Re: [Vo]:Does anyone keep a list of cold fusion patents?
I know that list of patents (and companies beside) http://www.fusioncatalyst.org/fusion-base/fusion-patents/ You can follow Rob Woudenberg on linked-in too... 2012/10/2 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Frank Gordon and David French are thinking of compiling a list of cold fusion related patents. Does anyone have such a list already? I have some listed in my EndNote database, but I have not made any effort to keep up with them. I add them to the database when someone sends me a patent. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Experimental Results with Nickel and Sodium Carbonate
David, A few remarks that may help you in doing the experiments. 1) Be aware that Chuck, the orginal experimenter, did bend the coins so this likely causes some damage to the metal lattice on purpose (e.g. cracks). It may be essential to do this to create NAE's (nuclear active environments). 2) Borax leaves a thin layer on metal surfaces when you use a saturated solution and lower the temperature. Such thin layers may be necessary to allow LENR to occur, since it will frustrate expansion the Nickel lattice when Hydrogen ions are absorbed. This might create the necessary tension in the lattice. Without restrictions, expension up to 20% may occur, when full occupation has happened. On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 7:32 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have continued to experiment and have some interesting measurements to report. For my latest experiment I have returned to using 2 nickels as electrodes with an electrolyte of sodium carbonate which is Arm Hammer Washing Soda. I prefer this electrolyte to the borax since it does not tend to leave extreme green deposits on my positive supply connected nickel. I decided to try this particular one when I read that it is used to restore rusted items. It has excellent conductivity and allows me to calculate an effective resistance of approximately 6 ohms between my supply terminals. As an example, I typically am measuring around 11 volts at my supply terminals when 1.97 amps of current is flowing through the test circuit. My constant current supply is set to deliver 1.97 amps and it does an excellent job of keeping the set current constant over a large voltage range as needed. I have run at this level of current for several hours now and add extra sodium carbonate or water as needed to keep the resistance low. This seems to be an easy task and I am measuring reasonable and repeatable performance. I calibrated my measurement system by taking two new nickels and stepping the current through them. I chose this as my control since it is highly unlikely that a fresh nickel would generate LENR activity within a few hours of loading with hydrogen. For technique I allowed each current value to continue for an hour before I measured the supply voltage and the temperature of my electrolyte bath at a well defined physical location. I also checked to verify that the current was constant and discovered that it only varied by .01 amp in one of several independent measurements. The ambient temperature was also measured so that I could determine the rise due to heating. I performed this calibration at the following currents: 1.00, 1.24, 1.52, 1.75, 2.01, and 2.5 amps. The power ranged from 8.24 to 33.325 watts as calculated by taking the measured supply voltage and multiplying it by the step current at that value. A plot of power versus temperature delta was generated and it made a decent curve fit. The R^2 value for the second order curve fit was .9948. I can supply the actual data if anyone is particularly interested. My test system is open to the air and heat is escaping by many different paths, but it appears to follow a reasonable curve fit that allows me to calculate the power being dissipated as a function of the bath temperature. My worse fit for both calibration as well as test runs is only off by 1.1 C degrees while most points are much closer. You might say I was pleasantly surprised. My meter reads to single digit degree C values except in the case where it is clearly jumping between two numbers and then I estimate in between. After I completed the control-calibration run I replaced the inactive nickel connected to the negative supply terminal with one that I have been loading with hydrogen for greater than 30 hours. This nickel is still quite clean and shinny since I am careful not to let it be tarnished and I clean it when I complete testing for the day. This nickel is valuable and I keep it in a safe place unless it is undergoing testing. I have been running my special 30 hour nickel for several hours this evening and it is apparent that it does not emit excess heat as compared to my control. I have made 6 test measurements this evening and they straddle the calibration line established earlier. I suspect that it will take more time to properly load the nickel before it has much chance of success. My current level is in line with those used in the palladium systems. The nickel has a diameter of 2.121 cm which makes it have an area of 3.533 square centimeters. I am keeping the electrolyte level at roughly one half of the nickel surface which means that my effective area is in the vicinity of 3.533 square centimeters since both sides are active. The edges come into play as well, but the difficulty in controlling the dept of the bath leaves the area estimate as rough. My current has been set to 1.97 amps so I end up
Re: [Vo]: Experimental Results with Nickel and Sodium Carbonate
With the borax, I also saw a green deposit show up on the nickel coin. However, that fell off with time. I'm running with a much lower current, approximately 50 milliamps. After about 48 hours, the resistance across the cell has started to drop and the current is increasing slightly. My experiment is running with a control and an active cell in series across the power supply. The control has graphite for both the anode and cathode. No heat detected yet, but I am encouraged by the drop in resistance which appears to be continuing. Paul On 10/2/2012 12:32 AM, David Roberson wrote: I am not confident that borax would be better than my electrolyte since hydrogen is the needed material and it shows up at the cathode in either case. The happenings at the anode only concern me when I detect strange effects due to the choice of materials. Borax lead to several bad deposits that screwed with the resistance and dirtied the bath while sodium carbonate did not seem to have any serious evils. I would recommend that others switch to sodium carbonate.
Re: [Vo]: Experimental Results with Nickel and Sodium Carbonate
The green scale fell off the nickel long before the resistance started changing. - Based on voltage and current measurements, the resistance of the control cell is steady at approximately 80 ohms. - The active cell stayed constant at about 160 ohms until about 12 hours ago when I first noticed the drop. It is now down to about 130 ohms and appears to still be dropping. - It would be very interesting to know what is causing the drop in resistance. I would have expected any film that might develop on the nickel to increase the resistance. - I started off with approx 400 milliliters of water in each cell and each one is down to about 350 now. - I had originally expected to equalize the resistance between the control and active cells by varying the distance between the anode and cathode, but I found that the spacing had relatively little effect on the resistance. - The temperature in the control cell is running about 2 degrees below ambient. The temperature in the active cell is running about 1 degree below ambient. The difference is almost certainly due to the higher resistance of the active cell which results in a slightly higher wattage being dissipated. - I crimped the nickel to the copper wire as originally described, and the connection is covered with liquid electrical tape from home desperation. - The graphite electrodes are built using some generic motor brushes with the wire crimped to 14 gauge solid copper wire and the copper and the connection sealed with the same liquid electrical tape.
[Vo]:A New Spin on Solar Cells
http://v3solar.com/ V3Solar takes a known fact: Concentration of light increases the production of electrical energy in PV. And solves a known problem: Concentration of light increases heat, which decreases the production of electrical energy in PV. Current solar power theory estimates that a square meter of sunlight has a maximum energy content of 1,000 watts. Based on this, a 20% efficient photovoltaic (PV) panel should produce 200 watts of energy from one square meter of sunlight. Through its unique patent pending design, V3Solar’s Spin Cell is able to concentrate 20X more sunlight on the same type of PV that is commonly used in standard solar panels without them overheating. This is achieved through a combination of solar concentrating lenses and unique thermal management. The Spin Cell concentrates the light and avoids the heat. Light is transferred to electricity in nanoseconds. Heat is transferred in milliseconds (1000X longer). The PV on the Spin Cell captures the light, generates the electrical energy and then spins away avoiding heat build up in the PV. The V3solar patent pending design also delivers a higher level of efficiency from PV. Tests to date have shown improvements under laboratory conditions of around 30%, which effectively lifts the efficiency of the PV. This means that the PV is able to convert a higher proportion of the light hitting it into energy without having to use more expensive, high efficiency PV. With existing flat panel technology using 20% efficient PV, 5 square meters of PV material and 5 square meters of light is required to produce 1000 watts of electricity. With 30% efficient PV, approximately 3.3 square meters of light and PV material is required.
