lattice energy to be highly
uncertain. With the Hamiltonian of the system reaching
782KeV for a proton or 3MeV for a deuteron the system
may be capable of capturing an electron, forming an
ultra-cold neutron or di-neutron system. The almost
stationary ultra-cold neutron(s) occupies a position in the
metal lattice where another dissolved hydrogen is most
likely to tunnel in less than a nanosecond, forming a
deuteron / triton / quadrium by capturing the cold neutron
and releasing binding energy.
This would lead to helium through a Beta decay. The
expected half-life of the beta decay: if J_(4H)=
0-, 1-, 2-,t1/2=10 min; if J_(4H)=0+, 1+, t1/2=0.03 sec[1].
Personal correspondence with Dr. D. R. Tilley confirmed
that the result of such a reaction would be ß¯ decay to
4He.

The only resemblance to W-L theory is that
neutron formation from electron capture by a
proton is being hypothesized. W-L proposes a
surface mechanism, Brillouin is proposing a
lattice mechanism, but that might be an
inconsequential detail, i.e., the actual reaction
site might be near or at the surface.

W-L propose that ULM neutrons form by capture of
"heavy electrons" have a high capture
cross-section (expected, if I'm correct, from the
very low momentum), but they have these neutrons
react with lots of different stuff in the surface region.

Brillouin has the ULM neutron sitting in the site
where it was formed (as it would, initially at
least), where it would be targeted by another
proton, as, with the original proton's charge
gone, this would be the preferred location for a new proton to occupy.

Thus, with hydrogen, the initial (and doubtless
main) reaction product would be deuterium.

This is somewhat similar to Storms' proposal,
except for the site. Storms has, in cracks:

p + e + p -> d + e. (The electron is catalytic
and is pushed out of the way)

There are obvious problems to be solved, if this
theory is to sprout wings. Rate is not
considered. The 782 MeV capture process is
enabled by the uncertainty principle, and such
processes are normally very much rate-limited.
It's tunneling, in effect, but that's a boatload
of energy to borrow in this way. The net energy
is not high for the first proposed step: 2.2 MeV
- 0.8 MeV. The process looks like, with H >>D, T,
it would produce tritium proportionally to the
D/H ratio

Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova

Jones Beene  (or is it Joro Jaro?) wrote:

> . . . For this and many other reasons, I stopped paying attention to Rossi
> some
> time ago, due to this propensity for dishonesty and trickery.

I think that is a big mistake. I recommend you pay close attention to him *
despite* this propensity, because he often says and does important things.

> He is not helping to push the field forward . . .

Oh yes he is! His influence is seen in most of the new experiments reported
at ICCF17. Most of the authors give him credit. If it turns out his results
are fake it will ironic, to say the least.

> We should apologize to Krivit on this point. Steve is/was correct about
> Rossi's basic dishonesty. (but he was not correct about W-L).

Steve was number 1,486 in line to make this assertion about Rossi. Many
other people made it before he did, including me. We owe Krivit no
apologies. On the other hand, we should cite him when he does good work, as
I did in this paper:

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

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi FIRST?? 1MW : gas-fired COP = 3 minimum 6 maximum

I think the point of (b) in the original message was that today's posting
by Rossi talks about a 1MW plant using the future tense. Which seems to
conflict with some prior statements by Rossi.

Jeff

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The efficiency of a gas electric generator is about 33%. If the Cop of a
> Rossi reactor  is 3, that means that the Rossi plant is about the same cost
> wise as a straight up gas burner.
>
> When gas is used to fire the Rossi reactor, the overall efficiency of that
> reactor goes up a few times but it is not very good at all. This is why
> Rossi must go to gas for the heat he needs to keep his reactor activated.
> The upcoming battle of the LENR systems in the market place is going to be
> one of efficiency and in this regard, Rossi does not look very well
> positioned.
>
> Cheers:Axil
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:
>
>> Strange Rossi posts :
>>
>>
>> a) COP = 3 to 6 ?
>>
>> Andrea Rossi
>> August 18th, 2012 at 7:34 AM
>> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695&cpage=2#comment-304432
>>
>> Dear Ing. Benedetto Schiavone:
>> 1- Our industrial plants are based on the modules of 10 kW of power. We
>> are already manufacturing them, and the safety is based on the fact that
>> being the 10 kW modules tested throughly, the assembly of more modules will
>> be as safe as the single ones, upon which we have spent thousands of hours
>> measuring the emissions and, therefore, the safety.
>> 2- Yes. The savingsd are simple: with 1 thermal kWh you make 3 thermal
>> kWh as a minimum and 6 thermal kWh as a maximum.
>> Thank you for your kind attention, Warm Regards,
>> A.R.
>>
>> b) FIRST 1MW Plant we WILL make ???
>>
>> Andrea Rossi
>> August 18th, 2012 at 8:57 AM
>> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695&cpage=2#comment-304465
>>
>> Dear Marco:
>> The design allows many solutions for the assemblies. The one you
>> suggested is one of them. It is very likely, anyway, that the first 1 MW
>> plant we will make will be driven by gas, not electricity, to make it more
>> economically convenient. I am designing the burners right now, while I am
>> answering to you, with our engineers.
>> Warm Regards,
>> A.R.
>>
>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova

2012-08-18 Thread Arnaud Kodeck

I never trusted all the claims of Rossi. His paranoia is understandable with
his history (Petroldragon and so) and the matter of topic here.

This attitude doesn't help LENR in the short term. But what is a few years
regarding the long story of the mankind? It is always too short, but man is
a man. It takes time to convince him to change his mind.

Soon or later, the truth will enlighten us ...

-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] 
Sent: samedi 18 août 2012 18:10
To: arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova

At 10:30 AM 8/17/2012, Arnaud Kodeck wrote:
>I think AR is smarter than this.
>
>He said Ni+p -> Cu when it knew it was not the case. With this statement,
he
>was sure that Cu will not be taken as a potential catalyst and only a
>by-product.

Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently 
planted red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew 
would not work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too 
bad that this is the opposite of the intention of a patent

Rossi can say whatever he likes about the theory of his work. It's 
legal. Lying is legal, under many conditions.

The problem is that once we know someone is willing to lie "for a 
good purpose," i.e., to protect his secrets, we can't trust anything 
he says unless we independently verify it. If someone would lie, 
shamelessly, they would also "arrange" a fraudulent demonstration. 
There isn't much difference.

People become confused when this is pointed out, they think I'm 
saying that there *was* a fraudulent demonstration. No, I'm saying 
that we can't trust the demonstrations. That and little more.

That NiH reactions might produce power is not and was not a big 
surprise, because there had been other reports (more sober, more 
scientific in nature). The surprise with Rossi was the level of heat 
and the claim of reliability. Many knowledgeable people think Rossi 
really did find an approach that generates significant heat, at least 
sometimes.

It was the appearance of reliability that was new and surprising. If 
Rossi did not actually solve the reliability problem, which is the 
trillion-dollar question in all of cold fusion, it would explain the 
delays, the confident announcements followed by failures to perform 
as promised, followed by more confident announcements. "Any day now," 
he'd think or hope, "I'll solve this, and then nobody will worry 
about my fudging this or that."

Comparisons with Papp are a bit shaky, because Papp was not using an 
approach analogous to that of anyone else. Rossi's work is an 
extension of what was already known as possible, or at least that had 
some level of experimental evidence of possibility. (As to theory, 
since we don't know what is happening with NiH, we only have 
speculations. In general, theory cannot establish the impossibility 
of any specific experimental outcome, for a number of reasons. 
Well-established theory can give us some guidance, that's about all. 
Independently confirmed experiment trumps theory, no matter how 
well-established, at least provisionally.)

