Re: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info
Hi, On 7-2-2013 22:19, Jed Rothwell wrote: I don't know why this is in the Business section. That does not surprise me at all, as it may have an incredible huge impact on the way (some of) the traders may react. Kind regards, Rob
[Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Hi, Thanks for the info, it can never be mentioned often enough :-) . Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
George Miley tries the Way of Technology, excellent! Peter On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: Hi, Thanks for the info, it can never be mentioned often enough :-) . Kind regards, Rob -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Mayans and Near Earth Asteroid
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:22 PM, de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, I think they actually foresaw the US fiscal cliff, which really reached crisis proportions on exactly December 12, 2012..., uh, or was that Dec 21, 2012? No, it was the reelection of Obama. ;)
Re: [Vo]:Mayans and Near Earth Asteroid
Obamageddon? On Friday, February 8, 2013, Terry Blanton wrote: On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:22 PM, de Bivort Lawrence ldebiv...@gmail.comjavascript:; wrote: Actually, I think they actually foresaw the US fiscal cliff, which really reached crisis proportions on exactly December 12, 2012..., uh, or was that Dec 21, 2012? No, it was the reelection of Obama. ;)
Re: [Vo]:Urgent: Until Feb9, can vote for Dr Miley 10kw LENR Thermal Electric Generator
AFAIK, this is the first ARPA-E funding of LENR. Interesting that it comes on the heels of the resignation of Steven Chu. Coincidence?
Re: [Vo]:Urgent: Until Feb9, can vote for Dr Miley 10kw LENR Thermal Electric Generator
Don't forget to open your email and klick the confirmation link. On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: AFAIK, this is the first ARPA-E funding of LENR. Interesting that it comes on the heels of the resignation of Steven Chu. Coincidence?
Re: [Vo]:Urgent: Until Feb9, can vote for Dr Miley 10kw LENR Thermal Electric Generator
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote: Don't forget to open your email and klick the confirmation link. http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 Done.
RE: [Vo]:nanocavities
This is coincidental to the BEC paper mentioned by Axil yesterday. From: Peter Gluck Can this: Nanoscopic Microcavities Offer Newfound Control in Light Filtering: Unique Nanostructure Produces Novel 'Plasmonic Halos': http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130207150907.htm?goback=%2Egde_ 1807453_member_212276134 be of any use/inspirtion for Ed Storms' LENR theory? Peter Here is the prior citation: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/bose-einstein-condensate-created-at-r oom-temperature/ http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/29/1210842110 In fact this could be important for LENR at the theoretical level, should it be broad enough to include other boson quasiparticles, such as the magnon. The definitions are similar: polaritons are quasiparticles resulting from strong coupling of electromagnetic waves with an electric or magnetic dipole-carrying excitation. The magnon could be imagined to be the subset of that - where the coupling is only magnetic. However, it may be only a partial subset with other features included. Polaritons describe the dispersion of light (photons) with an interacting phonon resonance; while the magnon would describe the dispersion of spin current with an interacting resonance. Using the same general terms, superconductivity where the Cooper pair is the boson, would describe the dispersion of charge within an interacting phonon resonance. (the last is my interpretation, which may not be correct). Thus we have a linking of three BEC phenomena which may happen either at room temperature or close- in the case of the RTSC. From: Axil Axil http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/bose-einstein-condensate-created-at-r oom-temperature/ Bose-Einstein condensate created at room temperature Can those interested in LENR draw any lessons from this formulation? Cheers:Axil attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
On 2013-02-08 11:49, Moab Moab wrote: It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 It would have been in LENUCO's best interest to let people know about this in advance! What a wasted opportunity. (if not for funding, at least for visibility / public awareness) No chances to take the lead within the remaining time over other projects with 1500+ votes. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Akira, the votes are coming in fairly quick now, just 4 hours ago the counter was at 18, now we're past 80. If anything this will show the LENR supporters across the internet forums what we are capable of. On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2013-02-08 11:49, Moab Moab wrote: It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.**ultralightstartups.com/**campaign/detail/861http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 It would have been in LENUCO's best interest to let people know about this in advance! What a wasted opportunity. (if not for funding, at least for visibility / public awareness) No chances to take the lead within the remaining time over other projects with 1500+ votes. Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy
People here have often remarked that an improved battery would help with wind and solar power, by storing energy and leveling demand. That is true. But other methods of storing energy on a large scale already exist. One of the most cost-effecting and reliable ones is pumped hydroelectric storage. It is about 70% to 85% efficient. Not as good as batteries, but not bad. Sometimes, an old technology is a good way to enhance a new one. Here is article about it: Portugal Inaugurates Alqueva Pumped-Storage Hydroelectric Project Expansion http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/portugal-inaugurates-alqueva-pumped-storage-hydroelectric-project-expansion BEJA, Portugal An extension of Portugal's Alqueva pumped-storage hydroelectric plant has doubled its capacity to 520 MW. The new addition -- called the Alqueva 2 -- was announced by utility company Energia de Portugal (EDP) in October 2007 as a means of storing power produced by southern Portugal's booming wind power sector. . . . 520 MW is a lot. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
You do not have to use Linked In for this vote. Enter you name at the bottom and the bot will send you an e-mail. As Akira said, it is a shame they did not publicize this earlier. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy
Speaking of synergy with hydroelectric (gravity) which can be added to wind/solar farms in close proximity, there is what I think is an even greater potential synergy - since it is not as dependent on proper location. This goes back to Peter Graneau's proposal presented in Infinite Energy a couple of years ago (issue 94) to add boosting to hydroelectric. This article is well worth a re-read. A proof of concept should be not overly difficult. Too bad this one did not get into the ARPA contest. (or if it has gone forward, I am not aware of it). Jones From: Jed Rothwell People here have often remarked that an improved battery would help with wind and solar power, by storing energy and leveling demand. That is true. But other methods of storing energy on a large scale already exist. One of the most cost-effecting and reliable ones is pumped hydroelectric storage. It is about 70% to 85% efficient. Not as good as batteries, but not bad. Sometimes, an old technology is a good way to enhance a new one. Here is article about it: Portugal Inaugurates Alqueva Pumped-Storage Hydroelectric Project Expansion http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/portugal-inaugu rates-alqueva-pumped-storage-hydroelectric-project-expansion BEJA, Portugal An extension of Portugal's Alqueva pumped-storage hydroelectric plant has doubled its capacity to 520 MW. The new addition -- called the Alqueva 2 -- was announced by utility company Energia de Portugal (EDP) in October 2007 as a means of storing power produced by southern Portugal's booming wind power sector. . . . 520 MW is a lot. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy
Here is a ring island proposal for pumped hydro in the North Sea. This is basically a large hole in the ocean: http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2013/january/belgium-considers-ring-island-energy-storage-scheme.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote: It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 Funding is not conditional upon getting enough votes. It does, however, help. Selection is by ARPA-E committee.
Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Speaking of synergy with hydroelectric (gravity) which can be added to wind/solar farms in close proximity . . . In many places. But not, for example, in Texas, where the landscape is flat. Not a lot of uphill to go to. They put some wind farms on gigantic mesas in Texas, which are up in the air but still pretty flat. Not a lot of water out there, either. I expect the Pacific Northwest would be ideal for this. As I mentioned, in Belgium they are thinking of making a hole in the ocean. The ocean is flat but this works anyway. Perhaps it would work in the Gulf of Mexico off of Texas. I view wind and pumped storage as a temporary solution before we get cold fusion or some kind of plasma fusion. We need the clean energy now, so we should build it. There will be a long overlap while we install cold fusion, maybe 20 to 40 years. We should use wind turbines during that transition, rather than coal. The turbines will pay back and even wear out in 20 years. We will get our money's worth. Jim Dunn and I has a spirited debate about how long the transition is likely to take. I say sooner, he says later. Either way, a wind turbine installed the day serious cold fusion research begins will likely pay for itself. I described part of our conversation here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
OK, guys, what is #($*#$ is going on here? If Miley has what he claims to have -- a system that consistently produces power with no input power -- isn't it GAME OVER regarding Norman Ramsey's statement in the preamble of the DoE's cold fusion report that stated: Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, *even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary*.- Dr. Norman Ramsey, Nobel laureate and professor of physics at Harvard University was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble as an alternative to his resignation from the panel. Moreover, isn't it also GAME OVER regarding Gibbs's demand for a system that not only demonstrates the effect but has market potential? On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote: It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 Funding is not conditional upon getting enough votes. It does, however, help. Selection is by ARPA-E committee.
RE: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy
From: Jed Rothwell In many places. But not, for example, in Texas, where the landscape is flat. Not a lot of uphill to go to. They put some wind farms on gigantic mesas in Texas, which are up in the air but still pretty flat. Not a lot of water out there, either. I expect the Pacific Northwest would be ideal for this. Well, to get back to Peter Graneau's actual proposal - the synergy attaches to an already existing hydroelectric facility. It is another kind of in situ synergy which is not related to wind/solar. It would add its own boost as a separate effect, even when those are added to pumped storage. Any existing dam or pumped storage facility could have this device, assuming it works - as a replacement turbine. Apparently, a lot of folks did not fully understand the implications of his original article in IE, myself included. In short, his suggestion is to exchange the old type of water turbine (which is very efficient but that is not the point) for a new type of turbine, and it looks similar but it can capture hydrogen bond energy in addition to gravitational energy. I suspect that some of the net electrical or mechanical power will need to be recycled to do this, but he suggests a 2:1 net gain. This is not exactly the same thing as the water arc explosion, if I understand it. In effect, more net energy is available from water flow itself (according to Peter) but the excess energy is chemical not gravitational. However, I think one of the major problems is that this contention is lacking in real proof, and in a situation where it should be rather straightforward to provide proof and where there would be a lot of interest from people like TVA. Jones
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Well said James. We have three other companies claiming to have commercial generators of power. Each of these claims is based on dubious demonstrations. What is the Miley claim based on? Can we expect his claim to be debated and examined in the way the Rossi claim has experienced? Just where does the Miley claim fall in the process of competing claims for a practical device. What reason does anyone have to vote for his claim? I think these questions must be examined before we all get excited. Ed On Feb 8, 2013, at 9:25 AM, James Bowery wrote: OK, guys, what is #($*#$ is going on here? If Miley has what he claims to have -- a system that consistently produces power with no input power -- isn't it GAME OVER regarding Norman Ramsey's statement in the preamble of the DoE's cold fusion report that stated: Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary.- Dr. Norman Ramsey, Nobel laureate and professor of physics at Harvard University was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble as an alternative to his resignation from the panel. Moreover, isn't it also GAME OVER regarding Gibbs's demand for a system that not only demonstrates the effect but has market potential? On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote: It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 Funding is not conditional upon getting enough votes. It does, however, help. Selection is by ARPA-E committee.