[Vo]:WLT Disproof
The following paper: Low Energy Neutron Production by Inverse-beta decay in Metallic Hydride Surfaces S. Ciuchi http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Ciuchi_S/0/1/0/all/0/1, L. Maiani http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Maiani_L/0/1/0/all/0/1, A. D. Polosa http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Polosa_A/0/1/0/all/0/1, V. Riquer http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Riquer_V/0/1/0/all/0/1, G. Ruocco http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Ruocco_G/0/1/0/all/0/1, M. Vignati http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Vignati_M/0/1/0/all/0/1 has just been uploaded to ArXiv http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.6501 The paper addresses the WLT as presented by Widom, Larsen and Srivastava in peer-reviewed journals and presents very strong objections to the theory that can be summarized as: It has been recently argued that inverse-beta nuclear transmutations might occur at an impressively high rate in a thin layer at the metallic hydride surface under specific conditions. In this note we present a calculation of the transmutation rate which shows that there is little room for such a remarkable effect. It is worthwhile to say that some of the authors are preminent scientists. Luciano Maiani is a San Marino citizen physicist best known for his prediction of the charm quark with Sheldon Lee Glashow and John Iliopoulos. He became Director General of CERN, serving from 1 January 1999 through the end of 2003. Moreover, he is the past-President of the Italian National Research Council (CNR, 2008-2011). Giancarlo Ruocco is deputy Dean at Rome University La Sapienza and Director of the Physics Department. He is in charge for research coordination activities at La Sapienza. The paper will be (or has been, actually I do not know) submitted to peer-reviewed journals to be published; probably in the same journal in which the WLT has been proposed. Since WLT forms the basis of a number of experimental approaches to LENR's (including Brillouin and NASA) maybe it's wise to read and try to understand the paper. Cheers GG
Re: [Vo]:WLT Disproof
It doesn't rule out. They just find lower neutron production rates, which are merely 200x smaller. 2012/10/2 Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com The following paper: Low Energy Neutron Production by Inverse-beta decay in Metallic Hydride Surfaces S. Ciuchi http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Ciuchi_S/0/1/0/all/0/1, L. Maiani http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Maiani_L/0/1/0/all/0/1, A. D. Polosa http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Polosa_A/0/1/0/all/0/1, V. Riquer http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Riquer_V/0/1/0/all/0/1, G. Ruocco http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Ruocco_G/0/1/0/all/0/1, M. Vignati http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Vignati_M/0/1/0/all/0/1 has just been uploaded to ArXiv http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.6501 The paper addresses the WLT as presented by Widom, Larsen and Srivastava in peer-reviewed journals and presents very strong objections to the theory that can be summarized as: It has been recently argued that inverse-beta nuclear transmutations might occur at an impressively high rate in a thin layer at the metallic hydride surface under specific conditions. In this note we present a calculation of the transmutation rate which shows that there is little room for such a remarkable effect. It is worthwhile to say that some of the authors are preminent scientists. Luciano Maiani is a San Marino citizen physicist best known for his prediction of the charm quark with Sheldon Lee Glashow and John Iliopoulos. He became Director General of CERN, serving from 1 January 1999 through the end of 2003. Moreover, he is the past-President of the Italian National Research Council (CNR, 2008-2011). Giancarlo Ruocco is deputy Dean at Rome University La Sapienza and Director of the Physics Department. He is in charge for research coordination activities at La Sapienza. The paper will be (or has been, actually I do not know) submitted to peer-reviewed journals to be published; probably in the same journal in which the WLT has been proposed. Since WLT forms the basis of a number of experimental approaches to LENR's (including Brillouin and NASA) maybe it's wise to read and try to understand the paper. Cheers GG -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Does anyone keep a list of cold fusion patents?
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I know that list of patents (and companies beside) http://www.fusioncatalyst.org/fusion-base/fusion-patents/ Thanks. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Video: Iraj Parchamazad on LENR with Zeolites
Jones, No doubt someone will McGiver the effect from off the shelf products once the facts are known.. the real challenge is finding the right combination ahead of the theory. An aquarium system with some simple USB device to instrument and datalog does seem like a bargain for entry into this field - I have toyed with the idea of a submerged tube of hydrogen being circulated in a closed loop where a small vertical section acting as reactor which is filled with nano powders, backfilled nickel foam or this cobalt loaded zeolite you mention. Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 7:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Video: Iraj Parchamazad on LENR with Zeolites Update for anyone with aspirations of seeing a robust excess heat effect with Zeolites, using the Reiter effect (cobalt loading). Amazon actually caries a cobalt loaded zeolite material - used as aquarium filter media. http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005QRHM5I This is not a joke - but I have no illusions that this product could work in the same robust way as Nick's material, since it probably has minimal cobalt - but it's a bargain, and the ease of operation with a good calorimeter... even one from Thermonetics, no less, could be worth a shot for anyone with more time than money... Hmm ... Kinda like owning a Yugo. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg62560.html LOL... Had to throw Mary a bone, so to speak - since he/she does make a good device. Wouldn't it be a hoot if someone were to use a simple Amazon aquarium filter media, a pipe reactor, KH and heating tape - and a Thermonetics calorimeter to show unmistakable excess heat ... in a lowest common denominator system. It could happen, folks. Jones _ Thanks, Ruby. These are old slides (2008) are interesting in the context of palladium-deuterium. But there is no real anomaly to get excited about there. This is similar to the NRL work with zeolites. Yawn. The caption under both experiments could be labeled as so close, but so far away since they had the Casimir cavity part of the equation correct (using zeolite), but not the active ingredients. Palladium deuterium is not a Casimir-cavity influenced reaction - that much is clear. OTOH... hydrogen is. I was hoping that there would have been information more pertinent to the Reiter effect with cobalt and hydrogen in zeolite, mentioned recently here as the ZeoCat, but that was wishful thinking. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=vpid=sitessrcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxvaGlvdG9pb3xneDpjZGMzM2VjNGQwY2ExZDcpli=1 BTW - As of today, not yet October - the ZeoCat of Nick Reiter looks to me like the most important open source experiment in LENR in the sense of: easy to do, but with robust results, begging for replication, and begging for enhancements. From: Ruby As far as I know, there is only slides from his presentation at ICCF-14 by New Energy Times. You must scroll down on this page to find his name http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2008/ICCF14/ICCMNS-14-Recordings.shtml Here is the direct download for the New Energy Times .pdf: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2008/ICCF14/Pres/14-Parchamazad-Nanoparticles.pdf Ruby Jones Beene wrote: The only paper I've found for him is with Biberian: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPpossiblero.pdf and it hardly mentions zeolites. Is there another? Jones From: Ruby I edited an under-23-minute video of Dr. Iraj Parchamazad Chemistry Chairman of University of LaVerne talking about his research into anomalous heat reactions using nano-palladium loaded zeolites exposed to deuterium gas. http://coldfusionnow.org/iraj-parchamazad-lenr-with-zeolites/ Enjoy! -- Ruby Carat
Re: [Vo]:Does anyone keep a list of cold fusion patents?