However, having said that, Papp and Rossi share a paranoia about 
others ripping off their invention. With Papp the paranoia was deep 
and quite damaging. It's unclear how deep it is with Rossi, some 
think it is a pretense with him, a game he plays to confuse competition.

My general point is that we do not know if the Rossi devices really 
do produce power, or really are reliable, without independent 
confirmation. With the Papp Effect, there is also a lack of 
independent confirmation, still -- as far as anything published, I 
hear *rumor* of independent confirmation, which is almost useless -- 
and it is clear that Papp opposed all such. Rossi, as well, has 
declined many friendly opportunities for independent confirmation of 
his claims.

With Papp, though, there were ample demonstrations, witnessed by many 
people, that establish one of two major possibilities: the engine was 
real, and powerful, or there was an extremely sophisticated fraud. 
Compressed air has been mentioned as one possibility, there could be 
others. Any given fraud mode might be ruled out for any given 
demonstration, there is nothing that limits an inventor to one mode 
of pretense. This is why we want to see *independent* confirmations, 
where the inventor is not present to "guide" the experimenters.

We have another reason for wanting independent demonstrations, 
entirely independent. It forces the inventor to communicate what is 
necessary to others, thus making it unlikely that some "secret" will 
be lost. Sometimes, unfortunately, that's not possible. SRI, 
replicating the Case Effect, used material supplied by Case. It 
worked. This material was a catalyst prepared from coconut charcoal 
and plated with palladium, as I recall. When the material was 
accidentally discarded, nobody was able to create

Re: [Vo]:Rossi FIRST?? 1MW : gas-fired COP = 3 minimum 6 maximum

The efficiency of a gas electric generator is about 33%. If the Cop of a
Rossi reactor  is 3, that means that the Rossi plant is about the same cost
wise as a straight up gas burner.

When gas is used to fire the Rossi reactor, the overall efficiency of that
reactor goes up a few times but it is not very good at all. This is why
Rossi must go to gas for the heat he needs to keep his reactor activated.
The upcoming battle of the LENR systems in the market place is going to be
one of efficiency and in this regard, Rossi does not look very well
positioned.

Cheers:Axil

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> Strange Rossi posts :
>
>
> a) COP = 3 to 6 ?
>
> Andrea Rossi
> August 18th, 2012 at 7:34 AM
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695&cpage=2#comment-304432
>
> Dear Ing. Benedetto Schiavone:
> 1- Our industrial plants are based on the modules of 10 kW of power. We
> are already manufacturing them, and the safety is based on the fact that
> being the 10 kW modules tested throughly, the assembly of more modules will
> be as safe as the single ones, upon which we have spent thousands of hours
> measuring the emissions and, therefore, the safety.
> 2- Yes. The savingsd are simple: with 1 thermal kWh you make 3 thermal kWh
> as a minimum and 6 thermal kWh as a maximum.
> Thank you for your kind attention, Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>
> b) FIRST 1MW Plant we WILL make ???
>
> Andrea Rossi
> August 18th, 2012 at 8:57 AM
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695&cpage=2#comment-304465
>
> Dear Marco:
> The design allows many solutions for the assemblies. The one you suggested
> is one of them. It is very likely, anyway, that the first 1 MW plant we
> will make will be driven by gas, not electricity, to make it more
> economically convenient. I am designing the burners right now, while I am
> answering to you, with our engineers.
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration

Jones Beene  wrote:

Is there any way to guesstimate – assuming the best reasonable kind of
> insulation is added to retain heat, something like aerogel, etc – how much
> more mass of active wire (if any) would be necessary to get close to a
> nominally self-sustaining system?
>

The present mass of wire would be fine. Any kind of insulation would do.
The hard part is keeping it from overheating. Assuming the heat really is
15 to 20 W, it should be no problem using that much to keep the temperature
above the critical point of ~120 deg C.

The system will be externally heated at first, and then the external heat
will be backed off as it self-heats.

Celani already had plans to do this. He hopes to try in about 2 weeks. He
will report the results immediately, to me and others. It may take a while
to write a detailed report.

He hopes to give me the data from the run at ICCF17, which is about 5 MB.
He has to get permission from NI since it is their equipment. I gather that
is a formality.

- Jed

[Vo]:Rossi FIRST?? 1MW : gas-fired COP = 3 minimum 6 maximum

2012-08-18 Thread Alan Fletcher

Strange Rossi posts :


a) COP = 3 to 6 ?

Andrea Rossi
August 18th, 2012 at 7:34 AM
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695&cpage=2#comment-304432

Dear Ing. Benedetto Schiavone:
1- Our industrial plants are based on the modules of 10 kW of power. We are 
already manufacturing them, and the safety is based on the fact that being the 
10 kW modules tested throughly, the assembly of more modules will be as safe as 
the single ones, upon which we have spent thousands of hours measuring the 
emissions and, therefore, the safety.
2- Yes. The savingsd are simple: with 1 thermal kWh you make 3 thermal kWh as a 
minimum and 6 thermal kWh as a maximum.
Thank you for your kind attention, Warm Regards,
A.R.

b) FIRST 1MW Plant we WILL make ???

Andrea Rossi
August 18th, 2012 at 8:57 AM
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695&cpage=2#comment-304465

Dear Marco:
The design allows many solutions for the assemblies. The one you suggested is 
one of them. It is very likely, anyway, that the first 1 MW plant we will make 
will be driven by gas, not electricity, to make it more economically 
convenient. I am designing the burners right now, while I am answering to you, 
with our engineers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]:LENR and Fermi Acceleration

2012-08-18 Thread pagnucco

Hello Harry,

To be really precise, though, an energy measurement of a particle in a
superposition of energy eigenstates might find it in one of the states
higher than the weighted average energy of its wavefunction.  So, you
might say that the measurement increased its energy, but over many such
measurements would just produce the mean energy of the wavefunction.

While I am not convinced they are correct, the authors of the paper I
referenced end with the conclusion -

"From a general perspective a phenomenon like the energy concentration in
a composite quantum system can indeed be motivated physically. There exist
processes, where there is a redistribution of energy among different
system degrees of freedom making possible some amounts of system
self-organization. In particular, one could examine the possibility of
concentrating the total energy of the system into a subset of degrees of
freedom producing a decrease of its entropy, which in order to avoid a
violation of the second law of thermodynamics, would compel the release of
energy to the environment, thus keeping the free energy constant. This is
possible only if the system is open..."

"Concentrating Energy by Measurement"
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5868

Interesting theory.

-- LP

Harry Veeder wrote:
> Actually, I tend agree with Robin that measuring cannot increase the
> energy of the particle. My question reflects my own attempt to
> understand why it is so. Now that I have thought about it, it is
> because one doesn't measure energy per se. Most measurements are
> really the result of calculations based on measurements of length and
> time plugged into a formula. BTW, the same is true of measurements of
> momentum. The modern physicists habit of refering to energy and
> momentum as "observables" is a perscription for phenomenological
> confusion. The resulting measures of length and time  are only
> consistent with the supposed law-like properties of energy and
> momemtum on a statiscal level.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM,   wrote:
>> Hello Harry,
>>
>> You asked --
>> "So, the measuring instrument itself will produce energy, if it is used
>> to precisely measure the energy of a particle?"
>>
>> Probably not.
>> But maybe there are subtleties that obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics,
>> but allow for some counterintuitive effects.  For example, refer to --
>>
>> "Concentrating Energy by Measurement"
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5868
>>
>> -- LP
>>
>> Harry Veeder wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:57 PM,   wrote:
 In reply to  pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Fri, 17 Aug 2012
 13:11:31
 -0400 (EDT):
 Hi,
 [snip]
>Pardon for this very late postscript, time is hard to find.
>
>I believe you assume a wave function totally confined in all
> 3-dimensions.
> This is probably not what was intended.  It is easy to find papers
>describing crystal/lattice channel conduction of much higher energy
>particles (electrons, protons, ...). These are extended states - only
>confined in one or two dimensions.  High energy particles do not
>necessarily break the lattice structure.
>
>-- LP

 What I meant to do was calculate the momentum (assuming a kinetic
 energy
 of
 0.782 MeV for the proton), and divide it into h-bar/2. However it
 appears I got
 something slightly wrong the first time around. The value I get now is
 2.57 fm
 for a proton, and 0.93 fm for the deuteron.