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
we are above 100 , at this speed it is victory... I've networked via linked-in, via office, via mail... the only needed number of vote is 380... 2013/2/8 Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com Akira, the votes are coming in fairly quick now, just 4 hours ago the counter was at 18, now we're past 80. If anything this will show the LENR supporters across the internet forums what we are capable of. On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2013-02-08 11:49, Moab Moab wrote: It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.**ultralightstartups.com/**campaign/detail/861http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 It would have been in LENUCO's best interest to let people know about this in advance! What a wasted opportunity. (if not for funding, at least for visibility / public awareness) No chances to take the lead within the remaining time over other projects with 1500+ votes. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy
I take it none of you have played the game Myst? There is a tall water tower that can be connected to a windmill that then pumps water from the ocean into the tower, and the water can then be redirected to machines that run directly off the pressure, air compressor style. On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** *From:* Jed Rothwell ** ** In many places. But not, for example, in Texas, where the landscape is flat. Not a lot of uphill to go to. ** ** They put some wind farms on gigantic mesas in Texas, which are up in the air but still pretty flat. Not a lot of water out there, either. ** ** I expect the Pacific Northwest would be ideal for this. ** ** ** ** Well, to get back to Peter Graneau’s actual proposal – the synergy attaches to an already existing hydroelectric facility. ** ** It is another kind of *in situ* synergy which is not related to wind/solar. It would add its own boost as a separate effect, even when those are added to pumped storage. Any existing dam or pumped storage facility could have this device, assuming it works - as a replacement turbine. ** ** Apparently, a lot of folks did not fully understand the implications of his original article in IE, myself included. ** ** In short, his suggestion is to exchange the old type of water turbine (which is very efficient but that is not the point) for a new type of turbine, and it looks similar but it can capture “hydrogen bond energy” in addition to gravitational energy. I suspect that some of the net electrical or mechanical power will need to be recycled to do this, but he suggests a 2:1 net gain. ** ** This is not exactly the same thing as the water arc explosion, if I understand it. In effect, more net energy is available from water flow itself (according to Peter) but the excess energy is *chemical* not gravitational. ** ** However, I think one of the major problems is that this contention is lacking in real proof, and in a situation where it should be rather straightforward to provide proof and where there would be a lot of interest from people like TVA. ** ** Jones
[Vo]: Heat Engines Simplified
On many occasions posts are placed in vortex that discuss the efficiency of heat engines and cycles as well as whether or not all the heat can be extracted from a system and so on. A thought occurred to me earlier today which made much of the confusion go away and I wanted to share that concept with the others in the group. It is my hope that this unusual way of looking at these types of problems will simplify these outwardly complex looking systems. The first thing that needs to be considered is that the conservation of energy is preserved in these machines and systems. When we speak of efficiency, it is should not be considered a loss of energy at all, but the lack of ability to extract all of the energy that is available from the source. The energy that is not turned into work by the machine is simply returned to the environment and could be released under the right circumstances. My thought experiment followed an interesting path. First, think of having an isolated system such as a resistor in empty space that is at essentially zero Kelvin and kinetic energy that matches. This resistor has leads attached to it and we connect a voltage source. According to standard electrical rules, energy will be given to the resistor at a rate proportional to the power applied. For example, if 1 watt is being delivered to the resistor, then it is absorbing energy at a rate of 1 joule per second. I am quite confident that everyone reading vortex posts understands that the increase in resistor internal energy is mainly going to be in the form of thermal energy. This is just a way to characterize kinetic energy of the molecules of the material. And kinetic energy just means that the atoms are in motion relative to each other, which can also be measured by the temperature of the device. So, after a period of time with power applied to the resistor, it will heat up and contain a well defined number of joules of energy. I realize that someone could chase down every last joule of energy in what ever form it takes, but this is a discussion to help simplify the concept for people wishing a better understanding of the principles so lets not bring in the secondary processes at this time. Someone asked the question as to whether or not the heat within a system could be mostly extracted and I think we can shed light upon that issue. First of all, if the external voltage source is removed and the system monitored for a very long time, it will be seen to radiate heat energy according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law until it ultimately has none left to radiate. This energy is in the form of IR radiation initially and eventually changes over to lower frequency peak emissions until there is no more energy available. Second, the resistor atoms slowly loose some of their energy of motion (kinetic), so they move slower. There is no theoretical law that prevents us from capturing most the radiated energy by one method or the other with a super conductor antenna - energy conversion device. Of course this would be impractical, but the principle is there. The end result of this complicated activity would be that the heat energy has been recovered in some other form and none is lost so the conservation of energy prevails. Now, it seems strange that we always speak in terms of two heat sinks when we talk of the efficiency of a heat engine. If you think carefully about the processes at work, you will see that this is just a short hand way of saying that you begin with kinetic energy of the source driving your heat engine, which is measured by the temperature of the source, and end up by not extracting all of the kinetic energy. The low temperature sink is the place where your engine allows the kinetic energy to escape that was not converted into mechanical work. This is a simple way to think of the engine. It's design is imperfect since the input kinetic energy of the source does not all get converted. Thermal radiation can behave as a perfect heat engine, except that its output is in the form of electromagnetic radiation instead of mechanical work. Always remember that energy is energy and that heat energy is just one of many types available. Generally, there is a process that will convert one form into another, and some are easier to work with than others. Raw heat is not the ideal energy form to work with, especially when compared to an easily converted type such as electrical energy. The heat can be converted into electrical energy, but the process does not typically function without allowing some of the input heat energy to escape simple conversion. And, if you convert electrical energy into mechanical work, such as raising a heavy load into the air with an electrical motor, some of the input electrical energy will be converted into that less useful form of heat energy. It is not lost, but harder to put into use after that process.
Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy
One big problem with this concept is that there are not many locations available to place new facilities. And the few that remain are not likely to be near the generation equipment. Another major problem is that new dams destroy wild streams that are not too well protected. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 8, 2013 10:32 am Subject: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy People here have often remarked that an improved battery would help with wind and solar power, by storing energy and leveling demand. That is true. But other methods of storing energy on a large scale already exist. One of the most cost-effecting and reliable ones is pumped hydroelectric storage. It is about 70% to 85% efficient. Not as good as batteries, but not bad. Sometimes, an old technology is a good way to enhance a new one. Here is article about it: Portugal Inaugurates Alqueva Pumped-Storage Hydroelectric Project Expansion http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/portugal-inaugurates-alqueva-pumped-storage-hydroelectric-project-expansion BEJA, Portugal An extension of Portugal's Alqueva pumped-storage hydroelectric plant has doubled its capacity to 520 MW. The new addition -- called the Alqueva 2 -- was announced by utility company Energia de Portugal (EDP) in October 2007 as a means of storing power produced by southern Portugal's booming wind power sector. . . . 520 MW is a lot. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy
Pumped storage destabilized the spin of the earth. As you raise the mass from the surface, the rotation of the planet slows. This could easily cause the moon to be flung from orbit. (T.I.C.)
RE: [Vo]: Heat Engines Simplified
From: David Roberson Always remember that energy is energy and that heat energy is just one of many types available. Generally, there is a process that will convert one form into another, and some are easier to work with than others. This is not accurate. There is high grade energy - such as electrical and low grade energy such as heat. There are always losses going from low-grade to high-grade, and only going the other way can losses be avoided, but often there are losses that way as well. There are NO circumstances where low grade energy can be converted to high grade energy without substantial losses. With IR heat to electricity - which is the extreme case, the losses are typically 95% and they are not avoidable, so to reduce them to 75% would be miraculous - and in fact this has never been accomplished in practice. Jones
[Vo]:FW: Re: Boeing Li-ion battery
Below are some interesting insights from Keng Chi, a respected Switching power supply engineer/author/Consultant that I have the privilege to consider a friend. He has helped to shape some of my views on cavity suppression and has always been more open to the possible existence of natural/organic forms of LENR. Fran From: kengchi goah [mailto:kengchi.g...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 1:06 PM To: Roarty, Francis X Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Boeing Li-ion battery Frank: Nice to hear you. Of course, I do not mind you cc our exchange to Vortex-I. For a long time, I have been questioning Princeton Plasma Lab's magnetic confinement approach. They are utterly heading the wrong direction. No wonder after more than 50 years and billions spent, they cannot show something. Keng On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Keng, Would you mind if I cc this exchange to Vortex-l? I did put Jones on CC since this is all stuff he has been pursuing vigorously. Vortex-l has discussed the possibility of these fires being ignited by LENR and frequently revisits LENR as the source for molten rock magma. Jones Beene has even posited this as the primary heat source for the suns' corona. Jones also characterized Casimir confinement as occurring at the boundary where 3D becomes 2D -your further progression from a 2D seam to a 1D tunnel is intriguing... Your mechanism for energy transfer is also interesting but needs clarification..are you suggesting the Field creating the casimir confinement can transfer energy directly between the moving gas atoms in the cavity and the walls.. do you not need some asymmetrical event to prevent these energies from cancelling to zero? Some form of thermal or electrical rectification to derive energy? If ZPE is a precondition as I suspect then going from a 2D plane where random gas motion is limited to 360 degrees about one axis becomes just fwd and backward motion along a single axis... My posit is this type of confinement allows for self assembly of a Maxwellian or Heisenberg trap.. and if Naudts is right about this being relativistic hydrogen then the energy available sky rockets because confinement is a warp that suppresses virtual particles not a well or luminal velocity which compress these virtual particles like rain against the windshield of a speeding car [Haisch and Rhuda] . I am saying this isn't relativistic in the sense of an object approaching C or approaching an event horizon - this is a negative relativistic effect where the temporal motion of hydrogen is suppressed by Casimir geometry relative to our normal time line. From the perspective of the hydrino, time in the macro world slows down in the same manner we attribute to the Twin Paradox but without the limitation of the Pythagorean relationship between V^2 and C^2 . IMHO a reverse form of time dilation becomes possible based on the inverse cube of plate spacing [Casimir geometry] and is the underlying physics behind catalytic action. Fran From: kengchi goah [mailto:kengchi.g...@gmail.commailto:kengchi.g...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 4:36 PM To: francis roarty; Roarty, Francis X Subject: EXTERNAL: Boeing Li-ion battery Frank: I tend to believe that the jelly roll structure of the subject battery is conducive to monoatomic hydrogen energy shedding; exactly the effects we talked about. Recall at one point I was suggesting that magma, molten rock, heat source may be due to the same mechanism: atomic hydrogen seeps into crust fissure (2D seam or 1D funnel) and its electron shield (energy packet) undergoes redistribution to comply with the extremely confined boundary condition. Energy is released in the process. If Boeing, battery manufacturer, and NTSB investigators keep looking for answer in charger, battery monitor, or anything external, they may be wasting their time. Keng
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Hey Moab, thanks for the update. i'll post it up and let's get this guy some votes! Ruby On 2/8/13 2:49 AM, Moab Moab wrote: It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: One big problem with this concept is that there are not many locations available to place new facilities. These can be new, man-made facilities, such as a hole in the ocean. They have a lot of them in Switzerland where they make alpine lakes. It is like having a gigantic cistern far up in a mountain. Quote: Today there are 556 hydropower plants in Switzerland that each have a capacity of at least 300 kilowatts, and these produce an average of around 35,830 gigawatt hours (GWh) per annum, 47% of which is produced in run-of-river power plants, 49% in storage power plants and approximately 4% in pumped storage power plants. http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00490/00491/index.html?lang=en And the few that remain are not likely to be near the generation equipment. Another major problem is that new dams destroy wild streams that are not too well protected. You do not need a stream, although in some cases they use existing natural streams. If the pumped storage lake is man-made, you stop the downhill flow completely while pumping up, or while waiting on stand-by. You cannot stop the flow in a natural hydroelectric plant. That would hurt the river wildlife. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Heat Engines Simplified
-Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 8, 2013 1:06 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: Heat Engines Simplified From:David Roberson Always remember that energy is energy and that heat energy is justone of many types available. Generally, there is a process that willconvert one form into another, and some are easier to work with than others. This is not accurate.There is “high grade energy” – such as electrical and “lowgrade energy” such as heat. You can give it additional names and that is ok, but it is still energy. Show where the conservation of energy does not apply and I will agree. Do you consider radiation as low grade energy? If so, what is the criteria that you use to define it? I am not trying to say that heat energy is easy to convert into other forms, but I suggest that this is possible in theory. That is the purpose of my post. I want to help others understand the basic principles and not concentrate upon the complexities that make the subject so difficult to understand. Help me take the mystery out of the subject. There are always lossesgoing from low-grade to high-grade, and only going the other way can losses beavoided, but often there are losses that way as well. Losses? Where is the energy going that is lost? You should state that it is difficult to convert heat into electricity directly or other types of energy you refer to as high-grade. This does not mean that it is impossible. If you know of why it is impossible, please indicate the theory that makes that true. All of the energy can be converted into radiation given enough time. Do you accept that as true? And again, what is the criteria used to define high-grade versus low-grade energy? There are NO circumstanceswhere low grade energy can be converted to high grade energy withoutsubstantial losses. Nothing has actually been lost. That is a bad term to use that helps to complicate the understanding of others. Why not rephrase it to say something like: Only a relatively small amount of the heat energy from a source can be extracted by most processes and converted into electrical energy of other non heat types. The energy remains that is not converted, but becomes more difficult to convert since the temperature of the material containing this energy source is lowered. With IR heat toelectricity – which is the extreme case, the losses are typically 95% andthey are not avoidable, so to reduce them to 75% would be miraculous –and in fact this has never been accomplished in practice. Why bring up the practical issues when theory is being discussed? The use of the words not avoidable is improper unless you know of a proven theory that makes this happen. I assume you are aware that radio waves can be captured by the right antenna structures and most of the energy collected. Light emitted by an atom can be absorbed completely by a second atom without loss of energy. I would expect that IR radiation can be treated in a similar fashion to these other members of the family. So, what is practical and what is possible are two different things. I am discussing what is possible to help others understand the principles involved. Please follow up on your thoughts if you have scientific proofs to support them. I would love to explore this subject in detail. Jones
Re: [Vo]:nanocavities
Peter, You may also be interested in the following paper on nanochannels - CHANNELING, SUPERFOCUSING, AND NUCLEAR REACTIONS - Yu N. Demkov http://144.206.159.178/FT/8304/558634/11919154.pdf While it discusses the extreme focusing of ~1 MeV proton wave-functions, perhaps particles/ions in micro-/nano-channels in zeolites, nano-crevices, nanostructures, ..., experience more wave-function focusing than expected - possibly increasing tunneling probability by dramatically increasing overlap of channel particle wave-functions. Peter Hagelstein recently noted that fusion probability is directly related to wave-function overlap, and it is certainly responsible for muon-catalyzed fusion, electron-capture, etc. An excerpt from the paper: ... The radius of this focus can be in principle very small, less than 10^#8722;2 nm. This looks fantastically small and is even less than the thermal vibrational amplitude of a single atom in the lattice. Such a possibility occurs because the geometrical position of the channel relative to the lattice can be defined much better than the position of a single atom in a lattice which can be estimated by the amplitude of its thermal vibrations. This is also connected with the long-range order within the lattice and with essential coupling of this order with the channel. So we have a needle-like focusing area where the flux density of particles increases hundreds and even thousand times relative to the initial one outside of the lattice! Such an unprecedented sharpness of the focusing peak allows us to call this effect the super-focusing ... -- Lou Pagnucco Peter Gluck wrote: Can this: Nanoscopic Microcavities Offer Newfound Control in Light Filtering: Unique Nanostructure Produces Novel 'Plasmonic Halos': http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130207150907.htm?goback=%2Egde_1807453_member_212276134 be of any use/inspirtion for Ed Storms' LENR theory? Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: We have three other companies claiming to have commercial generators of power. Each of these claims is based on dubious demonstrations. What is the Miley claim based on? Not even a dubious demonstration, as far as I know. No demonstration at all. Still, I say more power to him! Heck, fund him. It is a better bet than ITER, or clean coal. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
The sarcasm is appreciated, Jed. But seriously, are we in the field free to propose money be spent on any claim regardless of its reality? If so, how can anyone trust what we say about other claims or about the reality of LENR in general? May a spokesman for CF support any idea regardless of its demonstrated lack of reality? Ed On Feb 8, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: We have three other companies claiming to have commercial generators of power. Each of these claims is based on dubious demonstrations. What is the Miley claim based on? Not even a dubious demonstration, as far as I know. No demonstration at all. Still, I say more power to him! Heck, fund him. It is a better bet than ITER, or clean coal. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy
On Feb 8, 2013, at 9:01, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: One big problem with this concept is that there are not many locations available to place new facilities. I think this has been mentioned here before, but what about diverting the unneeded power to drive electrolysis and capture the hydrogen for later use in a generator that makes use of an internal combustion engine or is sold on the consumer market? Eric
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The sarcasm is appreciated, Jed. I am glad someone recognizes it as such. But seriously, are we in the field free to propose money be spent on any claim regardless of its reality? If so, how can anyone trust what we say about other claims or about the reality of LENR in general? I gave these questions serious consideration. In the recommendation field I selected a low level for viability. I went ahead because this is merely an opportunity to pitch the idea at one of our other Future Energy events in New York, Boston, and Silicon Valley. If George wants to pitch, I say give him a chance. His ideas will have to stand on their own merit. If he has no good data, he will be ignored. It is not as if I am a member of a funding committee and I just handed him $1 million for a project sight unseen. I'm only saying, give the man a chance to present at a conference. I sincerely believe that whatever he has, it probably has more merit than ITER. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I think that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of skepticism. Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims, which he has not done in many minds. I suggest George needs to do the same before we in the field give him our support to get the very small funds potentially available from the government. The reviewers will examine the claims critically. If they discover that the claims do not meet conventional standards but were nevertheless advocated by many people in the field, this will not reflect well on our objectivity. Ed On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The sarcasm is appreciated, Jed. I am glad someone recognizes it as such. But seriously, are we in the field free to propose money be spent on any claim regardless of its reality? If so, how can anyone trust what we say about other claims or about the reality of LENR in general? I gave these questions serious consideration. In the recommendation field I selected a low level for viability. I went ahead because this is merely an opportunity to pitch the idea at one of our other Future Energy events in New York, Boston, and Silicon Valley. If George wants to pitch, I say give him a chance. His ideas will have to stand on their own merit. If he has no good data, he will be ignored. It is not as if I am a member of a funding committee and I just handed him $1 million for a project sight unseen. I'm only saying, give the man a chance to present at a conference. I sincerely believe that whatever he has, it probably has more merit than ITER. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Edmund, why not pitch your proposed research program so we can vote with a clear conscience? https://ultralight.wufoo.com/forms/future-energy-application-form/ On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I think that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of skepticism. Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims, which he has not done in many minds. I suggest George needs to do the same before we in the field give him our support to get the very small funds potentially available from the government. The reviewers will examine the claims critically. If they discover that the claims do not meet conventional standards but were nevertheless advocated by many people in the field, this will not reflect well on our objectivity. Ed On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The sarcasm is appreciated, Jed. I am glad someone recognizes it as such. But seriously, are we in the field free to propose money be spent on any claim regardless of its reality? If so, how can anyone trust what we say about other claims or about the reality of LENR in general? I gave these questions serious consideration. In the recommendation field I selected a low level for viability. I went ahead because this is merely an opportunity to pitch the idea at one of our other Future Energy events in New York, Boston, and Silicon Valley. If George wants to pitch, I say give him a chance. His ideas will have to stand on their own merit. If he has no good data, he will be ignored. It is not as if I am a member of a funding committee and I just handed him $1 million for a project sight unseen. I'm only saying, give the man a chance to present at a conference. I sincerely believe that whatever he has, it probably has more merit than ITER. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Good idea. However I think I have a better chance of getting support from private sources. My only concern is how the field presents its claims to the world. This submission is one of the ways. I think it is useless as a source of funding but it is going to be noticed. Many different ideas have been proposed and would like funding. The Miley proposal is the only one we as a field can vote on, thereby showing our agreement that this is a worthy idea. My question is, Is this a worthy idea? How do we know? Ed On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:42 PM, James Bowery wrote: Edmund, why not pitch your proposed research program so we can vote with a clear conscience? https://ultralight.wufoo.com/forms/future-energy-application-form/ On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I think that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of skepticism. Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims, which he has not done in many minds. I suggest George needs to do the same before we in the field give him our support to get the very small funds potentially available from the government. The reviewers will examine the claims critically. If they discover that the claims do not meet conventional standards but were nevertheless advocated by many people in the field, this will not reflect well on our objectivity. Ed On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The sarcasm is appreciated, Jed. I am glad someone recognizes it as such. But seriously, are we in the field free to propose money be spent on any claim regardless of its reality? If so, how can anyone trust what we say about other claims or about the reality of LENR in general? I gave these questions serious consideration. In the recommendation field I selected a low level for viability. I went ahead because this is merely an opportunity to pitch the idea at one of our other Future Energy events in New York, Boston, and Silicon Valley. If George wants to pitch, I say give him a chance. His ideas will have to stand on their own merit. If he has no good data, he will be ignored. It is not as if I am a member of a funding committee and I just handed him $1 million for a project sight unseen. I'm only saying, give the man a chance to present at a conference. I sincerely believe that whatever he has, it probably has more merit than ITER. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I think that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of skepticism. Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims, which he has not done in many minds. If Rossi wants to join this Future Energy Campaign and pitch his ideas, I will endorse him with as much enthusiasm than I felt for George Miley. Maybe more. I would figure that if Rossi wants to speak, maybe he is also willing to do a proper test and present credible information. I would support any credible cold fusion scientist who signs up for this opportunity. I do not believe many of the claims, but I figure they deserve this as much as the other applicants do. Here are the others: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/ I suggest George needs to do the same before we in the field give him our support to get the very small funds potentially available from the government. It sure would be a good idea! I am 100% in favor of Miley doing the same kind of public demonstrations as Rossi did, only without Rossi's idiotic mistakes and what I assume is deliberate obfuscation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I think this has been mentioned here before, but what about diverting the unneeded power to drive electrolysis and capture the hydrogen for later use in a generator that makes use of an internal combustion engine or is sold on the consumer market? A fuel cell would be more efficient than an internal combustion engine or gas turbine. There is ongoing research to develop that. I think at present this is not as efficient as pumped hydro storage (70% to 85% -- as I mentioned). It has the advantage that you can send the hydrogen by pipeline and recombine it closer to a big city where they need the electricity. That may have lower transmission losses than electric power lines do. Also pipes are cheaper and take up less space than high voltage electric power lines. Do a Google search for electrolysis energy storage and you find stuff like this: http://www.incoteco.com/upload/ENSFinalReport.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
I feel those relative skepticism a bit strange and unjustified. If you read all the project they are mainstream but very risky/uncertain. The project of Miley is not interesting because of LENR... it is the less uncertain part, and if Miley cannot make his technology work he can ask DGT, Rossi, Piantelli, celani, Brillouin... of course the problem will be to manage the fee and the ego of each... It is interesting because of usin TEG, and integrated fan cooling , to build a home CHP I'm always surprised how many people are so doubtful about the commercial claims, while there are honest business evidences, corporate CV. of course not absolutely solid, but nothing is rock-solid in innovation. I am much more concerned about some mainstream technologies, based on classic and known theories, but that will probably never be effective in reality. why do we put such a crazy level of evidence on LENR, while we are so loose with evidences in usual technologies... nothing is certain, but few facts are more certains than LENR, and few bleeding edge technologies are validated by so much business evidences than LENR. not because it is easy, but because every body expect all in LENR to be fraud, and if you see someone investing, communicating, in LENR, you know that he is thousand times more careful than if investing in fashion technology... If I have to accuse some evidence to be loose, some technology to be uncertain, I won't take LENR, and I won't put even Rossi as the first candidate for risky business. Aldo Proia have reduced his risk position with Prometeon. loose business are very very popular... good theory, good models, trust, consensus, and frauded evidences, with delusion and politically correct collective denial. the reason to vote for Miley, beside that he deserve a chance more than for yet another useless fashion energy source, is that his project is different from Rossi/DGT, and it can give a big momentum onto LENR technology... today the LENr companies should not even be competing, but cooperating, because there is more rooms for them than they can occupy for the next 5 years. and about skepticsm we should more focus on fashion mainstream science.
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Hi, On 8-2-2013 22:38, Edmund Storms wrote: Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I think that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of skepticism. Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims, which he has not done in many minds. I suggest George needs to do the same before we in the field give him our support to get the very small funds potentially available from the government. The reviewers will examine the claims critically. If they discover that the claims do not meet conventional standards but were nevertheless advocated by many people in the field, this will not reflect well on our objectivity. I disagree, I think Andrea already did prove his claims. The problem is only that almost nobody seems to understand what is going on. In my opinion it all has to do with the vibration with the right frequency of the Nickel granulate were the Hydrogen is flowing across. Possibly the research of Frank Znidarsic can enlighten us. Nobody was sofar able to look inside the vessel during operation (I think neither Andrea was able to see this), but could it no be true that a plasma is created due to the vibration? And when this happens the hydrogen protons are most likely fused with the Nickel resulting in Copper and a massive amount of energy is released and therefore the process is also partially self-sustaining. This also explains why Andrea had no other option than to downsize the first reactor vessels to the current modular smaller size, to keep it controllable. Otherwise you might get a reactor vessel that in the very long run could end up with temperatures as high as inside the Sun! And besides what about the equipment that Andrea had operational but didn't focus on during the presentations that generated the obscure frequencies? In principle this is in my opinion the same mechanism that causes hot fusion to take place. As the heat itself results in energy and a high frequency and therefore keeps the process self-sustaining as long as sufficient source-material is available. It would probably be much better for the ITER project to focus on the frequency of the plasma instead of the temperature. Kind regards, Rob Energy Ξ Communication
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote: Hi, On 8-2-2013 22:38, Edmund Storms wrote: Yes, by all means give George a chance to be heard. Nevertheless, I think that all proposals need to be treated with the same level of skepticism. Rossi, for example, is required to PROVE his claims, which he has not done in many minds. I suggest George needs to do the same before we in the field give him our support to get the very small funds potentially available from the government. The reviewers will examine the claims critically. If they discover that the claims do not meet conventional standards but were nevertheless advocated by many people in the field, this will not reflect well on our objectivity. I disagree, I think Andrea already did prove his claims. The problem is only that almost nobody seems to understand what is going on. So Rob, you think Andre has proven his claims in many minds. You say that you believe him, but I do not get the impression that this is the general opinion. In my case, I think he has shown that he can make excess energy on occasion, but that does not seem to be a general opinion. In my opinion it all has to do with the vibration with the right frequency of the Nickel granulate were the Hydrogen is flowing across. Possibly the research of Frank Znidarsic can enlighten us. Nobody was sofar able to look inside the vessel during operation (I think neither Andrea was able to see this), but could it no be true that a plasma is created due to the vibration? And when this happens the hydrogen protons are most likely fused with the Nickel resulting in Copper and a massive amount of energy is released and therefore the process is also partially self- sustaining. This also explains why Andrea had no other option than to downsize the first reactor vessels to the current modular smaller size, to keep it controllable. Otherwise you might get a reactor vessel that in the very long run could end up with temperatures as high as inside the Sun! And besides what about the equipment that Andrea had operational but didn't focus on during the presentations that generated the obscure frequencies? The issue here is not what causes the reaction, but whether the claims for a commercial product are justified. The Miley claim, which started this discussion, is based on a commercial generator of heat. The question was whether anyone should believe and support this claim. In principle this is in my opinion the same mechanism that causes hot fusion to take place. This conclusion is not justified by what is observed. I suggest you read my paper where this issue is discussed. As the heat itself results in energy and a high frequency and therefore keeps the process self-sustaining as long as sufficient source-material is available. It would probably be much better for the ITER project to focus on the frequency of the plasma instead of the temperature. How do you propose the frequency be measured? It's the temperature that produces a useful result, so why ignore it? Regards, Ed Kind regards, Rob Energy Ξ Communication
Re: [Vo]:Pumped storage hydroelectricity goes well with wind energy - electrolysis
On 2/8/2013 5:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I think this has been mentioned here before, but what about diverting the unneeded power to drive electrolysis and capture the hydrogen for later use in a generator that makes use of an internal combustion engine or is sold on the consumer market? A fuel cell would be more efficient than an internal combustion engine or gas turbine. There is ongoing research to develop that. I think at present this is not as efficient as pumped hydro storage (70% to 85% -- as I mentioned). It has the advantage that you can send the hydrogen by pipeline and recombine it closer to a big city where they need the electricity. That may have lower transmission losses than electric power lines do. Also pipes are cheaper and take up less space than high voltage electric power lines. Do a Google search for electrolysis energy storage and you find stuff like this: http://www.incoteco.com/upload/ENSFinalReport.pdf - Jed I read most of ENS Final Report and extracted some tidbits: Electrolysis ranges from ~75% efficient for LV hydrogen to ~85% for HV hydrogen. I did not wade in deeper to dope that out. So, it's similar to pumped hydro, except that the efficiency of the fuel cell must be multiplied in. The cost-to-implement in Denmark, 2008, was high, needing total relief from their 80% motor fuel taxes, to even consider. (Proposal was for hydrogen depots for vehicles.) The Europeans (and us merikans I suppose) price their electricity minute-by-minute when figuring which utility owes what when the sun hides but the winds pick up. This often results in a zero cost/MWHr, which is Important to Avoid. If you inject hydrogen into the intake of a working Diesel engine (and adjust fuel/air ratio as required), it will slow down. Engine has to reworked to deal with the low power-to-volumn of hydrogen. Yours, Dave B.
[Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
Hello Vorts: See below for confirmation from YE Kim that the formation of a BEC at room temperature gives his LENR theory a leg up. Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 1:22 PM (4 hours ago) to yekim, ayandas, pkb Hello Dr. Kim. I left you a voicemail regarding this. Does the formation of a BEC at room temperature make your theory of Deuteron Fusion more viable? Wasn't the main criticism of your theory that BECs couldn't form at higher temperatures? Y. E. Kim, Bose-Einstein Condensate Theory of Deuteron Fusion in Metal, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. *4*, 188 (2011), best regards, Kevin O'Malley 408%20460%205707 -- http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/29/1210842110 Polariton Bose–Einstein condensate at room temperature in an Al(Ga)N nanowire–dielectric microcavity with a spatial potential trap Ayan Dasa,1, Pallab Bhattacharyaa,1, Junseok Heoa, Animesh Banerjeea, and Wei Guob Author Affiliations Edited by Paul L. McEuen, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and approved December 21, 2012 (received for review June 28, 2012) Abstract A spatial potential trap is formed in a 6.0-μm Al(Ga)N nanowire by varying the Al composition along its length during epitaxial growth. The polariton emission characteristics of a dielectric microcavity with the single nanowire embedded in-plane have been studied at room temperature. Excitation is provided at the Al(Ga)N end of the nanowire, and polariton emission is observed from the lowest bandgap GaN region within the potential trap. Comparison of the results with those measured in an identical microcavity with a uniform GaN nanowire and having an identical exciton–photon detuning suggests evaporative cooling of the polaritons as they are transported into the trap in the Al(Ga)N nanowire. Measurement of the spectral characteristics of the polariton emission, their momentum distribution, first-order spatial coherence, and time-resolved measurements of polariton cooling provides strong evidence of the formation of a near-equilibrium Bose–Einstein condensate in the GaN region of the nanowire at room temperature. In contrast, the condensate formed in the uniform GaN nanowire–dielectric microcavity without the spatial potential trap is only in self-equilibrium. Bose–Einstein condensation exciton–polariton Footnotes 1To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: ayan...@umich.edu or p...@umich.edu. Author contributions: A.D. and P.B. designed research; A.D. and J.H. performed research; J.H., A.B., and W.G. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; A.D. analyzed data; and P.B. wrote the paper. The authors declare no conflict of interest. This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. This article contains supporting information online at http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas. 1210842110/-/DCSupplemental. Freely available online through the PNAS open access option. Reply Reply to all Forward Kim, Yeong E 5:24 PM (32 minutes ago) to me, ayandas, pkb Hi, Kevin, Yes, the formation of a BEC of deuterons (or other Bose nuclei) makes my theory more viable. ** ** The claim, made by some that BECs could not form at room temperatures, was based on an inconclusive conjecture which assumes that the Maxwell-Boltzmann (MB ) velocity distribution applies for deuterons in a metal. This conjecture was not based on any theories nor on any experimentally observed facts. The MB velocity distribution is for an ideal gas containing non-interacting particles. There are no justifications to assume the MB velocity distribution for deuterons in a metal. The published paper by Dasa, et al. quoted below indicates that the conjecture is not justified. ** ** I have stated at seminars and conferences (in the proceedings) that “The BEC formation of deuterons in metal at room temperatures depends on the velocity distribution of deuterons in metal at room temperatures. The velocity distribution of deuterons in metal has not determined by theories nor by experiments and is not expected to be the MB distribution” ** ** The published paper by Dasa, et al. supports the above statement. Yeong ** ** *keSent:* Friday, February 08, 2013 4:22 PM *To:* Kim, Yeong E *Cc:* ayan...@umich.edu; p...@umich.edu *Subject:* Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
Re: [Vo]:nanocavities
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:08 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: While it discusses the extreme focusing of ~1 MeV proton wave-functions, perhaps particles/ions in micro-/nano-channels in zeolites, nano-crevices, nanostructures, ..., experience more wave-function focusing than expected - possibly increasing tunneling probability by dramatically increasing overlap of channel particle wave-functions. Ron Maimon was getting at a similar idea by having two deuterons meet near a palladium spectator nucleus, at the classical turning point where the strength of the positive charge of the palladium nucleus would push the positively charged deuterons back out again. With 20 keV of initial kinetic energy, the deuterons would penetrate the electron shells as far as the K shell before turning around again. At the turning point their de Broglie waves would be enhanced,, or, presumably, focused, and as a result overlap and tunneling would be more likely. Several significant difficulties with this approach were raised which have not yet been brought to Ron's attention. Presumably he would set us straight on what I misunderstood of what he was saying. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
Its great to read Kim's reply. I;ve followed Dr. YE Kim's work for years along with the Scott and Talbot Chubbs. I was convinced years ago, that the only mechanism that would work for cold fusion was a BEC. A Bose Einstein Condensate. It's a known physics fact that particles that enter the BEC state form a single quantum state, and become something that is just best described as weird. The actual matter wave (the De Broglie wave) that describes matter at the smallest scales, overlaps. When you have overlapping waveforms of a particle that has an attractive nuclear potential, they just snap together within very well defined probabilities. It's the particles waveform overlap that will induce fusion. What Kim shows is that within solids metals, deuterium ions screened and charge neutralized by the metals electron sea, can condense and form a BEC. When deuterium is in a BEC state there is probability that the deuteriums will interact via strong interactions. Dr. Kim has suggest two things of interest. First, that condensation could happen in a hydrated metal and the rules that describe the quantum overlap are modified my the metals electronic environment. In YE Kim's theory, it only takes 10-100 Deuterium ions to make a BEC within a metal. And the number of ions in the BEC glob is temperature relative. I think Kim's theory is pretty convincing with deuterium in metals, What has been difficult for me is explaining the Hydrogen in metal systems. The problem being that H-ion is a fermion quantum 1/2 spin state, and is forced to follow the Pauli exclusion principle and so will never have an overlapping waveforms or the potential for strong interactions between protons. Perhaps a pair of H ions waveforms interacting with W/Z's might flip enough to the Proton-Proton chain. As it is now, I really struggle to understand how H in a metal creates excess heat. Best Regards, Chuck s On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Vorts: See below for confirmation from YE Kim that the formation of a BEC at room temperature gives his LENR theory a leg up. Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 1:22 PM (4 hours ago) to yekim, ayandas, pkb Hello Dr. Kim. I left you a voicemail regarding this. Does the formation of a BEC at room temperature make your theory of Deuteron Fusion more viable? Wasn't the main criticism of your theory that BECs couldn't form at higher temperatures? Y. E. Kim, Bose-Einstein Condensate Theory of Deuteron Fusion in Metal, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. *4*, 188 (2011), best regards, Kevin O'Malley 408%20460%205707 -- http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/29/1210842110 Polariton Bose–Einstein condensate at room temperature in an Al(Ga)N nanowire–dielectric microcavity with a spatial potential trap Ayan Dasa,1, Pallab Bhattacharyaa,1, Junseok Heoa, Animesh Banerjeea, and Wei Guob Author Affiliations Edited by Paul L. McEuen, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and approved December 21, 2012 (received for review June 28, 2012) Abstract A spatial potential trap is formed in a 6.0-μm Al(Ga)N nanowire by varying the Al composition along its length during epitaxial growth. The polariton emission characteristics of a dielectric microcavity with the single nanowire embedded in-plane have been studied at room temperature. Excitation is provided at the Al(Ga)N end of the nanowire, and polariton emission is observed from the lowest bandgap GaN region within the potential trap. Comparison of the results with those measured in an identical microcavity with a uniform GaN nanowire and having an identical exciton–photon detuning suggests evaporative cooling of the polaritons as they are transported into the trap in the Al(Ga)N nanowire. Measurement of the spectral characteristics of the polariton emission, their momentum distribution, first-order spatial coherence, and time-resolved measurements of polariton cooling provides strong evidence of the formation of a near-equilibrium Bose–Einstein condensate in the GaN region of the nanowire at room temperature. In contrast, the condensate formed in the uniform GaN nanowire–dielectric microcavity without the spatial potential trap is only in self-equilibrium. Bose–Einstein condensation exciton–polariton Footnotes 1To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: ayan...@umich.edu or p...@umich.edu. Author contributions: A.D. and P.B. designed research; A.D. and J.H. performed research; J.H., A.B., and W.G. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; A.D. analyzed data; and P.B. wrote the paper. The authors declare no conflict of interest. This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. This article contains supporting information online at http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas. 1210842110/-/DCSupplemental. Freely available online through the
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Heartland is funded by Koch, and other deep pocket anonymous donors. I have to give them some credit -- tactically speaking, they are quite effective at mobilizing public opinion. Eric Isn't that the truth, For a few million bucks you too can turn an orange into a turnip. That is pretty much the gist of it. That is the purpose of propaganda when used as a weapon. Best Regards, Chuck