David French says: This is a great list! But please note, any document with a serial number that ends with A is merely an application. Anyone can file an application and say virtually anything. The story contained in an application is not necessarily true. The ones that end with B are issued patents. Unfortunately, you cannot count on them being true either. Only in rare cases will the Patent Office put an applicant through the hoops of proving that the story set-out in the application disclosure is true. . . . - Jed
[Vo]:October is here
It has now been one year since Rossi's big demonstration. Products were to come out at the end of last year, then in the Summer of 2012. Now its one year later and there is nothing. No products, no independent tests by a reputable group. I predict that even Jed will give up within the next five years. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:Does anyone keep a list of cold fusion patents?
The indication Ax has different meanings in different countries: http://www.delphion.com/help/kindcodes On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: David French says: This is a great list! But please note, any document with a serial number that ends with A is merely an application. Anyone can file an application and say virtually anything. The story contained in an application is not necessarily true. The ones that end with B are issued patents. Unfortunately, you cannot count on them being true either. Only in rare cases will the Patent Office put an applicant through the hoops of proving that the story set-out in the application disclosure is true. . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:October is here
fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Now its one year later and there is nothing. No products, no independent tests by a reputable group. On the other hand, we do have independent replications of Ni-H heat by Celani and others. I never expected products from Rossi. I predict that even Jed will give up within the next five years. Give up what?!? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:October is here
Well, those are replications of NiH, not of Rossi's device. 2012/10/2 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Now its one year later and there is nothing. No products, no independent tests by a reputable group. On the other hand, we do have independent replications of Ni-H heat by Celani and others. I never expected products from Rossi. I predict that even Jed will give up within the next five years. Give up what?!? - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:WLT Disproof
.merely 200x fewer neutrons . but that does present a very strong objection, no? Even the guillotine did not provide instant death. http://www.theguillotine.info/articles/livingheads.php From: Daniel Rocha It doesn't rule out. They just find lower neutron production rates, which are merely 200x smaller. Gigi DiMarco wrote The following paper: Low Energy Neutron Production by Inverse-beta decay in Metallic Hydride Surfaces S. Ciuchi http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Ciuchi_S/0/1/0/all/0/1 , L. Maiani http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Maiani_L/0/1/0/all/0/1 , A. D. Polosa http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Polosa_A/0/1/0/all/0/1 , V. Riquer http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Riquer_V/0/1/0/all/0/1 , G. Ruocco http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Ruocco_G/0/1/0/all/0/1 , M. Vignati http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Vignati_M/0/1/0/all/0/1 has just been uploaded to ArXiv http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.6501 The paper addresses the WLT as presented by Widom, Larsen and Srivastava in peer-reviewed journals and presents very strong objections to the theory that can be summarized as:
Re: [Vo]:WLT Disproof
I am actually surprised that they found a high neutron rate. I thought they'd find nothing. Those are conventional nuclear physicists, as you can see in their publication list. 2012/10/2 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net …merely 200x fewer neutrons … but that does present a “very strong objection,” no? ** ** Even the guillotine did not provide instant death. ** ** http://www.theguillotine.info/articles/livingheads.php ** ** ** ** ** ** *From:* Daniel Rocha ** ** It doesn't rule out. They just find lower neutron production rates, which are merely 200x smaller. ** ** Gigi DiMarco wrote” ** ** The following paper: Low Energy Neutron Production by Inverse-beta decay in Metallic Hydride Surfaces S. Ciuchi http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Ciuchi_S/0/1/0/all/0/1, L. Maiani http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Maiani_L/0/1/0/all/0/1, A. D. Polosa http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Polosa_A/0/1/0/all/0/1, V. Riquer http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Riquer_V/0/1/0/all/0/1, G. Ruocco http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Ruocco_G/0/1/0/all/0/1, M. Vignati http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Vignati_M/0/1/0/all/0/1 has just been uploaded to ArXiv http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.6501 The paper addresses the WLT as presented by Widom, Larsen and Srivastava in peer-reviewed journals and presents very strong objections to the theory that can be summarized as: ** ** -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:October is here
Frank sez: ... I predict that even Jed will give up within the next five years. This, of course, is an incredibly open-ended proclamation to make. I have no idea what you are claiming Mr. Rothwell will give up on. It is never a wise course of action to predict the behavior of another individual. Hell! I can't predict my own behavior from day to day, let alone the actions of another person. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:October is here
True enough but the verification of the NiH system is, itself, a condition for the reality of the Rossi effect. So to be rational, people have to distinguish between the probability of the Rossi effect being real GIVEN THAT the NiH system is real, and the probability that the Rossi effect is real GIVEN THAT we don't have information on the NiH system. To state that these two numbers are different is a little like saying that FZ is glib. On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Well, those are replications of NiH, not of Rossi's device. 2012/10/2 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Now its one year later and there is nothing. No products, no independent tests by a reputable group. On the other hand, we do have independent replications of Ni-H heat by Celani and others. I never expected products from Rossi. I predict that even Jed will give up within the next five years. Give up what?!? - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:WLT Disproof
mainstream scientists reading LENR papers and replying to them ? What happened, did LENR become noticeable overnight ? On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote: The following paper: Low Energy Neutron Production by Inverse-beta decay in Metallic Hydride Surfaces S. Ciuchi, L. Maiani, A. D. Polosa, V. Riquer, G. Ruocco, M. Vignati has just been uploaded to ArXiv http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.6501 The paper addresses the WLT as presented by Widom, Larsen and Srivastava in peer-reviewed journals and presents very strong objections to the theory that can be summarized as: It has been recently argued that inverse-beta nuclear transmutations might occur at an impressively high rate in a thin layer at the metallic hydride surface under specific conditions. In this note we present a calculation of the transmutation rate which shows that there is little room for such a remarkable effect. It is worthwhile to say that some of the authors are preminent scientists. Luciano Maiani is a San Marino citizen physicist best known for his prediction of the charm quark with Sheldon Lee Glashow and John Iliopoulos. He became Director General of CERN, serving from 1 January 1999 through the end of 2003. Moreover, he is the past-President of the Italian National Research Council (CNR, 2008-2011). Giancarlo Ruocco is deputy Dean at Rome University La Sapienza and Director of the Physics Department. He is in charge for research coordination activities at La Sapienza. The paper will be (or has been, actually I do not know) submitted to peer-reviewed journals to be published; probably in the same journal in which the WLT has been proposed. Since WLT forms the basis of a number of experimental approaches to LENR's (including Brillouin and NASA) maybe it's wise to read and try to understand the paper. Cheers GG
Re: [Vo]:October is here