 However I don't really stand behind the entire concept. I don't think
 the energy
 of particles magically increases when they are confined. I do think
 the
 measurement uncertainty increases, but that's not the same thing as
 their actual
 energy. Instead, I see it as a limitation on our ability to measure,
 not
 a
 change in the actual properties of the particle itself.
 IOW the restriction applies to us, not to the particles.
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

>>>
>>> So, the measuring instrument itself will produce energy, if it is used
>>> to precisely measure the energy of a particle?
>>>
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible

2012-08-18 Thread pagnucco

Hello Akira,

I can't see any "bad news".

If I'm correct, Miley's team reports a much more robust reaction than
previously seen, along with a variety of extremely anomalous
transmutations.

Certainly, any fusion reaction will require enough energy to surmount high
potential barriers between colliding particles.  I think it's a matter of
how focused and localized that high energy event is.  Macroscopically
"cold" reactions may be hot at the nanoscale - for instance, look at the
surface "micro-volcanoes" on LENR Pd, Ni or Ti surfaces.

If LENR is real, why should we assume that there is not a continuum of
reactions yielding a continuous range of particles/energies depending on
experimental parameters?

Cheers,
Lou Pagnucco

Akira Shirakawa wrote:
> On 2012-08-18 01:11, Axil Axil wrote:
>> The hot fusion people and the nuclear physicist crowd will not believe
>> that LENR is real unless they see lots of neutrons; this is a good
>> political type experiment.
>
> I have to bring some potentially bad news. I've just been told that this
> Ti-D neutron claim is for a hot fusion reaction based on fractofusion
> that was discovered and replicated years ago. See the following
> bibliography (I'm copying and pasting from a private email, I haven't
> found these for myself):
>
>> 1. Menlove, H.O., et al. Reproducible neutron emission measurements from
>> Ti metal in pressurized D2 gas. in Anomalous Nuclear Effects in
>> Deuterium/Solid Systems, "AIP Conference Proceedings 228". 1990. Brigham
>> Young Univ., Provo, UT: American Institute of Physics, New York. p. 287.
>>
>> 2. Menlove, H.O. High-sensitivity measurements of neutron emission from
>> Ti metal in pressurized D2 gas. in The First Annual Conference on Cold
>> Fusion. 1990. University of Utah Research Park, Salt Lake City, Utah:
>> National Cold Fusion Institute. p. 250.
>>[...]

Re: [Vo]:LENR and Fermi Acceleration

2012-08-18 Thread Harry Veeder

Actually, I tend agree with Robin that measuring cannot increase the
energy of the particle. My question reflects my own attempt to
understand why it is so. Now that I have thought about it, it is
because one doesn't measure energy per se. Most measurements are
really the result of calculations based on measurements of length and
time plugged into a formula. BTW, the same is true of measurements of
momentum. The modern physicists habit of refering to energy and
momentum as "observables" is a perscription for phenomenological
confusion. The resulting measures of length and time  are only
consistent with the supposed law-like properties of energy and
momemtum on a statiscal level.

Harry

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM,   wrote:
> Hello Harry,
>
> You asked --
> "So, the measuring instrument itself will produce energy, if it is used
> to precisely measure the energy of a particle?"
>
> Probably not.
> But maybe there are subtleties that obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics,
> but allow for some counterintuitive effects.  For example, refer to --
>
> "Concentrating Energy by Measurement"
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5868
>
> -- LP
>
> Harry Veeder wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:57 PM,   wrote:
>>> In reply to  pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Fri, 17 Aug 2012
>>> 13:11:31
>>> -0400 (EDT):
>>> Hi,
>>> [snip]
Pardon for this very late postscript, time is hard to find.

I believe you assume a wave function totally confined in all
 3-dimensions.
 This is probably not what was intended.  It is easy to find papers
describing crystal/lattice channel conduction of much higher energy
particles (electrons, protons, ...). These are extended states - only
confined in one or two dimensions.  High energy particles do not
necessarily break the lattice structure.

-- LP
>>>
>>> What I meant to do was calculate the momentum (assuming a kinetic energy
>>> of
>>> 0.782 MeV for the proton), and divide it into h-bar/2. However it
>>> appears I got
>>> something slightly wrong the first time around. The value I get now is
>>> 2.57 fm
>>> for a proton, and 0.93 fm for the deuteron.
>>>
>>> However I don't really stand behind the entire concept. I don't think
>>> the energy
>>> of particles magically increases when they are confined. I do think the
>>> measurement uncertainty increases, but that's not the same thing as
>>> their actual
>>> energy. Instead, I see it as a limitation on our ability to measure, not
>>> a
>>> change in the actual properties of the particle itself.
>>> IOW the restriction applies to us, not to the particles.
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>>
>>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>>
>>
>> So, the measuring instrument itself will produce energy, if it is used
>> to precisely measure the energy of a particle?
>>
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova

2012-08-18 Thread James Bowery

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

> At 10:30 AM 8/17/2012, Arnaud Kodeck wrote:
>
>> I think AR is smarter than this.
>>
>> He said Ni+p -> Cu when it knew it was not the case. With this statement,
>> he
>> was sure that Cu will not be taken as a potential catalyst and only a
>> by-product.
>>
>
> Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted
> red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not
> work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this
> is the opposite of the intention of a patent
>
>
More importantly, as I have already stated in this forum, it vitiates the
patent in all countries.  Moreover in all countries but the US, which is
"first to invent" rather than "first to file", it opens the door to a valid
patent filing in the present by those who decipher the prior patent.  In
other words, the noble gas engine has never been in the public domain
because its patent disclosure did not, in fact, disclose in such a way that
those "skilled in the art" (what art?) could reproduce the benefit of the
invention.

Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova

This is a certificate of an independent and legally witnessed test of the
Papp engine by two independent witnesses in 1983.



http://www.plasmerg.com/_files/Cert.pdf


On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

> At 10:30 AM 8/17/2012, Arnaud Kodeck wrote:
>
>> I think AR is smarter than this.
>>
>> He said Ni+p -> Cu when it knew it was not the case. With this statement,
>> he
>> was sure that Cu will not be taken as a potential catalyst and only a
>> by-product.
>>
>
> Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted
> red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not
> work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this
> is the opposite of the intention of a patent
>
> Rossi can say whatever he likes about the theory of his work. It's legal.
> Lying is legal, under many conditions.
>
> The problem is that once we know someone is willing to lie "for a good
> purpose," i.e., to protect his secrets, we can't trust anything he says
> unless we independently verify it. If someone would lie, shamelessly, they
> would also "arrange" a fraudulent demonstration. There isn't much
> difference.
>
> People become confused when this is pointed out, they think I'm saying
> that there *was* a fraudulent demonstration. No, I'm saying that we can't
> trust the demonstrations. That and little more.
>
> That NiH reactions might produce power is not and was not a big surprise,
> because there had been other reports (more sober, more scientific in
> nature). The surprise with Rossi was the level of heat and the claim of
> reliability. Many knowledgeable people think Rossi really did find an
> approach that generates significant heat, at least sometimes.
>
> It was the appearance of reliability that was new and surprising. If Rossi
> did not actually solve the reliability problem, which is the
> trillion-dollar question in all of cold fusion, it would explain the
> delays, the confident announcements followed by failures to perform as
> promised, followed by more confident announcements. "Any day now," he'd
> think or hope, "I'll solve this, and then nobody will worry about my
> fudging this or that."
>
> Comparisons with Papp are a bit shaky, because Papp was not using an
> approach analogous to that of anyone else. Rossi's work is an extension of
> what was already known as possible, or at least that had some level of
> experimental evidence of possibility. (As to theory, since we don't know
> what is happening with NiH, we only have speculations. In general, theory
> cannot establish the impossibility of any specific experimental outcome,
> for a number of reasons. Well-established theory can give us some guidance,
> that's about all. Independently confirmed experiment trumps theory, no
> matter how well-established, at least provisionally.)
>
> However, having said that, Papp and Rossi share a paranoia about others
> ripping off their invention. With Papp the paranoia was deep and quite
> damaging. It's unclear how deep it is with Rossi, some think it is a
> pretense with him, a game he plays to confuse competition.
>
> My general point is that we do not know if the Rossi devices really do
> produce power, or really are reliable, without independent confirmation.
> With the Papp Effect, there is also a lack of independent confirmation,
> still -- as far as anything published, I hear *rumor* of independent
> confirmation, which is almost useless -- and it is clear that Papp opposed
> all such. Rossi, as well, has declined many friendly opportunities for
> independent confirmation of his claims.
>
> With Papp, though, there were ample demonstrations, witnessed by many
> people, that establish one of two major possibilities: the engine was real,
> and powerful, or there was an extremely sophisticated fraud. Compressed air
> has been mentioned as one possibility, there could be others. Any given
> fraud mode might be ruled out for any given demonstration, there is nothing
> that limits an inventor to one mode of pretense. This is why we want to see
> *independent* confirmations, where the inventor is not present to "guide"
> the experimenters.
>
> We have another reason for wanting independent demonstrations, entirely
> independent. It forces the inventor to communicate what is necessary to
> others, thus making it unlikely that some "secret" will be lost. Sometimes,
> unfortunately, that's not possible. SRI, replicating the Case Effect, used
> material supplied by Case. It worked. This material was a catalyst prepared
> from coconut charcoal and plated with palladium, as I recall. When the
> material was accidentally discarded, nobody was able to create a new batch
> of material that worked. So the SRI replication was not *entirely*
> independent. Yet it did show that the particular material worked, it was
> independent in that way. But, unless someone figures out how to make that
> catalyst again, which I consider unlikely, there

Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova


At 11:27 AM 8/17/2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

On 2012-08-17 18:03, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Beware that the extra heat/g. And that's the up limit. Generally, it's
around 40W/g and 50/g. You'd have to use some complicated scheme to get
an electrical feedback and self sustain.


True, actual average values for Celani are smaller at the moment. My 
point still holds however. Cheaply scaling up excess heat and gain 
would not be hard.


Gain, maybe hard. Depends on details I have not studied. Simple 
scaling is easy. Just make the experiment bigger; since it may be 
sensitive to wire size (almost certainly is), then just more wires.


However, the very easy makes this scientifically almost useless, 
unless the heat is marginal as to what can be measured. Then scaling 
up to get enough heat would make sense.


Rather, the cheaper approach would be to nail down the calorimetry. 
Do more control experiments, as well.


And measure the ash. With PdD, it's helium, almost certainly, so 
certainly that at this point it's pretty much a waste of time to look 
for any other major ash. However, to be sure, more careful and more 
precise studies of helium and other transmutations would be generally useful.


With NiH, the ash is unknown, and this is a crucial missing piece of 
knowledge. Scientifically, that should be the major problem to be 
addressed. It isn't necessary to have perfect calorimetry to 
determine the ash, it's done through correlation.


Calorimetry, alone, is almost inherently subject to skepticism, 
particularly when experiments are unconfirmed, and the famous 
ureliability of cold fusion made clear confirmation difficult to 
assess, when it was heat alone being confirmed.


When it was heat/helium, however, the situation radically changed. 
It's not supportable to deny cold fusion, once heat/helium is known.


Krivit challenges the work, but none of the criticisms I've seen from 
him cut deeply enough to change the default conclusion, as reported 
by Storms (2010). An unknown process is converting deuterium to 
helium. In a word, fusion. Not necessarily "d-d fusion." It's been 
obvious from the beginning that cold fusion isn't hot fusion, the 
mechanism is different.


W-L theory, as far as I've been able to find, doesn't negate this 
result. Larsen has attempted to impeach some of the work, though 
confirming the substance of it, but doesn't actually supply an 
independent *quantitative* explanation with experimental evidence to 
back it. And W-L theory has hosts of unobserved implications, Larsen 
only talks about observations that seem to confirm his theory.

Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova

I think the invention was real, powerful and very uncertain and unreliable,
prone to failures, malfunctions and explosions, nature of the beast.

On Saturday, August 18, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> At 10:30 AM 8/17/2012, Arnaud Kodeck wrote:
>
>> I think AR is smarter than this.
>>
>> He said Ni+p -> Cu when it knew it was not the case. With this statement,
>> he
>> was sure that Cu will not be taken as a potential catalyst and only a
>> by-product.
>>
>
> Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently planted
> red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew would not
> work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too bad that this
> is the opposite of the intention of a patent
>
> Rossi can say whatever he likes about the theory of his work. It's legal.
> Lying is legal, under many conditions.
>
> The problem is that once we know someone is willing to lie "for a good
> purpose," i.e., to protect his secrets, we can't trust anything he says
> unless we independently verify it. If someone would lie, shamelessly, they
> would also "arrange" a fraudulent demonstration. There isn't much
> difference.
>
> People become confused when this is pointed out, they think I'm saying
> that there *was* a fraudulent demonstration. No, I'm saying that we can't
> trust the demonstrations. That and little more.
>
> That NiH reactions might produce power is not and was not a big surprise,
> because there had been other reports (more sober, more scientific in
> nature). The surprise with Rossi was the level of heat and the claim of
> reliability. Many knowledgeable people think Rossi really did find an
> approach that generates significant heat, at least sometimes.
>
> It was the appearance of reliability that was new and surprising. If Rossi
> did not actually solve the reliability problem, which is the
> trillion-dollar question in all of cold fusion, it would explain the
> delays, the confident announcements followed by failures to perform as
> promised, followed by more confident announcements. "Any day now," he'd
> think or hope, "I'll solve this, and then nobody will worry about my
> fudging this or that."
>
> Comparisons with Papp are a bit shaky, because Papp was not using an
> approach analogous to that of anyone else. Rossi's work is an extension of
> what was already known as possible, or at least that had some level of
> experimental evidence of possibility. (As to theory, since we don't know
> what is happening with NiH, we only have speculations. In general, theory
> cannot establish the impossibility of any specific experimental outcome,
> for a number of reasons. Well-established theory can give us some guidance,
> that's about all. Independently confirmed experiment trumps theory, no
> matter how well-established, at least provisionally.)
>
> However, having said that, Papp and Rossi share a paranoia about others
> ripping off their invention. With Papp the paranoia was deep and quite
> damaging. It's unclear how deep it is with Rossi, some think it is a
> pretense with him, a game he plays to confuse competition.
>
> My general point is that we do not know if the Rossi devices really do
> produce power, or really are reliable, without independent confirmation.
> With the Papp Effect, there is also a lack of independent confirmation,
> still -- as far as anything published, I hear *rumor* of independent
> confirmation, which is almost useless -- and it is clear that Papp opposed
> all such. Rossi, as well, has declined many friendly opportunities for
> independent confirmation of his claims.
>
> With Papp, though, there were ample demonstrations, witnessed by many
> people, that establish one of two major possibilities: the engine was real,
> and powerful, or there was an extremely sophisticated fraud. Compressed air
> has been mentioned as one possibility, there could be others. Any given
> fraud mode might be ruled out for any given demonstration, there is nothing
> that limits an inventor to one mode of pretense. This is why we want to see
> *independent* confirmations, where the inventor is not present to "guide"
> the experimenters.
>
> We have another reason for wanting independent demonstrations, entirely
> independent. It forces the inventor to communicate what is necessary to
> others, thus making it unlikely that some "secret" will be lost. Sometimes,
> unfortunately, that's not possible. SRI, replicating the Case Effect, used
> material supplied by Case. It worked. This material was a catalyst prepared
> from coconut charcoal and plated with palladium, as I recall. When the
> material was accidentally discarded, nobody was able to create a new batch
> of material that worked. So the SRI replication was not *entirely*
> independent. Yet it did show that the particular material worked, it was
> independent in that way. But, unless someone figures out how to make that
> catalyst again, which I consider unlikely, there isn't any gold there
> comm

Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova


At 10:54 AM 8/17/2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

On 2012-08-17 17:43, Jones Beene wrote:


Why do you say that 3W/cm² is not enough for a commercial product ?  We are
talking about an alloy that costs only $20/kg (US) in large volume lots.


The treatment (not known in detail yet - but 
Celani said a paper about it is in preparation) 
to create deep nano/micro structures needed for 
the reaction to occur might increase costs significantly, however.


At the moment, all we know at the moment is that 
treated ISOTAN44 wires cost him less than pure palladium.


Frequently people discussing commercial prospects 
neglect that LENR materials, classically, don't 
continue to operate indefinitely. Until we have 
solid theory of operation, it may be impossible 
to design materials for continued, reliable operation.


That's why calls for someone like Celani to scale 
up are misguided. It's putting the cart before 
the horse. First, establish an effect. Second, 
investigate the characteristics of the effect 
thoroughly, which, combined with theoretical 
exploration and the feedback of controlled 
experiments to test theory, discover and elucidate the mechanism.


Then engineering reliable materials that will 
continue to operate *might* be possible.


While it's possible someone will stumble across 
something that works -- Rossi has certainly made 
the claim that he did -- it's stabbing in the 
dark, until the lights have been turned on by the 
development of confirmed theory.


(Though anyone is free to run with an unconfirmed 
theory, and if this leads them to success, great! 
That's a confirmation of a kind. Not necessarily 
a proof, but it could lead to proof.)


Suppose we discover that a material that costs 
$20/kg works, that, say, a few grams of this will 
generate a kilowatt. Processing the material 
might cost $10 per gram, say for a KW reactor it 
costs $30, just pulling these figures out of the 
air. Suppose the thing operates for three days, 
then the material needs to be replaced, 
reprepared. that's $10 per day. Electric power 
presently, for a day, might run $3.00. Utterly 
impractical except for certain narrow 
applications. The point is that processing cost 
could be the major cost, by far.


I hope that those who are working with NiH, and 
who are seeing unreliable results, release their 
data. Certainly that would be preferable to 
giving up! Until there is sharing of information, 
there is going to be vast inefficiency, as groups 
independently invent the wheel.


For starters, we need very much to know what 
*does not* work. That could be more than half the struggle!

Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?

On Aug 17, 2012, at 18:28, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:

> Widom Larsen postulate that the neutrons are produced when a proton captures 
> an electron. The process is endothermic (energy must be supplied or it will 
> not occur) so the neutrons initially have extremely low energy ("cold"). As a 
> result they are nearly stationary and don't leave the material. Also the 
> reaction cross-section with nearby nuclei is high leading to a cascade of 
> nuclear effects that product the observed energy.

I believe the usual nuetron activation would lead to some short-lived isotopes. 
 But what is seen are shifts to stable isotopes, which is a detail that would 
need to be accounted for.  There are low levels of tritium, which is 
radioactive, but this appears to be the sole exception and can possibly be 
accounted for in other ways.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova


At 10:30 AM 8/17/2012, Arnaud Kodeck wrote:

I think AR is smarter than this.

He said Ni+p -> Cu when it knew it was not the case. With this statement, he
was sure that Cu will not be taken as a potential catalyst and only a
by-product.


Note that this could be parallel with Jospeh Papp. Papp apparently 
planted red herrings in his patent applications, things that he knew 
would not work, to throw people trying to imitate his engine off. Too 
bad that this is the opposite of the intention of a patent


Rossi can say whatever he likes about the theory of his work. It's 
legal. Lying is legal, under many conditions.


The problem is that once we know someone is willing to lie "for a 
good purpose," i.e., to protect his secrets, we can't trust anything 
he says unless we independently verify it. If someone would lie, 
shamelessly, they would also "arrange" a fraudulent demonstration. 
There isn't much difference.


People become confused when this is pointed out, they think I'm 
saying that there *was* a fraudulent demonstration. No, I'm saying 
that we can't trust the demonstrations. That and little more.


That NiH reactions might produce power is not and was not a big 
surprise, because there had been other reports (more sober, more 
scientific in nature). The surprise with Rossi was the level of heat 
and the claim of reliability. Many knowledgeable people think Rossi 
really did find an approach that generates significant heat, at least 
sometimes.


It was the appearance of reliability that was new and surprising. If 
Rossi did not actually solve the reliability problem, which is the 
trillion-dollar question in all of cold fusion, it would explain the 
delays, the confident announcements followed by failures to perform 
as promised, followed by more confident announcements. "Any day now," 
he'd think or hope, "I'll solve this, and then nobody will worry 
about my fudging this or that."


Comparisons with Papp are a bit shaky, because Papp was not using an 
approach analogous to that of anyone else. Rossi's work is an 
extension of what was already known as possible, or at least that had 
some level of experimental evidence of possibility. (As to theory, 
since we don't know what is happening with NiH, we only have 
speculations. In general, theory cannot establish the impossibility 
of any specific experimental outcome, for a number of reasons. 
Well-established theory can give us some guidance, that's about all. 
Independently confirmed experiment trumps theory, no matter how 
well-established, at least provisionally.)


However, having said that, Papp and Rossi share a paranoia about 
others ripping off their invention. With Papp the paranoia was deep 
and quite damaging. It's unclear how deep it is with Rossi, some 
think it is a pretense with him, a game he plays to confuse competition.


My general point is that we do not know if the Rossi devices really 
do produce power, or really are reliable, without independent 
confirmation. With the Papp Effect, there is also a lack of 
independent confirmation, still -- as far as anything published, I 
hear *rumor* of independent confirmation, which is almost useless -- 
and it is clear that Papp opposed all such. Rossi, as well, has 
declined many friendly opportunities for independent confirmation of 
his claims.


With Papp, though, there were ample demonstrations, witnessed by many 
people, that establish one of two major possibilities: the engine was 
real, and powerful, or there was an extremely sophisticated fraud. 
Compressed air has been mentioned as one possibility, there could be 
others. Any given fraud mode might be ruled out for any given 
demonstration, there is nothing that limits an inventor to one mode 
of pretense. This is why we want to see *independent* confirmations, 
where the inventor is not present to "guide" the experimenters.


