Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
Mr. Franks, you exhibit one of the most closed minds that I have encountered in quite a long time. You should realize that physics is always being changed as answers to difficult problems reveal holes in the theories. It is quite humorous to read your posts that suggest that all the answers to the cold fusion debate can be so simply disregarded when many experiments suggest otherwise. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is obvious that you are not willing to give the supporting data serious consideration. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Dec 17, 2013 7:32 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing ... like applying two-body free space assumption inside a solid In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at the sub pm even fm level are effectively free space. There is no overlap of wavefunctions or fields to make all the nuclei behave in some collective manner such that neutrons and gamma rays aren't produced (even then, what would be the branching ratios - you mean absolutely no neutrons or gamma!?!!). Any form of mass coherence would be disrupted by thermal energy. No lanthanide or relativistic effects will make electrons shells appreciably shrink below the about 0.1nm radius of the ground state to be getting into the territory of the known muon catalysed CF. No fancy cavities or electrical fields will produce bare nuclei in the lattice, the work function of the material would be exceeded and you'd never get bare nuclei. For these reasons, scholarly journals like Nature won't publish CF because it clearly shows lack of knowledge of the literature base (and I don't mean bogus literature like CF/LENR/LANR). Lack of knowledge of what came before shows you are incapable of making a contribution to knowledge and precious journal space should not be wasted ahead of the efforts of serious science. You do not own Nature and have no right to inflict yourselves on them. I take a network of experimental scientific paper by many (thousands) scientists included reputed professional (dozens) from varied and mostly reputed organization (dozens), showing various connected phenomenons, and some correlations of phenomenons, as evidences. Mass hysteria, mass incompetence, corrupt practices, delusions. To be getting the results they claim must mean they've made an error and are deluding themselves much as those bessler's wheel italians. You have no rationale so it must be wrong. Don't give me that blind empiricism carp, how can you be so naive?
Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing
As I am in contact with many lower layers skeptics among the planet, i can say that it is a standard behavior. what is standards - to parrot wikipedia without any understanding - not to have read any paper... exceptionally to have read one and misinterpreted all - to focus on a punny detail missing the key question - to focus on theory, while not understanding the problem of collectives behaviors in solids. some even have competence to see it but clearly refuse to see it (some if not most of those I describe are clearly physicist, not teens, with good culture). - to give one narrow critic to justify all is artifact, while not accepting to add new phenomenons to the list of evidences - incapacity to see the logical fallacies in their arguments (like on lack of reproducibility, or catch22)... despite often huge culture and absolute knowledge of those fallacies. - critic on the number of citation one gives, whil moaning there are not enough data - claim there is non peer-review, then critic of the journals, then silence It is hard to understand how the most educated people on earth can be so unable to use their competence in easy question... unless you understand it is not incompetence but self-manipulation in context of Mutual Assured Delusion. They are like those sect member who suicide with the leader just not to admit they have been fooled, and be killed by their peer afterward. Mr franks is not below average. maybe above. by the way, I still wait data on nature and Science public claims about Cold Fusion and their internal policy. 2013/12/18 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Mr. Franks, you exhibit one of the most closed minds that I have encountered in quite a long time. You should realize that physics is always being changed as answers to difficult problems reveal holes in the theories. It is quite humorous to read your posts that suggest that all the answers to the cold fusion debate can be so simply disregarded when many experiments suggest otherwise. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is obvious that you are not willing to give the supporting data serious consideration. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Dec 17, 2013 7:32 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion publishing ... like applying two-body free space assumption inside a solid In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at the sub pm even fm level are effectively free space. There is no overlap of wavefunctions or fields to make all the nuclei behave in some collective manner such that neutrons and gamma rays aren't produced (even then, what would be the branching ratios - you mean absolutely no neutrons or gamma!?!!). Any form of mass coherence would be disrupted by thermal energy. No lanthanide or relativistic effects will make electrons shells appreciably shrink below the about 0.1nm radius of the ground state to be getting into the territory of the known muon catalysed CF. No fancy cavities or electrical fields will produce bare nuclei in the lattice, the work function of the material would be exceeded and you'd never get bare nuclei. For these reasons, scholarly journals like Nature won't publish CF because it clearly shows lack of knowledge of the literature base (and I don't mean bogus literature like CF/LENR/LANR). Lack of knowledge of what came before shows you are incapable of making a contribution to knowledge and precious journal space should not be wasted ahead of the efforts of serious science. You do not own Nature and have no right to inflict yourselves on them. I take a network of experimental scientific paper by many (thousands) scientists included reputed professional (dozens) from varied and mostly reputed organization (dozens), showing various connected phenomenons, and some correlations of phenomenons, as evidences. Mass hysteria, mass incompetence, corrupt practices, delusions. To be getting the results they claim must mean they've made an error and are deluding themselves much as those bessler's wheel italians. *You have no rationale* so it must be wrong. Don't give me that blind empiricism carp, how can you be so naive?
[Vo]:Maxwell's demon turns quantum information into work
Maxwell's demon can use quantum information to generate work http://phys.org/news/2013-12-maxwell-demon-quantum.html Heat engine driven by purely quantum information http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.3011v2.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Even-Even fission means photo fission.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 18 Dec 2013 00:40:02 -0500: Hi, [snip] The reaction is not based on accelerating charged particles; it is based on screening caused by the production of intense EMF. Then why did you raise the issue of laser particle acceleration in one of your earlier posts? This EMF turns down the force that keeps the nickel nucleus together. This is what I mean by photo-fission. Oftentimes, a single alpha particle is released from the nickel and iron is formed. Sometime, multiple alpha clusters are released as indicated by the large amount of light elements that are seen as transmutation produces in the DGT ash samples. That 7MeV of binding energy that you site is released into the gamma thermalization process of the BEC. I think you missed the point here. The 7 MeV is not extra it is deficit. You would need to supply 7 MeV to make the reaction happen. Even if you could temporarily modify the strong force, the overall energy balance has to turn out positive if you are going to get excess heat. You need to indicate where this energy is coming from. It is not coming from the fission of 62Ni into 58Fe and 4He, because that costs energy, it doesn't produce it. The strong force is not affected or overcome by the kinetic energy of an excited particle; the strong force is just removed by an EMF that gently deactivates the strong force. The alpha particle drifts out of the nickel nucleus gently. Energy handling is not kinetic, it is all electromagnetic. This lack of kinetic activity is why excited isotopes are not formed. All energy release processes are done at very low energies under the influence of the coherent and entangled averaging potential of the polariton BEC. This BEC energy averaging is why no gamma radiation is seen in the Ni/H reactor. Even if the BEC were capable of doing this, the net effect of the 62Ni = 58Fe reaction that you mention would be cooling, not heating. BTW there are a few such reactions that are indeed energy positive, e.g. 208Pb - 4He = 204Hg + 0.5 MeV. 206Pb - 4He = 202Hg + 1.14 MeV. This might theoretically be useful, if the mechanism you describe actually exists. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:01:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] BTW as for the concept of laser induced nuclear reactions, consider the following: Most of the thermal energy in a Rossi reactor will be random. Even if some of it is made coherent by nano-particles, that is still likely to only be a small portion. Of that small proportion of coherent infra red, only a small proportion will accelerate charged particles. Of those accelerated charged particles, only a small fraction (1 in 1?) will actually trigger nuclear reactions. Therefore I think it very unlikely that sufficient energy would be released by those reactions to produce the original amount of laser energy that was required to start the process. IOW I doubt this approach would be energy positive overall. However, I could be wrong...;) BTW, the most likely nuclear reaction (IMO) would be:- p (fast) + (A,Z) = (A+1,Z+1) which usually produces gamma rays, which are not in evidence. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project
An analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: May 20, 2013. This video is to show how a capable system can do nothing without appropriate stimulus. By making a very controlled environment that has the right physical structures and hydrogen absorption may not create a useful effect. Heat alone is also likely not enough to achieve anything, what is needed is some form of stimulus or shock and establishing the means to trigger reactions is a key part of on-going work. Discussion on this is being developed here: bit.ly/15jyh2H http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IR37Do7NlY#t=143http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7IR37Do7NlY%23t%3D143h=xAQGZH2gkAQG5_dkKG2C0Trp21ZirR22WsQ-2Y_0XFKf_MQs=1
Re: [Vo]:Analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project
I think this statement is obvious to anyone who has investigated the phenomenon thoroughly, but I'm glad they brought it up as it is quite interesting. SRI and Energetics have both made use of Dardik's multi-form super-wave. Brillouin puts a lot of emphasis on their pulsing, as they think it stimulates the creation of their ultra-cold neutrons. And Frank Znidarsic has formulated his dimensional frequency hypothesis for stimulating cold fusion into action. I think the truth lies in between these three for how to properly kick a system into high gear. Regards, John On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:35 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: An analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: May 20, 2013. This video is to show how a capable system can do nothing without appropriate stimulus. By making a very controlled environment that has the right physical structures and hydrogen absorption may not create a useful effect. Heat alone is also likely not enough to achieve anything, what is needed is some form of stimulus or shock and establishing the means to trigger reactions is a key part of on-going work. Discussion on this is being developed here: bit.ly/15jyh2H http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IR37Do7NlY#t=143http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7IR37Do7NlY%23t%3D143h=xAQGZH2gkAQG5_dkKG2C0Trp21ZirR22WsQ-2Y_0XFKf_MQs=1
Re: [Vo]:Analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project
You might also consider that this stimulus would also produce cracks, which I claim is the essential condition. Ed Storms On Dec 18, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: I think this statement is obvious to anyone who has investigated the phenomenon thoroughly, but I'm glad they brought it up as it is quite interesting. SRI and Energetics have both made use of Dardik's multi-form super-wave. Brillouin puts a lot of emphasis on their pulsing, as they think it stimulates the creation of their ultra- cold neutrons. And Frank Znidarsic has formulated his dimensional frequency hypothesis for stimulating cold fusion into action. I think the truth lies in between these three for how to properly kick a system into high gear. Regards, John On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:35 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: An analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: May 20, 2013. This video is to show how a capable system can do nothing without appropriate stimulus. By making a very controlled environment that has the right physical structures and hydrogen absorption may not create a useful effect. Heat alone is also likely not enough to achieve anything, what is needed is some form of stimulus or shock and establishing the means to trigger reactions is a key part of on-going work. Discussion on this is being developed here: bit.ly/15jyh2H http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IR37Do7NlY#t=143
RE: [Vo]:Analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project
You know - these guys are discovering the myriad of relatively simple hints that will eventually add-up to success - and they have put into play an admirable RD structure with minimal funds. Thumbs up for MFMP - regardless of ultimate success in LNER. They may also make a broader impact on how - in an organizational sense, we can tackle any important project which is budget-starved and relatively ignored by the mainstream. My guess would be that the same level of competence which these guys are showing in terms of taking good ideas to actually devices which accumulate good data - and doing it expediently - compared to a how the typical bureaucracy works (NASA, DOE etc) would be a factor of 10 more efficient and less costly. These guys are doing more with less, and therefore let's put in a plug for them: if anyone here gets into the Christmas Spirit in a big way, say by the winning mega-million ticket, then send some loot their way . If there were a dozen of these MFMP projects underway now, and sharing data, the problem (opportunity) of LENR would be mostly solved next year. Jones From: H Veeder An analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: May 20, 2013. This video is to show how a capable system can do nothing without appropriate stimulus. By making a very controlled environment that has the right physical structures and hydrogen absorption may not create a useful effect. Heat alone is also likely not enough to achieve anything, what is needed is some form of stimulus or shock and establishing the means to trigger reactions is a key part of on-going work. Discussion on this is being developed here: bit.ly/15jyh2H http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D 7IR37Do7NlY%23t%3D143h=xAQGZH2gkAQG5_dkKG2C0Trp21ZirR22WsQ-2Y_0XFKf_MQs=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IR37Do7NlY#t=143
Re: [Vo]:Analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project
You might also consider that this stimulus would also produce cracks, which I claim is the essential condition. Right Ed. I think the effect is four-fold when proper stimulus is applied: A) High Flux, B) High Loading, C) Facilitates NAE Formation (Nano-Cracks and/or Sub-Nano Cavities and/or Complex Topology), D) Kick Starts the Mechanism in a Novel Way. D is the most speculative, based mostly on my own reading and, admittedly limited, intuition. Also, well stated Jones. MFMP is doing a great job and are open-source pioneers. Regards, John On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You know – these guys are discovering the myriad of relatively simple hints that will eventually add-up to success - and they have put into play an admirable RD structure with minimal funds. Thumbs up for MFMP - regardless of ultimate success in LNER. They may also make a broader impact on how – in an organizational sense, we can tackle any important project which is budget-starved and relatively ignored by the mainstream. My guess would be that the same level of competence which these guys are showing in terms of taking good ideas to actually devices which accumulate good data - and doing it expediently – compared to a how the typical bureaucracy works (NASA, DOE etc) would be a factor of 10 more efficient and less costly. These guys are doing more with less, and therefore let’s put in a plug for them: if anyone here gets into the Christmas Spirit in a big way, say by the winning mega-million ticket, then send some loot their way … If there were a dozen of these MFMP projects underway now, and sharing data, the problem (opportunity) of LENR would be mostly solved next year. Jones *From:* H Veeder An analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: May 20, 2013. This video is to show how a capable system can do nothing without appropriate stimulus. By making a very controlled environment that has the right physical structures and hydrogen absorption may not create a useful effect. Heat alone is also likely not enough to achieve anything, what is needed is some form of stimulus or shock and establishing the means to trigger reactions is a key part of on-going work. Discussion on this is being developed here: bit.ly/15jyh2H http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IR37Do7NlY#t=143http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7IR37Do7NlY%23t%3D143h=xAQGZH2gkAQG5_dkKG2C0Trp21ZirR22WsQ-2Y_0XFKf_MQs=1
Re: [Vo]:Analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project
The black body resonance frequency of a 5 micron micro-particle is about 450C. When the Ni/H reactor is at 450c, all those 5 micron nickel micro-particles are ringing like a singing bowl; that is dipole vibrations. On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:35 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: An analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: May 20, 2013. This video is to show how a capable system can do nothing without appropriate stimulus. By making a very controlled environment that has the right physical structures and hydrogen absorption may not create a useful effect. Heat alone is also likely not enough to achieve anything, what is needed is some form of stimulus or shock and establishing the means to trigger reactions is a key part of on-going work. Discussion on this is being developed here: bit.ly/15jyh2H http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IR37Do7NlY#t=143http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7IR37Do7NlY%23t%3D143h=xAQGZH2gkAQG5_dkKG2C0Trp21ZirR22WsQ-2Y_0XFKf_MQs=1
Re: [Vo]:Analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project
John, each of these conditions have an independent role. A High flux makes D more rapidly available to the NAE. B. High loading makes D more available as well. C. The concentration of NAE determines the number of little generators. D. No kick starting is necessary. This is a conventional process. The rate of fuel addition and the number of generators determines total power. The only unknown is the nature of the reaction that burns the fuel. Making the process more complicated serves no purpose. Ed Storms On Dec 18, 2013, at 7:25 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: You might also consider that this stimulus would also produce cracks, which I claim is the essential condition. Right Ed. I think the effect is four-fold when proper stimulus is applied: A) High Flux, B) High Loading, C) Facilitates NAE Formation (Nano-Cracks and/or Sub-Nano Cavities and/or Complex Topology), D) Kick Starts the Mechanism in a Novel Way. D is the most speculative, based mostly on my own reading and, admittedly limited, intuition. Also, well stated Jones. MFMP is doing a great job and are open- source pioneers. Regards, John On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You know – these guys are discovering the myriad of relatively simple hints that will eventually add-up to success - and they have put into play an admirable RD structure with minimal funds. Thumbs up for MFMP - regardless of ultimate success in LNER. They may also make a broader impact on how – in an organizational sense, we can tackle any important project which is budget-starved and relatively ignored by the mainstream. My guess would be that the same level of competence which these guys are showing in terms of taking good ideas to actually devices which accumulate good data - and doing it expediently – compared to a how the typical bureaucracy works (NASA, DOE etc) would be a factor of 10 more efficient and less costly. These guys are doing more with less, and therefore let’s put in a plug for them: if anyone here gets into the Christmas Spirit in a big way, say by the winning mega-million ticket, then send some loot their way … If there were a dozen of these MFMP projects underway now, and sharing data, the problem (opportunity) of LENR would be mostly solved next year. Jones From: H Veeder An analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: May 20, 2013. This video is to show how a capable system can do nothing without appropriate stimulus. By making a very controlled environment that has the right physical structures and hydrogen absorption may not create a useful effect. Heat alone is also likely not enough to achieve anything, what is needed is some form of stimulus or shock and establishing the means to trigger reactions is a key part of on-going work. Discussion on this is being developed here: bit.ly/15jyh2H http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IR37Do7NlY#t=143
Re: [Vo]:Analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project
Ed, You're right. All of the factors listed are obviously coupled in a meaningful way. Overall theory likely works without reference to point (D). However there does seem to be something demonstrably different about something like the super-wave. It's clearly not a standard current, and its been empirically shown to get higher output from cells. Like I said, my beliefs about kick starting are speculative, but I think quasi-particle (phonons, plasmons, etc.) formation might be amplified given the right stimulus and could accelerate whatever mechanism is at play in the NAE. Regards, John On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: John, each of these conditions have an independent role. A High flux makes D more rapidly available to the NAE. B. High loading makes D more available as well. C. The concentration of NAE determines the number of little generators. D. No kick starting is necessary. This is a conventional process. The rate of fuel addition and the number of generators determines total power. The only unknown is the nature of the reaction that burns the fuel. Making the process more complicated serves no purpose. Ed Storms On Dec 18, 2013, at 7:25 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: You might also consider that this stimulus would also produce cracks, which I claim is the essential condition. Right Ed. I think the effect is four-fold when proper stimulus is applied: A) High Flux, B) High Loading, C) Facilitates NAE Formation (Nano-Cracks and/or Sub-Nano Cavities and/or Complex Topology), D) Kick Starts the Mechanism in a Novel Way. D is the most speculative, based mostly on my own reading and, admittedly limited, intuition. Also, well stated Jones. MFMP is doing a great job and are open-source pioneers. Regards, John On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You know – these guys are discovering the myriad of relatively simple hints that will eventually add-up to success - and they have put into play an admirable RD structure with minimal funds. Thumbs up for MFMP - regardless of ultimate success in LNER. They may also make a broader impact on how – in an organizational sense, we can tackle any important project which is budget-starved and relatively ignored by the mainstream. My guess would be that the same level of competence which these guys are showing in terms of taking good ideas to actually devices which accumulate good data - and doing it expediently – compared to a how the typical bureaucracy works (NASA, DOE etc) would be a factor of 10 more efficient and less costly. These guys are doing more with less, and therefore let’s put in a plug for them: if anyone here gets into the Christmas Spirit in a big way, say by the winning mega-million ticket, then send some loot their way … If there were a dozen of these MFMP projects underway now, and sharing data, the problem (opportunity) of LENR would be mostly solved next year. Jones *From:* H Veeder An analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: May 20, 2013. This video is to show how a capable system can do nothing without appropriate stimulus. By making a very controlled environment that has the right physical structures and hydrogen absorption may not create a useful effect. Heat alone is also likely not enough to achieve anything, what is needed is some form of stimulus or shock and establishing the means to trigger reactions is a key part of on-going work. Discussion on this is being developed here: bit.ly/15jyh2H http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IR37Do7NlY#t=143http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7IR37Do7NlY%23t%3D143h=xAQGZH2gkAQG5_dkKG2C0Trp21ZirR22WsQ-2Y_0XFKf_MQs=1
Re: [Vo]:Analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project
John, the super wave simply increases the local concentration, which is measured as an increase in average D/Pd, increases the local flux, and puts more stress on the surface, which causes more NAE to form. Nothing more is required to increase the power. The process can be explained very simply without adding more complex and impossible to test processes. Ed Storms On Dec 18, 2013, at 8:17 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: Ed, You're right. All of the factors listed are obviously coupled in a meaningful way. Overall theory likely works without reference to point (D). However there does seem to be something demonstrably different about something like the super-wave. It's clearly not a standard current, and its been empirically shown to get higher output from cells. Like I said, my beliefs about kick starting are speculative, but I think quasi-particle (phonons, plasmons, etc.) formation might be amplified given the right stimulus and could accelerate whatever mechanism is at play in the NAE. Regards, John On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: John, each of these conditions have an independent role. A High flux makes D more rapidly available to the NAE. B. High loading makes D more available as well. C. The concentration of NAE determines the number of little generators. D. No kick starting is necessary. This is a conventional process. The rate of fuel addition and the number of generators determines total power. The only unknown is the nature of the reaction that burns the fuel. Making the process more complicated serves no purpose. Ed Storms On Dec 18, 2013, at 7:25 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: You might also consider that this stimulus would also produce cracks, which I claim is the essential condition. Right Ed. I think the effect is four-fold when proper stimulus is applied: A) High Flux, B) High Loading, C) Facilitates NAE Formation (Nano-Cracks and/or Sub-Nano Cavities and/or Complex Topology), D) Kick Starts the Mechanism in a Novel Way. D is the most speculative, based mostly on my own reading and, admittedly limited, intuition. Also, well stated Jones. MFMP is doing a great job and are open- source pioneers. Regards, John On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You know – these guys are discovering the myriad of relatively simple hints that will eventually add-up to success - and they have put into play an admirable RD structure with minimal funds. Thumbs up for MFMP - regardless of ultimate success in LNER. They may also make a broader impact on how – in an organizational sense, we can tackle any important project which is budget-starved and relatively ignored by the mainstream. My guess would be that the same level of competence which these guys are showing in terms of taking good ideas to actually devices which accumulate good data - and doing it expediently – compared to a how the typical bureaucracy works (NASA, DOE etc) would be a factor of 10 more efficient and less costly. These guys are doing more with less, and therefore let’s put in a plug for them: if anyone here gets into the Christmas Spirit in a big way, say by the winning mega-million ticket, then send some loot their way … If there were a dozen of these MFMP projects underway now, and sharing data, the problem (opportunity) of LENR would be mostly solved next year. Jones From: H Veeder An analogy from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: May 20, 2013. This video is to show how a capable system can do nothing without appropriate stimulus. By making a very controlled environment that has the right physical structures and hydrogen absorption may not create a useful effect. Heat alone is also likely not enough to achieve anything, what is needed is some form of stimulus or shock and establishing the means to trigger reactions is a key part of on-going work. Discussion on this is being developed here: bit.ly/15jyh2H http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IR37Do7NlY#t=143
Re: [Vo]:Even-Even fission means photo fission.
The alpha particle fission is endothermic. I accept your premise that fission is endothermic. But fission to lighter elements does occur. Where does the required energy for fission come from? The alternative is that there is a huge amount of hydrogen fusion going on. On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:28 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 18 Dec 2013 00:40:02 -0500: Hi, [snip] The reaction is not based on accelerating charged particles; it is based on screening caused by the production of intense EMF. Then why did you raise the issue of laser particle acceleration in one of your earlier posts? This EMF turns down the force that keeps the nickel nucleus together. This is what I mean by photo-fission. Oftentimes, a single alpha particle is released from the nickel and iron is formed. Sometime, multiple alpha clusters are released as indicated by the large amount of light elements that are seen as transmutation produces in the DGT ash samples. That 7MeV of binding energy that you site is released into the gamma thermalization process of the BEC. I think you missed the point here. The 7 MeV is not extra it is deficit. You would need to supply 7 MeV to make the reaction happen. Even if you could temporarily modify the strong force, the overall energy balance has to turn out positive if you are going to get excess heat. You need to indicate where this energy is coming from. It is not coming from the fission of 62Ni into 58Fe and 4He, because that costs energy, it doesn't produce it. The strong force is not affected or overcome by the kinetic energy of an excited particle; the strong force is just removed by an EMF that gently deactivates the strong force. The alpha particle drifts out of the nickel nucleus gently. Energy handling is not kinetic, it is all electromagnetic. This lack of kinetic activity is why excited isotopes are not formed. All energy release processes are done at very low energies under the influence of the coherent and entangled averaging potential of the polariton BEC. This BEC energy averaging is why no gamma radiation is seen in the Ni/H reactor. Even if the BEC were capable of doing this, the net effect of the 62Ni = 58Fe reaction that you mention would be cooling, not heating. BTW there are a few such reactions that are indeed energy positive, e.g. 208Pb - 4He = 204Hg + 0.5 MeV. 206Pb - 4He = 202Hg + 1.14 MeV. This might theoretically be useful, if the mechanism you describe actually exists. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:01:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] BTW as for the concept of laser induced nuclear reactions, consider the following: Most of the thermal energy in a Rossi reactor will be random. Even if some of it is made coherent by nano-particles, that is still likely to only be a small portion. Of that small proportion of coherent infra red, only a small proportion will accelerate charged particles. Of those accelerated charged particles, only a small fraction (1 in 1?) will actually trigger nuclear reactions. Therefore I think it very unlikely that sufficient energy would be released by those reactions to produce the original amount of laser energy that was required to start the process. IOW I doubt this approach would be energy positive overall. However, I could be wrong...;) BTW, the most likely nuclear reaction (IMO) would be:- p (fast) + (A,Z) = (A+1,Z+1) which usually produces gamma rays, which are not in evidence. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