On 2012-10-02 16:57, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: its one year later and there is nothing. No products, no independent tests by a reputable group. Apparently [1], by hearsay [2], something along those lines should come out at around mid-October but I'm personally not expecting much, or that this is even related to Rossi. Well, at least it costs nothing to keep following the latest news and developments. I do remember Rossi writing a few weeks ago that a University report would come out at some point in October/November (originally within mid October). I'm not sure how he can expect people to quickly forget such a strong statement, if he changed his mind about it. By the way, the exclusive licensee for Italy ProMeteon s.r.l. [4] recently postponed their countdown on their website to November 1st. The website was supposed to open on October 1st. Cheers, S.A. [1] besides an E-Cat convention in Italy on October 12th [3]. I would figure that if Rossi really had nothing after so much time, he would probably avoid showing himself in public. [2] This was hinted by Daniele Passerini on his blog, but no definite information is available at the moment [3] http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=503104896385958set=a.184938998202551.46792.135474503149001type=1theater [4] http://www.prometeon.it/
Re: [Vo]:WLT Disproof
On 2012-10-02 17:27, Moab Moab wrote: mainstream scientists reading LENR papers and replying to them ? What happened, did LENR become noticeable overnight ? Not really. To my point of view, this is the result of a personal quarrel between one of the authors of this paper (the director of the Physics Department of the Rome University La Sapienza) and WLT proponent prof. Yogendra Srivastava [1], who got one of his presentations at La Sapienza canceled at the last minute as a result, a few months ago (in short, rude emails when he was asked to clarify certain aspects of the Widom-Larsen theory, which backfired). The conclusions of the paper linked in the OP might be correct (I don't have the expertise needed to judge whether it is or not), but it certainly doesn't look like the result of genuine interest to LENR by mainstream scientists. Just my 2 cents, S.A. [1] You might remember Srivastava from the presentation last March at CERN: http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=177379
RE: [Vo]:Video: Iraj Parchamazad on LENR with Zeolites
From: Roarty, Francis X [snip] I have toyed with the idea of a submerged tube of hydrogen being circulated in a closed loop where a small vertical section acting as reactor which is filled with nano powders, backfilled nickel foam or this cobalt loaded zeolite you mention. Fran Fran - Sounds almost like a true aquarium from a true Aquarian, but H2 flowing through, instead of air. Go for it. BTW - solid-state H2 pumps are available, with high pressure capability and no moving parts (not cheap). As you have mentioned in your blog, there could be a distinct advantage to flow-thru in any Casimir-based system . which is seldom done in practice in Ni-H - Moddel's null results notwithstanding. You are no doubt basing everything theoretical on a Casimir understanding - and that should break new ground. And there should be little doubt about thermal gain, even if small - if you find thermal rise in a water-filled tank which is over and above input power. Problem would be maintaining a trigger temperature in the reactor itself, but with flow-thru, some gain could possibly happen without the higher temp trigger. That would be an Arata-style hybrid. Arata found small gain from pressurization alone. One curious fact, if you go the route of a thermal trigger - Nick Reiter finds the same ~350C trigger temperature seen in most all of Ahern's work with nickel alloys, and yet cobalt has a much higher Curie point. It is almost as if the 350C is related to another physical property as well. hmmm.. De Broglie wave coherence or quantum Zeno effect or ?? Why do I get this weird retro-feeling of a new dawning for the Age of Aquarius ? Jones BTW - the youth of today is almost oblivious to it - and there is no agreement on the myth of a so-called Aquarian age (or even if it really started back in the big-hair days) but an Aquarian reactor could be a marker deluxe. and with Avalon biker providing a decent new-age script . say, isn't that the 5th Dimension blowing through the windmills of my mind? Oh no! not a new ear-wig . Mystic crystal revelation and the mind's true liberation. yikes. _ Update for anyone with aspirations of seeing a robust excess heat effect with Zeolites, using the Reiter effect (cobalt loading). Amazon actually caries a cobalt loaded zeolite material - used as aquarium filter media. http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005QRHM5I http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B005QRHM5I This is not a joke - but I have no illusions that this product could work in the same robust way as Nick's material, since it probably has minimal cobalt - but it's a bargain, and the ease of operation with a good calorimeter. even one from Thermonetics, no less, could be worth a shot for anyone with more time than money. Hmm . Kinda like owning a Yugo. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg62560.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg62560.html LOL. Had to throw Mary a bone, so to speak - since he/she does make a good device. Wouldn't it be a hoot if someone were to use a simple Amazon aquarium filter media, a pipe reactor, KH and heating tape - and a Thermonetics calorimeter to show unmistakable excess heat . in a lowest common denominator system. It could happen, folks. Jones _ Thanks, Ruby. These are old slides (2008) are interesting in the context of palladium-deuterium. But there is no real anomaly to get excited about there. This is similar to the NRL work with zeolites. Yawn. The caption under both experiments could be labeled as so close, but so far away since they had the Casimir cavity part of the equation correct (using zeolite), but not the active ingredients. Palladium deuterium is not a Casimir-cavity influenced reaction - that much is clear. OTOH. hydrogen is. I was hoping that there would have been information more pertinent to the Reiter effect with cobalt and hydrogen in zeolite, mentioned recently here as the ZeoCat, but that was wishful thinking. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=vpid=sitessrcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxvaGlv dG9pb3xneDpjZGMzM2VjNGQwY2ExZDcpli=1 https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=vpid=sitessrcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxvaGlvd G9pb3xneDpjZGMzM2VjNGQwY2ExZDcpli=1 BTW - As of today, not yet October - the ZeoCat of Nick Reiter looks to me like the most important open source experiment in LENR in the sense of: easy to do, but with robust results, begging for replication, and begging for enhancements. From: Ruby As far as I know, there is only slides from his presentation at ICCF-14 by New Energy Times. You must scroll down on this page to find his name http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2008/ICCF14/ICCMNS-14-Recordings.s html http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2008/ICCF14/ICCMNS-14-Recordings.sh tml Here is the direct download for the New Energy Times
Re: [Vo]:WLT Disproof
I wish they wouldn't use Angstrom units. Come on. I think eq. (10) says R ~= 0.4 * 10^-12. But the text says ...that the electron should be confined within its Compton radius, which is completely unrealistic. Various references say the Compton radius of an electron is more like 2.8 * 10^-15. So while it may not matter - I can't speak to that - isn't their textual statement off by three orders of magnitude? Jeff On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2012-10-02 17:27, Moab Moab wrote: mainstream scientists reading LENR papers and replying to them ? What happened, did LENR become noticeable overnight ? Not really. To my point of view, this is the result of a personal quarrel between one of the authors of this paper (the director of the Physics Department of the Rome University La Sapienza) and WLT proponent prof. Yogendra Srivastava [1], who got one of his presentations at La Sapienza canceled at the last minute as a result, a few months ago (in short, rude emails when he was asked to clarify certain aspects of the Widom-Larsen theory, which backfired). The conclusions of the paper linked in the OP might be correct (I don't have the expertise needed to judge whether it is or not), but it certainly doesn't look like the result of genuine interest to LENR by mainstream scientists. Just my 2 cents, S.A. [1] You might remember Srivastava from the presentation last March at CERN: http://indico.cern.ch/**conferenceDisplay.py?confId=**177379http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=177379