We have another reason for wanting independent demonstrations, 
entirely independent. It forces the inventor to communicate what is 
necessary to others, thus making it unlikely that some "secret" will 
be lost. Sometimes, unfortunately, that's not possible. SRI, 
replicating the Case Effect, used material supplied by Case. It 
worked. This material was a catalyst prepared from coconut charcoal 
and plated with palladium, as I recall. When the material was 
accidentally discarded, nobody was able to create a new batch of 
material that worked. So the SRI replication was not *entirely* 
independent. Yet it did show that the particular material worked, it 
was independent in that way. But, unless someone figures out how to 
make that catalyst again, which I consider unlikely, there isn't any 
gold there commercially, and this is a dead end, useful only for 
certain facts developed. The Case replication did show heat/helium 
correlation, as with other FPHE approaches.


(I've seen people doubt the "accidental discard" report. It's 
believable, especially coming from SRI. A resident of a community I 
wa

Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible

On Aug 18, 2012, at 5:53, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Axil, I really don't think we are that far off.  In both my theory and Miley 
> a cluster of ultra high density matter is shredding it's environment and 
> leaving a host of products.

I think a black hole is somewhat different than a Bose-Einstein condensate.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration

2012-08-18 Thread Jones Beene

From: Robert Lynn 

*   Bigger problem is stopping it from over-heating. Ideally need to
surround it in a heat sink with a controllable temperature - eg 120°C so
that as the reactor gets hotter than that it will rapidly start to transfer
heat to the heat sink.  Want the heat sink close to the reactor operating
temperature (I think this was one of Rossi's problems in getting safe
controllability last year)

Coincidentally, I ran across this:

http://www.amazon.com/Antec-Kuhler-H2O-620-Liquid/dp/B004LWYE4Q/ref=sr_1_5?s
=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1345300478&sr=1-5&keywords=heat+exchanger

<>

Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?

2012-08-18 Thread Jojo Jaro

CE, I think you need to gather your thoughts in one place, write a 
comprehensive paper and flesh out many lacking details to your theory, instead 
of repeating yourself ad nauseam here in Vortex, and interject your theory at 
every post.

Your theory as posted in your blog is glaringly incomplete.  I read your theory 
and I found it a bit lacking.  I would like to see some mathematical support to 
your suppositions.  Mathematical computations as to energy levels required, 
creation rates and evaporation rates.  If you can come up with these, it would 
go a long ways in providing guidance for experimentation, which I would be 
willing to do if it is within my capability.

Also an explanation with mathematical data as to why a singularity is formed in 
a void or crack as you propose instead of fusion occuring.  Saying that 
"quantum gravity is large, hence it creates a singularity" ain't gonna cut it.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, of course, and assuming that you are 
serious about developing your theory and not just playing with your colleages 
here in Vortex, seeing how many your can loop around for a spin.

Jojo

  - Original Message - 
  From: ChemE Stewart 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 8:09 PM
  Subject: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?

  They are proposed to range from the largest of 6.6 billion solar masses down 
to 23 micrograms, the planck mass, about a grain of sand, but collapsed.  I 
propose that they are not really "stable" they are always emitting some form of 
Ultra Low Momentum Radiation (see I can event my own terms also!)   Whenever 
they come close enough to external matter or are fed energy of any kind they 
instaneously convert that matter to energy and evaporate it back to their 
environment, going back to a stable thermodynamic state.

  Large black holes belch higher levels of radiation when they consume a star 
or other matter that comes close enough all I am saying is that their babies do 
the same.

  http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3208 

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particles 

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole 

  On Friday, August 17, 2012, wrote:

In reply to  ChemE Stewart's message of Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:53:15 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Feed yor gremlin a steady diet of hydrogen without any powder and you will
>not get neutrons.  This thing is ripping atoms apart
[snip]

How big/heavy does a gremlin have be in order to remain stable, i.e. for the
mass consumption rate to equal the evaporation rate?

(I realize that the mass consumption rate is variable, but please provide 
some
reasonable limits.)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: ProdEngAssemble.avi

2012-08-18 Thread Robert Lynn

Our IC engine testing euphemism for fires and explosions was "a thermal
event"

On 18 August 2012 14:49, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:40 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
> > "Fast Recomb"?
>
> Fast recombination of the H2 and O2 back into water and heat.
>
> T
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: ProdEngAssemble.avi

2012-08-18 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:40 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
> "Fast Recomb"?

Fast recombination of the H2 and O2 back into water and heat.

T

Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration

2012-08-18 Thread Robert Lynn

>
>
> Is there any way to guesstimate – assuming the best reasonable kind of
> insulation is added to retain heat, something like aerogel, etc – how much
> more mass of active wire (if any) would be necessary to get close to a
> nominally self-sustaining system?
>
> ** **
>
> Jones
>

That would be very easy to do, no need for anything fancy, just wrap it in
Fiberglass insulation and tape it on, like lagging a pipe.  Quick mental
calculation suggests on the order of 0.1W per cm of thickness per degree of
temperature differential, so for 15W and 100 degree temperature
differential you would need about 6mm thickness of fiberglass.  Would only
take 5-10 minute to set up.

Bigger problem is stopping it from over-heating. Ideally need to surround
it in a heat sink with a controllable temperature - eg 120°C so that as the
reactor gets hotter than that it will rapidly start to transfer heat to the
heat sink.  Want the heat sink close to the reactor operating temperature
(I think this was one of Rossi's problems in getting safe controllability
last year)

So put the whole reactor inside a really well insulated metal container
filled with oil that can be heated up to as much as 190°C, and perhaps a
way of dripping water into the oil if you need to get rid of heat (20cc
water per hour would do it for 12W)  The oil will prevent rapid thermal
run-aways with it's thermal inertia.

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: Papp Noble MisheGas Engine

Also, I forgot to mention that Jim Patterson's grandson who was helping him
develop a commercial product from his cell, died at age 31 from some type
of brain anuerism or hemmorage (not sure still checking).

We all know what this reaction is doing to the matter in a wire or lattice,
what if according to my theory, some collapsed matter escapes and enters
the environment?

