[Vo]:Parkhomov method going viral?
Dear Readers, This is my personal in-depth analysis of the Parkhomov confirming Lugano experiment event. The author know- implicitly I guess the Principle of Chief Engineer you never wanted to accept. The problem is if we can help Parkhomov to go viral, at his turn, his set-up being reproduced and tested in MANY labs. See please how! Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:FYI: for all those interested in SETI...
Free downloadable book from NASA. http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Archaeology_Anthropology_and_I nterstellar_Communication_TAGGED.pdf -mark
[Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride
Mills recently had more uncomplimentary things to say about recent LENR research. See SCP thread: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride See thread: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations /topics/4274 * A poster, James Bowery, brought up a discussion about Alexander Parkhomov's recent work. James posted: Alexander Parkhomov, a Russian scientist: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov claims he has replicated Rossi's E-Cat using a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride. He provides an English translation of his report: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf In his replication, he measures heat output by completely boiling off a fixed amount of water rather than inferring power output via infrared camera. He reports no radioactivity or energetic gammas. Randy's initial reply: How does he know what is in the Ecat cell? LiAlH4 + Ni as a hydrogen dissociator run at elevated temperature is disclosed in my patents. They are filed in Russia. James Replied: A few people have been speculating for some time that Rossi's E-Cat nickle-based catalytic system was actually a takeoff of Hydrocatalysis Power Corp's nickle-based catalytic technology. One might further speculate that Dr. Parkhomov took that seriously enough to look into the BLP Russian patent filings involving LiAlH4 + Ni. Randy's follow-up reply: In general, I have found the rogues left in that bogus cold fusion field are very poor at science, self deluded, or dishonest. Telling is that I was flamed when I published on a catalytic reaction involving light hydrogen and nickel, and now it is the main event. Of course, no one admits to my work. Shameful. Good luck to them getting light hydrogen to fuse or undergo a nuclear reaction. None the less I think that it is a mistake to use a hydrogen porous vessel for a hydrino reaction. * Obviously there is no love lost between Dr. Mills and the loosely associated LENR community - at least it would seem from Dr. Mills' POV. Of particular interest to me, Dr. Mills states (and also complains that) he had once been flamed when he published work on ... a catalytic reaction involving light hydrogen and nickel, and now it is the main [LENR] event. Mills initially seems to be saying that he finds many LENR researchers to be, in his opinion, very poor at science, self deluded, or dishonest. But then he follows up with the comment that he had been flamed and that no on admits to [his prior] work. IMO, that would seem to contradict Mills' prior claim that he finds LENR research to be a bogus science filled with some dishonest researchers. I tend to think Mills makes such statements primarily for strategic BLP business reasons rather than wanting to make an honest effort to discuss any underlying scientific content of the latest LENR data. From Mils' POV, they are unwelcomed distractions. IOW, Move along, move along... nothing to see here. I would add, it's an understandable position any CEO might take for strategic BLP business reasons - primarily to maintain control over their RD plans. But from the perspective of pursuing scientific inquiry...it stinks. Comments? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride
Quite aside from the business consequences of his comments, my perception of Mills is that the failure of the LENR community to take his theory more seriously -- particularly given the LENR community's theoretic poverty -- is bad science, independent of the quality of the empirical work of the LENR community. If his theory is as coherent, all encompassing and supported by experiment as he believes it is, then his contempt for the LENR community's ignorance of it -- particularly given the dominant culture's hostility to it -- is quite understandable. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Mills recently had more uncomplimentary things to say about recent LENR research. See SCP thread: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride See thread: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/topics/4274 * A poster, James Bowery, brought up a discussion about Alexander Parkhomov's recent work. James posted: Alexander Parkhomov, a Russian scientist: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov claims he has replicated Rossi's E-Cat using a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride. He provides an English translation of his report: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf In his replication, he measures heat output by completely boiling off a fixed amount of water rather than inferring power output via infrared camera. He reports no radioactivity or energetic gammas. Randy's initial reply: How does he know what is in the Ecat cell? LiAlH4 + Ni as a hydrogen dissociator run at elevated temperature is disclosed in my patents. They are filed in Russia. James Replied: A few people have been speculating for some time that Rossi's E-Cat nickle-based catalytic system was actually a takeoff of Hydrocatalysis Power Corp's nickle-based catalytic technology. One might further speculate that Dr. Parkhomov took that seriously enough to look into the BLP Russian patent filings involving LiAlH4 + Ni. Randy's follow-up reply: In general, I have found the rogues left in that bogus cold fusion field are very poor at science, self deluded, or dishonest. Telling is that I was flamed when I published on a catalytic reaction involving light hydrogen and nickel, and now it is the main event. Of course, no one admits to my work. Shameful. Good luck to them getting light hydrogen to fuse or undergo a nuclear reaction. None the less I think that it is a mistake to use a hydrogen porous vessel for a hydrino reaction. * Obviously there is no love lost between Dr. Mills and the loosely associated LENR community - at least it would seem from Dr. Mills' POV. Of particular interest to me, Dr. Mills states (and also complains that) he had once been flamed when he published work on ... a catalytic reaction involving light hydrogen and nickel, and now it is the main [LENR] event. Mills initially seems to be saying that he finds many LENR researchers to be, in his opinion, very poor at science, self deluded, or dishonest. But then he follows up with the comment that he had been flamed and that no on admits to [his prior] work. IMO, that would seem to contradict Mills' prior claim that he finds LENR research to be a bogus science filled with some dishonest researchers. I tend to think Mills makes such statements primarily for strategic BLP business reasons rather than wanting to make an honest effort to discuss any underlying scientific content of the latest LENR data. From Mils' POV, they are unwelcomed distractions. IOW, Move along, move along... nothing to see here. I would add, it's an understandable position any CEO might take for strategic BLP business reasons - primarily to maintain control over their RD plans. But from the perspective of pursuing scientific inquiry...it stinks. Comments? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride
From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson Mills recently had more uncomplimentary things to say about recent LENR research. See SCP thread: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride See thread: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations /topics/4274 * Mills is probably correct about his large contribution to the field - but sadly misinformed about the limits of his patent coverage. He apparently still believes that he can patent a theory. His patents do not anticipate the high temperature ceramic reactor, nor do they anticipate SPP, nor the key feature of near-phase-change in Li-Al alloy. Yes - he deserve more credit for his insight than he gets, but he should acknowledge that his actual devices have been one failure after another going back 20 years. This inability to take a useful theory from Lab to market is hard to fathom but the reality of having nothing to demonstrate, which can be independently verified - is one reason why Mills is routinely ignored by peers well he is arrogant enough to think he has no peers, but that is part of the problem, isnt it? The interest in lithium as either reactant or catalyst has been jolted by the Parkhomov report, which if anything appears to be much more convincing than the Levi report on which it was based. Not to mention far more convincing than the madly sparking seam welder, LOL. Yet the Russian results do look closer to the f/H (fractional hydrogen) reaction than anything nuclear. OTOH, this reaction is not what BLP wishes that they had covered in IP. Close, but mention of one catalyst is not close enough when half the periodic table qualitied under your theory. The probative question is - how does aluminum facilitate access to the deep Rydberg ionization potential of lithium, in a way which has been missed by everyone including Mills? First, we can note that after the hydrogen is released from LiAlH4, the lithium remains alloyed to aluminum, since there is no intrinsic mechanism to separate the metals below the Li boiling point of 1342 °C which is closely approached, and this is notably where maximum COP occurs for Parkhomov. In an alloy, lithium atoms near the boiling point would react differently than as an element. Near-phase-change could be the key to the exotherm and to promoting double ionization of Li. To back up a bit as far back as the early nineties, lithium was claimed to be responsible for most of the energy gain in electrolytic reactions, since as an doubly positive ion, Li has the characteristic energy hole define by Mills for promoting ground state redundancy. The first IP is 5.4 eV and the second is 75.64 eV and together, they present a deficit which is very close to the value of (3 x 27.2 = 81.6 eV). Nickel provides two more holes so the net reaction being demonstrated both here and for 25 years does fit into Mills model superficially. Yet achieving the ~76 eV to create the hole is almost out of the question for electrolysis in terms of probability and even at 1300 degrees it would be rare. Yet this can happen readily during energetic phase change (as Parkhomov has apparently demonstrated). Going beyond Mills - the interatomic spacing for Al-Li alloy is unique at 3.2 Angstrom which is far closer than the crystal spacing in either pure lithium or aluminum or any other alloy of the two, indicating a high order of structure but only in the 1:1 alloy. Therefore the phase change for boil-off of lithium would be expected to be extraordinarily energetic in the sense of recalescence and promoting double ionization. Recalescence is a temporary increase in power, sometimes extreme, which occurs when molten metal goes through phase-change on cooling. The near boil-off of the double positive ion would expose Li++ to hydrogen gas, even without complete boil-off. Plus, the phase change can be strongly exothermic even without ground state redundancy; but not net gainful, since it should be reversible without an intrinsic power source which Mills theory describes. Three cheers for the redundant ground state part of the theory - which he got right! So yes, Mills theory can explain the major part of the Parkhomov experiment, but not all of it. And no, this device is not protected by any BLP patent which I have seen. The theory of operation is not patentable in itself, only a device - so even though Mills could (and possibly should) win a big prize one day - for the basic theory - he may miss the economic bounty of a working device. Unless that wildly sparking seam-welder does work for more than a few hours at a time J
Re: [Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride
Sigh . . . I had forgotten what a jerk Mills can be. He owes everything to Fleischmann Pons -- as do we all. If they had not published, he never would have thought to do his first experiments. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride
Its not clear that he owes everything to Fleischmann Pons. If they had not published, he might well have developed his theory from his original motivation, which was high temperature superconductivity. Given fractional Rydberg states its clear that their pusuit would be a new source of energy. While it is certainly no fault of Fleischmann Pons, it may even be the case that Mills would have marketed an energy technology years earlier if they had not published and triggered hysterical opposition from the authorities. Stolper's book on Mills http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Inventor-controversy-historical-contemporary/dp/1419643045 has passages such as that concerning high-temperature superconductivity on p105: Mills began the sustained work on his reformulation of quantum theory in the fall of 1988, when he became interested in high-temperature superconductivity. He wondered whether it would be possible at room temperature. He soon found that he couldn't get a grip on the problem with standard quantum mechanics... In Anderson's opinion, superconductivity needed an entirely new theory. Mils carried that opinion to its logical extreme, which was further than any other investigator of superconductivity cared to go: develop a new quantum theory, not just a new theory of superconductivity On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Sigh . . . I had forgotten what a jerk Mills can be. He owes everything to Fleischmann Pons -- as do we all. If they had not published, he never would have thought to do his first experiments. - Jed
[Vo]:Oil crashing again today
http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-plunges-december-29-2014-12
[Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
I'm assuming this is just nonsense but some of the patho-skeptics are claiming that the russian report would have to produce dry steam in order to reach the energy levels he's claiming. While I'm still very skeptical, and his COP numbers have already been proven to be nonsense, I would assume such a simple issues as this would have been pointed out already by the serious minds on this list.
Re: [Vo]:Oil crashing again today
It's more likely geopolitics than cold fusion, if that's what you are thinking. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Steam Quality1000.950.90.850.8Deg C1,2901,290 1,2901,2901,290min4040404040W498498498498498J (Elec) 1,195,200 1,195,200 1,195,200 1,195,200 1,195,200kg Water (Evap) 1.21.141.0260.87210.69768J (Evap) 2,712,000 2,576,400 2,318,760 1,970,946 1,576,757Heat Loss (W) 155 155 155 155 155Heat Loss (J) 372,000372,000372,000372,000372,000Total J Produced 3,084,000 2,948,400 2,690,760 2,342,946 1,948,757COP2.582.472.251.961.63 Unless a visble amount of carryover, steam in contact with water should be = 95% quality On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm assuming this is just nonsense but some of the patho-skeptics are claiming that the russian report would have to produce dry steam in order to reach the energy levels he's claiming. While I'm still very skeptical, and his COP numbers have already been proven to be nonsense, I would assume such a simple issues as this would have been pointed out already by the serious minds on this list.
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm assuming this is just nonsense but some of the patho-skeptics are claiming that the russian report would have to produce dry steam in order to reach the energy levels he's claiming. If you assume the results are in error, they would have to be wet steam sometimes and dry steam at other times, because the apparent excess heat varies. That is highly unlikely. There is no reason to think this is anything but ordinary dry steam. The vent is well above the water level, at the top of the reactor. Drops of water will not escape. While I'm still very skeptical, and his COP numbers have already been proven to be nonsense . . . No, they have not. This is your imagination. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
No, they have not. This is your imagination. The COP numbers don't include the ramp up to 1000. Stoyan pointed this out as well. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm assuming this is just nonsense but some of the patho-skeptics are claiming that the russian report would have to produce dry steam in order to reach the energy levels he's claiming. If you assume the results are in error, they would have to be wet steam sometimes and dry steam at other times, because the apparent excess heat varies. That is highly unlikely. There is no reason to think this is anything but ordinary dry steam. The vent is well above the water level, at the top of the reactor. Drops of water will not escape. While I'm still very skeptical, and his COP numbers have already been proven to be nonsense . . . No, they have not. This is your imagination. - Jed
[Vo]:Driverless farm tractors
Driverless farm tractors http://fortune.com/2014/12/29/driverless-tractors-on-the-farm/?xid=yahoo_fortune Harry
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Thanks chem e .. Very informative. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:58 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Steam Quality1000.950.90.850.8Deg C1,2901,290 1,2901,2901,290min4040404040W498498498498498J (Elec) 1,195,200 1,195,200 1,195,200 1,195,200 1,195,200kg Water (Evap) 1.21.141.0260.87210.69768J (Evap) 2,712,000 2,576,400 2,318,760 1,970,946 1,576,757Heat Loss (W) 155 155 155 155 155Heat Loss (J)372,000372,000372,000 372,000372,000Total J Produced 3,084,000 2,948,400 2,690,760 2,342,946 1,948,757COP2.582.472.251.961.63 Unless a visble amount of carryover, steam in contact with water should be = 95% quality On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm assuming this is just nonsense but some of the patho-skeptics are claiming that the russian report would have to produce dry steam in order to reach the energy levels he's claiming. While I'm still very skeptical, and his COP numbers have already been proven to be nonsense, I would assume such a simple issues as this would have been pointed out already by the serious minds on this list.
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Don't get me wrong, the results are interesting for sure. The COP is making huge assumptions that the excess energy would continue. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: No, they have not. This is your imagination. The COP numbers don't include the ramp up to 1000. Stoyan pointed this out as well.
Re: [Vo]:Oil crashing again today
If the russian results are *real, I mean objectively real and have been reproduced in private labs that are paid millions of dollars to stay on top of these things (for example, they've already known that nickel + lialh4 can produce this, they just didn't release it because of the significant oil investments of their employers) than I believe that the crash in Oil prices is absolutely related to this discovery. It would only makes sense that the powers that be can see the writing on the wall and are trying to get out while the getting is good. However, if the results are not real and not reproducible and have not been reproduced in said private labs, than I agree, this absolutely not related to this (I don't think it's clear that it's nuclear in origin, btw). On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: It's more likely geopolitics than cold fusion, if that's what you are thinking. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Driverless farm tractors
These are very common today. I have family that uses them. That being said, they're usually still piloted and they mostly use them because they're more accurate than trying to drive them, but they need to be there when things inevitably go awry. 2014-12-29 11:11 GMT-10:00 H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com: Driverless farm tractors http://fortune.com/2014/12/29/driverless-tractors-on-the-farm/?xid=yahoo_fortune Harry
Re: [Vo]:Driverless farm tractors
They will also read the newspaper or something on the long straight lines and then put them down on the turns. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: These are very common today. I have family that uses them. That being said, they're usually still piloted and they mostly use them because they're more accurate than trying to drive them, but they need to be there when things inevitably go awry. 2014-12-29 11:11 GMT-10:00 H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com: Driverless farm tractors http://fortune.com/2014/12/29/driverless-tractors-on-the-farm/?xid=yahoo_fortune Harry
RE: [Vo]:the Parkhomov paper translated
It is interesting that in figure 4 of the report the heating coils wrapped around the Al2O3 cylinder appear dark. This suggests that the inside of the cylinder is hotter than the coils. http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Oil crashing again today
since long I imagined the symptom that LENR is accepted by interesting people (this mean not the media or academics) - some tycoon will be interested, and many wil divest from fossils nuke and renewable - some big corps /consortium will send their skunkwork and innovation divisions to contact - future of oil will crash, and more than that allasset linked to oil will crash (oil field, companies, explorations technology) sure it is not happening today. it is only shale and AGW policies. ;-) 2014-12-29 22:35 GMT+01:00 Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com: If the russian results are *real, I mean objectively real and have been reproduced in private labs that are paid millions of dollars to stay on top of these things (for example, they've already known that nickel + lialh4 can produce this, they just didn't release it because of the significant oil investments of their employers) than I believe that the crash in Oil prices is absolutely related to this discovery. It would only makes sense that the powers that be can see the writing on the wall and are trying to get out while the getting is good. However, if the results are not real and not reproducible and have not been reproduced in said private labs, than I agree, this absolutely not related to this (I don't think it's clear that it's nuclear in origin, btw). On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: It's more likely geopolitics than cold fusion, if that's what you are thinking. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Oil crashing again today
If they've repro'd LENR or whatever in their labs, I am pretty sure even the Saudi's can see more than 1 move ahead in chess. I think saying this is not connected is saying you don't really believe that anyone has actually achieved anything significant yet. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: since long I imagined the symptom that LENR is accepted by interesting people (this mean not the media or academics) - some tycoon will be interested, and many wil divest from fossils nuke and renewable - some big corps /consortium will send their skunkwork and innovation divisions to contact - future of oil will crash, and more than that allasset linked to oil will crash (oil field, companies, explorations technology) sure it is not happening today. it is only shale and AGW policies. ;-) 2014-12-29 22:35 GMT+01:00 Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com: If the russian results are *real, I mean objectively real and have been reproduced in private labs that are paid millions of dollars to stay on top of these things (for example, they've already known that nickel + lialh4 can produce this, they just didn't release it because of the significant oil investments of their employers) than I believe that the crash in Oil prices is absolutely related to this discovery. It would only makes sense that the powers that be can see the writing on the wall and are trying to get out while the getting is good. However, if the results are not real and not reproducible and have not been reproduced in said private labs, than I agree, this absolutely not related to this (I don't think it's clear that it's nuclear in origin, btw). On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: It's more likely geopolitics than cold fusion, if that's what you are thinking. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:A future LENR candidate technology?
http://phys.org/news/2014-12-unveils-half-light-half-matter-quantum-particles.html
Re: [Vo]:Oil crashing again today
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: If they've repro'd LENR or whatever in their labs, I am pretty sure even the Saudi's can see more than 1 move ahead in chess. Only if they have heard of this, and they believe it, which I strongly doubt. I think saying this is not connected is saying you don't really believe that anyone has actually achieved anything significant yet. In my case, I think that what has been achieved in cold fusion is the most significant technology since the invention of fire. However, I think there is no connection to the price of oil because very few people realize what has been done in cold fusion. I have spoken with people in the oil business and other conventional energy systems. They have no knowledge of this. Even even if they did know, I am pretty sure they would dismiss it. That's human nature. People do not want to seriously consider things that will bankrupt them and end their careers. Here is an example from W. Isaacson's book The Innovators which I am just reading. In 1973, the head of a Xerox research facility in Webster, NY told one of the people from Xerox PARC, The computer will never be as important to society as the copier. (p. 294) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Don't get me wrong, the results are interesting for sure. The COP is making huge assumptions that the excess energy would continue. No, those are not huge assumptions. The excess heat in cold fusion has often continued, sometimes for weeks or months. With a reaction as large as this, they might have trouble quenching it, but I doubt they would have a problem maintaining it. The 8-minute burst of heat after death indicates that. (I am assuming it is a real effect and not an experimental error, and I am assuming it is cold fusion.) YOU are the one making huge assumptions, and ignorant statements about a subject you apparently never bother to study. You keep coming up with assertions that fly in the face of what we know about cold fusion. You think you have some kind of mystical power to predict whether cold fusion exists to with a percentage point, yet you don't bother learning anything about it. I find that arrogant. And annoying. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mills critical critiques on LENR: a mixture of nickel and lithium aluminum hydride
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Its not clear that he owes everything to Fleischmann Pons. His first experiments were electrochemical with nickel, similar to FP's experiments with Pd. As I recall, he said he was prompted to do them by the reports of cold fusion. He also repeatedly claimed that he can explain cold fusion based on his theory. Now he says cold fusion is bogus and the researchers are very poor at science, self deluded, or dishonest. You do not need his theory to explain bogus results, do you? You don't need any theory. You just dismiss them. You toss them out, along with the laws of thermodynamics and calorimetry going back to Lavoisier. All wrong. Hundreds of world class experts from hundreds of major laboratories are all very poor at science. Who knew that National Labs and places like BARC were staffed by such dunderheads? Even if his theories prove right, personally he is yet another tiresome, arrogant fool. - Jed
[Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
FYI: Article being referenced is at the bottom, however, I wanted to toss something out to The Collective first… One of the things that caught my eye in the article is the ‘room temperature’ condition… As we all know, atoms at room temp are vibrating like crazy since they contain the equivalent of 273degC of energy above their lowest state. Thus, ‘coherent’ states in condensed matter above absolute zero is almost never seen. The article’s experiment was done in material at room temp, so the observed behavior is a bit of a surprise. Perhaps what they have not yet thought about is that the ‘microcavities’ have no temperature, as I will explain below. This ties in with a point I tried to explain to Dr. Storms, and although I think he realizes my point had merit, he glossed right over it and went off on a different tangent. This was in a vortex discussion about 9 to 12 months ago. The point is this: The ‘temperature’ inside a ‘void’ in a crystal lattice is most likely that of the vacuum of space; i.e, absolute zero, or very close to it. Because, temperature is nothing more than excess energy imparted to atoms from neighboring atoms; atoms have temperature; space/vacuum does not. Without atoms (physical matter), you have no temperature. In a lattice void, if it is large enough (whatever that dimension is), there is NO ‘temperature’ inside since the void contains no atoms. If an atom diffuses into that void, it enters with whatever energy it had when it entered, so it has a temperature. At this time, I have not heard any discussion as to whether the atoms which make up the walls of the void shed IR photons which could get absorbed by an atom in the void and increase its temperature, however, would that atom want to immediately shed that photon to get back to its lowest energy level??? So voids in crystals likely provide an ideal environment for the formation of BECs. -mark iverson ARTICLE BEING REFERENCED Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v9/n1/full/nphoton.2014.304.html Abstract “Two-dimensional atomic crystals of graphene, as well as transition-metal dichalcogenides, have emerged as a class of materials that demonstrate strong interaction with light. This interaction can be further controlled by embedding such materials into optical microcavities. When the interaction rate is engineered to be faster than dissipation from the light and matter entities, one reaches the ‘strong coupling’ regime. This results in the formation of half-light, half-matter bosonic quasiparticles called microcavity polaritons. Here, we report evidence of strong light–matter coupling and the formation of microcavity polaritons in a two-dimensional atomic crystal of molybdenum disulphide (MoS2) embedded inside a dielectric microcavity at room temperature. A Rabi splitting of 46 ± 3 meV is observed in angle-resolved reflectivity and photoluminescence spectra due to coupling between the two-dimensional excitons and the cavity photons. Realizing strong coupling at room temperature in two-dimensional materials that offer a disorder-free potential landscape provides an attractive route for the development of practical polaritonic devices.”
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
I said, “equivalent of 273degC of energy” Meant to use Kelvin. Correction, make that ~295degsK; room temp is ~22degC, 0C=273K, plus 22 = 295K. -mi From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 7:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals FYI: Article being referenced is at the bottom, however, I wanted to toss something out to The Collective first… One of the things that caught my eye in the article is the ‘room temperature’ condition… As we all know, atoms at room temp are vibrating like crazy since they contain the equivalent of 273degC of energy above their lowest state. Thus, ‘coherent’ states in condensed matter above absolute zero is almost never seen. The article’s experiment was done in material at room temp, so the observed behavior is a bit of a surprise. Perhaps what they have not yet thought about is that the ‘microcavities’ have no temperature, as I will explain below. This ties in with a point I tried to explain to Dr. Storms, and although I think he realizes my point had merit, he glossed right over it and went off on a different tangent. This was in a vortex discussion about 9 to 12 months ago. The point is this: The ‘temperature’ inside a ‘void’ in a crystal lattice is most likely that of the vacuum of space; i.e, absolute zero, or very close to it. Because, temperature is nothing more than excess energy imparted to atoms from neighboring atoms; atoms have temperature; space/vacuum does not. Without atoms (physical matter), you have no temperature. In a lattice void, if it is large enough (whatever that dimension is), there is NO ‘temperature’ inside since the void contains no atoms. If an atom diffuses into that void, it enters with whatever energy it had when it entered, so it has a temperature. At this time, I have not heard any discussion as to whether the atoms which make up the walls of the void shed IR photons which could get absorbed by an atom in the void and increase its temperature, however, would that atom want to immediately shed that photon to get back to its lowest energy level??? So voids in crystals likely provide an ideal environment for the formation of BECs. -mark iverson ARTICLE BEING REFERENCED Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v9/n1/full/nphoton.2014.304.html Abstract “Two-dimensional atomic crystals of graphene, as well as transition-metal dichalcogenides, have emerged as a class of materials that demonstrate strong interaction with light. This interaction can be further controlled by embedding such materials into optical microcavities. When the interaction rate is engineered to be faster than dissipation from the light and matter entities, one reaches the ‘strong coupling’ regime. This results in the formation of half-light, half-matter bosonic quasiparticles called microcavity polaritons. Here, we report evidence of strong light–matter coupling and the formation of microcavity polaritons in a two-dimensional atomic crystal of molybdenum disulphide (MoS2) embedded inside a dielectric microcavity at room temperature. A Rabi splitting of 46 ± 3 meV is observed in angle-resolved reflectivity and photoluminescence spectra due to coupling between the two-dimensional excitons and the cavity photons. Realizing strong coupling at room temperature in two-dimensional materials that offer a disorder-free potential landscape provides an attractive route for the development of practical polaritonic devices.”
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
Casimir forces in a Plasma: Possible Connections to Yukawa Potentials http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf Because of the vacuum energy, a plasma of virtual electron positron pairs exists in the space between two subatomic particles. Mesons form as excitons in this plasma. This is where pions come from in the nucleus that bind protons and neutrons together in a mutual pion mediated transmutation dance. I suspect the same plasma formation happens in larger cavities and is a direct result of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, Coherence in these half matter half light systems is a function on the strength of the pumping mechanism. Coherence can occur at any temperature as long as the incoming pumping energy is strong enough. When we have a BEC feed with incoming pumped nuclear energy, very high temperatures can be reached. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: FYI: Article being referenced is at the bottom, however, I wanted to toss something out to The Collective first… One of the things that caught my eye in the article is the ‘room temperature’ condition… As we all know, atoms at room temp are vibrating like crazy since they contain the equivalent of 273degC of energy above their lowest state. Thus, ‘coherent’ states in condensed matter above absolute zero is almost never seen. The article’s experiment was done in material at room temp, so the observed behavior is a bit of a surprise. Perhaps what they have not yet thought about is that the ‘microcavities’ have no temperature, as I will explain below. This ties in with a point I tried to explain to Dr. Storms, and although I think he realizes my point had merit, he glossed right over it and went off on a different tangent. This was in a vortex discussion about 9 to 12 months ago. The point is this: The ‘temperature’ inside a ‘void’ in a crystal lattice is most likely that of the vacuum of space; i.e, absolute zero, or very close to it. Because, temperature is nothing more than excess energy imparted to atoms from neighboring atoms; atoms have temperature; space/vacuum does not. Without atoms (physical matter), you have no temperature. In a lattice void, if it is large enough (whatever that dimension is), there is NO ‘temperature’ inside since the void contains no atoms. If an atom diffuses into that void, it enters with whatever energy it had when it entered, so it has a temperature. At this time, I have not heard any discussion as to whether the atoms which make up the walls of the void shed IR photons which could get absorbed by an atom in the void and increase its temperature, however, would that atom want to immediately shed that photon to get back to its lowest energy level??? So voids in crystals likely provide an ideal environment for the formation of BECs. -mark iverson ARTICLE BEING REFERENCED Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v9/n1/full/nphoton.2014.304.html Abstract “Two-dimensional atomic crystals of graphene, as well as transition-metal dichalcogenides, have emerged as a class of materials that demonstrate strong interaction with light. This interaction can be further controlled by embedding such materials into optical *microcavities*. When the interaction rate is engineered to be faster than dissipation from the light and matter entities, one reaches the ‘strong coupling’ regime. This results in the formation of half-light, half-matter bosonic quasiparticles called *microcavity polaritons*. Here, we report evidence of strong light–matter coupling and the formation of microcavity polaritons in a two-dimensional atomic crystal of molybdenum disulphide (MoS2) embedded inside a dielectric microcavity at *room temperature*. A Rabi splitting of 46 ± 3 meV is observed in angle-resolved reflectivity and photoluminescence spectra due to coupling between the two-dimensional excitons and the cavity photons. Realizing strong coupling at room temperature in two-dimensional materials that offer a disorder-free potential landscape provides an attractive route for the development of practical polaritonic devices.”
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
Axil, A few of your statements may not be entirely true, depending on the prevailing conditions… “Coherence in these half matter half light systems is a function on the strength of the pumping mechanism. Coherence can occur at any temperature as long as the incoming pumping energy is strong enough. When we have a BEC fed with incoming pumped nuclear energy, very high temperatures can be reached.” The coherence that I’m referring to, of any significant scale, is highly unlikely in condensed matter above a few K. Inside a void in a crystal lattice, is entirely a different thing. If you’re referring to a BEC inside a void or microcavity, then I’m ok with the above statements… Assume you already have a BEC consisting of 100 Cs atoms… all of their wave functions are coherent. Now introduce a single photon of heat. That photon will be absorbed by *only a single atom*, thus, changing its wave function and vibrational amplitude. It’s wave function is now somewhat discordant with the remaining 99 atoms. From here, there are a couple of possibilities: 1) the single atom sheds a photon which is then absorbed by one of the other 99 atoms. This process can go on for however long until the photon gets shed and exits the BEC entirely. 2) if the heat energy is enough, the wave function is so discordant that the atom gets ejected from the BEC before it can shed the photon. 3) ? The more coherence between a set of waves, the stronger the coupling between them; the more discordant, the weaker the coupling. -mark iverson From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 8:30 PM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals Casimir forces in a Plasma: Possible Connections to Yukawa Potentials http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf Because of the vacuum energy, a plasma of virtual electron positron pairs exists in the space between two subatomic particles. Mesons form as excitons in this plasma. This is where pions come from in the nucleus that bind protons and neutrons together in a mutual pion mediated transmutation dance. I suspect the same plasma formation happens in larger cavities and is a direct result of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, Coherence in these half matter half light systems is a function on the strength of the pumping mechanism. Coherence can occur at any temperature as long as the incoming pumping energy is strong enough. When we have a BEC feed with incoming pumped nuclear energy, very high temperatures can be reached. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: FYI: Article being referenced is at the bottom, however, I wanted to toss something out to The Collective first… One of the things that caught my eye in the article is the ‘room temperature’ condition… As we all know, atoms at room temp are vibrating like crazy since they contain the equivalent of 273degC of energy above their lowest state. Thus, ‘coherent’ states in condensed matter above absolute zero is almost never seen. The article’s experiment was done in material at room temp, so the observed behavior is a bit of a surprise. Perhaps what they have not yet thought about is that the ‘microcavities’ have no temperature, as I will explain below. This ties in with a point I tried to explain to Dr. Storms, and although I think he realizes my point had merit, he glossed right over it and went off on a different tangent. This was in a vortex discussion about 9 to 12 months ago. The point is this: The ‘temperature’ inside a ‘void’ in a crystal lattice is most likely that of the vacuum of space; i.e, absolute zero, or very close to it. Because, temperature is nothing more than excess energy imparted to atoms from neighboring atoms; atoms have temperature; space/vacuum does not. Without atoms (physical matter), you have no temperature. In a lattice void, if it is large enough (whatever that dimension is), there is NO ‘temperature’ inside since the void contains no atoms. If an atom diffuses into that void, it enters with whatever energy it had when it entered, so it has a temperature. At this time, I have not heard any discussion as to whether the atoms which make up the walls of the void shed IR photons which could get absorbed by an atom in the void and increase its temperature, however, would that atom want to immediately shed that photon to get back to its lowest energy level??? So voids in crystals likely provide an ideal environment for the formation of BECs. -mark iverson ARTICLE BEING REFERENCED Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v9/n1/full/nphoton.2014.304.html Abstract “Two-dimensional atomic crystals of graphene, as well as
Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
I have considered what you are saying as being normal Mark. Relative motion of an atom to itself is zero, so it is at zero kelvin as far as it knows. When a second atom is added to the void, it becomes more complicated but the relative motion of the two must become zero many times per second as they collide and rebound within your assumed cavity. During these brief intervals we have two atoms that are at zero Kelvin from their reference frame. As you add more and more atoms to the mix the amount of time during which zero relative motion exists between them becomes smaller and less likely, but does occur. As long as you keep the number of atoms relatively small that are required to react in the process of your choice, it will have an opportunity to happen many times per second inside each cavity. Multiply that number by the number of possible active cavities within a large object and you get an enormous number of active sites that have the potential to react. If only 4 atoms are required at zero Kelvin in order to react as you may be considering, it seems obvious that this will occur so often that a large amount of heat will be released by a system of that type. When you realize that it seems to be very difficult to achieve an LENR device that generates lots of heat I suspect that the number of reacting atoms confined within the cavity is quite a bit greater than 4. How many do you believe are required in order to combine and in what form is the ash? On the other hand, if a reaction is virtually guaranteed once a modest number of atoms becomes confined inside the void, then the limiting factor might be that it becomes impossible to confine the required number under most conditions. If this situation is the limiting factor, then a higher temperature could well allow more atoms of the reactants to enter into a void of the necessary type as more space become available when the cavity walls open with additional motion. I am not convinced that this type of reaction is the cause of LENR, but at least it should be given proper consideration. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 10:54 pm Subject: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals FYI: Article being referenced is at the bottom, however, I wanted to toss something out to The Collective first… One of the things that caught my eye in the article is the ‘room temperature’ condition… As we all know, atoms at room temp are vibrating like crazy since they contain the equivalent of 273degC of energy above their lowest state. Thus, ‘coherent’ states in condensed matter above absolute zero is almost never seen. The article’s experiment was done in material at room temp, so the observed behavior is a bit of a surprise. Perhaps what they have not yet thought about is that the ‘microcavities’ have no temperature, as I will explain below. This ties in with a point I tried to explain to Dr. Storms, and although I think he realizes my point had merit, he glossed right over it and went off on a different tangent. This was in a vortex discussion about 9 to 12 months ago. The point is this: The ‘temperature’ inside a ‘void’ in a crystal lattice is most likely that of the vacuum of space; i.e, absolute zero, or very close to it. Because, temperature is nothing more than excess energy imparted to atoms from neighboring atoms; atoms have temperature; space/vacuum does not. Without atoms (physical matter), you have no temperature. In a lattice void, if it is large enough (whatever that dimension is), there is NO ‘temperature’ inside since the void contains no atoms. If an atom diffuses into that void, it enters with whatever energy it had when it entered, so it has a temperature. At this time, I have not heard any discussion as to whether the atoms which make up the walls of the void shed IR photons which could get absorbed by an atom in the void and increase its temperature, however, would that atom want to immediately shed that photon to get back to its lowest energy level??? So voids in crystals likely provide an ideal environment for the formation of BECs. -mark iverson ARTICLE BEING REFERENCED Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v9/n1/full/nphoton.2014.304.html Abstract “Two-dimensional atomic crystals of graphene, as well as transition-metal dichalcogenides, have emerged as a class of materials that demonstrate strong interaction with light. This interaction can be further controlled by embedding such materials into optical microcavities. When the interaction rate is engineered to be faster than dissipation from the light and matter entities, one reaches the ‘strong coupling’ regime. This results in the formation of half-light, half-matter bosonic quasiparticles called
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
The more coherence between a set of waves, the stronger the coupling between them; the more discordant, the weaker the coupling. Ironically, as new external energy is fed into the BEC the coupling is continually renewed. That energy is nuclear binding energy and Fano resonance will continue to produce a single wave form in a cavity by removing discordant wave forms through destructive interference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fano_resonance
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
The light/matter hybrid is a wave packet(photon) and the way wave packets reach equal energy is unlike the complexity of atoms. The soliton formation process involves both constructive and destructive interference of waves. In a dark mode soliton formation, energy is not lost to the far field in this wave equalization process. These discordant waves just interact until all their differences are removed. This is a thermodynamic process of entanglement. Any enclosed system that does not loose energy to the far field will eventually become entangled at a common quantum level. This is basis in thermodynamics. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:09 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have considered what you are saying as being normal Mark. Relative motion of an atom to itself is zero, so it is at zero kelvin as far as it knows. When a second atom is added to the void, it becomes more complicated but the relative motion of the two must become zero many times per second as they collide and rebound within your assumed cavity. During these brief intervals we have two atoms that are at zero Kelvin from their reference frame. As you add more and more atoms to the mix the amount of time during which zero relative motion exists between them becomes smaller and less likely, but does occur. As long as you keep the number of atoms relatively small that are required to react in the process of your choice, it will have an opportunity to happen many times per second inside each cavity. Multiply that number by the number of possible active cavities within a large object and you get an enormous number of active sites that have the potential to react. If only 4 atoms are required at zero Kelvin in order to react as you may be considering, it seems obvious that this will occur so often that a large amount of heat will be released by a system of that type. When you realize that it seems to be very difficult to achieve an LENR device that generates lots of heat I suspect that the number of reacting atoms confined within the cavity is quite a bit greater than 4. How many do you believe are required in order to combine and in what form is the ash? On the other hand, if a reaction is virtually guaranteed once a modest number of atoms becomes confined inside the void, then the limiting factor might be that it becomes impossible to confine the required number under most conditions. If this situation is the limiting factor, then a higher temperature could well allow more atoms of the reactants to enter into a void of the necessary type as more space become available when the cavity walls open with additional motion. I am not convinced that this type of reaction is the cause of LENR, but at least it should be given proper consideration. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 10:54 pm Subject: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals FYI: Article being referenced is at the bottom, however, I wanted to toss something out to The Collective first… One of the things that caught my eye in the article is the ‘room temperature’ condition… As we all know, atoms at room temp are vibrating like crazy since they contain the equivalent of 273degC of energy above their lowest state. Thus, ‘coherent’ states in condensed matter above absolute zero is almost never seen. The article’s experiment was done in material at room temp, so the observed behavior is a bit of a surprise. Perhaps what they have not yet thought about is that the ‘microcavities’ have no temperature, as I will explain below. This ties in with a point I tried to explain to Dr. Storms, and although I think he realizes my point had merit, he glossed right over it and went off on a different tangent. This was in a vortex discussion about 9 to 12 months ago. The point is this: The ‘temperature’ inside a ‘void’ in a crystal lattice is most likely that of the vacuum of space; i.e, absolute zero, or very close to it. Because, temperature is nothing more than excess energy imparted to atoms from neighboring atoms; atoms have temperature; space/vacuum does not. Without atoms (physical matter), you have no temperature. In a lattice void, if it is large enough (whatever that dimension is), there is NO ‘temperature’ inside since the void contains no atoms. If an atom diffuses into that void, it enters with whatever energy it had when it entered, so it has a temperature. At this time, I have not heard any discussion as to whether the atoms which make up the walls of the void shed IR photons which could get absorbed by an atom in the void and increase its temperature, however, would that atom want to immediately shed that photon to get back to its lowest energy level??? So voids in crystals likely provide an ideal environment for the formation of BECs. -mark iverson
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
Jed -- I'm simply taking Stoyan's comment, verified it to make sure I understood what he was saying, and repeated it. If you want to call Stoyan ignorant and arrogant, be my guest.. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Don't get me wrong, the results are interesting for sure. The COP is making huge assumptions that the excess energy would continue. No, those are not huge assumptions. The excess heat in cold fusion has often continued, sometimes for weeks or months. With a reaction as large as this, they might have trouble quenching it, but I doubt they would have a problem maintaining it. The 8-minute burst of heat after death indicates that. (I am assuming it is a real effect and not an experimental error, and I am assuming it is cold fusion.) YOU are the one making huge assumptions, and ignorant statements about a subject you apparently never bother to study. You keep coming up with assertions that fly in the face of what we know about cold fusion. You think you have some kind of mystical power to predict whether cold fusion exists to with a percentage point, yet you don't bother learning anything about it. I find that arrogant. And annoying. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y3Bxr_aE2iosEKpGFUZiQgAcuT8AFN78RFCAlR-JqNw/edit On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Blaze Spinnakerblazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Note by translator Stoyan Sarg: The initial heating power and temperature before reaching 1C is not shown in the plot of slide #16 (does he mean 17?). Is it taken into account for the accumulated energy? If not a much longer test is needed for estimation of the COP. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Jed -- I'm simply taking Stoyan's comment, verified it to make sure I understood what he was saying, and repeated it. If you want to call Stoyan ignorant and arrogant, be my guest.. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Don't get me wrong, the results are interesting for sure. The COP is making huge assumptions that the excess energy would continue. No, those are not huge assumptions. The excess heat in cold fusion has often continued, sometimes for weeks or months. With a reaction as large as this, they might have trouble quenching it, but I doubt they would have a problem maintaining it. The 8-minute burst of heat after death indicates that. (I am assuming it is a real effect and not an experimental error, and I am assuming it is cold fusion.) YOU are the one making huge assumptions, and ignorant statements about a subject you apparently never bother to study. You keep coming up with assertions that fly in the face of what we know about cold fusion. You think you have some kind of mystical power to predict whether cold fusion exists to with a percentage point, yet you don't bother learning anything about it. I find that arrogant. And annoying. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
And how do we even know this is cold fusion? I think you are the one that is leaping to conclusions here. Maybe wait for some kind of ash analysis first... On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y3Bxr_aE2iosEKpGFUZiQgAcuT8AFN78RFCAlR-JqNw/edit On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Blaze Spinnakerblazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Note by translator Stoyan Sarg: The initial heating power and temperature before reaching 1C is not shown in the plot of slide #16 (does he mean 17?). Is it taken into account for the accumulated energy? If not a much longer test is needed for estimation of the COP. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Jed -- I'm simply taking Stoyan's comment, verified it to make sure I understood what he was saying, and repeated it. If you want to call Stoyan ignorant and arrogant, be my guest.. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Don't get me wrong, the results are interesting for sure. The COP is making huge assumptions that the excess energy would continue. No, those are not huge assumptions. The excess heat in cold fusion has often continued, sometimes for weeks or months. With a reaction as large as this, they might have trouble quenching it, but I doubt they would have a problem maintaining it. The 8-minute burst of heat after death indicates that. (I am assuming it is a real effect and not an experimental error, and I am assuming it is cold fusion.) YOU are the one making huge assumptions, and ignorant statements about a subject you apparently never bother to study. You keep coming up with assertions that fly in the face of what we know about cold fusion. You think you have some kind of mystical power to predict whether cold fusion exists to with a percentage point, yet you don't bother learning anything about it. I find that arrogant. And annoying. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals
Can an atom have a temperature between its different parts? Is an atom that is excited and about to emit a photon not quite hot? On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have considered what you are saying as being normal Mark. Relative motion of an atom to itself is zero, so it is at zero kelvin as far as it knows. When a second atom is added to the void, it becomes more complicated but the relative motion of the two must become zero many times per second as they collide and rebound within your assumed cavity. During these brief intervals we have two atoms that are at zero Kelvin from their reference frame. As you add more and more atoms to the mix the amount of time during which zero relative motion exists between them becomes smaller and less likely, but does occur. As long as you keep the number of atoms relatively small that are required to react in the process of your choice, it will have an opportunity to happen many times per second inside each cavity. Multiply that number by the number of possible active cavities within a large object and you get an enormous number of active sites that have the potential to react. If only 4 atoms are required at zero Kelvin in order to react as you may be considering, it seems obvious that this will occur so often that a large amount of heat will be released by a system of that type. When you realize that it seems to be very difficult to achieve an LENR device that generates lots of heat I suspect that the number of reacting atoms confined within the cavity is quite a bit greater than 4. How many do you believe are required in order to combine and in what form is the ash? On the other hand, if a reaction is virtually guaranteed once a modest number of atoms becomes confined inside the void, then the limiting factor might be that it becomes impossible to confine the required number under most conditions. If this situation is the limiting factor, then a higher temperature could well allow more atoms of the reactants to enter into a void of the necessary type as more space become available when the cavity walls open with additional motion. I am not convinced that this type of reaction is the cause of LENR, but at least it should be given proper consideration. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 10:54 pm Subject: [Vo]:FYI: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals FYI: Article being referenced is at the bottom, however, I wanted to toss something out to The Collective first… One of the things that caught my eye in the article is the ‘room temperature’ condition… As we all know, atoms at room temp are vibrating like crazy since they contain the equivalent of 273degC of energy above their lowest state. Thus, ‘coherent’ states in condensed matter above absolute zero is almost never seen. The article’s experiment was done in material at room temp, so the observed behavior is a bit of a surprise. Perhaps what they have not yet thought about is that the ‘microcavities’ have no temperature, as I will explain below. This ties in with a point I tried to explain to Dr. Storms, and although I think he realizes my point had merit, he glossed right over it and went off on a different tangent. This was in a vortex discussion about 9 to 12 months ago. The point is this: The ‘temperature’ inside a ‘void’ in a crystal lattice is most likely that of the vacuum of space; i.e, absolute zero, or very close to it. Because, temperature is nothing more than excess energy imparted to atoms from neighboring atoms; atoms have temperature; space/vacuum does not. Without atoms (physical matter), you have no temperature. In a lattice void, if it is large enough (whatever that dimension is), there is NO ‘temperature’ inside since the void contains no atoms. If an atom diffuses into that void, it enters with whatever energy it had when it entered, so it has a temperature. At this time, I have not heard any discussion as to whether the atoms which make up the walls of the void shed IR photons which could get absorbed by an atom in the void and increase its temperature, however, would that atom want to immediately shed that photon to get back to its lowest energy level??? So voids in crystals likely provide an ideal environment for the formation of BECs. -mark iverson ARTICLE BEING REFERENCED Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v9/n1/full/nphoton.2014.304.html Abstract “Two-dimensional atomic crystals of graphene, as well as transition-metal dichalcogenides, have emerged as a class of materials that demonstrate strong interaction with light. This interaction can be further controlled by embedding such materials into optical *microcavities*. When the interaction rate
Re: [Vo]:Dry Steam versus Wet Steam
I will say, though Jed, kudos for expressing such confidence in an experiment so easily replicated. You really are putting your reputation and credibility on the line here in a way that is very impressive. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: And how do we even know this is cold fusion? I think you are the one that is leaping to conclusions here. Maybe wait for some kind of ash analysis first... On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y3Bxr_aE2iosEKpGFUZiQgAcuT8AFN78RFCAlR-JqNw/edit On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Blaze Spinnakerblazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Note by translator Stoyan Sarg: The initial heating power and temperature before reaching 1C is not shown in the plot of slide #16 (does he mean 17?). Is it taken into account for the accumulated energy? If not a much longer test is needed for estimation of the COP. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Jed -- I'm simply taking Stoyan's comment, verified it to make sure I understood what he was saying, and repeated it. If you want to call Stoyan ignorant and arrogant, be my guest.. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Don't get me wrong, the results are interesting for sure. The COP is making huge assumptions that the excess energy would continue. No, those are not huge assumptions. The excess heat in cold fusion has often continued, sometimes for weeks or months. With a reaction as large as this, they might have trouble quenching it, but I doubt they would have a problem maintaining it. The 8-minute burst of heat after death indicates that. (I am assuming it is a real effect and not an experimental error, and I am assuming it is cold fusion.) YOU are the one making huge assumptions, and ignorant statements about a subject you apparently never bother to study. You keep coming up with assertions that fly in the face of what we know about cold fusion. You think you have some kind of mystical power to predict whether cold fusion exists to with a percentage point, yet you don't bother learning anything about it. I find that arrogant. And annoying. - Jed