RE: [Vo]:WLT Disproof
I don't know Jones. I read it differently. Unless there is some subtle sarcasm which is obscured by the jargon of nuclear physics, at least they, being hot fusion mainstream physicists and affiliated with CERN, have taken one of many LENR theories and provided polite, professional criticism. This is good, even if it raises concerns for just one LENR hypothesis! It may break down the 20+year impenetrable wall put up by the few 'respectable' journals; might even cause authors to resubmit papers to those journals. Let me note a few specifics about the paper: - they actually stated several times that the W-L proposal is a 'very intriguing effect'. Why use that verbiage in a scientific paper if you really didn't think that? If this isn't sarcasm, then they find W-L intriguing. for mainstream nuclear physicists from CERN to be intrigued is a good thing! - just after equation (1) is the statement, This process cannot, of course, take place in a Hydrogen atom in vacuum. Are they thinking that W-L assumes this condition, or are they stating that their analysis is NOT in a vacuum? This is unclear. - After equation (6) they state, the proton localized in our lab and the electron on Mars. We present a calculation of the rate of (1) done in two independent ways. WTF? I'll assume it's my lack of knowledge of nuclear physics that wonders why the distance between Mars and their lab has anything to do with nuclear physics! There has to be at least 20 orders of magnitude difference. Perhaps it's a, 'Starting from an Infinite separation' sort of thing? - After equation (7) they state, where σ is the unpolarized cross section for process OK, so do that calculations and then look at the polarized condition. - After equation (10) they state, the electron should be confined within its Compton radius, which is completely unrealistic. Is it all that unrealistic to propose that packing H/D atoms into a rigid metal lattice could easily restrict the electron's radius? I can see why this would be 'unrealistic' in hot fusion; in plasmas where things are much less dense and free to fly about. But this is rigid condensed matter, so does their analysis apply here? If it is realistic in vacuum conditions, then have they thought about the space in microfractures which could provide that condition. - After equation (25) they state, Values of β (beta) of the order or even larger than twenty are certainly unusual in condensed matter physics, especially for bound electrons. Unusual, but not impossible. They could have easily said 'highly unusual' or some such verbiage, but they didn't. - Finally, the conclusion seems to indicate that there is some remote possibilities which they feel might be possible, but to come to a definitive conclusion would require a detailed analysis. it is questionable that values of β can be realized, in particular for bound electrons, so large as to give rise to useful nuclear transmutation rates. A more detailed analysis of the attainable values of β is needed to obtain more definite conclusions on this interesting phenomenon, should it exist at all. Again, they refer to it as an 'interesting' phenomenon. are they just being polite here? They could have just left that verbiage out, so I read this to be they are truly intrigued by the W-L hypothesis, and although they see some issues with it, they are intrigued by its 'framework' and feel it worthwhile to explore in a more detailed manner. I may have missed the sarcasm in this paper, but I think not, so it appears to me to be a sincere and polite critique. ***Isn't this what the LENR community has asked for, for decades?*** Let's all hope now that it will get published in a 'reputable' journal (likely, considering the authors' affiliations?), ALONG WITH THE REBUTTAL. With the attention and support that LENR has had over the past few years, I seriously doubt that the rebuttal would not be published.Can't wait to read it! -Mark Iverson From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 8:06 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:WLT Disproof .merely 200x fewer neutrons . but that does present a very strong objection, no? Even the guillotine did not provide instant death. http://www.theguillotine.info/articles/livingheads.php From: Daniel Rocha It doesn't rule out. They just find lower neutron production rates, which are merely 200x smaller. Gigi DiMarco wrote The following paper: Low Energy Neutron Production by Inverse-beta decay in Metallic Hydride Surfaces S. Ciuchi http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Ciuchi_S/0/1/0/all/0/1 , L. Maiani http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Maiani_L/0/1/0/all/0/1 , A. D. Polosa http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Polosa_A/0/1/0/all/0/1 , V. Riquer http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Riquer_V/0/1/0/all/0/1 , G. Ruocco
Re: [Vo]:October is here
Does anyone here have information on the two other evenst that Daniele Passerinit talk about : 1- Ugo Abundo team conference at IIS Pirelli on that 20th of October 2- and a very interesting, very high scientific value that seems leaked by MISTERI commentator... http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=37t=669(supposed before the 20) 2012/10/2 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com On 2012-10-02 16:57, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: its one year later and there is nothing. No products, no independent tests by a reputable group. Apparently [1], by hearsay [2], something along those lines should come out at around mid-October but I'm personally not expecting much, or that this is even related to Rossi. Well, at least it costs nothing to keep following the latest news and developments. I do remember Rossi writing a few weeks ago that a University report would come out at some point in October/November (originally within mid October). I'm not sure how he can expect people to quickly forget such a strong statement, if he changed his mind about it. By the way, the exclusive licensee for Italy ProMeteon s.r.l. [4] recently postponed their countdown on their website to November 1st. The website was supposed to open on October 1st. Cheers, S.A. [1] besides an E-Cat convention in Italy on October 12th [3]. I would figure that if Rossi really had nothing after so much time, he would probably avoid showing himself in public. [2] This was hinted by Daniele Passerini on his blog, but no definite information is available at the moment [3] http://www.facebook.com/photo.**php?fbid=503104896385958set=** a.184938998202551.46792.**135474503149001type=1theaterhttp://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=503104896385958set=a.184938998202551.46792.135474503149001type=1theater [4] http://www.prometeon.it/
Re: [Vo]:October is here
On 2012-10-02 18:34, Alain Sepeda wrote: Does anyone here have information on the two other evenst that Daniele Passerinit talk about : 1- Ugo Abundo team conference at IIS Pirelli on that 20th of October I think they will report in a more traditional manner on the latest developments on their LENR reactor and third party validation / replications (I seem to remember that several were planned, but haven't read anymore about them on 22passi). Maybe earlier this year [1]. 2- and a very interesting, very high scientific value that seems leaked by MISTERI commentator... http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=37t=669 (supposed before the 20) Some are speculating this will be a University report about an independent E-Cat test. However, Passerini said he will attend this event (in addition to the other two he listed), so it's probably something more than just a report. We'll see. Cheers, S.A. [1] http://www.leopoldopirelli.it/index.php?menu=108cont=996lingua=it
Re: [Vo]:October is here
At 07:57 AM 10/2/2012, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: It has now been one year since Rossi's big demonstration. Products were to come out at the end of last year, then in the Summer of 2012. Now its one year later and there is nothing. No products, no independent tests by a reputable group. From: Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com Apparently [1], by hearsay [2], something along those lines should come out at around mid-October but I'm personally not expecting much, or that this is even related to Rossi. Well, at least it costs nothing to keep following the latest news and developments. It's still wait and see time. a) The warm 1MW IS still listed for sale. b) The warm 1MW now has SOME kind of safety certification c) Something is happening on the hot eCat front d) We all said Rossi was nuts to sell directly to consumers without a UL (or equivalent) certification, which would take a long time e) There are multiple reports of NiH generating excess energy (So Rossi must be faking something real?)
[Vo]:Livermore Lab Ignition Facility's woes
I don't have a subscription to Physics Today (no loss there), but an article was published with the title: Ignition effort may be slowed as Livermore facility misses milestone, David Kramer, October 2012, page 28, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.1747 As one would expect from a mainstream rag, the title downplays the problems. However, a quick search on the web led me to this article in August which doesn't mince words: http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Livermore-Lab-Ignition-Facility-s-woes -3797461.php Contrast the wording in the mainstream press, may be slowed, with the statements from the sfgate article, a new report by the U.S. Department of Energy, which oversees the Livermore lab, now concludes that the probability that National Ignition Facility leaders can meet this deadline [end of 2012] is extremely low. And this one, A second report from the National Ignition Facility's own technical review committee warns that deadlines for such complex experimental efforts are 'unrealistic' because the project is working in a realm filled with many scientific unknowns. Like nearly all venues of reporting, even scientific news is subject to its own slant, agenda, and half-truths. Fortunately due to the internet, one can quickly and easily search for and read opposing viewpoints to become better informed. -Mark Iverson
Re: [Vo]:October is here
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: e) There are multiple reports of NiH generating excess energy (So Rossi must be faking something real?) That's the point I was trying to make when I noted there have been many other Ni-H reports. Rossi's claims seem similar to many others, especially Celani. Adjusting for the mass of material and the temperature they are in the same ball park. If Celani is right, it seems likely to me that Rossi is too. I doubt that Rossi is faking anything. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:WLT Disproof
Disclaimer : I'm TOTALLY out of my sphere of competence here. Most WLT-disprovers bring the electron from infinity (or Mars) and collide it with the Proton. But I think they need to look at the naturally occurring Electron Capture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture eg A proton in Berrylium-7 can snatch an electron from the K-shell with a half-life of 53 days -- and that rate can be changed 1% depending on its environment (metal or insulator), by perturbing the electron shells. (And Ni-56 has a half-life of 6 days). Aren't there other ways of tweaking the shells to increase the reaction rate? eg Rydberg H (as proposed by Defkalion).
Re: [Vo]:October is here
On 2012-10-02 16:57, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: It has now been one year since Rossi's big demonstration. Products were to come out at the end of last year, then in the Summer of 2012. Now its one year later and there is nothing. No products, no independent tests by a reputable group. Just in: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=733cpage=7#comment-343732 Steven N. Karels October 2nd, 2012 at 11:31 AM Dear Andrea Rossi, What’s up with a new E-CAT Meeting Scheduled for Pordenone, Italy on Oct 12. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=733cpage=7#comment-343916 Andrea Rossi October 2nd, 2012 at 3:17 PM Dear Steven N. Karels: Your question is inspiring: well, I will not go to Pordenone to clean the Dolomites with the wax: it is possible that in the Pordenione convention I will bring the final results regarding the third party validation of the Hot Cat. It is not certain, some work has still to be done, but it is not impossible. ( He,he,he,he…) Warm Regards, A.R. We will see (maybe) if the third party validation will be actually from a completely independent group/entity. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:October is here
On Oct 2, 2012, at 9:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi's claims seem similar to many others, especially Celani. The most worrisome thing is that indeed Celani's quantum reactor does resemble that of Rossi's, because he too refuses any independent confirmation or replication of his technology, although technology is just too important to let into hands of few. ―Jouni
Re: [Vo]:October is here
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: The most worrisome thing is that indeed Celani's quantum reactor does resemble that of Rossi's, because he too refuses any independent confirmation or replication of his technology . . . That is incorrect. He is assisting other people who are testing and independently replicating. He allowed the people at NI to replace all of his equipment with their own. They kept only the cell itself. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A New Spin on Solar Cells
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 2 Oct 2012 08:13:27 -0400: Hi, [snip] The Spin Cell concentrates the light and avoids the heat. Light is transferred to electricity in nanoseconds. Heat is transferred in milliseconds (1000X longer). The PV on the Spin Cell captures the light, generates the electrical energy and then spins away avoiding heat build up in the PV. With normal solar cells, the cell is exposed to the light 100% of the time that the light is shining. If the cell spins away then it clearly isn't exposed to the light, therefore during the time that it is not exposed, it generates no energy. I wonder what it averages out to if this is taken into account? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A New Spin on Solar Cells
On Oct 3, 2012, at 1:33 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: With normal solar cells, the cell is exposed to the light 100% of the time that the light is shining. If the cell spins away then it clearly isn't exposed to the light, therefore during the time that it is not exposed, it generates no energy. I wonder what it averages out to if this is taken into account? Individual PV-cell is operating at 20x efficiency, because the light is concentrated with lenses. However as only minor portion of the cone is in direct sunlight at the time, the total amount of silicon required is only about 75 % less than with conventional flat solar panels. As the structure of the rotating cone and lensing system is far more complex than with flat panels, the cost effectiveness is assumed to be as a whole ca. 50 % better than with flat panels. The idea behind is just brilliant and it is a parade example of out of the box thinking, where traditional flat Earth thinking is replaced by something more three dimensional. The rotating cone design solves quite many problems that are major issues with flat solar panels. The heating problem is solved with effective and economical cooling system. This is perhaps the most important. And when there is less heat, the efficiency and endurance of PV-cells is far better. Actually cooling is so effective that it allows the lens concentration of light. For flat panels direct midday and midsummer sunlight brings too much heating even without extra lensing. The second most important thing is that as it is a cone shaped, it does not require expensive direction systems that follows the sun. If flat panels can follow the sun during the daylight hours, it is quite expensive to create robust enough structures so that storm does not destroy the solar park. Cone shaped solar cells have optimal aerodynamical properties and thus they require little reinforcement for the storms. Third is that the efficiency is better for rotating PV-cells, because there is less heat production. Therefore less cooling is required or lensing factor can be significantly higher. Also as only minor portion of the cells are exposed for the direct sunlight at the time, the longevity of PV-cells is better, because the lifetime of solar cells is directly proportional to the hours that PV-cell is in direct sunlight. Fourth improvement is that cone shaped solar cell can utilise also indirect sunlight. This especially important in cloudy days, when light is abundant but almost all light is indirect. And the fifth improvement is that due to rapid rotation of the cone, AC electricity can be generated without inverter. In small scale solar cells, the cost of inverter is about ￠45 per Wp installed. This is ca. 10-20 percent of the total cost of the solar power. In sum this is just superb concept and for me as huge fan of solar power, it was a love in first sight. Just look the shapes of the cone! I hope that it will come in different colours. ―Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Open Source Papp Update
If shockwave production is central to the Papp reaction, it may be possible to build a Papp generator without the need for a piston. Here is my reasoning: When the spark fires, a shock wave will form, expand, and travel down the length of the tube. This wave is comprised of a shockwave front of both electrons and ions. The electrons will move down the tube far faster than the positive protons because they are 2000 times lighter. This shockwave will produce a large electric current along the axis of the tube parallel to its length. This flow of electrons will produce a huge magnetic field that will be emanated accorting to the right hand rule with the thumb pointing in the direction of shockwave travel. The magnetic field will circle the circumference of the tube and be oriented parallel to it. A network of a large number of thin copper wires can be arrayed along the length of the tube on its outside surface and parallel to its length direction, which also happens to be the direction of travel of the shockwave. The end of each element of this multi-wire mesh can then be connected at the ends of each of these equally long elements to a common connector at two opposing junctions just beyond each end of the tube. This mesh of parallel wires can now convert the rapidly changing magnetic flux as it expands and contracts to electric power that can be rectified and stored in capacitors. This power generated my the mesh can be added to the feedback power produced by plasma collapse of the shockwave that is usually found in Papp engines. If the mesh of wires is thick enough, all the rapidly changing magnetic flux lines can be converted to electricity at maximum efficiency without the need for any mechanical moving parts. Additionally from the perspective of experimentation, if magnetic field lines can be detected when the Papp engine is fired, the production of a shockwave will be both verified and quantified. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM, ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Vortex, Some updates on Papp development.. Which most of you know is a noble gas that is charged (by RF/spark) and drives a piston with an unexplained (?) force. Harvesting the force and residual energy to produce overunity power remains to be seen. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Talk:Directory:Plasma_Energy_Controls_Plasma_Expansion_Motor An open source Papp Engine based on Bob's design is being built by a 26 yr old whiz named Russ. He has made great progress in just a few weeks-- a cylinder based on Bob's test unit, spark generator, gas system, and more. I'm sure he'll be looking for ideas on how to mix and test noble gas mixtures. http://rwgresearch.com/ https://www.youtube.com/user/rwg42985?feature=g-user-u http://www.open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=659 Bob is chiming in with feedback, which is great to see. The forum is at 12 pages and is filled with interesting tidbits. Here is a (self-taught?) Dannel Roberts and his visit to Bob's shop. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=_zWJNyoFgJM Starting at 22:40 is Robert's theory of how the Papp engine creates a bang... Chuck (a LENR replicator) received his Popper Kit from John. It contains 15 pages of design/build notes and has a signal generator to drive 2 included spark coils. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lFt_q69dxkfeature=plcp Bob Rohner has also produced a few new movies, one warning of the potential dangers of building a popper.. another showing the system running without a coil, dispelling the thought that the coil could be the source of the force, showing that compressed air is not used. http://www.rohnermachine.com/pagedocuments.html https://www.youtube.com/user/bjrohner?feature=g-user-u All very interesting, but a lot of power is going in (300 joules?) so a lot of work, luck, and miracles may still be needed. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:Somewhat OFF TOPIC, Designer of 3-D Printable Gun Has His 3-D Printer Seized
I would be afraid that that gun would explode in my face when it fired. Might help eliminate some terrorists by accident. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 4:32 pm Subject: [Vo]:Somewhat OFF TOPIC, Designer of 3-D Printable Gun Has His 3-D Printer Seized Yikes! Didn't think of this . . . See: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/02/_3d_printed_gun_wiki_weapon_on_hold_after_stratasys_revokes_lease_on_printer.html Every technology, no matter how good, can be used in harmful ways. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Designer of 3-D Printable Gun Has His 3-D Printer Seized
This is indeed a problem. Best 3D-printers can already produce jet engine grade components, although this technology is not yet available for the public. However it will be available some time in near future. Actually jet engine companies such as Rolls-royce does pursue 3D-printing not because it is cheaper, but because it promises lighter and higher quality components for the jet engines, because the metal alloy produced is almost without structural flaws that are inherent for the traditional metal manufacturing techniques. I would think that only way to combat this problem is to eliminate poverty from the society. About 95% of the criminality is due to unjust distribution of wealth. This is not that individual humans would resort into criminality if they fail to find job due to high unemployment rates, but because children are crown in the conditions where no children should be allowed to live. Best way to eliminate poverty is to set zero income level for each individuals into 1000-2000 dollars per month. This can be done quite easily by distributing income more justly. When there is no scarcity of the basic needs, there won't be breeding grounds for violent gangs and violent larger scale religions, because every child will get a proper and free education. Therefore weapons of mass destruction that can be 3D-printed in near future, does not posses major thread for the security of the society. If we do not have injustice, then people do not have urge to print and use weapons of mass destruction. Of course there will be always some individual lunatics, but if there is no organised violence, there should not be too much problems that we cannot handle. I really mean weapons of mass destruction. Imagine 3D-printed fully working nuclear bomb that only requires after printing to add the plutonium that is stolen from the Russia, North Korea, Iran or Libya. Of course this just extreme. Almost any weapons that can be imagined can also be printed. And better yet, 3D-printing does allow completely new designs for the weapons that we cannot yet imagine! ―Jouni Ps. I would not think that there could be less off topic post than this! On Oct 2, 2012, at 11:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Yikes! Didn't think of this . . . See: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/02/_3d_printed_gun_wiki_weapon_on_hold_after_stratasys_revokes_lease_on_printer.html Every technology, no matter how good, can be used in harmful ways. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:WLT Disproof
Under QM, the position of an election in an atom is stated as a probability density function. That is, under QM we can only state that an electron has a certain probability of being any particular location at any time. Apparently this very ordinary bit of QM doesn't appear in W-L theory. The authors of this paper are saying this can't be right - W-L says nothing about the electron's position, but we obviously can't have a theory that gives the same answer regardless of whether the electron is near the proton or on Mars. So yes, it's sarcastic, but I read it as sarcasm in a this can't be right! way rather than a you're an idiot way. There are many reasons my assessment may be wrong, however. Jeff On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: *Disclaimer : I'm TOTALLY out of my sphere of competence here. *Most WLT-disprovers bring the electron from infinity (or Mars) and collide it with the Proton. But I think they need to look at the naturally occurring Electron Capture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture eg A proton in Berrylium-7 can snatch an electron from the K-shell with a half-life of 53 days -- and that rate can be changed 1% depending on its environment (metal or insulator), by perturbing the electron shells. (And Ni-56 has a half-life of 6 days). Aren't there other ways of tweaking the shells to increase the reaction rate? eg Rydberg H (as proposed by Defkalion).
Re: [Vo]:Designer of 3-D Printable Gun Has His 3-D Printer Seized
This idea that poverty is the root cause of criminality is at best naive and at worst moronic. This can only come from the liberal minds of socialistic/communistic people who think that Income Redistribution is the panacea for all societal ills. My friend, stealing from people who work hard for their income and redistribute it to lazy bums will not cure sociatal ills. You are smarter than to believe in that solution. Let's take a real life example. The United States has more felons and criminals on a per capita basis than any other country in the world, including such 4th world countries like the Philippines who are poverty stricken to the core. The United States is flushed in food and resources and conveniences, and yet manage to produce more criminals and felons than any other country. Please, I would like to hear your explanation why the US has more criminals than the Philippines (on a per capita basis). Jojo PS. The root cause of crime is not poverty. but rather the inherent sin and rebellion in the hearts of a glutonous, rebellious and lazy society. - Original Message - From: Jouni Valkonen To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Designer of 3-D Printable Gun Has His 3-D Printer Seized I would think that only way to combat this problem is to eliminate poverty from the society. About 95% of the criminality is due to unjust distribution of wealth. This is not that individual humans would resort into criminality if they fail to find job due to high unemployment rates, but because children are crown in the conditions where no children should be allowed to live. Best way to eliminate poverty is to set zero income level for each individuals into 1000-2000 dollars per month. This can be done quite easily by distributing income more justly. When there is no scarcity of the basic needs, there won't be breeding grounds for violent gangs and violent larger scale religions, because every child will get a proper and free education.
Re: [Vo]:A New Spin on Solar Cells
In reply to Jouni Valkonen's message of Wed, 3 Oct 2012 03:04:19 +0300: Hi, [snip] Individual PV-cell is operating at 20x efficiency, because the light is concentrated with lenses. However as only minor portion of the cone is in direct sunlight at the time, the total amount of silicon required is only about 75 % less than with conventional flat solar panels. This makes no sense to me. It seems that at any given instant only some of the cells are exposed to direct sunlight, the other half to indirect sunlight (unless the sun is directly overhead). Therefore if anything, one would need 75% more cells, not less. I can't guess what effect the lenses would have, but I'm guessing it would be minimal, since they only appear to cover a fraction of the total area. Nice video, but my common sense says it's mostly nonsense. I would like to see the test results. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:WLT Disproof
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 12:27 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:WLT Disproof Again, they refer to it as an ‘interesting’ phenomenon… are they just being polite here? snip That's what Niels Bohr said when he did not like a paper. Its interesting!
Re: [Vo]: Experimental Results with Nickel and Sodium Carbonate
David, thanks for the interesting update. I just looked at two papers, and the figures for A/cm^2 that I saw were in the range of 0.1 to 0.4, so I imagine you're applying sufficient power. Comments inline. On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:32 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am not confident that borax would be better than my electrolyte since hydrogen is the needed material and it shows up at the cathode in either case. We are pretty sure hydrogen is a necessary ingredient in Ni/H. We also have reason to think that hydrogen by itself is not sufficient. We should not assume that the electrolyte does not participate. Some electrolytes and media that have been used in previous Ni experiments are H2SO4, ND4CL (note the deuterium), LiOD, K2CO3, Li2SO4, LiOH, Na2SO4, K2SO4, Rb2CO3 and D2O. The happenings at the anode only concern me when I detect strange effects due to the choice of materials. Borax lead to several bad deposits that screwed with the resistance and dirtied the bath while sodium carbonate did not seem to have any serious evils. I would recommend that others switch to sodium carbonate. Resistance may be indicative of high loading and may not be bad. Also, the deposits may be desirable. You may be setting the clock back on your special nickel by cleaning the surface of the deposits. Eric
Re: [Vo]:WLT Disproof
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote: Since WLT forms the basis of a number of experimental approaches to LENR's (including Brillouin and NASA) maybe it's wise to read and try to understand the paper. I wonder about this. I suspect that people are just relying on Widom and Larsen to rationalize (maybe to themselves) the existence of an effect that is difficult to contemplate if Coulomb repulsion is in any way involved. Widom and Larsen talk about neutrons, which are comprehensible to hobbyists (like me) and non-physicists. But there are many difficulties that Widom and Larsen do not appear to even seek to address. One of them is the absence of neutron-emitting radioisotopes after a reaction. Another is that in order to generate the observed power, you would expect many more of the hypothesized ultra-low momentum neutrons to thermalize and escape from the system, which is not something that is seen. I suspect that WL is being used as a placeholder by some until something comes along that is comprehensible to physicists. I would not be surprised if that replacement ended up looking a lot like known physics, with a small twist here and there. For this reason, I see not even the smallest consequences in the definitive disproving of WL. Eric
Re: [Vo]:WLT Disproof
Anderson localizationon cause large concentrations of heavy electrons to accumulate around imperfections in lattices such as cracks and bumps on rough surfaces. These concentrations of heavy electrons are what cause the lowering of the coulomb barrier. Cheers:Axil On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote: Since WLT forms the basis of a number of experimental approaches to LENR's (including Brillouin and NASA) maybe it's wise to read and try to understand the paper. I wonder about this. I suspect that people are just relying on Widom and Larsen to rationalize (maybe to themselves) the existence of an effect that is difficult to contemplate if Coulomb repulsion is in any way involved. Widom and Larsen talk about neutrons, which are comprehensible to hobbyists (like me) and non-physicists. But there are many difficulties that Widom and Larsen do not appear to even seek to address. One of them is the absence of neutron-emitting radioisotopes after a reaction. Another is that in order to generate the observed power, you would expect many more of the hypothesized ultra-low momentum neutrons to thermalize and escape from the system, which is not something that is seen. I suspect that WL is being used as a placeholder by some until something comes along that is comprehensible to physicists. I would not be surprised if that replacement ended up looking a lot like known physics, with a small twist here and there. For this reason, I see not even the smallest consequences in the definitive disproving of WL. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Video: Iraj Parchamazad on LENR with Zeolites
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: I edited an under-23-minute video of Dr. Iraj Parchamazad Chemistry Chairman of University of LaVerne talking about his research into anomalous heat reactions using nano-palladium loaded zeolites exposed to deuterium gas. http://coldfusionnow.org/iraj-parchamazad-lenr-with-zeolites/ Enjoy! Thanks for the great video, Ruby. Dr. Parchamazad is doing some interesting work. Some points for those who have not had a chance to see the video: - Dr. Parchamazad is seeing a very high energy density with a miniscule amount of palladium loaded with deuterium in a zeolite matrix (I didn't catch the makeup of the zeolite). Melvin Miles, who is also in the video, chimed in to say that it's one of the highest energy densities seen, if I remember correctly. - Dr. Parchamazad is using an organopalladium source rather than a palladium salt. After embedding, the non-palladium compounds are burned out of the zeolite. He said using a salt will result in a detrimental ion exchange at some point. - He saw copper appear following upon the reaction. - The reactor is very small -- a metal pipe with a threaded tee, perhaps smaller than a Purell bottle. Since the amount of palladium is small, and I don't imagine you would need much D2, the experiment may be fairly inexpensive. I suspect the hard parts are preparing the zeolite and doing the calorimetry. Eric