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:57 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> According to my theory these devices magnify the Heisenburg Uncertainty
> Principal by design (the larger the singularities or the more of them are
> created, the more uncertainty there is).  Which, as you said and I agree is
> not good for life.  Actually it is probably more of a love/hate
> relationship, heat is good, singularities are bad.  Nature wants to create
> certainty within life organisms and repeatable processes to sustain it,
> singularities go against the mechanisms that support that and can trigger
> malfunctions.
>
>
> We are witness to what they can do to a piece of wire and should apply
> that to the rest of the world.  Papp died of colon cancer, Tom Rohner
> recently died of pancreatic cancer and Dr. Richard Feynman who was there
> when a Papp device exploded died of two rare forms of cancer (he also
> worked for Los Alamos, which may have had something to do with it...)  The
> Papp device was always malfunctioning and the Plasma Popper malfunctioned
> during the demo with Mr. McKubre.
>
> Note I am not saying the device causes cancer.  I am merely stating facts
> about how people died.  I said these devices create singularities and you
> said singularities are bad in nature and we agree 100% on that.  The rest
> is pure speculation by others.
>
> Stewart
> http://wp.me/p26aeb-4
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
>>
>> Step aside and ask yourself why after 50 years there is no working two
>> cylinder engine. They have the prototype seemingly finished. Why doesn' it
>> run?
>>
>> The general answer is we need xxx,xxx Dollars and 6 months to get it
>> running.  Their excuse is actually much more rediculous. If we finish it
>> will be stolen. That is an absurd explanation for failing to show even a
>> video of a running papp engine. They should join the Rossi club and fade
>> away.
>>
>> > Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:41:09 -0500
>> > To: c...@googlegroups.com; c...@googlegroups.com
>> > From: a...@lomaxdesign.com
>> > Subject: CMNS: Papp Noble MisheGas Engine
>>
>> >
>> > Original subject: RE: CMNS: Grand Unification Theory of Cold Fusion
>> >
>> > At 03:09 PM 8/16/2012, Brian Ahern wrote:
>> > >None of the five competing groups have a working engine. Their
>> > >excuse is a classic. "We do not want to have a working engine
>> > >because the MEN IN BLACK will take it."
>> > >They cannot even provide a video of one running at any time, but
>> > >they want your investment money nonetheless !
>> > >
>> > >This is a new page from the Rossi play book.
>> >
>> > This comment is, unfortunately, misleading.
>> >
>> > To establish the Papp Effect, an engine is not necessary. All that is
>> > necessary is a device (or even a complete, detailed report, enough
>> > for replication) that shows the effect, such that it can be
>> > independently verified. Of course, selling or making available such a
>> > device or report will reveal the secret. In a field like this, there
>> > is reluctance to reveal whatever secrets one has possession of,
>> > because then someone could, indeed, "steal" it. However, if one has
>> > protected the secret with a patent, this risk is routinely taken.
>> >
>> > One of the problems here is that the original Papp patents have
>> > expired. On the other hand, those patents were not adequate to allow
>> > anyone to build a working device. (An Inteligentry employee explains
>> > in a video referenced below that Papp included red herrings that flat
>> > out won't work.) So those patents were not valid anyway, it could be
>> > claimed. Or they could be treated as having placed everything in them
>> > into the public domain (John Rohner is claiming that).
>> >
>> > The comment from Brian lumps all of the "five competing groups"
>> > together as if they tell the same story. The history of the Papp
>> > engine is complex, and was heavily interwoven with Papp's paranoia.
>> > While it's possible that, at one point or other, each of the five
>> > groups or a principal in them gave the reason of avoiding theft of
>> > the property, the major secrecy seems to have been abandonded by
>> > Plasmerg, John Rohner's company, and a kit is being offered. The kit
>> > documents disclose the fuel formula, already (reportedly it is the
>> > same formula as in the original Papp patent). The kit apparently
>> > discloses everything one needs to build a "popper," and it includes
>> > (essentially, it *is*) the electronics, which would automatically
>> > apply the stimulation protocol at the push of a button.
>> >
>> > That is not a "working engine,"

[Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?

They are proposed to range from the largest of 6.6 billion solar masses
down to 23 micrograms, the planck mass, about a grain of sand, but
collapsed.  I propose that they are not really "stable" they are always
emitting some form of Ultra Low Momentum Radiation (see I can event my own
terms also!)   Whenever they come close enough to external matter or are
fed energy of any kind they instaneously convert that matter to energy and
evaporate it back to their environment, going back to a stable
thermodynamic state.

Large black holes belch higher levels of radiation when they consume a star
or other matter that comes close enough all I am saying is that their
babies do the same.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3208

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole

On Friday, August 17, 2012, wrote:

> In reply to  ChemE Stewart's message of Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:53:15 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Feed yor gremlin a steady diet of hydrogen without any powder and you will
> >not get neutrons.  This thing is ripping atoms apart
> [snip]
>
> How big/heavy does a gremlin have be in order to remain stable, i.e. for
> the
> mass consumption rate to equal the evaporation rate?
>
> (I realize that the mass consumption rate is variable, but please provide
> some
> reasonable limits.)
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible

Right,  they made up a new state called "Inverted Rydberg State"  that has
ultra high density.  Don't they really mean "collapsed"?

Axil, I really don't think we are that far off.  In both my theory and
Miley a cluster of ultra high density matter is shredding it's environment
and leaving a host of products.

Do these inverted states hang around in their environment once they are
created?



On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> It gets even better. Many of my most favored words are in the
> description.as follows:
>
> *Clusters* of 156 deuterons (10pm diameter) in *non-localized
> Bose-Einstein** *state react with Pd
>
> nucleus (or as *inverted Rydberg state*) for element production via *compound
> nucleus *element with A
>
> = 306 (or 310) having two *magic numbers*.
>
> Cheers:Axil
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> I am pleased to draw your attention to this opinion from the experimenter.
>>
>> The presentation states:
>>
>> Based on solid experiment of neutron emission and LENR-element
>> generation: hypothetical models:
>>
>> Reactions in 2 pm distance due to *Coulomb screening* by factor 13 (5
>> for hot plasmas).
>> Coulomb screening is confirmed; no gremlins here.
>>
>>
>> *It is Coulomb screening that is ripping atoms apart.*
>>
>> **
>>
>> *Cheers: Axil*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:44 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>>
>>> Jojo,
>>>
>>> My singularity will rip matter apart in the near vacinity.  Any neutrons
>>> that escape it will be very low momentum, since the singularities quantum
>>> gravity pull sucked all of the energy out of them.  It also devours them.
>>>
>>> I am thinking about a new newsgroup for Evaporative Matter Nuclear
>>> Science.
>>>
>>> On Friday, August 17, 2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
>>>
 On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

> Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using
> shock
> procedure
> - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully
> reproducible
>

 I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't
 this *not* predicted by the W-L theory?

 Cheers,
 S.A.


>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: ProdEngAssemble.avi

"Fast Recomb"?  What the hell is that?  Matter collapse?  What was the
chemical reaction?

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

> That death was from a chemical explosion. SRI, recombiner gunked up,
> researcher picked up the cell, gunk fell off, fast recomb,. Bang! He died,
> McKubre still has glass in him. As I recall reading. Closed cells are
> dangerous. LENR *could* be dangerous. "Unreliable" can cut both ways.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> In a post today integral sited a death of a LENR developer in an
> explosion. The take away, LENR is dangerous when the power is high. It is
> best to be as safe as you can.
>
>
> Axil
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:11 PM, ChemE Stewart < 
> cheme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you just sell plans for poppers, electronic circuit boards and
>> licenses for the technology, then all of the liability rests with the OEM's
>> they drag in.  They probably give them a short demo in the shop before the
>> thing malfunctions.  I notice everytime I see a demo it is behind explosion
>> proof glass.
>>
>> Oddity and UNCERTAINTY
>>
>> Stewart
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <
>> a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At 11:17 PM 8/16/2012, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>>  I am putting two and two together here. The Papp engine ash was a brown
 powder.

>>>
>>> Thanks for letting us know that this was your speculation, not a
>>> conclusion from strong evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>>   J Ronner talks about a two helium atom fusion process.

