[Vo]: White Dwarves
If CF is real, why doesn't it occur in white dwarves with their high temperature and pressure electron degenerate matter? After all, that is the belief system of CF in cramming these lattices with hydrogen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf The material in a white dwarf no longer undergoes fusion reactions, so the star has no source of energy, nor is it supported by the heat generated by fusion against gravitational collapse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-degenerate_matter#Degenerate_gases Under high densities the matter becomes a degenerate gas when the electrons are all stripped from their parent atoms. In the core of a star, once hydrogen burning in nuclear fusionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion reactions stops, it becomes a collection of positively charged ionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion, largely helium and carbon nuclei, floating in a sea of electrons, which have been stripped from the nuclei. Degenerate gas is an almost perfect conductor of heat and does not obey the ordinary gas laws. White dwarfshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarfs are luminous not because they are generating any energy but rather because they have trapped a large amount of heat.
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Furthermore, The density of white dwarves is some 10^6g/cm^3 compared to water at 1g/cm^3. This would mean that the inter-nuclei spacing was 1/100 of water. Now Muon catalyzed fusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion which we know works brings the nuclei 1/207 of the distance with electrons. It happens at an appreciable rate. since white dwarves are not more luminous than a black body radiating away with the Stefan Boltzmann law, we can conclude that there are no nuclear reactions AND that is the limit of what can be done with ordinary matter. In short, if you can't even get in the ball park of white dwarf matter in the lab, what chance in hell have you of even approaching muon catalysed reaction rates?
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Further furthermore if 90% of main sequence stars end up as white dwarves when they have finished hot fusion, according to their limits, why don't they go on burning in a CF manner so that the sky is full of UV,Xray or even gamma ray dwarves? As the temperature built up again thermal runaway would occur as radiation would be limited by the small size and SB law so that hot fusion would occur again and a supernova would result. In that case all main sequence stars would end up as neutron stars or black holes and the sky would be littered with them. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:03 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Furthermore, The density of white dwarves is some 10^6g/cm^3 compared to water at 1g/cm^3. This would mean that the inter-nuclei spacing was 1/100 of water. Now Muon catalyzed fusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion which we know works brings the nuclei 1/207 of the distance with electrons. It happens at an appreciable rate. since white dwarves are not more luminous than a black body radiating away with the Stefan Boltzmann law, we can conclude that there are no nuclear reactions AND that is the limit of what can be done with ordinary matter. In short, if you can't even get in the ball park of white dwarf matter in the lab, what chance in hell have you of even approaching muon catalysed reaction rates? If CF is real, why doesn't it occur in white dwarves with their high temperature and pressure electron degenerate matter? After all, that is the belief system of CF in cramming these lattices with hydrogen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf The material in a white dwarf no longer undergoes fusion reactions, so the star has no source of energy, nor is it supported by the heat generated by fusion against gravitational collapse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-degenerate_matter#Degenerate_gases Under high densities the matter becomes a degenerate gas when the electrons are all stripped from their parent atoms. In the core of a star, once hydrogen burning in nuclear fusionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion reactions stops, it becomes a collection of positively charged ionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion, largely helium and carbon nuclei, floating in a sea of electrons, which have been stripped from the nuclei. Degenerate gas is an almost perfect conductor of heat and does not obey the ordinary gas laws. White dwarfshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarfs are luminous not because they are generating any energy but rather because they have trapped a large amount of heat.
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
In short, if you can't even get in the ball park of white dwarf matter in the lab, what chance in hell have you of even approaching muon catalysed reaction rates? snip Yes, No chance at all for any kind of fusion, especially with heavy metals. Forget about shrunken atoms, the heavy neutrons of the Larson Widom theory, and the like. They are all working with the strong force. It need high temps to work. In order to reactions working at low temperature you have to invoke another force the nuclear spin orbit force. It's the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force. Its called the spin orbit force and its not conserved. Its a long story that takes a book to describe. That's why I wrote one. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-textfield-keywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3A%22znidarsic+science+books%22 Frank Z
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: If CF is real, why doesn't it occur in white dwarves with their high temperature and pressure electron degenerate matter? This reminds me of the question posed by Morrison: Why doesn't cold fusion occur in heavy water ice? To address your question, let me quote Schwinger, The defense is simply stated: The circumstances of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion. A metal lattice does not resemble the inside of the sun. They are about as different as any two configurations of matter could be. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
With respect, who the f... are you? Are you a faculty member of any half decent university? Will I find you in Nature, Science or Phys. Rev? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:05 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: In short, if you can't even get in the ball park of white dwarf matter in the lab, what chance in hell have you of even approaching muon catalysed reaction rates? snip Yes, No chance at all for any kind of fusion, especially with heavy metals. Forget about shrunken atoms, the heavy neutrons of the Larson Widom theory, and the like. They are all working with the strong force. It need high temps to work. In order to reactions working at low temperature you have to invoke another force the nuclear spin orbit force. It's the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force. Its called the spin orbit force and its not conserved. Its a long story that takes a book to describe. That's why I wrote one. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-textfield-keywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3A%22znidarsic+science+books%22 Frank Z
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
The only thing a metal lattice has is periodicity, it certainly wouldn't have the density of a white dwarf. So, this leads to the question, what has periodicity got to do with cold fusion? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: If CF is real, why doesn't it occur in white dwarves with their high temperature and pressure electron degenerate matter? This reminds me of the question posed by Morrison: Why doesn't cold fusion occur in heavy water ice? To address your question, let me quote Schwinger, The defense is simply stated: The circumstances of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion. A metal lattice does not resemble the inside of the sun. They are about as different as any two configurations of matter could be. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Mr. Franks why are you still on this list? We thought you got on your coat, *twice* in one day, and found a hole to crawl into. Why are you still wasting everyone's time with your antagonism? Are you mentally dependent on catharsis and trolling? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 9:24 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: With respect, who the f... are you? Are you a faculty member of any half decent university? Will I find you in Nature, Science or Phys. Rev? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:05 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: In short, if you can't even get in the ball park of white dwarf matter in the lab, what chance in hell have you of even approaching muon catalysed reaction rates? snip Yes, No chance at all for any kind of fusion, especially with heavy metals. Forget about shrunken atoms, the heavy neutrons of the Larson Widom theory, and the like. They are all working with the strong force. It need high temps to work. In order to reactions working at low temperature you have to invoke another force the nuclear spin orbit force. It's the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force. Its called the spin orbit force and its not conserved. Its a long story that takes a book to describe. That's why I wrote one. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-textfield-keywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3A%22znidarsic+science+books%22 Frank Z
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
What do you need to make a strong electromagnet? Just line up the electron spins. The electrons are already moving. What do you need to make a strong long range spin orbit force magnet. Line a the nuclear spins and get them moving. This is best done is a proton conductor. How fast to they have to go you say, 1.094,000 meters per second. Frank -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 9:05 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves In short, if you can't even get in the ball park of white dwarf matter in the lab, what chance in hell have you of even approaching muon catalysed reaction rates? snip Yes, No chance at all for any kind of fusion, especially with heavy metals. Forget about shrunken atoms, the heavy neutrons of the Larson Widom theory, and the like. They are all working with the strong force. It need high temps to work. In order to reactions working at low temperature you have to invoke another force the nuclear spin orbit force. It's the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force. Its called the spin orbit force and its not conserved. Its a long story that takes a book to describe. That's why I wrote one. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-textfield-keywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3A%22znidarsic+science+books%22 Frank Z
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Why should I buy his book? Why can't he give a brief overview? Why can't he just write a Hamiltonian so we can see what he's on about? If it's some exchange type interaction, wouldn't the wavefunctions have to overlap or there would be some mediating particle with spin, even then all it would do is align the spins. If he is saying that electromagnetism is mediating fusion, why does it do such a good job preventing it? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Mr. Franks why are you still on this list? We thought you got on your coat, *twice* in one day, and found a hole to crawl into. Why are you still wasting everyone's time with your antagonism? Are you mentally dependent on catharsis and trolling? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 9:24 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: With respect, who the f... are you? Are you a faculty member of any half decent university? Will I find you in Nature, Science or Phys. Rev? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:05 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: ... Its a long story that takes a book to describe. That's why I wrote one. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
You wot? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:35 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: What do you need to make a strong electromagnet? Just line up the electron spins. The electrons are already moving. What do you need to make a strong long range spin orbit force magnet. Line a the nuclear spins and get them moving. This is best done is a proton conductor. How fast to they have to go you say, 1.094,000 meters per second. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
As Norman Ramsey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Foster_Ramsey,_Jr.pointed out in his preamble to the DoE's original review of cold fusion: However, even a *single* short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. Dr. Franks will be gratified to learn that this kook died recently -- still believing that scientific funding priorities could be altered by a single experimental outcome. A single experimental outcome is not reliable replication comprising the extraordinary proof required of extraordinary claims and surely a revolutionary claim qualifies as extraordinary. Now, for the rest of us to die off so the pious can get back to placing argumentation over experimentation the way it was before that pesky thing called the Enlightenment came along and caused such a ruckus -- and the way Dr. Franks is here. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Mr. Franks why are you still on this list? We thought you got on your coat, *twice* in one day, and found a hole to crawl into. Why are you still wasting everyone's time with your antagonism? Are you mentally dependent on catharsis and trolling? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 9:24 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: With respect, who the f... are you? Are you a faculty member of any half decent university? Will I find you in Nature, Science or Phys. Rev? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:05 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: In short, if you can't even get in the ball park of white dwarf matter in the lab, what chance in hell have you of even approaching muon catalysed reaction rates? snip Yes, No chance at all for any kind of fusion, especially with heavy metals. Forget about shrunken atoms, the heavy neutrons of the Larson Widom theory, and the like. They are all working with the strong force. It need high temps to work. In order to reactions working at low temperature you have to invoke another force the nuclear spin orbit force. It's the magnetic component of the strong nuclear force. Its called the spin orbit force and its not conserved. Its a long story that takes a book to describe. That's why I wrote one. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-textfield-keywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3A%22znidarsic+science+books%22 Frank Z
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
You're just like the Bessler's Wheel crowd. You're convinced that some new arrangement of the weights and arm length will make the wheel turn around in perpetuity. Everyone will tell you, until you sort out the mechanism (not nuts and bolts) but how this would be possible in a conservative field, there is little point in experimenting. Another way... it's like this, we know wheels are round, so there is little point in experimenting in the shape of wheels (on a flat surface that is) convincing yourself that some magical arrangement is going to be more efficient than a flat wheel. If you are going to do research, you have to say your logical point of departure. It is not enough to have hope or belief, you have to say where in the theory base everyone is getting it wrong. Theory is a summary of experiments, all the billions of person hours that have been put in. Like Bessler's Wheel, CF is trying to do the impossible because it cannot say how it could possibly work in the first instance. Coupled with observational data (how white dwarves are cooling, not heating), just what do you have as a starting point? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:46 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: As Norman Ramsey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Foster_Ramsey,_Jr.pointed out in his preamble to the DoE's original review of cold fusion: However, even a *single* short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. Dr. Franks will be gratified to learn that this kook died recently -- still believing that scientific funding priorities could be altered by a single experimental outcome. A single experimental outcome is not reliable replication comprising the extraordinary proof required of extraordinary claims and surely a revolutionary claim qualifies as extraordinary. Now, for the rest of us to die off so the pious can get back to placing argumentation over experimentation the way it was before that pesky thing called the Enlightenment came along and caused such a ruckus -- and the way Dr. Franks is here.
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
I have a new fancy name for Bessler's Wheel / RAR Low Energy Nutation Research (LENR) or Lossless Anomalous Nutation Rectification (LANR). CF/LENR/LANR whatever fancy dancy name you're calling it these days is another STEORN. What is your C.O.P? 100 Watts (in the 1990s) tending to zero Watts today. Pathological Science. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:53 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: You're just like the Bessler's Wheel crowd. You're convinced that some new arrangement of the weights and arm length will make the wheel turn around in perpetuity. Everyone will tell you, until you sort out the mechanism (not nuts and bolts) but how this would be possible in a conservative field, there is little point in experimenting. Another way... it's like this, we know wheels are round, so there is little point in experimenting in the shape of wheels (on a flat surface that is) convincing yourself that some magical arrangement is going to be more efficient than a flat wheel. If you are going to do research, you have to say your logical point of departure. It is not enough to have hope or belief, you have to say where in the theory base everyone is getting it wrong. Theory is a summary of experiments, all the billions of person hours that have been put in. Like Bessler's Wheel, CF is trying to do the impossible because it cannot say how it could possibly work in the first instance. Coupled with observational data (how white dwarves are cooling, not heating), just what do you have as a starting point? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:46 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: As Norman Ramseyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Foster_Ramsey,_Jr.pointed out in his preamble to the DoE's original review of cold fusion: However, even a *single* short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. Dr. Franks will be gratified to learn that this kook died recently -- still believing that scientific funding priorities could be altered by a single experimental outcome. A single experimental outcome is not reliable replication comprising the extraordinary proof required of extraordinary claims and surely a revolutionary claim qualifies as extraordinary. Now, for the rest of us to die off so the pious can get back to placing argumentation over experimentation the way it was before that pesky thing called the Enlightenment came along and caused such a ruckus -- and the way Dr. Franks is here.
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Everyone will tell you, until you sort out the mechanism (not nuts and bolts) but how this would be possible in a conservative field, there is little point in experimenting. You have that backward. Cold fusion was discovered by experiment. We know it is real because it has been widely replicated, often at high signal to noise ratios. There is no theory to explain it. You seem to believe that science must begin with theory and then proceed to experiment. That does happen from time to time, but more often it begins with a discovery which only later is explained by theory. Even if you can show that theory predicts cold fusion cannot exist, that only proves the theory is wrong. It is fundamental to the scientific method that when theory and experiment conflict, experiment always wins. It may be that you are not familiar with the experimental evidence, such as heat beyond the limits of chemistry, the fact that no chemical fuel exists in the cells and no chemical changes are found, and the tritium and helium. I suggest you learn about these things before commenting on this research. I suggest you tone it down, and do your homework. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
What's the COP? Why don't they just commercialise it? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:04 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Yes R. A. ORIANI, JOHN C. NELSON, SUNG-KYU LEE, and J. H. BROADHURST University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota are just like Bessler's Wheel crowd: Conducting a replication of a device's extraordinary effect which they attempted (unlike Nathan Lewis et al) AFTER the publication of the full paper describing the experimental protocol to be replicated, and then submitting a paper on that replication to Nature for peer review. The peer reviewers had comments on needed corrections. That right there proves Oriani et al are kooks to anyone in their right mind. No reputable scientist has any second drafts submitted to a journal as prestigious as Nature in response to peer review and expects that revised draft to be published. Oh, but Oriani et al were clearly not reputable because they went ahead and provided the corrections, submitted to Nature the draft for peer review and the peer reviewers, not realizing they were being had by obviously invalid publishing protocol, reviewed the revised draft!! Outrageous. What's even more outrageous is that they not only reviewed it -- they passed it on to the editors of Nature to publish! We can all be grateful to the editors of Nature for telling it like it is in their rejection letter to Oriani -- that this experimental outcome doesn't fit with theory so -- circular file time. If only we could inculcate more would-be scientists with this kind of ruthless rigor!
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: What is your C.O.P? 100 Watts (in the 1990s) tending to zero Watts today. A COP is a ratio, not a power level. The COP for many cold fusion reactions is infinity. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
You shining light. That's just how the Bessler's wheel crowd think. It's just needs someone to come out with modified Newtonian gravity and of course, teflon wheel bearings. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Everyone will tell you, until you sort out the mechanism (not nuts and bolts) but how this would be possible in a conservative field, there is little point in experimenting. You have that backward. Cold fusion was discovered by experiment. We know it is real because it has been widely replicated, often at high signal to noise ratios. There is no theory to explain it. You seem to believe that science must begin with theory and then proceed to experiment. That does happen from time to time, but more often it begins with a discovery which only later is explained by theory.
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
What rot you speak. Tell me Energy Out / Energy In. Ecat got your tongue? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: What is your C.O.P? 100 Watts (in the 1990s) tending to zero Watts today. A COP is a ratio, not a power level. The COP for many cold fusion reactions is infinity. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: What's the COP? Why don't they just commercialise it? You need to read about this research in detail. You will see the reasons they do not commercialize it. They are obvious. If you keep posting these rude, ignorant comments, I and many others will add your name to our kill file, and no one will see your comments or pay any attention to you. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Oh boo hoo. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If you keep posting these rude, ignorant comments, I and many others will add your name to our kill file, and no one will see your comments or pay any attention to you. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
On Dec 19, 2013, at 1:45, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: If CF is real, why doesn't it occur in white dwarves with their high temperature and pressure electron degenerate matter? This is an interesting thought experiment. But it begs three questions: * Does the effective pressure created by the lattice spacing in the host metal force the hydrogen into fusing? I think this hypothesis was abandoned a long time ago by most people. * Does electron degenerate matter share the critical parameters that are in the environments in which excess heat is observed? My initial assumption is that it would not, but this is all speculative. * Is cold fusion *not* occurring on white dwarves? You made an initial pass at a prima facie case that it is not, but the arguments for and against are quite speculative at this point (e.g., re blackbody radiation). Eric
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: You shining light. That's just how the Bessler's wheel crowd think. No, it isn't. They do not thousands of replicated experiments published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. They cannot point to experiments at places like China Lake or Los Alamos. This does not begin to resemble Bessler's wheel. Saying it does will make that true. As for you, you just earned a place in my auto-delete file. Sayonara. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Yes R. A. ORIANI, JOHN C. NELSON, SUNG-KYU LEE, and J. H. BROADHURST University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota are just like Bessler's Wheel crowd: Conducting a replication of a device's extraordinary effect which they attempted (unlike Nathan Lewis et al) AFTER the publication of the full paper describing the experimental protocol to be replicated, and then submitting a paper on that replication to Nature for peer review. The peer reviewers had comments on needed corrections. That right there proves Oriani et al are kooks to anyone in their right mind. No reputable scientist has any second drafts submitted to a journal as prestigious as Nature in response to peer review and expects that revised draft to be published. Oh, but Oriani et al were clearly not reputable because they went ahead and provided the corrections, submitted to Nature the draft for peer review and the peer reviewers, not realizing they were being had by obviously invalid publishing protocol, reviewed the revised draft!! Outrageous. What's even more outrageous is that they not only reviewed it -- they passed it on to the editors of Nature to publish! We can all be grateful to the editors of Nature for telling it like it is in their rejection letter to Oriani -- that this experimental outcome doesn't fit with theory so -- circular file time. If only we could inculcate more would-be scientists with this kind of ruthless rigor! On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:53 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: You're just like the Bessler's Wheel crowd. You're convinced that some new arrangement of the weights and arm length will make the wheel turn around in perpetuity. Everyone will tell you, until you sort out the mechanism (not nuts and bolts) but how this would be possible in a conservative field, there is little point in experimenting. Another way... it's like this, we know wheels are round, so there is little point in experimenting in the shape of wheels (on a flat surface that is) convincing yourself that some magical arrangement is going to be more efficient than a flat wheel. If you are going to do research, you have to say your logical point of departure. It is not enough to have hope or belief, you have to say where in the theory base everyone is getting it wrong. Theory is a summary of experiments, all the billions of person hours that have been put in. Like Bessler's Wheel, CF is trying to do the impossible because it cannot say how it could possibly work in the first instance. Coupled with observational data (how white dwarves are cooling, not heating), just what do you have as a starting point? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:46 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: As Norman Ramseyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Foster_Ramsey,_Jr.pointed out in his preamble to the DoE's original review of cold fusion: However, even a *single* short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. Dr. Franks will be gratified to learn that this kook died recently -- still believing that scientific funding priorities could be altered by a single experimental outcome. A single experimental outcome is not reliable replication comprising the extraordinary proof required of extraordinary claims and surely a revolutionary claim qualifies as extraordinary. Now, for the rest of us to die off so the pious can get back to placing argumentation over experimentation the way it was before that pesky thing called the Enlightenment came along and caused such a ruckus -- and the way Dr. Franks is here.
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
How so? So you think there wouldn't be thermal runaway in a white dwarf if CF was occurring, how so? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 19, 2013, at 1:45, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: If CF is real, why doesn't it occur in white dwarves with their high temperature and pressure electron degenerate matter? This is an interesting thought experiment. But it begs three questions: ... * Is cold fusion *not* occurring on white dwarves? You made an initial pass at a prima facie case that it is not, but the arguments for and against are quite speculative at this point (e.g., re blackbody radiation). Eric
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
I meant to say: Saying so does not make it true. Pathological skeptics often fail to realize that. They confuse their own opinion with reality. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
You're mistaking not believing in MAGICAL THINKING to being a pathological skeptic. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Pathological skeptics often fail to realize that. They confuse their own opinion with reality. - Jed
[Vo]: Real Cold Fusion
http://nectar.nd.rl.ac.uk/en/research/port1.html Muon catalysed d-t fusion is a genuine cold-fusion process. One negative muon produces 120 d-t fusions during its lifetime. The present rate is 1 million d-t fusions per second (equivalent to 3μW of energy production), and corresponding to 40% of 'scientific breakeven'. So not much hope for CF even at White Dwarf pressures and temperatures...
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Let me restate, because you consistently avoid my questions, likely because you are unable to provide a sane answer: Why are you still on this list? We thought you got on your coat, *twice* in one day, and found a hole to crawl into. Why are you still wasting everyone's time with your antagonism? Are you mentally dependent on catharsis and trolling? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:26 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: You're mistaking not believing in MAGICAL THINKING to being a pathological skeptic. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Pathological skeptics often fail to realize that. They confuse their own opinion with reality. - Jed
[Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Cold fusion occurs in a unique mixture of matter and gas in a particular topology and within a tight temperature range. Meeting these tight parameters is not found often in nature, but it can happen. It is amazing that a very few and inspired experimenters have meet these parameters, optimized them, and got this wonderful process to bend to their will. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: Let me restate, because you consistently avoid my questions, likely because you are unable to provide a sane answer: Why are you still on this list? We thought you got on your coat, *twice* in one day, and found a hole to crawl into. Why are you still wasting everyone's time with your antagonism? Are you mentally dependent on catharsis and trolling? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:26 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: You're mistaking not believing in MAGICAL THINKING to being a pathological skeptic. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Pathological skeptics often fail to realize that. They confuse their own opinion with reality. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
The hydrogen in metal hydrides is ATOMIC HYDROGEN (nascent hydrogen). In electron degenerate mater there are free protons. Your critique maybe constructive because it sorts outs some theories but not all theories about cold fusion. On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:29:01 +, John Franks wrote: Further furthermore if 90% of main sequence stars end up as white dwarves when they have fini [1]shed hot fusion, according to their limits, why don't they go on burning in a CF manner so that the sky is full of UV,Xray or even gamma ray dwarves? As the temperature built up again thermal runaway would occur as radiation would be limited by the small size and SB law so that hot fusion would occur again and a supernova would result. In that case all main sequence stars would end up as neutron stars or black holes and the sky would be littered with them. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:03 AM, John Franks wrote: Furthermore, The density of white dwarves is some 10^6g/cm^3 compared to water at 1g/cm^3. This would mean that the inter-nuclei spacing was 1/100 of water. Now Muon catalyzed fusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion [3] which we know works brings the nuclei 1/207 of the distance with electrons. It happens at an appreciable rate. since white dwarves are not more luminous than a black body radiating away with the Stefan Boltzmann law, we can conclude that there are no nuclear reactions AND that is the limit of what can be done with ordinary matter. In short, if you can't even get in the ball park of white dwarf matter in the lab, what chance in hell have you of even approaching muon catalysed reaction rates? If CF is real, why doesn't it occur in white dwarves with their high temperature and pressure electron degenerate matter? After all, that is the belief system of CF in cramming these lattices with hydrogen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf [4] The material in a white dwarf no longer undergoes fusion reactions, so the star has no source of energy, nor is it supported by the heat generated by fusion against gravitational collapse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-degenerate_matter#Degenerate_gases [5] Under high densities the matter becomes a degenerate gas when the electrons are all stripped from their parent atoms. In the core of a star, once hydrogen burning in nuclear fusion [6] reactions stops, it becomes a collection of positively charged ions [7], largely helium and carbon nuclei, floating in a sea of electrons, which have been stripped from the nuclei. Degenerate gas is an almost perfect conductor of heat and does not obey the ordinary gas laws. White dwarfs [8] are luminous not because they are generating any energy but rather because they have trapped a large amount of heat. Links: -- [1] https://www.bredbandsbolaget.se/webmail/?_task=mail_action=list [2] mailto:jf27...@gmail.com [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-degenerate_matter#Degenerate_gases [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarfs
RE: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this new technology from PNNL is very different. From: James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Cr ude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 9:26 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: The only thing a metal lattice has is periodicity, it certainly wouldn't have the density of a white dwarf. So, this leads to the question, what has periodicity got to do with cold fusion? good question Harry
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Too vague. Ask why this should be so. What COP (Energy Output / Energy Input) do you claim? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Cold fusion occurs in a unique mixture of matter and gas in a particular topology and within a tight temperature range. Meeting these tight parameters is not found often in nature, but it can happen. It is amazing that a very few and inspired experimenters have meet these parameters, optimized them, and got this wonderful process to bend to their will.
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Jed, you hit the hard point that I found in an article (a recent message). Your position is evident for someone with good scientific culture and good practical sense, but not brainwashed by academic training of Popper science philosophy . It is evident if you are not popper-distorted that to prove the reality of a phenomenon, you just have to confirm the result of few experiments. Negative results are just failures, like is the crash of an early plane. However when you think that Popper rules the truth, and you forget logic, then you take any negative results as refutation of a theory... But cold fusion is not a theory, it is an anomaly. If you interpret Popper with a good logic, you see that Cold fusion is the famous refutation of a theory... one confirmed result is enough to refute the mainstream theory... only bad reasoning, non-logic heuristics and habits influenced by Popper, may make very intelligent people able to stupidly say that one experience that fail to show a phenomenon is an evidence that all the others that show it are artifact, and not an obvious failure to fulfill unknown requirements. a typical fallacy influenced by non logic reasoning as neural network does they mismatch the positively negative-result where a theory fails with the failure of cold fusion experiments which is of opposite kind. quickly answer to those 3 question, in less than 1 second: what is the color of blank paper ? what is the color of a golf ball ? what does cows drink ? and you will see the result of a neural reasoning. 2013/12/19 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Everyone will tell you, until you sort out the mechanism (not nuts and bolts) but how this would be possible in a conservative field, there is little point in experimenting. You have that backward. Cold fusion was discovered by experiment. We know it is real because it has been widely replicated, often at high signal to noise ratios. There is no theory to explain it. You seem to believe that science must begin with theory and then proceed to experiment. That does happen from time to time, but more often it begins with a discovery which only later is explained by theory. Even if you can show that theory predicts cold fusion cannot exist, that only proves the theory is wrong. It is fundamental to the scientific method that when theory and experiment conflict, experiment always wins. It may be that you are not familiar with the experimental evidence, such as heat beyond the limits of chemistry, the fact that no chemical fuel exists in the cells and no chemical changes are found, and the tritium and helium. I suggest you learn about these things before commenting on this research. I suggest you tone it down, and do your homework. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
But what have chemical processes in the range of a few eV got to do with nuclear processes in the range of MeV and cold fusion? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:14 PM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: The hydrogen in metal hydrides is *atomic hydrogen* (nascent hydrogen). In electron degenerate mater there are free protons. Your critique maybe constructive because it sorts outs some theories but not all theories about cold fusion. On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:29:01 +, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Further furthermore if 90% of main sequence stars end up as white dwarves when they have fini https://www.bredbandsbolaget.se/webmail/?_task=mail_action=listshed hot fusion, according to their limits, why don't they go on burning in a CF manner so that the sky is full of UV,Xray or even gamma ray dwarves? As the temperature built up again thermal runaway would occur as radiation would be limited by the small size and SB law so that hot fusion would occur again and a supernova would result. In that case all main sequence stars would end up as neutron stars or black holes and the sky would be littered with them. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:03 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Furthermore, The density of white dwarves is some 10^6g/cm^3 compared to water at 1g/cm^3. This would mean that the inter-nuclei spacing was 1/100 of water. Now Muon catalyzed fusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion which we know works brings the nuclei 1/207 of the distance with electrons. It happens at an appreciable rate. since white dwarves are not more luminous than a black body radiating away with the Stefan Boltzmann law, we can conclude that there are no nuclear reactions AND that is the limit of what can be done with ordinary matter. In short, if you can't even get in the ball park of white dwarf matter in the lab, what chance in hell have you of even approaching muon catalysed reaction rates? If CF is real, why doesn't it occur in white dwarves with their high temperature and pressure electron degenerate matter? After all, that is the belief system of CF in cramming these lattices with hydrogen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf The material in a white dwarf no longer undergoes fusion reactions, so the star has no source of energy, nor is it supported by the heat generated by fusion against gravitational collapse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-degenerate_matter#Degenerate_gases Under high densities the matter becomes a degenerate gas when the electrons are all stripped from their parent atoms. In the core of a star, once hydrogen burning in nuclear fusionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion reactions stops, it becomes a collection of positively charged ionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion, largely helium and carbon nuclei, floating in a sea of electrons, which have been stripped from the nuclei. Degenerate gas is an almost perfect conductor of heat and does not obey the ordinary gas laws. White dwarfshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarfs are luminous not because they are generating any energy but rather because they have trapped a large amount of heat.
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
There is no chemical process involved in CF. White dwarves are compressed by degenerate matter by gravity, and not strong magnetic fields. If they were, they would do cold fusion. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
This is just another clue to the puzzle. One day it will all make sense and I assume that Mr. Franks will regret that he has acted so closed minded about the issue. Hopefully, he will realize how much he has to learn about physics. No one has all the answers and perhaps he might actually be capable of asking questions that are revealing. The white dwarf consideration has validity since it does represent a case that seems strange at first glance. But, the real process might be coming from the low temperature side of the scale instead of the more usual hot end. The theories relating to BEC contribution to cold fusion would tend to work better in that domain. Of course we all have seen evidence that absolute zero conditions are not generating cold fusion, so is it reasonable to ask about extremely high temperature effects upon hot fusion? I have a strong suspicion that hot fusion would likewise be extinguished at the extremes of high temperature. Of course this is true in particle accelerators and I suspect that these types of interactions become strongly endothermic as new particles are constructed out of the input energy of the devices. Apparently, to get exothermic nuclear reactions requires a special band of reactant energy. Why LENR works at the low end remains a question that will hopefully be answered soon. Mr. Franks, it would appear that you might find great fame if you work toward finding a solution to the questions surrounding LENR instead of merely complaining about the current level of progress. Surely, you must realize that far more remains unknown in the field of physics than has been uncovered so far. Do you believe that everything is known as of this time? I would like to hear your answer to this reasonable question. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 12:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 9:26 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: The only thing a metal lattice has is periodicity, it certainly wouldn't have the density of a white dwarf. So, this leads to the question, what has periodicity got to do with cold fusion? good question Harry
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
So do you encourage people working on Bessler's Wheel, Steorn, SMOT devices when they keep banging up against known theory (and hence experimental observations) that in a conservative field, what you gain going down, you give going up? WHAT IS THE NEW ANGLE THAR EVERYONE IS MISSING? So the belief is that it has nothing to do with temperature, pressure, proximity but something to do with the lattice. Please expand on this. If you are suggesting BEC, well electrons are leptons and light, how can you get heavy hadrons into one coherent state at room temperature? If this is the case, has CF been observed to occur spontaneously in liquid H2? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Jed, you hit the hard point that I found in an article (a recent message). Your position is evident for someone with good scientific culture and good practical sense, but not brainwashed by academic training of Popper science philosophy . 2013/12/19 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Everyone will tell you, until you sort out the mechanism (not nuts and bolts) but how this would be possible in a conservative field, there is little point in experimenting. You have that backward. Cold fusion was discovered by experiment. We know it is real because it has been widely replicated, often at high signal to noise ratios. There is no theory to explain it. You seem to believe that science must begin with theory and then proceed to experiment. That does happen from time to time, but more often it begins with a discovery which only later is explained by theory.
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
The magnetic field in white dwarves is very high. It will have similar angular momentum to the parent star yet it has been compressed down to an earth-sized radius. Concomitantly the magnetic field will be massive. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: There is no chemical process involved in CF. White dwarves are compressed by degenerate matter by gravity, and not strong magnetic fields. If they were, they would do cold fusion. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
But not high enough. Not in the Teratesla range. 2013/12/19 John Franks jf27...@gmail.com The magnetic field in white dwarves is very high. It will have similar angular momentum to the parent star yet it has been compressed down to an earth-sized radius. Concomitantly the magnetic field will be massive. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: There is no chemical process involved in CF. White dwarves are compressed by degenerate matter by gravity, and not strong magnetic fields. If they were, they would do cold fusion. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
And how is this relevant to CF when the best super-conducting electromagnets are about 100T http://www.lanl.gov/science-innovation/science-features/world-record-set-magnetic-field.php What current or spin currents would need to flow in a real material given that iron has a maximum moment of about 2T and all our permanent magnetic materials are based around this figure? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: But not high enough. Not in the Teratesla range. 2013/12/19 John Franks jf27...@gmail.com The magnetic field in white dwarves is very high. It will have similar angular momentum to the parent star yet it has been compressed down to an earth-sized radius. Concomitantly the magnetic field will be massive. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: There is no chemical process involved in CF. White dwarves are compressed by degenerate matter by gravity, and not strong magnetic fields. If they were, they would do cold fusion. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Have you seen data that supports you belief that the magnetic field is intense? I would assume that the radiation from the star would demonstrate this effect. Unless this has been proven, your assumption may not be accurate. The extreme conductivity of the material would tend to lock magnetic fields into place if I recall. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 12:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves The magnetic field in white dwarves is very high. It will have similar angular momentum to the parent star yet it has been compressed down to an earth-sized radius. Concomitantly the magnetic field will be massive. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: There is no chemical process involved in CF. White dwarves are compressed by degenerate matter by gravity, and not strong magnetic fields. If they were, they would do cold fusion. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Cold fusion is like(or maybe is) the Factional Quantum Hall Effect(FQHE). Science did not believe that something like the FQHE was possible until it was shown experimentally. Cold fusion is the FQHE moved over to the fermions of the fermions of the atomic nucleus. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:42 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: So do you encourage people working on Bessler's Wheel, Steorn, SMOT devices when they keep banging up against known theory (and hence experimental observations) that in a conservative field, what you gain going down, you give going up? WHAT IS THE NEW ANGLE THAR EVERYONE IS MISSING? So the belief is that it has nothing to do with temperature, pressure, proximity but something to do with the lattice. Please expand on this. If you are suggesting BEC, well electrons are leptons and light, how can you get heavy hadrons into one coherent state at room temperature? If this is the case, has CF been observed to occur spontaneously in liquid H2? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Jed, you hit the hard point that I found in an article (a recent message). Your position is evident for someone with good scientific culture and good practical sense, but not brainwashed by academic training of Popper science philosophy . 2013/12/19 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Everyone will tell you, until you sort out the mechanism (not nuts and bolts) but how this would be possible in a conservative field, there is little point in experimenting. You have that backward. Cold fusion was discovered by experiment. We know it is real because it has been widely replicated, often at high signal to noise ratios. There is no theory to explain it. You seem to believe that science must begin with theory and then proceed to experiment. That does happen from time to time, but more often it begins with a discovery which only later is explained by theory.
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Oh please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf#Magnetic_field On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Have you seen data that supports you belief that the magnetic field is intense? I would assume that the radiation from the star would demonstrate this effect. Unless this has been proven, your assumption may not be accurate. The extreme conductivity of the material would tend to lock magnetic fields into place if I recall. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 12:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves The magnetic field in white dwarves is very high. It will have similar angular momentum to the parent star yet it has been compressed down to an earth-sized radius. Concomitantly the magnetic field will be massive. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: There is no chemical process involved in CF. White dwarves are compressed by degenerate matter by gravity, and not strong magnetic fields. If they were, they would do cold fusion. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Is like or maybe is How so? Once again, QHE or FQHE is to do with cooperative properties of light leptons. So how does this carry over to heavy hadrons and what does that have to do with CF? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Cold fusion is like(or maybe is) the Factional Quantum Hall Effect(FQHE). Science did not believe that something like the FQHE was possible until it was shown experimentally. Cold fusion is the FQHE moved over to the fermions of the fermions of the atomic nucleus. If you are suggesting BEC, well electrons are leptons and light, how can you get heavy hadrons into one coherent state at room temperature? If this is the case, has CF been observed to occur spontaneously in liquid H2?
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
So? You pointed out a good link as requested. Why the sarcasm? Do you believe that everyone is supposed to answer your questions without expecting equal treatment? Please continue to supply pertinent data to the group instead of being so negative. Who knows, you might become convinced that LENR is real provided you take the time to read the experimental reports. It is not easy to start at ground zero as in your case as well as everyone else's. It takes work to get there. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 12:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves Oh please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf#Magnetic_field On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Have you seen data that supports you belief that the magnetic field is intense? I would assume that the radiation from the star would demonstrate this effect. Unless this has been proven, your assumption may not be accurate. The extreme conductivity of the material would tend to lock magnetic fields into place if I recall. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 12:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves The magnetic field in white dwarves is very high. It will have similar angular momentum to the parent star yet it has been compressed down to an earth-sized radius. Concomitantly the magnetic field will be massive. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: There is no chemical process involved in CF. White dwarves are compressed by degenerate matter by gravity, and not strong magnetic fields. If they were, they would do cold fusion. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
FQHE reduces the inherent charge of fermions as a function of increasing magnetic field. The nucleus is a fermion, the protons and neutrons are fermions and so are quarks. Why should a magnetic field make a distinction in the way it reduces charge is the various types of fermions? I won't. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Is like or maybe is How so? Once again, QHE or FQHE is to do with cooperative properties of light leptons. So how does this carry over to heavy hadrons and what does that have to do with CF? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Cold fusion is like(or maybe is) the Factional Quantum Hall Effect(FQHE). Science did not believe that something like the FQHE was possible until it was shown experimentally. Cold fusion is the FQHE moved over to the fermions of the fermions of the atomic nucleus. If you are suggesting BEC, well electrons are leptons and light, how can you get heavy hadrons into one coherent state at room temperature? If this is the case, has CF been observed to occur spontaneously in liquid H2?
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Axil is a fairly knowledgeable guy, but he can not single handedly develop all the important laws of physics concerning LENR. Perhaps you might wish to contribute? Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 12:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves Is like or maybe is How so? Once again, QHE or FQHE is to do with cooperative properties of light leptons. So how does this carry over to heavy hadrons and what does that have to do with CF? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Cold fusion is like(or maybe is) the Factional Quantum Hall Effect(FQHE). Science did not believe that something like the FQHE was possible until it was shown experimentally. Cold fusion is the FQHE moved over to the fermions of the fermions of the atomic nucleus. If you are suggesting BEC, well electrons are leptons and light, how can you get heavy hadrons into one coherent state at room temperature? If this is the case, has CF been observed to occur spontaneously in liquid H2?
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Holy holy holy, Lord LENR Almighty More holes than a colander. Maybe the Holy Spirit or just liquor can explain that special bit in CF theories. Did anyone answer the COP question? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: So? You pointed out a good link as requested. Why the sarcasm? Do you believe that everyone is supposed to answer your questions without expecting equal treatment? Please continue to supply pertinent data to the group instead of being so negative. Who knows, you might become convinced that LENR is real provided you take the time to read the experimental reports. It is not easy to start at ground zero as in your case as well as everyone else's. It takes work to get there. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 12:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves Oh please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf#Magnetic_field On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Have you seen data that supports you belief that the magnetic field is intense? I would assume that the radiation from the star would demonstrate this effect. Unless this has been proven, your assumption may not be accurate. The extreme conductivity of the material would tend to lock magnetic fields into place if I recall. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 12:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves The magnetic field in white dwarves is very high. It will have similar angular momentum to the parent star yet it has been compressed down to an earth-sized radius. Concomitantly the magnetic field will be massive. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: There is no chemical process involved in CF. White dwarves are compressed by degenerate matter by gravity, and not strong magnetic fields. If they were, they would do cold fusion. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
The current does not need to flow in a mateial and it does not. It is a femto-atto pinch. I cannot say more. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
COP is an engineering question, not a science question. Control of the LENR reaction requires a limitation on COP. An infinite COP means that the reactor melts down. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:05 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Holy holy holy, Lord LENR Almighty More holes than a colander. Maybe the Holy Spirit or just liquor can explain that special bit in CF theories. Did anyone answer the COP question? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: So? You pointed out a good link as requested. Why the sarcasm? Do you believe that everyone is supposed to answer your questions without expecting equal treatment? Please continue to supply pertinent data to the group instead of being so negative. Who knows, you might become convinced that LENR is real provided you take the time to read the experimental reports. It is not easy to start at ground zero as in your case as well as everyone else's. It takes work to get there. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 12:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves Oh please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf#Magnetic_field On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Have you seen data that supports you belief that the magnetic field is intense? I would assume that the radiation from the star would demonstrate this effect. Unless this has been proven, your assumption may not be accurate. The extreme conductivity of the material would tend to lock magnetic fields into place if I recall. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 12:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves The magnetic field in white dwarves is very high. It will have similar angular momentum to the parent star yet it has been compressed down to an earth-sized radius. Concomitantly the magnetic field will be massive. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: There is no chemical process involved in CF. White dwarves are compressed by degenerate matter by gravity, and not strong magnetic fields. If they were, they would do cold fusion. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
What's the magnitutde magnetic field and how do heavy hadrons display these collective properties like light leptons? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: FQHE reduces the inherent charge of fermions as a function of increasing magnetic field. The nucleus is a fermion, the protons and neutrons are fermions and so are quarks. Why should a magnetic field make a distinction in the way it reduces charge is the various types of fermions? I won't. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Is like or maybe is How so? Once again, QHE or FQHE is to do with cooperative properties of light leptons. So how does this carry over to heavy hadrons and what does that have to do with CF? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Cold fusion is like(or maybe is) the Factional Quantum Hall Effect(FQHE). Science did not believe that something like the FQHE was possible until it was shown experimentally. Cold fusion is the FQHE moved over to the fermions of the fermions of the atomic nucleus. If you are suggesting BEC, well electrons are leptons and light, how can you get heavy hadrons into one coherent state at room temperature? If this is the case, has CF been observed to occur spontaneously in liquid H2?
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
You wot? You have a CF cell or whatever, you set it up and measure how much energy was required to get it going. Now, how much energy was produced over what you put in? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: COP is an engineering question, not a science question. Control of the LENR reaction requires a limitation on COP. An infinite COP means that the reactor melts down. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:05 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Holy holy holy, Lord LENR Almighty More holes than a colander. Maybe the Holy Spirit or just liquor can explain that special bit in CF theories. Did anyone answer the COP question?
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
The magnetic field is atomic level. The next step in the research that the Ni/H reactor developers need to do is measure the magnetic fields that they are developing in their reactions. This can be done using sub-micron hall effect probes. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: What's the magnitutde magnetic field and how do heavy hadrons display these collective properties like light leptons? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: FQHE reduces the inherent charge of fermions as a function of increasing magnetic field. The nucleus is a fermion, the protons and neutrons are fermions and so are quarks. Why should a magnetic field make a distinction in the way it reduces charge is the various types of fermions? I won't. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Is like or maybe is How so? Once again, QHE or FQHE is to do with cooperative properties of light leptons. So how does this carry over to heavy hadrons and what does that have to do with CF? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Cold fusion is like(or maybe is) the Factional Quantum Hall Effect(FQHE). Science did not believe that something like the FQHE was possible until it was shown experimentally. Cold fusion is the FQHE moved over to the fermions of the fermions of the atomic nucleus. If you are suggesting BEC, well electrons are leptons and light, how can you get heavy hadrons into one coherent state at room temperature? If this is the case, has CF been observed to occur spontaneously in liquid H2?
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
None of your business. 2013/12/19 John Franks jf27...@gmail.com You wot? You have a CF cell or whatever, you set it up and measure how much energy was required to get it going. Now, how much energy was produced over what you put in? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: COP is an engineering question, not a science question. Control of the LENR reaction requires a limitation on COP. An infinite COP means that the reactor melts down. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:05 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Holy holy holy, Lord LENR Almighty More holes than a colander. Maybe the Holy Spirit or just liquor can explain that special bit in CF theories. Did anyone answer the COP question? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. *From:* James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
How? No data, no COP and reliable experiments. No rationale. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:03 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil is a fairly knowledgeable guy, but he can not single handedly develop all the important laws of physics concerning LENR. Perhaps you might wish to contribute? Dave
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Is this laying on of hands stuff ever going to get you in Nature? What the hell is a femto-atto pinch? A Vimto-apple punch could be quite a nice concoction, mmmh, must try it. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: The current does not need to flow in a mateial and it does not. It is a femto-atto pinch. I cannot say more. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Is this your great contribution to science? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: None of your business. 2013/12/19 John Franks jf27...@gmail.com You wot? You have a CF cell or whatever, you set it up and measure how much energy was required to get it going. Now, how much energy was produced over what you put in? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: COP is an engineering question, not a science question. Control of the LENR reaction requires a limitation on COP. An infinite COP means that the reactor melts down. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:05 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Holy holy holy, Lord LENR Almighty More holes than a colander. Maybe the Holy Spirit or just liquor can explain that special bit in CF theories. Did anyone answer the COP question? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
See, why you don't deserve. You are a pseudo skeptical. You won't help in the research I am involved. 2013/12/19 John Franks jf27...@gmail.com Is this laying on of hands stuff ever going to get you in Nature? What the hell is a femto-atto pinch? A Vimto-apple punch could be quite a nice concoction, mmmh, must try it. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: The current does not need to flow in a mateial and it does not. It is a femto-atto pinch. I cannot say more. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
You need a different kind of help... On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: See, why you don't deserve. You are a pseudo skeptical. You won't help in the research I am involved. 2013/12/19 John Franks jf27...@gmail.com Is this laying on of hands stuff ever going to get you in Nature? What the hell is a femto-atto pinch? A Vimto-apple punch could be quite a nice concoction, mmmh, must try it. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: The current does not need to flow in a mateial and it does not. It is a femto-atto pinch. I cannot say more. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
My psychiatrist told me I can't stop lying, so I am now on traquilizers. I won't answer anymooor.. z. 2013/12/19 John Franks jf27...@gmail.com You need a different kind of help... On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: See, why you don't deserve. You are a pseudo skeptical. You won't help in the research I am involved. 2013/12/19 John Franks jf27...@gmail.com Is this laying on of hands stuff ever going to get you in Nature? What the hell is a femto-atto pinch? A Vimto-apple punch could be quite a nice concoction, mmmh, must try it. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: The current does not need to flow in a mateial and it does not. It is a femto-atto pinch. I cannot say more. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Does 'g' mean anything to you? What is the magnetic moment of an electron? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The magnetic field is atomic level. The next step in the research that the Ni/H reactor developers need to do is measure the magnetic fields that they are developing in their reactions. This can be done using sub-micron hall effect probes. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: What's the magnitutde magnetic field and how do heavy hadrons display these collective properties like light leptons? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: FQHE reduces the inherent charge of fermions as a function of increasing magnetic field. The nucleus is a fermion, the protons and neutrons are fermions and so are quarks. Why should a magnetic field make a distinction in the way it reduces charge is the various types of fermions? I won't. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Is like or maybe is How so? Once again, QHE or FQHE is to do with cooperative properties of light leptons. So how does this carry over to heavy hadrons and what does that have to do with CF? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Cold fusion is like(or maybe is) the Factional Quantum Hall Effect(FQHE). Science did not believe that something like the FQHE was possible until it was shown experimentally. Cold fusion is the FQHE moved over to the fermions of the fermions of the atomic nucleus. If you are suggesting BEC, well electrons are leptons and light, how can you get heavy hadrons into one coherent state at room temperature? If this is the case, has CF been observed to occur spontaneously in liquid H2?
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
What is your point? Spin of a fermion is quantized. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:26 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Does 'g' mean anything to you? What is the magnetic moment of an electron? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The magnetic field is atomic level. The next step in the research that the Ni/H reactor developers need to do is measure the magnetic fields that they are developing in their reactions. This can be done using sub-micron hall effect probes. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: What's the magnitutde magnetic field and how do heavy hadrons display these collective properties like light leptons? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: FQHE reduces the inherent charge of fermions as a function of increasing magnetic field. The nucleus is a fermion, the protons and neutrons are fermions and so are quarks. Why should a magnetic field make a distinction in the way it reduces charge is the various types of fermions? I won't. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.comwrote: Is like or maybe is How so? Once again, QHE or FQHE is to do with cooperative properties of light leptons. So how does this carry over to heavy hadrons and what does that have to do with CF? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Cold fusion is like(or maybe is) the Factional Quantum Hall Effect(FQHE). Science did not believe that something like the FQHE was possible until it was shown experimentally. Cold fusion is the FQHE moved over to the fermions of the fermions of the atomic nucleus. If you are suggesting BEC, well electrons are leptons and light, how can you get heavy hadrons into one coherent state at room temperature? If this is the case, has CF been observed to occur spontaneously in liquid H2?
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
BTW: For a humorous insight into the DoE grant process, the UofMI technology was paired with the aforementioned biomass production technology in the proposal to the DoE's Algaoleum initiative but the proposal was rejected. The reason given for rejecting the proposal was that the biomass production technology (Algasol's patented photobioreactor) it was prone to contamination of the algae species. For the punch-line, here is an excerpt from that proposal: Structurally, the PBRs are enclosed flexible bags made out of polymer film... the Algasol PBRs are inherently independent of each other; each can serve as its own laboratory vessel. I mean, come on On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. *From:* James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Read the experimental results and you will understand. At the moment you are just parroting the usual physics rules that are not complete. Why not read first, then you can state no reliable experiments and someone might listen. You need to do some homework first and then start contributing. Do you wish to be one of the many that did not accept just about every phenomena known to physics until someone else held their hand? We can list many if you are not aware of them. Come up to the plate and become one of the team players unless you would prefer to complain and not contribute. We need all the help we can obtain and you seem to be somewhat knowledgeable. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 1:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves How? No data, no COP and reliable experiments. No rationale. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:03 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil is a fairly knowledgeable guy, but he can not single handedly develop all the important laws of physics concerning LENR. Perhaps you might wish to contribute? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
I just got a response back from the Michigan crew: It's the same process with the addition that it is made continuous rather than batch. No one had any doubt that the process could be made continuous -- its straight forward process engineering -- but there just hadn't been a publication in the open literature. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:37 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: BTW: For a humorous insight into the DoE grant process, the UofMI technology was paired with the aforementioned biomass production technology in the proposal to the DoE's Algaoleum initiative but the proposal was rejected. The reason given for rejecting the proposal was that the biomass production technology (Algasol's patented photobioreactor) it was prone to contamination of the algae species. For the punch-line, here is an excerpt from that proposal: Structurally, the PBRs are enclosed flexible bags made out of polymer film... the Algasol PBRs are inherently independent of each other; each can serve as its own laboratory vessel. I mean, come on On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. *From:* James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
I agree entirely with your assessment, James. 10 years ago I was intimately engaged in biofuels,raising my own and even starting the first Company in the state to get a biofuel production plant up. However, in collaboration with various colleagues in academia and commerce, after a year of discussions, conferences etc we very deliberately gave up the whole idea. A couple smallish biodiesel plants did form around this time, and all went belly up very soon, for the very good economic (and also environmental) reasons you mention. Most people now are convinced that biofuels may very well make a nice small niche market in some places, but never a major fuel contributor. (Cold fusion cars need no biofuel!) cheers, ken On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: BTW: For a humorous insight into the DoE grant process, the UofMI technology was paired with the aforementioned biomass production technology in the proposal to the DoE's Algaoleum initiative but the proposal was rejected. The reason given for rejecting the proposal was that the biomass production technology (Algasol's patented photobioreactor) it was prone to contamination of the algae species. For the punch-line, here is an excerpt from that proposal: Structurally, the PBRs are enclosed flexible bags made out of polymer film... the Algasol PBRs are inherently independent of each other; each can serve as its own laboratory vessel. I mean, come on On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. *From:* James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
David, You're wasting your breath. Look back at other threads this guy has posted in lately. Franks already said he was leaving this forum twice, but still won't leave. Until a mod decides to ban him for his B.S. we're all better off ignoring him. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Read the experimental results and you will understand. At the moment you are just parroting the usual physics rules that are not complete. Why not read first, then you can state no reliable experiments and someone might listen. You need to do some homework first and then start contributing. Do you wish to be one of the many that did not accept just about every phenomena known to physics until someone else held their hand? We can list many if you are not aware of them. Come up to the plate and become one of the team players unless you would prefer to complain and not contribute. We need all the help we can obtain and you seem to be somewhat knowledgeable. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 1:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves How? No data, no COP and reliable experiments. No rationale. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:03 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Axil is a fairly knowledgeable guy, but he can not single handedly develop all the important laws of physics concerning LENR. Perhaps you might wish to contribute? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
The biomass production cost problem has been solved. I don't know when the world will wake up. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Ken Deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: I agree entirely with your assessment, James. 10 years ago I was intimately engaged in biofuels,raising my own and even starting the first Company in the state to get a biofuel production plant up. However, in collaboration with various colleagues in academia and commerce, after a year of discussions, conferences etc we very deliberately gave up the whole idea. A couple smallish biodiesel plants did form around this time, and all went belly up very soon, for the very good economic (and also environmental) reasons you mention. Most people now are convinced that biofuels may very well make a nice small niche market in some places, but never a major fuel contributor. (Cold fusion cars need no biofuel!) cheers, ken On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: BTW: For a humorous insight into the DoE grant process, the UofMI technology was paired with the aforementioned biomass production technology in the proposal to the DoE's Algaoleum initiative but the proposal was rejected. The reason given for rejecting the proposal was that the biomass production technology (Algasol's patented photobioreactor) it was prone to contamination of the algae species. For the punch-line, here is an excerpt from that proposal: Structurally, the PBRs are enclosed flexible bags made out of polymer film... the Algasol PBRs are inherently independent of each other; each can serve as its own laboratory vessel. I mean, come on On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. *From:* James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
The short list of algal biomass production cost problems: 1) Capital cost per area of capturing insolation. 2) Operation of energy to sufficiently concentrate biomass from the growth medium. 3) Insurance against hail and other damaging weather conditions, to the capital equipment capturing insolation.. There are more but these have been the blocking factors in all systems that have actually gone to the trouble of demonstrating how much biomass they produce per investment. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The biomass production cost problem has been solved. I don't know when the world will wake up. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Ken Deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: I agree entirely with your assessment, James. 10 years ago I was intimately engaged in biofuels,raising my own and even starting the first Company in the state to get a biofuel production plant up. However, in collaboration with various colleagues in academia and commerce, after a year of discussions, conferences etc we very deliberately gave up the whole idea. A couple smallish biodiesel plants did form around this time, and all went belly up very soon, for the very good economic (and also environmental) reasons you mention. Most people now are convinced that biofuels may very well make a nice small niche market in some places, but never a major fuel contributor. (Cold fusion cars need no biofuel!) cheers, ken On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: BTW: For a humorous insight into the DoE grant process, the UofMI technology was paired with the aforementioned biomass production technology in the proposal to the DoE's Algaoleum initiative but the proposal was rejected. The reason given for rejecting the proposal was that the biomass production technology (Algasol's patented photobioreactor) it was prone to contamination of the algae species. For the punch-line, here is an excerpt from that proposal: Structurally, the PBRs are enclosed flexible bags made out of polymer film... the Algasol PBRs are inherently independent of each other; each can serve as its own laboratory vessel. I mean, come on On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. *From:* James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
Maybe so, but burning ANYthing for energy forever, is not a great idea. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:06 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The short list of algal biomass production cost problems: 1) Capital cost per area of capturing insolation. 2) Operation of energy to sufficiently concentrate biomass from the growth medium. 3) Insurance against hail and other damaging weather conditions, to the capital equipment capturing insolation.. There are more but these have been the blocking factors in all systems that have actually gone to the trouble of demonstrating how much biomass they produce per investment. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The biomass production cost problem has been solved. I don't know when the world will wake up. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Ken Deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: I agree entirely with your assessment, James. 10 years ago I was intimately engaged in biofuels,raising my own and even starting the first Company in the state to get a biofuel production plant up. However, in collaboration with various colleagues in academia and commerce, after a year of discussions, conferences etc we very deliberately gave up the whole idea. A couple smallish biodiesel plants did form around this time, and all went belly up very soon, for the very good economic (and also environmental) reasons you mention. Most people now are convinced that biofuels may very well make a nice small niche market in some places, but never a major fuel contributor. (Cold fusion cars need no biofuel!) cheers, ken On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: BTW: For a humorous insight into the DoE grant process, the UofMI technology was paired with the aforementioned biomass production technology in the proposal to the DoE's Algaoleum initiative but the proposal was rejected. The reason given for rejecting the proposal was that the biomass production technology (Algasol's patented photobioreactor) it was prone to contamination of the algae species. For the punch-line, here is an excerpt from that proposal: Structurally, the PBRs are enclosed flexible bags made out of polymer film... the Algasol PBRs are inherently independent of each other; each can serve as its own laboratory vessel. I mean, come on On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. *From:* James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes
Correct. My interest in algae was never about energy. It was about food. My dad won the National Clean Plowing Championships two years running. Algae has been the next green revolution for a long time but now its time has come. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Ken Deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe so, but burning ANYthing for energy forever, is not a great idea. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:06 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The short list of algal biomass production cost problems: 1) Capital cost per area of capturing insolation. 2) Operation of energy to sufficiently concentrate biomass from the growth medium. 3) Insurance against hail and other damaging weather conditions, to the capital equipment capturing insolation.. There are more but these have been the blocking factors in all systems that have actually gone to the trouble of demonstrating how much biomass they produce per investment. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: The biomass production cost problem has been solved. I don't know when the world will wake up. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Ken Deboer barlaz...@gmail.comwrote: I agree entirely with your assessment, James. 10 years ago I was intimately engaged in biofuels,raising my own and even starting the first Company in the state to get a biofuel production plant up. However, in collaboration with various colleagues in academia and commerce, after a year of discussions, conferences etc we very deliberately gave up the whole idea. A couple smallish biodiesel plants did form around this time, and all went belly up very soon, for the very good economic (and also environmental) reasons you mention. Most people now are convinced that biofuels may very well make a nice small niche market in some places, but never a major fuel contributor. (Cold fusion cars need no biofuel!) cheers, ken On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: BTW: For a humorous insight into the DoE grant process, the UofMI technology was paired with the aforementioned biomass production technology in the proposal to the DoE's Algaoleum initiative but the proposal was rejected. The reason given for rejecting the proposal was that the biomass production technology (Algasol's patented photobioreactor) it was prone to contamination of the algae species. For the punch-line, here is an excerpt from that proposal: Structurally, the PBRs are enclosed flexible bags made out of polymer film... the Algasol PBRs are inherently independent of each other; each can serve as its own laboratory vessel. I mean, come on On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:16 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Indeed, it was the U of Michigan crew. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: Was this old story related to the grant in question ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422153943.htm Not sure how this “new” technology from PNNL is very different. *From:* James Bowery Coincidentally I had just, literally a minute ago, sent off a query about this PNNL work to some coinvestigators in a grant proposal to the DoE for the production of biocrude because the PNNL process sounded so similar, I wanted to find out if there was any distinction. The biggest problem remains the sufficiently economic production of biomass -- and to the best of my knowledge after looking at that problem for the past 20 years -- there is only one technology capable for that. Brad Lowe wrote: Some links: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218100141.htm http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/18/Scientists-Manufacture-Crude-Oil-The-End-of-Peak-Oil http://www.genifuel.com/
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
The magnitude of it... I'm going as the level of debate is very very amateur here. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: What is your point? Spin of a fermion is quantized. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:26 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Does 'g' mean anything to you? What is the magnetic moment of an electron? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The magnetic field is atomic level. The next step in the research that the Ni/H reactor developers need to do is measure the magnetic fields that they are developing in their reactions. This can be done using sub-micron hall effect probes. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: What's the magnitutde magnetic field and how do heavy hadrons display these collective properties like light leptons? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: FQHE reduces the inherent charge of fermions as a function of increasing magnetic field. The nucleus is a fermion, the protons and neutrons are fermions and so are quarks. Why should a magnetic field make a distinction in the way it reduces charge is the various types of fermions? I won't. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.comwrote: Is like or maybe is How so? Once again, QHE or FQHE is to do with cooperative properties of light leptons. So how does this carry over to heavy hadrons and what does that have to do with CF? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.comwrote: Cold fusion is like(or maybe is) the Factional Quantum Hall Effect(FQHE). Science did not believe that something like the FQHE was possible until it was shown experimentally. Cold fusion is the FQHE moved over to the fermions of the fermions of the atomic nucleus. If you are suggesting BEC, well electrons are leptons and light, how can you get heavy hadrons into one coherent state at room temperature? If this is the case, has CF been observed to occur spontaneously in liquid H2?
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: COP is an engineering question, not a science question. Control of the LENR reaction requires a limitation on COP. An infinite COP means that the reactor melts down. I would define an infinite COP as a reaction with no input power, and some level of output power. An example would be a burning match. A reactor melt down would be caused by a reaction with no limiting factor controlling speed. An example would be an explosive. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
White dwarfs have strong magnetic fields from BEC and supra conducting. Part of the WD may also have periodic crystal structure. The main deferens is the neutral atomic hydrogen in metal hydrides. This may point toward theories involving electrons as in Storms theory. Maybe you are right Mr Franks, but no one have come with a good explanation how multiple methods of calorimetrical could have failed so much. If you want to debunk CF you must do this thing. You can not flee the empirical imperative. On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:49:25 -0500, Foks0904 . wrote: David, You're wasting your breath. Look back at other threads this guy has posted in lately. Franks already said he was leaving this forum twice, but still won't leave. Until a mod decides to ban him for his B.S. we're all better off ignoring him. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, David Roberson wrote: Read the experimental results and you will understand. At the moment you are just parroting the usual physics rules that are not complete. Why not read first, then you can state no reliable experiments and someone might listen. You need to do some homework first and then start contributing. Do you wish to be one of the many that did not accept just about every phenomena known to physics until someone else held their hand? We can list many if you are not aware of them. Come up to the plate and become one of the team players unless you would prefer to complain and not contribute. We need all the help we can obtain and you seem to be somewhat knowledgeable. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 1:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves How? No data, no COP and reliable experiments. No rationale. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:03 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil is a fairly knowledgeable guy, but he can not single handedly develop all the important laws of physics concerning LENR. Perhaps you might wish to contribute? Dave Links: -- [1] mailto:dlrober...@aol.com [2] mailto:jf27...@gmail.com [3] mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com [4] mailto:dlrober...@aol.com
[Vo]:A bibliography of the Electrically Exploded Conductor Phenomenon
A bibliography of the Electrically Exploded Conductor Phenomenon, Fourth Edition William G. Chace Eleanor M. Watson October 1967 http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?Location=U2doc=GetTRDoc.pdfAD=AD0662345
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Of course he can flee the empirical imperative! Indeed, it would be sinful for him to look through that telescope. (Yes, Jed, I know that's apocryphal but think of it as a movie everyone saw that provides a mythic vocabulary for narrative.) On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:19 PM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: White dwarfs have strong magnetic fields from BEC and supra conducting. Part of the WD may also have periodic crystal structure. The main deferens is the neutral atomic hydrogen in metal hydrides. This may point toward theories involving electrons as in Storms theory. Maybe you are right Mr Franks, but no one have come with a good explanation how multiple methods of calorimetrical could have failed so much. If you want to debunk CF you must do this thing. You can not flee the empirical imperative. On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:49:25 -0500, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: David, You're wasting your breath. Look back at other threads this guy has posted in lately. Franks already said he was leaving this forum twice, but still won't leave. Until a mod decides to ban him for his B.S. we're all better off ignoring him. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Read the experimental results and you will understand. At the moment you are just parroting the usual physics rules that are not complete. Why not read first, then you can state no reliable experiments and someone might listen. You need to do some homework first and then start contributing. Do you wish to be one of the many that did not accept just about every phenomena known to physics until someone else held their hand? We can list many if you are not aware of them. Come up to the plate and become one of the team players unless you would prefer to complain and not contribute. We need all the help we can obtain and you seem to be somewhat knowledgeable. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks jf27...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 1:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves How? No data, no COP and reliable experiments. No rationale. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:03 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Axil is a fairly knowledgeable guy, but he can not single handedly develop all the important laws of physics concerning LENR. Perhaps you might wish to contribute? Dave
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
Why can't you carefully explain in a simplified way what mistakes that we are making. Are we beyond all hopes of redemption? The magnitude of it... just is not enough for us to understand the error of our ways. Please before you go, just explain this phrase to me. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:18 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: The magnitude of it... I'm going as the level of debate is very very amateur here. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: What is your point? Spin of a fermion is quantized. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:26 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Does 'g' mean anything to you? What is the magnetic moment of an electron? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The magnetic field is atomic level. The next step in the research that the Ni/H reactor developers need to do is measure the magnetic fields that they are developing in their reactions. This can be done using sub-micron hall effect probes. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: What's the magnitutde magnetic field and how do heavy hadrons display these collective properties like light leptons? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: FQHE reduces the inherent charge of fermions as a function of increasing magnetic field. The nucleus is a fermion, the protons and neutrons are fermions and so are quarks. Why should a magnetic field make a distinction in the way it reduces charge is the various types of fermions? I won't. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.comwrote: Is like or maybe is How so? Once again, QHE or FQHE is to do with cooperative properties of light leptons. So how does this carry over to heavy hadrons and what does that have to do with CF? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.comwrote: Cold fusion is like(or maybe is) the Factional Quantum Hall Effect(FQHE). Science did not believe that something like the FQHE was possible until it was shown experimentally. Cold fusion is the FQHE moved over to the fermions of the fermions of the atomic nucleus. If you are suggesting BEC, well electrons are leptons and light, how can you get heavy hadrons into one coherent state at room temperature? If this is the case, has CF been observed to occur spontaneously in liquid H2?
Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves
One atomic unit of magnetic field is defined for a Bohr magneton in a B field which has the energy of 13.6 eV. Thus 1 a.u. of magnetic field = *2.35x10^^**5 *Tesla On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The magnetic field is atomic level. The next step in the research that the Ni/H reactor developers need to do is measure the magnetic fields that they are developing in their reactions. This can be done using sub-micron hall effect probes. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: What's the magnitutde magnetic field and how do heavy hadrons display these collective properties like light leptons? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: FQHE reduces the inherent charge of fermions as a function of increasing magnetic field. The nucleus is a fermion, the protons and neutrons are fermions and so are quarks. Why should a magnetic field make a distinction in the way it reduces charge is the various types of fermions? I won't. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Is like or maybe is How so? Once again, QHE or FQHE is to do with cooperative properties of light leptons. So how does this carry over to heavy hadrons and what does that have to do with CF? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Cold fusion is like(or maybe is) the Factional Quantum Hall Effect(FQHE). Science did not believe that something like the FQHE was possible until it was shown experimentally. Cold fusion is the FQHE moved over to the fermions of the fermions of the atomic nucleus. If you are suggesting BEC, well electrons are leptons and light, how can you get heavy hadrons into one coherent state at room temperature? If this is the case, has CF been observed to occur spontaneously in liquid H2?
Re: [Vo]:A bibliography of the Electrically Exploded Conductor Phenomenon
That doesn't work for me. On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: A bibliography of the Electrically Exploded Conductor Phenomenon, Fourth Edition William G. Chace Eleanor M. Watson October 1967 http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?Location=U2doc=GetTRDoc.pdfAD=AD0662345
Re: [Vo]:A bibliography of the Electrically Exploded Conductor Phenomenon
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't work for me. Look carefully at your browser. It is probably saving the file. Or it is asking you if you want to save it. Chrome does not open it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A bibliography of the Electrically Exploded Conductor Phenomenon
I was using chrome, so I tried FF and then IE, and still it can't resolve the domain. On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't work for me. Look carefully at your browser. It is probably saving the file. Or it is asking you if you want to save it. Chrome does not open it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A bibliography of the Electrically Exploded Conductor Phenomenon
Works for me. There, I shortened it: http://tinyurl.com/lyxu8f9 On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:53 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I was using chrome, so I tried FF and then IE, and still it can't resolve the domain. On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't work for me. Look carefully at your browser. It is probably saving the file. Or it is asking you if you want to save it. Chrome does not open it. - Jed
[Vo]:Magnetic fields in LENR+
Reference: http://www.arm.ac.uk/lectures/landstreet/slides/Lecture-2-atoms-in-magnetic-fields.pdf Atomic physics needed to measure fields in stars It might be possible to measure the magnetic fields inside the Ni/H reactor by analyzing the light emitted by the LENR reaction. Very strong magnetic fields present in strongly magnetic stars have been measured using the character of the light that these stars emit. Zeeman lines and the characterization of circular polarization of the emitted stellar light can be converted to magnetic field strengths. From the DGT ICCF-18 paper: “For specific parameters measurements, such as the excited levels of H2 or hydrogen atom excitation to their Rydberg states or the magnetic field emissions, a modified version of the Hyperion R5 reactor, as described in the section 2.1, was used. In such measurements, photoemissions from Rydberg state (5n85) species, such as H, were detected and measured using Raman type spectroscopy through a “spy-eye” attached in the reactor, while mu metals were removed.” By the way, in strong magnetic fields, measurement of Rydberg states becomes chaotic. http://www.spectro.jussieu.fr/Chaos/perso/delande/articles/23.pdf Chaos and atoms in a strong magnetic field.
Re: [Vo]:A bibliography of the Electrically Exploded Conductor Phenomenon
Still doesn't work for me? I have tried 3 computers, chrome, FF and IE. I have tried other .mil domains, but no joy. I have googled the problem and found I am not alone, but I have not found any answers either. tinyurl doesn't fix the problem either of course. Very curious. John On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: Works for me. There, I shortened it: http://tinyurl.com/lyxu8f9 On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:53 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I was using chrome, so I tried FF and then IE, and still it can't resolve the domain. On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't work for me. Look carefully at your browser. It is probably saving the file. Or it is asking you if you want to save it. Chrome does not open it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A bibliography of the Electrically Exploded Conductor Phenomenon
I tried a proxy, that worked, at first I tried www.dtic.mil and that came up with a page that looks very official, but then I tried the full address and I got the pdf. Here is the permission page I got, and not even a first born clause! *DTIC's mission is to provide essential technical RDTE information rapidly, accurately and reliably to support our DoD customers' needs.* You are accessing a U.S. Government (USG) Information System (IS) that is provided for USG-authorized use only. By using this IS (which includes any device attached to this IS), you consent to the following conditions: - The USG routinely intercepts and monitors communications on this IS for purposes including, but not limited to, penetration testing, COMSEC monitoring, network operations and defense, personnel misconduct (PM), law enforcement (LE), and counterintelligence (CI) investigations. - At any time, the USG may inspect and seize data stored on this IS. - Communications using, or data stored on, this IS are not private, are subject to routine monitoring, interception, and search, and may be disclosed or used for any USG authorized purpose. - This IS includes security measures (e.g., authentication and access controls) to protect USG interests--not for your personal benefit or privacy. - Notwithstanding the above, using this IS does not constitute consent to PM, LE or CI investigative searching or monitoring of the content of privileged communications, or work product, related to personal representation or services by attorneys, psychotherapists, or clergy, and their assistants. Such communications and work product are private and confidential. See User Agreement for details. On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:27 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Still doesn't work for me? I have tried 3 computers, chrome, FF and IE. I have tried other .mil domains, but no joy. I have googled the problem and found I am not alone, but I have not found any answers either. tinyurl doesn't fix the problem either of course. Very curious. John On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.comwrote: Works for me. There, I shortened it: http://tinyurl.com/lyxu8f9 On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:53 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I was using chrome, so I tried FF and then IE, and still it can't resolve the domain. On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't work for me. Look carefully at your browser. It is probably saving the file. Or it is asking you if you want to save it. Chrome does not open it. - Jed
[Vo]:Worry About Wandering Planets?
I have been enjoying the Planets simulation on my Linux system and noticed something that gave me a bit of concern. Perhaps some of my fellow vorts have information concerning the issue that I am about to mention which sheds light upon the real danger. When I play with a system that contains a large multitude of planet like objects generated randomly within a small region of space I see that in every case many of the objects are ejected from the region at a high rate of speed into open space. I am not too confident that the program does a great simulation of the real process since it operates in 2 dimensions only while the real systems use 3. My concern is that this process would typically send a large number of dangerous mass objects into the region between stars and as a consequence some in our direction.The ones that cross our orbit could lead to a catastrophe if they were to collide with the earth. The objects that do not collide would likely continue on their paths through space and out the other side of our solar system. Is there reason to consider this situation as dangerous and is there evidence that this has happened before? Today, most of the comets and asteroids are considered in orbit around our sun, but is that the only condition? How close to earth would an asteroid need to pass before it is detected by our systems? And, if the size were large enough to cause an extinction level event, would we see it before it was too late? It is fairly well established that the history of earth has included many extinction events and they have generally been assumed to be from objects in orbit around the sun. Does anyone know of any proof that none from way out there has impacted us? I recall reading about a period of earth's history where a large quantity of collisions came after the earth was similar to today. This happened when the earth was millions if not a billion years old and since the sun was formed along with numerous brothers, perhaps some of the ejections from it's twins caused the event. The delay would have give them enough time to reach us from adjacent star systems if traveling at a high velocity. Do we have reason to worry? Dave
Re: [Vo]:A bibliography of the Electrically Exploded Conductor Phenomenon
It worked for me with Chrome. I wish you had posted the papers as well Jed since many of them appear interesting. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 4:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A bibliography of the Electrically Exploded Conductor Phenomenon Still doesn't work for me? I have tried 3 computers, chrome, FF and IE. I have tried other .mil domains, but no joy. I have googled the problem and found I am not alone, but I have not found any answers either. tinyurl doesn't fix the problem either of course. Very curious. John On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: Works for me. There, I shortened it: http://tinyurl.com/lyxu8f9 On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:53 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I was using chrome, so I tried FF and then IE, and still it can't resolve the domain. On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't work for me. Look carefully at your browser. It is probably saving the file. Or it is asking you if you want to save it. Chrome does not open it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Worry About Wandering Planets?
yes On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have been enjoying the* Planets* simulation on my Linux system and noticed something that gave me a bit of concern. Perhaps some of my fellow vorts have information concerning the issue that I am about to mention which sheds light upon the real danger. When I play with a system that contains a large multitude of planet like objects generated randomly within a small region of space I see that in every case many of the objects are ejected from the region at a high rate of speed into open space. I am not too confident that the program does a great simulation of the real process since it operates in 2 dimensions only while the real systems use 3. My concern is that this process would typically send a large number of dangerous mass objects into the region between stars and as a consequence some in our direction.The ones that cross our orbit could lead to a catastrophe if they were to collide with the earth. The objects that do not collide would likely continue on their paths through space and out the other side of our solar system. Is there reason to consider this situation as dangerous and is there evidence that this has happened before? Today, most of the comets and asteroids are considered in orbit around our sun, but is that the only condition? How close to earth would an asteroid need to pass before it is detected by our systems? And, if the size were large enough to cause an extinction level event, would we see it before it was too late? It is fairly well established that the history of earth has included many extinction events and they have generally been assumed to be from objects in orbit around the sun. Does anyone know of any proof that none from way out there has impacted us? I recall reading about a period of earth's history where a large quantity of collisions came after the earth was similar to today. This happened when the earth was millions if not a billion years old and since the sun was formed along with numerous brothers, perhaps some of the ejections from it's twins caused the event. The delay would have give them enough time to reach us from adjacent star systems if traveling at a high velocity. Do we have reason to worry? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Even-Even fission means photo fission.
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 18 Dec 2013 23:19:03 -0500: Hi, [snip] 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. You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough energy in the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit. Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one 62Ni fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and that is the reaction:- 1H+62Ni = 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more possible exothermic reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 64Zn + 13.835 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV this one produces iron. 1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV The last 4 produce lighter elements. There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also for the daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+64Zn = 66Ge + 10.202 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV Note the many light elements/isotopes. Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements, fission becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one can see this by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent addition of *two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish. Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely shrunken Hydrino molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a neutron, so I think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells of other atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do. And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*. Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter. Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more likely fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules to be magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4 protons may also be possible, e.g. :- 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 66Ge + 24.037 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 65Ga + 1H + 17.778 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 61Zn + 5He + 7.372 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 62Zn + 4He + 21.156 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + 3He + 9.692 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 59Cu + 7Li + 3.859 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 60Cu + 6Li + 6.667 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 61Cu + 5Li + 12.713 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Ni + 10Be + 3.707 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 57Ni + 9Be + 7.144 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 17.696 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 59Ni + 7Be + 7.795 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 6Be + 8.507 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 55Co + 11B + 7.769 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Co + 10B + 6.398 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 57Co + 9B + 9.338 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Fe + 14C + 7.721 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 53Fe + 13C + 10.230 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 54Fe + 12C + 18.662 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 55Fe + 11C + 9.239 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Fe + 10C + 7.316 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 51Mn + 15N + 10.550 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Mn + 14N + 10.252 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 53Mn + 13N + 11.752 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 54Mn + 12N + 0.627 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 48Cr + 18O + 6.010 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 49Cr + 17O + 8.549 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 50Cr + 16O + 17.406 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 51Cr + 15O + 11.003 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 14O + 9.819 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 47V + 19F + 5.899 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 48V + 18F + 6.011 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 49V + 17F + 8.415 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 50V + 16F + 0.951 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 44Ti + 22Ne + 7.983 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 45Ti + 21Ne + 7.147 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 46Ti + 20Ne + 13.575 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 47Ti + 19Ne + 5.591 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 18Ne + 5.580 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 41Sc + 25Na + 0.410 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 42Sc + 24Na + 2.949 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 43Sc + 23Na + 8.128 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 44Sc + 22Na + 5.408 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 45Sc + 21Na + 5.662 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 39Ca + 27Mg + 4.271 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 40Ca + 26Mg + 13.471 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 41Ca + 25Mg + 10.740 MeV
Re: [Vo]:Worry About Wandering Planets?
Double yes. Best get our DNA spread far and wide as soon as possible
On Thursday, December 19, 2013, Axil Axil wrote:
yes
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson
dlrober...@aol.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'dlrober...@aol.com');
wrote:
I have been enjoying the* Planets* simulation on my Linux system and
noticed something that gave me a bit of concern. Perhaps some of my
fellow vorts have information concerning the issue that I am about to
mention which sheds light upon the real danger.
When I play with a system that contains a large multitude of planet like
objects generated randomly within a small region of space I see that in
every case many of the objects are ejected from the region at a high rate
of speed into open space. I am not too confident that the program does a
great simulation of the real process since it operates in 2 dimensions only
while the real systems use 3.
My concern is that this process would typically send a large number of
dangerous mass objects into the region between stars and as a consequence
some in our direction.The ones that cross our orbit could lead to a
catastrophe if they were to collide with the earth. The objects that do
not collide would likely continue on their paths through space and out the
other side of our solar system.
Is there reason to consider this situation as dangerous and is there
evidence that this has happened before? Today, most of the comets and
asteroids are considered in orbit around our sun, but is that the only
condition?
How close to earth would an asteroid need to pass before it is detected
by our systems? And, if the size were large enough to cause an extinction
level event, would we see it before it was too late?
It is fairly well established that the history of earth has included many
extinction events and they have generally been assumed to be from objects
in orbit around the sun. Does anyone know of any proof that none from way
out there has impacted us?
I recall reading about a period of earth's history where a large quantity
of collisions came after the earth was similar to today. This happened
when the earth was millions if not a billion years old and since the sun
was formed along with numerous brothers, perhaps some of the ejections from
it's twins caused the event. The delay would have give them enough time to
reach us from adjacent star systems if traveling at a high velocity.
Do we have reason to worry?
Dave
Re: [Vo]:Worry About Wandering Planets?
Previous research has predicted there might be 100,000 times more rogue planets in the Milky Way than stars. Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/104210/rogue-planets-could-form-on-their-own-in-interstellar-space/#ixzz2nxcPwnsI On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:59 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Double yes. Best get our DNA spread far and wide as soon as possible On Thursday, December 19, 2013, Axil Axil wrote: yes On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I have been enjoying the* Planets* simulation on my Linux system and noticed something that gave me a bit of concern. Perhaps some of my fellow vorts have information concerning the issue that I am about to mention which sheds light upon the real danger. When I play with a system that contains a large multitude of planet like objects generated randomly within a small region of space I see that in every case many of the objects are ejected from the region at a high rate of speed into open space. I am not too confident that the program does a great simulation of the real process since it operates in 2 dimensions only while the real systems use 3. My concern is that this process would typically send a large number of dangerous mass objects into the region between stars and as a consequence some in our direction.The ones that cross our orbit could lead to a catastrophe if they were to collide with the earth. The objects that do not collide would likely continue on their paths through space and out the other side of our solar system. Is there reason to consider this situation as dangerous and is there evidence that this has happened before? Today, most of the comets and asteroids are considered in orbit around our sun, but is that the only condition? How close to earth would an asteroid need to pass before it is detected by our systems? And, if the size were large enough to cause an extinction level event, would we see it before it was too late? It is fairly well established that the history of earth has included many extinction events and they have generally been assumed to be from objects in orbit around the sun. Does anyone know of any proof that none from way out there has impacted us? I recall reading about a period of earth's history where a large quantity of collisions came after the earth was similar to today. This happened when the earth was millions if not a billion years old and since the sun was formed along with numerous brothers, perhaps some of the ejections from it's twins caused the event. The delay would have give them enough time to reach us from adjacent star systems if traveling at a high velocity. Do we have reason to worry? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Worry About Wandering Planets?
Yipes! Do you feel lucky? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 4:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Worry About Wandering Planets? Previous research has predicted there might be 100,000 times more rogue planets in the Milky Way than stars. Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/104210/rogue-planets-could-form-on-their-own-in-interstellar-space/#ixzz2nxcPwnsI On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:59 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Double yes. Best get our DNA spread far and wide as soon as possible On Thursday, December 19, 2013, Axil Axil wrote: yes On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have been enjoying the Planets simulation on my Linux system and noticed something that gave me a bit of concern. Perhaps some of my fellow vorts have information concerning the issue that I am about to mention which sheds light upon the real danger. When I play with a system that contains a large multitude of planet like objects generated randomly within a small region of space I see that in every case many of the objects are ejected from the region at a high rate of speed into open space. I am not too confident that the program does a great simulation of the real process since it operates in 2 dimensions only while the real systems use 3. My concern is that this process would typically send a large number of dangerous mass objects into the region between stars and as a consequence some in our direction.The ones that cross our orbit could lead to a catastrophe if they were to collide with the earth. The objects that do not collide would likely continue on their paths through space and out the other side of our solar system. Is there reason to consider this situation as dangerous and is there evidence that this has happened before? Today, most of the comets and asteroids are considered in orbit around our sun, but is that the only condition? How close to earth would an asteroid need to pass before it is detected by our systems? And, if the size were large enough to cause an extinction level event, would we see it before it was too late? It is fairly well established that the history of earth has included many extinction events and they have generally been assumed to be from objects in orbit around the sun. Does anyone know of any proof that none from way out there has impacted us? I recall reading about a period of earth's history where a large quantity of collisions came after the earth was similar to today. This happened when the earth was millions if not a billion years old and since the sun was formed along with numerous brothers, perhaps some of the ejections from it's twins caused the event. The delay would have give them enough time to reach us from adjacent star systems if traveling at a high velocity. Do we have reason to worry? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Worry About Wandering Planets?
The kind of numeric simulation you describe almost certainly is not conserving energy due to the failure to appropriately handle close perigees with tiny time increments in the numeric approximation. That's the main reason why these things produce high speed projectiles. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:48 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have been enjoying the* Planets* simulation on my Linux system and noticed something that gave me a bit of concern. Perhaps some of my fellow vorts have information concerning the issue that I am about to mention which sheds light upon the real danger. When I play with a system that contains a large multitude of planet like objects generated randomly within a small region of space I see that in every case many of the objects are ejected from the region at a high rate of speed into open space. I am not too confident that the program does a great simulation of the real process since it operates in 2 dimensions only while the real systems use 3. My concern is that this process would typically send a large number of dangerous mass objects into the region between stars and as a consequence some in our direction.The ones that cross our orbit could lead to a catastrophe if they were to collide with the earth. The objects that do not collide would likely continue on their paths through space and out the other side of our solar system. Is there reason to consider this situation as dangerous and is there evidence that this has happened before? Today, most of the comets and asteroids are considered in orbit around our sun, but is that the only condition? How close to earth would an asteroid need to pass before it is detected by our systems? And, if the size were large enough to cause an extinction level event, would we see it before it was too late? It is fairly well established that the history of earth has included many extinction events and they have generally been assumed to be from objects in orbit around the sun. Does anyone know of any proof that none from way out there has impacted us? I recall reading about a period of earth's history where a large quantity of collisions came after the earth was similar to today. This happened when the earth was millions if not a billion years old and since the sun was formed along with numerous brothers, perhaps some of the ejections from it's twins caused the event. The delay would have give them enough time to reach us from adjacent star systems if traveling at a high velocity. Do we have reason to worry? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Even-Even fission means photo fission.
Robin, That is a very nice list of possibilities. I tend to think that we likely will find that one of these which emits helium or protons will prevail. I hold this belief because that allows the energy to be distributed without having to worry about the very high energy gamma rays. Any reaction that produces neutrons or highly energetic gammas has plenty of evidence opposed. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 4:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Even-Even fission means photo fission. In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 18 Dec 2013 23:19:03 -0500: Hi, [snip] 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. You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough energy in the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit. Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one 62Ni fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and that is the reaction:- 1H+62Ni = 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more possible exothermic reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 64Zn + 13.835 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV this one produces iron. 1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV 1H+1H+62Ni = 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV The last 4 produce lighter elements. There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also for the daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :- 1H+1H+64Zn = 66Ge + 10.202 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV 1H+1H+64Zn = 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV Note the many light elements/isotopes. Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements, fission becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one can see this by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent addition of *two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish. Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely shrunken Hydrino molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a neutron, so I think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells of other atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do. And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*. Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter. Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more likely fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules to be magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4 protons may also be possible, e.g. :- 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 66Ge + 24.037 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 65Ga + 1H + 17.778 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 61Zn + 5He + 7.372 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 62Zn + 4He + 21.156 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 63Zn + 3He + 9.692 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 59Cu + 7Li + 3.859 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 60Cu + 6Li + 6.667 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 61Cu + 5Li + 12.713 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Ni + 10Be + 3.707 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 57Ni + 9Be + 7.144 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 17.696 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 59Ni + 7Be + 7.795 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 60Ni + 6Be + 8.507 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 55Co + 11B + 7.769 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Co + 10B + 6.398 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 57Co + 9B + 9.338 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Fe + 14C + 7.721 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 53Fe + 13C + 10.230 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 54Fe + 12C + 18.662 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 55Fe + 11C + 9.239 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 56Fe + 10C + 7.316 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 51Mn + 15N + 10.550 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Mn + 14N + 10.252 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 53Mn + 13N + 11.752 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 54Mn + 12N + 0.627 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 48Cr + 18O + 6.010 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 49Cr + 17O + 8.549 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 50Cr + 16O + 17.406 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 51Cr + 15O + 11.003 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 52Cr + 14O + 9.819 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 47V + 19F + 5.899 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 48V + 18F + 6.011 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 49V + 17F + 8.415 MeV 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni = 50V + 16F +
Re: [Vo]:Worry About Wandering Planets?
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Yipes! Do you feel lucky? Well . . . Do ya, punk? - Jed
