RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
Hi Kevin, I did include two variants of BEC- one is associated with Kim and one with Takahashi. Neither can adequately explain operation at elevated temperatures. This is a list that is continually evolving and I will include a 1D version in the next go-around. Jones From: Kevin O'Malley Thanks for posting this, Jones. It reminds me of an earlier post on Vortex that was a compilation of LENR theories but I cannot find it with the search engine nor even with google. So I'll need to circle back on this item to comment on it because I intended to contrast your post to the earlier post. At any rate, I do not find the V1DLLBEC theory up there. Basically it's my theory that 1D BECs could form at much higher temperatures than expected and generate fusion events. As far as the 2nd miracle of where those fusion events are dissipated into the lattice, one would have to pursue my analogy about balloons within a matrix of tinker toys. When they pop, would you hear them? When a matrix of a few million balloons is generated, and a bullet is fired through it, would you be able to hear it? No, because the output energy would be absorbed into the matrix. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Below can be found at least 12 viable and distinct hypotheses for LENR gain. Given that some of the listings represent slight variations or enabler mechanisms there are more than a dozen entries (16). All are related in some way to hydrogen which is constrained in a lattice, and many require QM tunneling. The range of these, and the generally strong evidence for each are almost conclusive evidence for me that LENR cannot be reduced to a single reaction, nor even two - one for deuterium and one for protium. QM tunneling is complex. But the most controversial suggestion of all is that none of these are mutually exclusive, and several, or even most of them, could be at work simultaneously in any given experiment, if that reactor has all the necessary components. There is not even a good candidate for most likely unless the reaction involves only a limited range of options, such as palladium and deuterium which only produces helium-4 as ash. I am now dropping the attribution - since earlier there were numerous overlooked contributors, like Mitchell Swartz who were not credited but who are still fighting the USPTO for basic priority. 1) The original theory of PF applicable to palladium and deuterium, involving gammaless fusion to helium caused by coherent electron effects (screening) 2) Coulomb mediated reactions in general, including the deflation fusion model. When any one channel is highly favored, such as tritium or He-3, then there will be another separate distinguishable reaction at play, and it often involves an alloy or dopant to the lattice or to an electrolyte. Thus it is distinctly unique, and not a channel reaction. 3) The hydrino (or fractional hydrogen) mechanism. Several variations now exist. The species may be a predecessor step for LENR and may actually provide no excess heat unless it does proceed to a nuclear reaction. 4) The dense hydrogen cluster or dense deuterium model, differentiated as inverted Rydberg hydrogen or a DDL (deep Dirac layer). The DDL can be applicable to deuterium and it can result in something completely different from 1 and 2, such as heat only with no ash. 5) The P-e-P mechanism for Ni-H, which envisions protons fusing to deuterium via screening at much higher probability than in the solar model 6) The NASA filing (US 20110255645) suggests an alternative method for producing heavy electrons as a fusion catalyst in what looks like a beta decay mechanism. This is similar to 2, 5 and 8 7) The proposal of a high temperature BEC - Bose Einstein Condensate and/or the tetrahedral TSC model which is similar. 8) The beta decay/ ultracold neutron mechanism popularized by Widom-Larsen which is similar to a Brillouin/ NASA explanation. 9) Proton addition - to the metal lattice atoms, which was the original Focardi/Rossi conception. Rossi later refined this to emphasize only the heavier nickel isotopes, especially Ni-62 but gammaless. 10) Piantelli has a version of Ni-H with gammas and transmutation. 11) SPP or surface plasmon polariton catalysis in general - which is a theory involving plasmons, phonons and photons. This is more of an enabler pathway for several types of reactions. 12) Casimir dynamics, in general, including a dynamical effect, called DCE. This is an enabler pathway, as are other geometry constraints. 13) Accelerated nuclear decay. Some experiments benefit from unstable isotopes like potassium-40 which can undergo accelerated decay rates, 14) RPF or reversible proton fusion, which is based on the strong force, QCD and a transient state called the diproton, deriving energy from excess proton mass with no gammas. 15) The nanomagnetism
[Vo]:8 MW offshore wind turbine
See: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/02/meet-the-new-worlds-biggest-wind-turbine Tower height: 140-meters Tip height: 220 meters Swept area: 21,000 m^2 - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
Another factor favoring CNT - as the containment mechanism for hydrogen in an alternative version of LENR (instead of a metal lattice) is the similarity to graphene in presence of electrons. There is every reason to suspect that CNT would support ballistic electrons at least as well as graphene. New paper. http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/02/ballistic-transport-graphene-suggests-new- type-electronic-device From: Jones Beene Hi Kevin, I did include two variants of BEC- one is associated with Kim and one with Takahashi. Neither can adequately explain operation at elevated temperatures. This is a list that is continually evolving and I will include a 1D version in the next go-around. Jones From: Kevin O'Malley Thanks for posting this, Jones. It reminds me of an earlier post on Vortex that was a compilation of LENR theories but I cannot find it with the search engine nor even with google.
[Vo]:More Magnetic Coupling Thoughts
Looking deeper into the magnetic coupled positive feedback LENR reaction, I have a few ideas to pass along. I understand that a magnetic field has essentially unlimited access to the atomic structure. By this I mean that a large, static external field can penetrate through the electron cloud surrounding atoms as well as proceed directly throughout the region of the nucleus. The same is certainly not true for an electric field since movement of charged particles takes place to eliminate any internal field outside the atoms themselves. This freedom of magnetic field movement enables coupling to exist among electrons and protons that make up the atomic structures of all connected, and particularly nearby, atoms. i suspect that any magnetic coupling path which transports a significant quantity of energy away from a reaction site would exhibit rapid variations in its magnitude and direction. This rapid flux change would likely be attenuated as it passes through the conductive metal lattice and tends to limit the distance of the effective coupling. The expected attenuation is proportional to the rate of fluxuation. Another interesting feature of the magnetic field behavior is that nickel has magnetic domains that modify the local field pattern within the metal at low to moderate temperatures. At above the Curie temperature(355C) this effect goes away and that also happens to be in the range of temperatures at which LENR activity begins to become important. This may be a coincidence, but I suspect not. I believe that a positive feedback mechanism is in play because of the large magnitude of the measured external magnetic field reported by DGT. Any random process that results in charge movement must tend to cancel out the field when integrated over a significant volume of material. So, if the magnetic coupling among the active sites enhances the reaction rate and those induced reactions increase the initial field in phase, then both build to a large level as I have mentioned previously. A characteristic of this type of system would be for it to exhibit a threshold effect. Until adequate coupling between sites exists, very little LENR activity would be expected to occur. Too few of what we typically refer to as NAE and you only see weak nuclear activity. Perhaps the normal magnetic domains of moderate temperature nickel disrupt the process which again might attenuate the coupling. Impurities within the metal could be a factor to contend with in some instances. The list of problems which prevent the positive feedback from reaching the required threshold may be extensive and has done a significant job of obscuring LENR. DGT apparently has discovered the recipe that enables the magnetic coupling to occur. The same likely is true of Rossi, although he has not publicly described any magnetic field effects except in coded terms. The recent revelation that PF used a large external magnetic field supports the present concept. If their system had adequate natural internal magnetic coupling and the associated feedback, then the external field may not have been necessary. Is anyone aware of how a strong magnetic field from an external source effects the structure of atoms? Do the electrons adjust their orbits in such a manner as to eliminate the external field that extends into the nucleus in a manner similar to the behavior of a super conductor? This is important to understand if we are to determine how the nearby nuclei couple via the field. Also, movement of the charges associated with the metal atoms as well as the hydrogen might reveal the hidden mechanism responsible for the fusion. The exact cause is still lacking explanation. The question remains as to how a strong guiding magnetic field can enhance a fusion reaction that then makes a significant contribution to the driving field. Axil has one general proposal to consider, but there may be a more specific one. Dave
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Alan-- I watched the Hagelstein 5th day lecture last night. With respect to the NiH system some of his optic and sonic coupling arguments went over my head. I did understand the electron shielding argument associated with overcoming the coulomb repulsion issue in the Ni matrix. Its not apparent how this shielding would function at a surface, however. I thought that the solubility of H in nano Ni particles may be considerably higher than it is in bulk Ni. In the Defkalion system there is apparently a Ni matrix which would have low H concentration compared to the nano Ni with its high surface area to volume ratio. This would help focus the energetic reaction in the nano particles and preserve the integrity of the base Ni matrix, keeping the fuel in tact. Hagelstein did not significantly address spin conservation and coupling between the H, D and electrons or spin of the Ni or Pd atoms themselves. This coupling may be buried in his equations and operators--I'm not sure. I think spin coupling is important, particularly with whatever magnetic fields exist within the respective systems. Finally, I do not think Hagelstein addressed the electron-positron reaction with its 0.51 MEV gammas that Rossi and Focardi have identified associated with Cu isotope production, nor other radiation observed in various experiments on the NiH system done by Focardi and others. Check out: Focardi, S., Gabbani, V., Montalbano, V., Piantelli, F. and Veronesi, S., Focardi, S., et al. Evidence of Electromagnetic Radiation From Ni-H Systems, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Marseille, France, (2004) I would be surprised that Focardi did not monitor He-3 and/or H-3, for the same reason Hagelstein indicated interest in He-3 production in the NiH experiments. Bob - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 6:40 PM Subject: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems All of Ruby Carat's/Jeremy Ry's videos are now up http://coldfusionnow.org/2014-cold-fusion-101-video-lectures/ Particularly day 5 Hagelstein http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=Al7NMQLvATo From my cryptic notes (H:M) : 1:25 : he disagrees with Ed Storms, because you need the electron cloud/Gamow factor for the reaction rates. (Gives up 10 orders of magnitude) 1:29 NiH Talks about H2 clustering in Ni Keywords are Fukai phase and elevated vacancy formation 1:50+- Phonon/Accoustic coupling should be about 8Thz -- compare with the recent discussion about Bushnell's 5-30Thz stimulation (Actually I couldn't see Bushnell saying that) Says Piantelli encountered charge generation -- compare Rossi EMF and Defkalion Magnetic effects (I think it comes from He3 creation) 2:05 Briefly discusses Rossi and Defkalion. Says that their COP from Ni powder is in line with Piantelli's rod. Says they should NOT be dismissed out of hand. My thoughts : since H doesn't easily diffuse into Ni (Unlike D in Pd) it's more likely to be a surface effect.
[Vo]:Raven mad or relevant to LENR ???
Remarkable video of crow - solving complex problem on first try. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/crow-smartest-bird_n_4738171.html Relevance to LENR ? Hmmm Maybe it indicates that even us bird-brain humanoids will eventually figure this technology out, sooner or later. BTW the brain-to-body-mass ratio of corvidae (raven family) is equal to that of apes and dolphins... slightly less than humans. Men have called me mad; but the question is not yet settled, whether madness is or is not the loftiest intelligence. ― Edgar Allan Poe attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I would be surprised that Focardi did not monitor He-3 and/or H-3, for the same reason Hagelstein indicated interest in He-3 production in the NiH experiments. Bob Hagelstein said that detecting a He-3 signal with a mass spectrometer is difficult because it might be confused with a HD signal depending on resolution of the spectrometer. Harry
RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook My thoughts : since H doesn't easily diffuse into Ni (Unlike D in Pd) it's more likely to be a surface effect. Perhaps - but misleading. Pure nickel is not a great proton conductor- and one must pay dearly to get pure nickel. But why? It takes only a small amount of selected other metals, as alloying agents for nickel, to far exceed palladium. For instance, 95% nickel and 5% palladium is superior to palladium, at a fraction of the cost. There is a wealth of data on hydrogen storage alloys which tends to be overlooked as candidate alloys for LENR. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Raven mad or relevant to LENR ???
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Remarkable video of crow - solving complex problem on first try. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/crow-smartest-bird_n_4738171.html Relevance to LENR ? Hmmm Maybe it indicates that even us bird-brain humanoids will eventually figure this technology out, sooner or later. ask the crow for help. Harry
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Bob Cook My thoughts : since H doesn't easily diffuse into Ni (Unlike D in Pd) it's more likely to be a surface effect. Perhaps - but misleading. Pure nickel is not a great proton conductor- and one must pay dearly to get pure nickel. But why? It takes only a small amount of selected other metals, as alloying agents for nickel, to far exceed palladium. For instance, 95% nickel and 5% palladium is superior to palladium, at a fraction of the cost. There is a wealth of data on hydrogen storage alloys which tends to be overlooked as candidate alloys for LENR. Jones I think Swartz said in Friday's 2014 MIT video that his lastest NANOR composed of Ni and Pd. harry
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Perhaps - but misleading. Pure nickel is not a great proton conductor- and one must pay dearly to get pure nickel. But why? It takes only a small amount of selected other metals, as alloying agents for nickel, to far exceed palladium. For instance, 95% nickel and 5% palladium is superior to palladium, at a fraction of the cost. Superior for what? Conducting protons? Surely not for loading hydrogen. I have never heard that. - Jed
[Vo]:New Report from Attendee of MIT Cold Fusion Seminar
New Report from Attendee of MIT Cold Fusion Seminar http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/02/new-report-from-attendee-of-mit-cold-fusion-seminar/ Harry
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Harry-- Its not so difficult if you suspect HD--you need to dissociate the HD molecule first and then do a mass spec test on the gas coming out of the system. Neither the H nor the D have a atomic weight (AW) of 3 and a charge of +2. H-3 would be the other most likely AW of 3 and it would be radioactive. It could be gettered from the gas stream with a hydrogen getter. Hagelstein wished during the lecture 2 or 3 times that he could get funding to check for He-3--he commented on loosing funding once for the He-3 testing. He implied that the funding entities did not want him to find He-3. Bob - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I would be surprised that Focardi did not monitor He-3 and/or H-3, for the same reason Hagelstein indicated interest in He-3 production in the NiH experiments. Bob Hagelstein said that detecting a He-3 signal with a mass spectrometer is difficult because it might be confused with a HD signal depending on resolution of the spectrometer. Harry
RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
From: Jed Rothwell Superior for what? Conducting protons? Surely not for loading hydrogen. I have never heard that. Surely you read Ahern's Arata replication for EPRI ? He achieved better loading than the standard of 1:1 with nickel-palladium alloy (at low Pd ratio in the alloy). Many alloys which are tailored for hydrogen storage are in fact better than palladium for that single property (which is the atomic ratio of lattice atoms to hydrogen atoms) This does not meant they will be more active for LENR - only that they will absorb more atoms of hydrogen per atom of lattice. That is what they are designed for. In fact, the alloys which store the most hydrogen are most often NOT anomalous as to energy release, when further stimulated. Unfortunately, the two fields have not been systematically investigated for determining the best of both worlds. Jones
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Jones-- I agree that there are a number of alloys that do better at hydrogen solubility than Ni. However, they may not have the body centered crystal array and may actually have differing phases, some of which hold the hydrogen better than others in the same alloy. The simple crystal structure of pure Ni may be of an advantage in the LENR business. Also I suspect that the nano Ni that is produced is pretty pure. That may be why Rossi uses it and may be the reason other researchers do not have very good luck at getting a good reaction. If you want to be careful about how you stimulate a quantum system with fixed input frequencies, various crystals and impurities may not help. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 1:48 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems -Original Message- From: Bob Cook My thoughts : since H doesn't easily diffuse into Ni (Unlike D in Pd) it's more likely to be a surface effect. Perhaps - but misleading. Pure nickel is not a great proton conductor- and one must pay dearly to get pure nickel. But why? It takes only a small amount of selected other metals, as alloying agents for nickel, to far exceed palladium. For instance, 95% nickel and 5% palladium is superior to palladium, at a fraction of the cost. There is a wealth of data on hydrogen storage alloys which tends to be overlooked as candidate alloys for LENR. Jones
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:00 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Bob Cook My thoughts : since H doesn't easily diffuse into Ni (Unlike D in Pd) it's more likely to be a surface effect. Perhaps - but misleading. Pure nickel is not a great proton conductor- and one must pay dearly to get pure nickel. But why? It takes only a small amount of selected other metals, as alloying agents for nickel, to far exceed palladium. For instance, 95% nickel and 5% palladium is superior to palladium, at a fraction of the cost. There is a wealth of data on hydrogen storage alloys which tends to be overlooked as candidate alloys for LENR. Jones I think Swartz said in Friday's 2014 MIT video that his lastest NANOR composed of Ni and Pd. harry uh sorry his older versions of NANOR use Ni and Pd. Harry
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Surely you read Ahern's Arata replication for EPRI ? He achieved better loading than the standard of 1:1 with nickel-palladium alloy (at low Pd ratio in the alloy). Hmmm . . . I ascribe that to the small particle size. I assume the hydrogen is sticking to the surface, not being absorbed the way it is with bulk palladium. I could be wrong. Also, I wonder if that ratio is measured reliably. With a small mass of metal it can be difficult to measure loading accurately. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook * Also I suspect that the nano Ni that is produced is pretty pure. That may be why Rossi uses it … Not sure that I follow this. Although the Rossi patent mentions nanometric and specifically a favored isotope - Rossi himself has identified his nickel supplier, and says the geometry of his powder is micron not nano (at least at that point in time). Metals (as opposed to ceramics) can seldom be reduced below 10 microns by normal Industrial methods such as ball milling - due to surface electric properties aka: “agglomeration.” That is one reason why “nano” is so special and not fully appreciated wrt metals. It simply cannot happen in normal metal processing (except with mixed ceramics like the oxides of nickel). You might do well to talk to the Ni-O “nano” suppliers, like Quantum sphere: http://www.qsinano.com/products_nanomaterials.html They will set you straight on the lack of anything truly “nano” as a metal. It must have a surface oxide. * … and may be the reason other researchers do not have very good luck at getting a good reaction. No doubt that Rossi, if we can believe his results, has found something that no one else has yet been able to duplicate. It may be serendipitous, but it is not likely to be “nanometric nickel” per se. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:New Report from Attendee of MIT Cold Fusion Seminar
Harry-- Frenchette--the new reporter of the MIT seminar, stated the following: In the case of nickel the hydrogen forms tight clusters. It does not occupy the voids in the lattice as in palladium. This may explain the higher temperatures which are observed with the Hot Cat. (my conjecture) I doubt that the D occupies the voids in the Pd lattice. The Pd would have to have a lot of voids to get the loading Pd:D of .85 and higher. The D must occupy cubic spaces in the center of the Pd face-centered crystaline cell. These spaces would not normally be called voids. My thought at hearing the same comment from Hagelstine about the clusters of H in the Ni was that they may be BEC's consistent with what Kim thinks. Bob - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 2:06 PM Subject: [Vo]:New Report from Attendee of MIT Cold Fusion Seminar New Report from Attendee of MIT Cold Fusion Seminar http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/02/new-report-from-attendee-of-mit-cold-fusion-seminar/ Harry
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
To: *Toddsterpatriot* Kevmo: We could go and look at the sun long before that money was spent, Toddiot: Yes, and the sun is proof that fusion can produce useful amounts of energy. ***Yup, if you're 93 million miles away. And the fact that we spent hundreds of $billions and all we have to show for it is the ability to look at the sun and bask in it, WTF was that money spent on? We KNOW that CHF funds were NOT spent on solar power cells. We are no closer to controlling Hot Fusion than we are to time travel, but we've got a multihundred $Billion bill to pay. We paid for absolutely NOTHING. It was a fraud. What is the proof for cold-fusion? Rossi's (H2O2) reactor? LOL! ***All Rossi, all the time. The proof for cold fusion is in the 14000 replications. And other strong evidence, 32 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=32#32 posted on *Thu 06 Feb 2014 06:51:17 PM PST* by Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ekevmo/ (A person's a person, no matter how small ~Horton Hears a Who) On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I have seen some skeptopaths say that an HBomb is an example of Controlled Hot Fusion (CHF). This is, of course, an extremely stupid position. An HBomb is an UNcontrolled reaction. We have pissed hundreds of $billions trying to CONTROL that reaction, such as with lasers, magnetic confinement, and other things. What is the result, after spending so much money trying to control the HBomb? Nothing. The following interaction is an example. It is also useful because he hints that Solar Energy is an example of CHF, even though CHF funds NEVER went into solar power. NEVER. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=23#23 To: *Kevmo* Right, because no one has ever *seen* useful amounts of energy produced by fusion. It's like arguing with a deaf 2 year old. 23 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=23#23posted on *Wed 05 Feb 2014 08:46:23 PM PST* by Toddsterpatriothttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etoddsterpatriot/(Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.) [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/reply?c=23| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3114918.23;reftype=comment| To 21 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=29#21 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/replies?c=23 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/abuse?c=23] -- To: *Toddsterpatriot* By ALL FREEPING MEANS, post where ANY amount of Useful Energy has been produced by CHF. H-Bombs are not an example of CHF. But if you want to argue from that premise, it will be useful for the asked answered offsite knowlege storage reference. 24 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=24#24posted on *Wed 05 Feb 2014 09:02:04 PM PST* by Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ekevmo/ (A person's a person, no matter how small ~Horton Hears a Who) [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/reply?c=24| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3114918.24;reftype=comment| To 23 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=29#23 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/replies?c=24 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/abuse?c=24] -- To: *Kevmo* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy 25 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=25#25posted on *Wed 05 Feb 2014 09:27:12 PM PST* by Toddsterpatriothttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etoddsterpatriot/(Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.) [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/reply?c=25| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3114918.25;reftype=comment| To 24 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=29#24 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/replies?c=25 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/abuse?c=25] -- To: *Toddsterpatriot* That is a demonstration of supposedly Controlled Hot Fusion? Where does 'fusion' occur within those solar cells? It doesn't. Everyone knows that except you. Your CHF fraud boys produced Zip, as usual. 26 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=26#26posted on *Wed 05 Feb 2014 09:32:41 PM PST* by Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ekevmo/ (A person's a person, no matter how small ~Horton Hears a Who) [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/reply?c=26| Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3114918.26;reftype=comment| To 25 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=29#25 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/replies?c=26 | Report Abuse
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Also I suspect that the nano Ni that is produced is pretty pure. That may be why Rossi uses it and may be the reason other researchers do not have very good luck at getting a good reaction. I'm guessing that the purity of Rossi's nickel (in terms of 62Ni and 64Ni) is related to avoiding beta-plus and beta-minus decay, and, with beta-plus decay, the 511 keV positron-electron annihilation photons. Some vorts may enjoy this video of a small cloud chamber [1]. It's remarkable that such a small event can have macroscopic effects. Eric [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQVMrkJYShc
Re: [Vo]:8 MW offshore wind turbine
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Tower height: 140-meters Tip height: 220 meters Swept area: 21,000 m^2 I would not want to be near this one in a hurricane. Eric
Re: [Vo]:8 MW offshore wind turbine
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Tower height: 140-meters Tip height: 220 meters Swept area: 21,000 m^2 I would not want to be near this one in a hurricane. It is offshore. Not likely anyone will be near an offshore wind turbine in a hurricane. Or if you are near one, on a boat or a ship, you have a lot more to worry about than the tower falling over. You would be about to run aground and sink, I suppose. They feather the blades in high winds. Still, towers do sometimes collapse. Do a Google image search for wind turbine accidents and you will see they can be awesome. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
This is the pedantic argument that solar energy is actually fusion energy, because the sun is a fusion reactor. Yes, it is, but from an engineering point of view it is ridiculous to classify solar energy as a form of fusion -- or as nuclear power, more broadly speaking. Space-based solar which continues 24-hours a day at high power density would more closely resemble nuclear power. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
I wrote: Hmmm . . . I ascribe that to the small particle size. I assume the hydrogen is sticking to the surface, not being absorbed the way it is with bulk palladium. I mean it is adsorbed rather than absorbed. Further, I meant that palladium particles will also adsorb large amounts -- I think. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Asked Answered
I have seen some skeptopaths say that an HBomb is an example of Controlled Hot Fusion (CHF). This is, of course, an extremely stupid position. An HBomb is an UNcontrolled reaction. We have pissed hundreds of $billions trying to CONTROL that reaction, such as with lasers, magnetic confinement, and other things. What is the result, after spending so much money trying to control the HBomb? Nothing. The following interaction is an example. It is also useful because he hints that Solar Energy is an example of CHF, even though CHF funds NEVER went into solar power. NEVER. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=23#23 To: *Kevmo* Right, because no one has ever *seen* useful amounts of energy produced by fusion. It's like arguing with a deaf 2 year old. 23 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=23#23 posted on *Wed 05 Feb 2014 08:46:23 PM PST* by Toddsterpatriothttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etoddsterpatriot/(Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.) [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/reply?c=23 | Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3114918.23;reftype=comment| To 21 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=29#21 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/replies?c=23 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/abuse?c=23] -- To: *Toddsterpatriot* By ALL FREEPING MEANS, post where ANY amount of Useful Energy has been produced by CHF. H-Bombs are not an example of CHF. But if you want to argue from that premise, it will be useful for the asked answered offsite knowlege storage reference. 24 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=24#24 posted on *Wed 05 Feb 2014 09:02:04 PM PST* by Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ekevmo/ (A person's a person, no matter how small ~Horton Hears a Who) [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/reply?c=24 | Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3114918.24;reftype=comment| To 23 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=29#23 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/replies?c=24 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/abuse?c=24] -- To: *Kevmo* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy 25 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=25#25 posted on *Wed 05 Feb 2014 09:27:12 PM PST* by Toddsterpatriothttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etoddsterpatriot/(Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.) [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/reply?c=25 | Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3114918.25;reftype=comment| To 24 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=29#24 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/replies?c=25 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/abuse?c=25] -- To: *Toddsterpatriot* That is a demonstration of supposedly Controlled Hot Fusion? Where does 'fusion' occur within those solar cells? It doesn't. Everyone knows that except you. Your CHF fraud boys produced Zip, as usual. 26 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=26#26 posted on *Wed 05 Feb 2014 09:32:41 PM PST* by Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ekevmo/ (A person's a person, no matter how small ~Horton Hears a Who) [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/reply?c=26 | Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3114918.26;reftype=comment| To 25 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=29#25 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/replies?c=26 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/abuse?c=26] -- To: *Kevmo* Right, because no one has ever *seen* useful amounts of energy produced by fusion. Deaf and blind. 27 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=27#27 posted on *Thu 06 Feb 2014 06:08:38 AM PST* by Toddsterpatriothttp://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etoddsterpatriot/(Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.) [ Post Reply http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/reply?c=27 | Private Replyhttp://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3114918.27;reftype=comment| To 26 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/posts?page=29#26 | View Replies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/replies?c=27 | Report Abuse http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3114918/abuse?c=27] -- To: *Toddsterpatriot* There is nothing controlled nor useful about an H-Bomb. It is UNcontrolled. It's the difference between 13th century Chinese gunpowder bombs and 21st century Internal Combustion Engines. 700 years difference, control vs. uncontrolled. But someone as ignorant as you is calling an Hbomb useful amounts of energy produced. Go ahead and stand