>>>
>>> And what J Rohner (I presume that was a mispelling) says about the
>>> process has as much -- or does it have more -- reliability than an angry
>>> monkey typiing would have? Rohner has said a lot that quite simply is not
>>> true when investigated. It starts with simple things, such as the
>>> availability of videos. But it continues with many examples of stuff that
>>> was, ah, a tad exaggerated. If we can call claiming to have a running test
>>> engines is an exaggeration if you only have "test engines" that may not
>>> have run at all. He's admitted to that whopper (last year, to PESN). Or
>>> claiming to have 2 MIT PhDs, but, when challenged, apparently, says they
>>> are "secret" and his resume now claims his education is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Fine. It might be irrelevant, but why then did he claim the PhDs? Why
>>> did he claim the running test engines? He says why. He "had to say
>>> *something* or investors would bail. That's called fraud. Saying what you
>>> think an investor wants to hear, when it isn't the truth, to induce them to
>>> maintain or make investments. Someone will nail him on this, I suspect,
>>> eventually. (However, he might be adequately covered by various agreements.
>>> We have to remember that it isn't illegal to lie, under some conditions.
>>> I'm just saying that we can't rely on what the man says for anything. If he
>>> says it's 3 PM, look at the clock before agreeing.)
>>>
>>> Basically, J Rohner's company, Inteligentry, is offering a "popper kit,"
>>> which, if it's real, would actually be an engine, albeit a single-stroke
>>> one. $350 for the electronics package, including coils and spark plugs, and
>>> the kit includes plans for the piston assembly, and the fuel formula (taken
>>> from the patent). He claims this device is what they used to test fuel and
>>> the electronic protocol to fire the thing, and that is sensible and
>>> believable. However, unlike the competing Bob Rohner, John hasn't shown
>>> even a single firing of the Popper. Caveat emptor. I consider that we would
>>> need to be aware of the possibility that the John Rohner kit is actually a
>>> Bob Rohner killer, aimed at discrediting his brother when the kit fails.
>>>
>>> Crazy? Sure. *But these people are crazy." At least John is, that's
>>> obvious. That has nothing to do with whether or not his various claims are
>>> true. Some of them might be. Indeed, he might be responding to
>>> long-standing family dysfunction. Lots of crazy people are.
>>>
>>> I still don't see any significant evidence for "nuclear." The level of
>>> energy released is sometimes cited as evidence for nuclear, but really all
>>> that, if established, would show is "not chemical." Some brown powder isn't
>>> evidence for nuclear unless we actually know what the powder is.
>>>
>>> Cold fusion was not actually established as nuclear until helium was
>>> identified as the predominant ash. Then we could say it was nuclear, and we
>>> could even go further because of the specific value of the correlation
>>> between anomalous heat and helium production. It was "fusion." Because I'm
>>> being watched ("they" are under every rock), I'll point out that "fusion"
>>> does not just refer to "d-d fusion," and the correlation value (estimated
>>> at 25+/-5 MeV/He-4 by Storms, 2007 and 2010) would result from any reaction
>>> that converts deuterium to helium, no matter what

RE: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration

2012-08-18 Thread Arnaud Kodeck

Ive a bit concern about the total radiation. But Im not expert in
calorimetry, neither in heat transfer.

Radiation is emission of IR (infrared) from a warm surface. The Boltzmanns
law give the energy radiated from a surface at a given temperature and kind
of material.

Inside the Celanis cell, there are equipments (included wires) which emit
also IR. The total surface inside the cell is not negligible and warmer than
the borosilicate glass. What happens to the IR from the inside of the cell
when they arrive to the borosilicate glass? Does the IR heat the glass or
did they pass through it? Or is it like a greenhouse effects?

The IR wavelength emitted inside the cell is around 5 ~8 µm. What is the
transmission of those IR through the glass used by Celani? From Duran In
the spectral range from about 310 to 2200 nm the absorption of DURAN® is
negligibly low. What about above the 2200 nm?

http://www.duran-group.com/en/about-duran/duran-properties/optical-propertie
s-of-duran.html

My thinking could be here completely false.

  _  

From: Robert Lynn [mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: samedi 18 août 2012 05:08
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration

>From those numbers (30°C room, 120°C at 48W and 140°C when LENR active) I
calculate 16W excess if you assume all radiative heat transfer.  But it will
actually be slightly less than that because the hotter tube surface will
convect heat away at a rate that is roughly proportional to the air to tube
temperature difference.  The next level of complication is that the natural
convection air flow will also be slightly faster due to the increased
buoyancy, so the heat transfer coefficient will increase as temperature
increases too, typically at a rate proportional to the temperature
differential to the power of 0.25.  

I'll do the calculation assuming constant heat transfer coefficient and then
with variable heat transfer coefficient caused by increased temperature,
shouldn't be much difference due to relatively small relative temperature
increase.

>From his paper he says that the tube dimensions are Ø40mm OD and 280mm long,
I will use the full length assume that the temperature is the same
everywhere due to internal convection of that most magical of heat transfer
fluids hydrogen.  Borosilicate glass has emissivity of about 0.9 so the tube
is radiating about 27.4W at 120°C and 36.7W at 140°C in a 30°C environment.
So 48-27.4=20.6W convected at 120°C and 20.6x(140-30)/(120-30)=25.2W at
140°C.  Add that 25.2 to the 36.7 and subtract 48 input and you get 14W
excess.  

Assuming that the heat transfer coefficient increases in proportion to the
temperature differential to the power of 0.25 then the convected and
therefore excess heat rises by about 1.2W to 15.2W

All the same calculations repeated for a 25°C ambient temperature instead of
30°C drop the excess heat from 15.2W to 14.6W, again not much difference

There might be a little more complication with the end caps etc, but I think
you can pretty confidently state that it is over 10W.

Also perhaps someone did a check on the temperature at the top and bottom of
the outside of the tube to see if there was a significant temperature
difference?  I think it is pretty unlikely but you never know.

On 18 August 2012 01:53, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Several experts in calorimetry expressed doubts about the Celani
demonstration at ICCF17. Mike McKubre in particular feels that it is
impossible to judge whether it really produced heat or not, because the
method is poor. He does not say he is sure there was no heat; he simply does
not know. Others feel that he exaggerates the problem.

There were concerns because Celani has programmed in the Stephan-Boltzmann
law which multiplies things to the a 4-th power. Srinivasan worried that he
makes a mountain out of a molehill.

The temperature is measured at one point on the surface of the tube. I asked
Brian of NI to give me the actual temperature readings. With 48 W of input
power only, before excess heat or with the Ar calibration, in a room with 30
deg C ambient temperature, the temperature rose to 120 deg C. When the
excess heat appeared it rose to 140 deg C. Celani says that equals 14 W
excess, and that is what was displayed by the instrument. McKubre and others
worry this may be caused by decreased pressure in the cell. However, the
pressure fell only gradually, and stabilized in the last 2 days. They also
worried about changes in conduction within the tube, and uneven heat on the
surface. I do not think that such effects can account for a 20 deg C
temperature rise, especially given the smooth line produced when there is no
heat, with H or Ar. The temperature returned to the same level with 48 W, in
Italy, Texas and Korea, after the gas had been changed out twice.

An

Re: [Vo]:Additional paper have been posted on Krivet's site

2012-08-18 Thread Moab Moab

Several papers name the New York Community Trust as the grant giver.

Is there a significant increase in grants for research ?
That would be an clear indication of a turning point: more grants,
more and better research, more exposure, more credibilty.


On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> All of the pre-prints were distributed on a flash card. I will upload them
> when I return. Krivit has already done so, I see.
>
> I don't see why you say "sheesh" about him. He is being helpful.
>
> Krivit did not attend the conference.
>
> This was a well organized conference. The organizers demanded that authors
> turn in a preprint before the conference. I have never seen them do that. I
> approve of the idea. In the past some have been a year or two late.
>
> They gave the authors another month to write a final version.
>
> I was the only one who failed to turn in a pre-print, because they only
> asked me a week or two before the conference. They included me on Friday in
> the "commercialization" section. The other papers presented then were pretty
> good. A lot more technical, detailed and less speculative than previous
> presentations on this subject.
>
> I quibbled with Kleehous because they did not take into account the dollar
> value of embedded energy, which exceeds the direct cost. I.e.; it takes 1 or
> 2 liters of gasoline to produce 500 g of meat (depending on the type of
> meat).
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration