date:20151203

IMHO, magitism is not stimulative. At 770C the Curie point is exceeded and
the iron is ineffective as a magnetic material. The Glowstick requires
temperatures over 1000C to startup. The is no material that can be used as
a outside container above 1100C because of the Curie point. That is why a
sinusoidal coil is the only device that can force magnetic material to the
center of the reactor tube.

Could it be that the three coils in the Rossi reactor as used for different
things: one coil is used as a heater, another used as a sinusoidal magnetic
containment coil, and the last for RF stimulation? Notice the three wire
connections on the hot cat coils.



On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> In my opinion, the fundamental nature of the Rossi effect is based on
> magnetism. The catalytic particle that produces the reaction is magnetic in
> nature. This particle is produced by heat pumping and EMF stimulation. The
> nature of this Exotic Neutral Particle (ENP)is reflected by the behaviour
> of the E-Cat itself and reflect how the E-Cat operates.
>
> The ENP can exist at low energy pumping where the energy coming into the
> particle is equal to the energy leaving the particle. This is similar to
> the way Rossi keeps his reactor under control. Too much external energy
> pumping will result in the E-Cat going critical.
>
> The same process of over pumping happens with the ENP. Overpumping brings
> it to the stage where it becomes self-sufficient requiring no additional
> EMF input. The energized ENP can get EMF from the environment around it not
> requiring external heat or EMF simulation to be applied.
>
> The same is true for the E-Cat. When the E-Cat is subcritical, it requires
> heat and EMF stimulation to be applied. But when it is "over stimulated" it
> begins to meltdown since it has become independent from externally applied
> stimulation.
>
> The ENP can live as long as it can catalyze energy production from the
> material around it. The ENP can live for days on its own as it brings in
> energy from the environment to sustain its internal LENR reaction processes.
>
> Magnetic confinement increases efficiency of the reaction. Such
> confinement saves the externally applied energy that produced the ENP from
> being wasted.
>
> The ENP can leave the reactor if the material that makes up the reactor
> enclosure is transparent to the optical and magnetic nature of the ENP.
> This might be why electrolytic cells have difficulty in sustaining powerful
> LENR reactions. In this case, the ENPs escape the glass beaker reactor
> enclosure and all the input energy that was pumped into the ENP is wasted
> to the environment. outside the electrolytic cell.
>
> If the cell is made of material that can contain the ENP both optically
> and magnetically, the reactor will be efficent. Alumina is
> antiferromagnetic and will confine magnetic particles thy to escape the
> reactor shell. Another method of ENP confinement that Rossi might use is a
> solenoidal confinement coil that keeps the ENPs away from the reactor walls
> in the center axis of the reactor.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

2015-12-03 Thread mixent

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:11:27 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>I came upon the suggestion because it provides a nice explanation for
>results like those of Iwamura as being successive alpha captures.  In his
>case, only two or three captures are needed to get from strontium to
>molybdenum, cesium to praseodymium, or barium to samarium.  Successive
>alpha captures seem like a reasonable hypothesis if there are lots of alpha
>particles being emitted under induced decay.

For elements heavier than Fe/Ni, alpha capture is endothermic, which implies
that it could only happen if fast alphas are available. Furthermore, only a tiny
fraction of fast alphas would actually undergo a reaction.

IMO a more reasonable reaction involves the addition of a small cluster of H/D
atoms. Such a reaction would be exothermic, and may well lead to the
transmutation results found.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:39 PM,  wrote:

For elements heavier than Fe/Ni, alpha capture is endothermic, which implies
> that it could only happen if fast alphas are available.
>

Here is what my script is telling me about that:

4He + 110Pd => gamma + 114Cd + 4108 keV
4He + 108Pd => gamma + 112Cd + 3476 keV
4He + 107Pd => gamma + 111Cd + 3306 keV
4He + 106Pd => gamma + 110Cd + 2866 keV
4He + 104Pd => gamma + 108Cd + 2283 keV
4He + 102Pd => gamma + 106Cd + 1626 keV

Am I doing something wrong?

Furthermore, only a tiny fraction of fast alphas would actually undergo a
> reaction.


This kind of thing leads me to wonder about an enhanced alpha capture cross
section.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments


Jed,
I have had several direct working relationships with DOE and came away 
mightily unimpressed.  They seem to be lacking expert knowledge and 
particularly lacking in common sense.  Maybe they do have some bright 
people but I was not fortunate enough to meet them.


Just consider their record and why they were founded in the first 
place.  Consider what they have contributed in the standard fields like 
solar, batteries and wind or even ITER.  It seemed to me DOE is a 
classic example of Pournelle's Iron Law.   We offered to save them > 
$100 billion in cleaning up the radwaste at Hanford but they were not 
interested because they "had already made an agreement with the Governor 
of Washington State and didn't want to renegotiate it."  If these are 
the "experts" you say know the answers, I suggest we would be better off 
without them.

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

Posts are combined and improved as follows:

IMHO, magnetism is not stimulative. Iron provides magnetic containment up
to a reactor operating temperature of 770C. At 770C, the Curie point is
exceeded and the iron is ineffective as a magnetic material. The Glowstick
requires temperatures over 1000C to startup. The is no material that can be
used as an outside container above 1100C because of the Curie point. That
is why a sinusoidal coil is the only device that can force magnetic
material to the center of the reactor tube.

Could it be that the three coils in the Rossi reactor are used for
different things: one coil is used as a heater, another used as a
sinusoidal magnetic containment coil, and the last for RF stimulation?
Notice the three wire connections on the Hot Cat coils. But things are not
as simple as that. The Rossi's control system produces complex waveforms.
Could these complex waveforms produce the three functions of heating,
magnetic containment and RF stimulation?

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservice_image_drawings/WO@@@id0030363131@@@10873194@@@200@@@0@@@59.tif

It may be possible to multiplex the three required waveforms that perform
the three functions of heating, magnetic containment and RF stimulation
into a square wave. Is there anybody here who can dope out that required
squarewave to duplicate Fulvio Fabiani's work?

>From another perspective:

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0565.pdf

"AHE has been observed during electrolysis following dynamic stimulation of
the cell by time dependent electrolytic currents (SuperWaves) and
ultrasonic excitation."

The "SuperWave" remains protected IP of Dardik. But in current replication
attempts three separate coils could be used. A this early juncture, it is
easier to adjust each waveform component separately. Then there is no need
to do a complex waveform calculation to change something.

There is a beautiful animation by LucasVB explaining the Fourier
decomposition of a square wave:

[image: Inline image 2]

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

 But things are not as simple as that three coil feed. The Rossi's control
system produces complex waveforms. Could these complex waveforms produce
the three functions of heating, magnetic containment and RF stimulation? There
is a beautiful animation by LucasVB explaining the Fourier decomposition of
a square wave.

It may be possible to multiplex the three required waveforms into a square
wave.


On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> IMHO, magitism is not stimulative. At 770C the Curie point is exceeded and
> the iron is ineffective as a magnetic material. The Glowstick requires
> temperatures over 1000C to startup. The is no material that can be used as
> a outside container above 1100C because of the Curie point. That is why a
> sinusoidal coil is the only device that can force magnetic material to the
> center of the reactor tube.
>
> Could it be that the three coils in the Rossi reactor as used for
> different things: one coil is used as a heater, another used as a
> sinusoidal magnetic containment coil, and the last for RF stimulation?
> Notice the three wire connections on the hot cat coils.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> In my opinion, the fundamental nature of the Rossi effect is based on
>> magnetism. The catalytic particle that produces the reaction is magnetic in
>> nature. This particle is produced by heat pumping and EMF stimulation. The
>> nature of this Exotic Neutral Particle (ENP)is reflected by the behaviour
>> of the E-Cat itself and reflect how the E-Cat operates.
>>
>> The ENP can exist at low energy pumping where the energy coming into the
>> particle is equal to the energy leaving the particle. This is similar to
>> the way Rossi keeps his reactor under control. Too much external energy
>> pumping will result in the E-Cat going critical.
>>
>> The same process of over pumping happens with the ENP. Overpumping brings
>> it to the stage where it becomes self-sufficient requiring no additional
>> EMF input. The energized ENP can get EMF from the environment around it not
>> requiring external heat or EMF simulation to be applied.
>>
>> The same is true for the E-Cat. When the E-Cat is subcritical, it
>> requires heat and EMF stimulation to be applied. But when it is "over
>> stimulated" it begins to meltdown since it has become independent from
>> externally applied stimulation.
>>
>> The ENP can live as long as it can catalyze energy production from the
>> material around it. The ENP can live for days on its own as it brings in
>> energy from the environment to sustain its internal LENR reaction processes.
>>
>> Magnetic confinement increases efficiency of the reaction. Such
>> confinement saves the externally applied energy that produced the ENP from
>> being wasted.
>>
>> The ENP can leave the reactor if the material that makes up the reactor
>> enclosure is transparent to the optical and magnetic nature of the ENP.
>> This might be why electrolytic cells have difficulty in sustaining powerful
>> LENR reactions. In this case, the ENPs escape the glass beaker reactor
>> enclosure and all the input energy that was pumped into the ENP is wasted
>> to the environment. outside the electrolytic cell.
>>
>> If the cell is made of material that can contain the ENP both optically
>> and magnetically, the reactor will be efficent. Alumina is
>> antiferromagnetic and will confine magnetic particles thy to escape the
>> reactor shell. Another method of ENP confinement that Rossi might use is a
>> solenoidal confinement coil that keeps the ENPs away from the reactor walls
>> in the center axis of the reactor.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

2015-12-03 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Axil, I am glad you included the tachyon because it embraces relativistic 
effects and would explain some of the odd radiation measurement claims  made a 
short distance from the reactor  while not detectable at or within the reactor 
wall as mentioned in a recent thread.  Jones recently cited 
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-1/calvet-final.htm which taken in 
conjunction with your suggestion of tachyons would provide a 5D vector “around” 
the reactor wall that seemingly contracts and then re-expands in our 3d exactly 
opposite of the virtual particles which  very briefly “bend” into our 3d then 
back out into 5d..  IMHO gravitational force on the macro and Casimir force on 
the nano are both virtual particle density. We have established open space 
/dirac sea as 0 gravity which is the isotropic density of our 3d plane BUT just 
like the atmosphere you can create a vacuum where that density is even lower 
such as Casimir effect. Going negative by breaching the isotropy with nano 
geometry is radically different than near C spatial displacement and unrelated 
to the squared Pythagorean relationship between V and C. I shudder every time I 
talk about time dilation and contraction because we are so ingrained with the 
near luminal velocities and energies required for a particle to achieve these 
effects on a macro scale –there is also the square law effects that we also 
wrongly assign to Casimir effects, the gravitational effects achieved do not 
have to effect all the surrounding 3d space in the conventional square law 
nature we assume for “equivalent” acceleration. We have to assume “equivalent” 
decleration for the same reason we would select equivalent acceleration for a 
space craft –  because the energy the particle or spacecraft are reacting to 
are not self contained, a black hole gravity well enlarges what Calvert calls a 
“ window” between our 3d and 5d and the bending virtual particles stream slows 
down in a ventorii like effect we perceive as negative time dilation. In the 
case of a  Casimir cavity we accelerates this particle flow by suppressing the 
window that increases the pressure and flow rate around the visiting hydrogen 
atoms in the cavity – with Casimir suppression  positive time dilation occurs 
which we loosely perceive as catalyzation or in the extreme decay rate 
anomalies. So far no substantiated claims of gravity anomalies beyond the EM 
drive are known and even attempts to stack Casimir cavities by Italian 
researchers in the early 2k failed to prove the gravitational connection 
between Casimir effect and gravity I am convinced this will all change soon. A 
relativistic effect in a confined space means both extreme differences in 
inertial frames and linkage with the cavity walls creating the field are 
already established – something that is excluded in “equivalent”  near C 
Lorentzian effects where the square law would place a spaceship in a gravity 
well too distant and diluted to exploit from outside the well despite the huge 
difference in equivalent gravity of the ship and stationary observer outside 
the well. IMHO the anomalous energy in LENR is based upon this interaction with 
5D and we will discover gravitational anomalies are already present immediately 
after we engineer a robust sustained LENR reaction.

Fran


From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 7:49 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

That is what the Rossi says

I have found that Rossi doen not make misstatements when it comes to egineering 
details. When his product are finally revailed, this pre release statements are 
consistent with the product. Also, synthsys of all available experimental data 
lends insight to what Rossi says. Magnetic confinement of ENPs comes from 
various ENP theories including  the tachyon, the leptonic monopole, the 
polyneutron, and the Erzion...all ENPs and all informative as to how the cause 
of LENR behaves.



On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:30 PM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
That is what the Rossi says!  Unfortunately, we do not have any of the other 
patents to review at this time to determine how his new device is structured.  
Until that happens it is wise for us to make it clear that we are speculating 
on a particular issue so that everyone understands that that is the situation.  
When you state with authority that 1 device is driving 15 others people are 
left with the impression that Rossi has made that clear in his writings.

I have kept a close watch on his journal and do not recall ever seeing that 
mentioned.  In this case I was beginning to think that perhaps I have missed 
one of his postings, which turned out not to be the case.  My models are based 
upon what Rossi has actually stated and I need to keep that information 
accurate.  Can I count on you and others to make a point to state that you are

[Vo]:Q carbon new form harder than diamond and ferromagnetic

2015-12-03 Thread Roarty, Francis X

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/01/tech/super-diamond-q-carbon-scientists-laser/index.html

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com=from:%22CB+Sites%22><http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com=date:20151203>CB 
Sites wrote: "In regards to the physics of global warming, it's very real."
Of course it's warming.  The world has warmed 0.5C/century since the end 
of the Little Ice Age, but I doubt that is what you meant.


Your linked paper may well be right based on the assumptions used.  The 
problem is the assumptions are wrong. Some are missing.   None of the 
models can hindcaste well beyond the range for which they were tuned 
because  they don't yet understand things like clouds and cannot 
forecast the multidecadal oscillations as these are chaotic.


You can see just how poorly they all work in the following link (there 
are many similar), no matter that someone has written a paper proving by 
another model that the models are right.

http://b-i.forbesimg.com/peterferrara/files/2013/11/Roy-Spencer-IPCC-Models1-1024x711.jpg

RE: [Vo]:Q carbon new form harder than diamond and ferromagnetic

2015-12-03 Thread Jones Beene

 

>From the perspective of LENR, the most interesting thing about this technique 
>is that it is similar to the way that Holmlid makes dense deuterium – using a 
>sharp laser pulse.

 

From: Roarty, Francis X 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/01/tech/super-diamond-q-carbon-scientists-laser/index.html

RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

2015-12-03 Thread Chris Zell

A few points apparently missing from the discussion.

First, the Too Big To Jail Banks ( like Goldman Sachs) want global warming 
ideas to be true because they want to parasitically feed off of carbon trading
Markets.  Nuclear power has a financial interest, too – so it’s not all ‘Exxon’ 
on one side.

Speculation is NOT “settled science” – A past record of temperatures can be 
fact but extrapolating into the future is speculation – and all the more so as
Various prominent warming predictions are falsified.  Hansen has been proved 
wrong about temperatures and British children still witness snowfalls (despite 
contrary predictions).

The climate warming discussion would be greatly improved if it’s enthusiasts 
stopped lying and being deceptive – or at least stopped UNSCIENTIFIC
Wild speculations in public.  Even Republicans admit that climate changes over 
time – “climate change deniers” is wrong.  Blaming war in Syria on climate 
change is
Irresponsible as are speculative gloom and doom about species ( who apparently 
cannot adapt?).

My biggest fear is that NO NEW ENERGY Source emerges beyond what we have and we 
are enslaved by fanatics who deprive us of bathing (the idiot King of Sweden) 
and heat and light.  I use a wood stove, BTW, and I have solar panels and some 
feeble battery backup.

RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

2015-12-03 Thread Chris Zell

Once upon a time there was a Very Politically Correct city ( in upstate NY).  
They sought to put solar panels on public buildings at great expense even 
though there was a world famous engineering university in their city that could 
tell them about How Overcast It Is Much Of The Year. They did anyway.
The helpful university once came up with a nice egg beater windmill partly made 
of truck drive shafts.  Never heard of it again.
The local people worry about windmills hurting birds and have successfully 
helped keep fracking out of the whole state – even though this area of the 
state has had 5 of the 10 lowest price housing markets in the US ( because of 
huge economic decline – Syracuse hit the record for worst concentration of 
poverty of any US city _ Business Insider).
Not too far away, we have Appalachia – long known for rural poverty and now, 
about to lose the coal industry.
I fear that climate change restrictions ‘put the cart before the horse’.  We 
seem to be engendering slavery while hoping for an indefinite emancipation and 
if the ‘stagnationistas’ have their way, we’re just screwed.

[Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement


What happens to a photon in a strong magnetic field is solved by classical 
(Maxwell,s) theory I believe.  Axil’s ENP’s may be nothing more that strong 
magnetic lines of force.  Such lines of force may be enhanced by ferromagnetic 
material and/or directed in certain directions in Rossi’s reactor.  At 
sufficient magnitude they may also direct EM radiation and or change its 
frequency.  We do not know what happens in nano materials.  Rossi has indicated 
normal physics is all that is required to understand his reactor.  He seems to 
disbelieve the exotic ideas Axil brings to the table.  It would be interesting 
to ask him whether he the concept of virtual particles and the 5th dimension 
Fran and other Vorts have hypothesized form time to time. 

Bob Cook

From: ChemE Stewart 
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 8:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

Maybe the steel shipping container helps, just a wild add guess. Steel reflects 
EMR, i.e., radar

On Thursday, December 3, 2015, Axil Axil  wrote:

  We can’t build a bridge without a plan. We can’t get LENR to work without a 
valid theory. I am beginning to think that LENR is caused by magnetic 
particles, let’s call them Exotic Neutral Particles (ENP) that can float on 
currents of air. This theory has implications to getting LENR to work. If a 
reactor is build out of material that is transparent to ENPs then these 
important particles could escape the reactor without producing more ENPs thus 
keeping the LENR reaction energy starved. But if the reactor could be insulated 
from EMP escape, then the reactor would hold onto the energy that it produces 
and become gainful.




  Replicators are perplexed by the success of Parkhomov’s reactor. Why can’t 
anybody get the Parkhomov reactor to work even with the same fuel that he used? 
But everybody is amused by the old iron pot that Parkhomove ran his experiment 
in. That iron pot could be keeping the magnetic ENP from escaping the confines 
of his reactor. All the other replicators let their precious ENPs escape into 
the air. 




  Why does Rossi enclose his fuel in a cartridge containing layers of steel? 
Could the iron particle in the Lugano fuel sample come from a magnetic 
confinement system? Does Rossi have an iron mesh inside the alumina tube to 
produce magnetic confinement? If theory says that keeping ENPs confined is 
important, then the use of iron and steel in Rossi type reactors becomes 
interesting.


  On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Axil Axil 
 wrote:

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:11 PM, David Roberson 
 wrote:

  I assume that your concepts include the various particles such as the 
polyneutron, Erzion, etc. but Rossi has never mentioned any of these.  They may 
be involved in the LENR process, but I suspect that Rossi has never used those 
terms within his postings.



http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/
 

Rossi’s closest technician and engineer since 2012, Fulvio Fabiani:


"And then you realize that it is something unique. We have it all filmed, 
which still cannot be disclosed. We have photographs of creatures that emit 
pure light that have completely melted the reactor down, all in a very quiet 
way. You just turn off the stimuli system and the reaction is switched off. 
It’s impressive."


These "creatures that emit pure light" are the photonic based Exotic 
Neutral Particles(ENP) the other people has seen in their experiments.


The ENPs looks and act differently because they are holding different light 
wavelengths based on the level of power they contain.


These ENPs are weak in the infrared, visible at intermediate light strength 
levels, and very powerful in the XUV and x-ray ranges. This is what R, Mills 
sees as black light in his experiments.


This is what I call dark mode Surface Plasmon Polaritons.

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

2015-12-03 Thread ChemE Stewart

Maybe the steel shipping container helps, just a wild add guess. Steel
reflects EMR, i.e., radar

On Thursday, December 3, 2015, Axil Axil  wrote:

> We can’t build a bridge without a plan. We can’t get LENR to work without
> a valid theory. I am beginning to think that LENR is caused by magnetic
> particles, let’s call them Exotic Neutral Particles (ENP) that can float on
> currents of air. This theory has implications to getting LENR to work. If a
> reactor is build out of material that is transparent to ENPs then these
> important particles could escape the reactor without producing more ENPs
> thus keeping the LENR reaction energy starved. But if the reactor could be
> insulated from EMP escape, then the reactor would hold onto the energy that
> it produces and become gainful.
>
>
> Replicators are perplexed by the success of Parkhomov’s reactor. Why can’t
> anybody get the Parkhomov reactor to work even with the same fuel that he
> used? But everybody is amused by the old iron pot that Parkhomove ran his
> experiment in. That iron pot could be keeping the magnetic ENP from
> escaping the confines of his reactor. All the other replicators let their
> precious ENPs escape into the air.
>
>
> Why does Rossi enclose his fuel in a cartridge containing layers of steel?
> Could the iron particle in the Lugano fuel sample come from a magnetic
> confinement system? Does Rossi have an iron mesh inside the alumina tube to
> produce magnetic confinement? If theory says that keeping ENPs confined is
> important, then the use of iron and steel in Rossi type reactors becomes
> interesting.
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Axil Axil  > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:11 PM, David Roberson > > wrote:
>>
>>> I assume that your concepts include the various particles such as the
>>> polyneutron, Erzion, etc. but Rossi has never mentioned any of these.  They
>>> may be involved in the LENR process, but I suspect that Rossi has never
>>> used those terms within his postings.
>>>
>>
>>
>> http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/
>>
>>
>> Rossi’s closest technician and engineer since 2012, *Fulvio Fabiani:*
>>
>> "And then you realize that it is something unique. We have it all filmed,
>> which still cannot be disclosed. We have photographs of creatures that emit
>> pure light that have completely melted the reactor down, all in a very
>> quiet way. You just turn off the stimuli system and the reaction is
>> switched off. It’s impressive."
>>
>> These "creatures that emit pure light" are the photonic based Exotic
>> Neutral Particles(ENP) the other people has seen in their experiments.
>>
>> The ENPs looks and act differently because they are holding different
>> light wavelengths based on the level of power they contain.
>>
>> These ENPs are weak in the infrared, visible at intermediate
>> light strength levels, and very powerful in the XUV and x-ray ranges. This
>> is what R, Mills sees as black light in his experiments.
>>
>> This is what I call dark mode Surface Plasmon Polaritons.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

Jed,
I disagree with your repeated comments about the "experts" understanding
global warming.
I wrote "There is nothing unusual about the weather." If you follow the
link you will see that is true.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/29/climate-and-human-civilization-over-the-last-18000-years-2/
Not to mention that the satellite temperature measurements show no
increase for the last ~19 years which falsifies the IPCC model projections.

Likewise, THE government expertise in energy is supposed to reside in
the Dept of Energy. I have had an extended discussions with them about
LENR and can confirm that the universal consensus there is that LENR is
impossible because there is now way of overcoming the Coulomb barrier at
low temperature. I have a friend there that tries to bring up the
subject, but he is told to shut up as LENR is pseudo science. Experts
are not immune from group-think.

In frustration I wrote the following letter on 7/7/2015. I have not
received a reply.

To Dr. Ernest Moniz - Secretary of Energy

Dear Dr. Moniz,

I read that you have been closely associated with DOE and MIT for many
years. Why have both those organizations ignored LENR (aka cold fusion)?
In fact both were involved in the infanticide of that field in 1989 –
1990. May I suggest you read the few pages by Beaudette linked here to
see why that was a mistake?
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf

See also the special section on LENR in /Current Science,/ starting with
McKubre’s paper.
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/feat.php?feature=Special%20Section:%20Low%20Energy%20Nuclear%20Reactions=10094

The game changed after Andrea Rossi contacted Prof Focardi in 2007 and
he demonstrated a reactor called the E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) in 2011
that was capable of generating kW of heat. Developed with his own
funds, some details of the design were not released. The refusal of the
Patent Office to consider patents on cold fusion – thanks to DOE staff –
didn’t help.

In 2013-2014 ELFORSK (Swedish equivalent of EPRI) tested the later high
temperature E-Cat twice at Lugano. The second time for a month, when it
produced 1.5 MW of excess heat. Late last year and again this year Dr.
Parkhomov replicated the Lugano test in Russia. Reported at the ICCF-19
Conference.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/242284200/Observation-of-abundant-heat-production-from-a-reactor-device-and-of-isotopic-changes-in-the-fuel

Rossi sold the rights for the E-Cat to Industrial Heat LLC over a year
ago. They have built a 1 MW thermal LENR plant that has been operating
for 137 days (/now 9 months/)as part of a one year trial. Norway's
largest newspaper Aftenposten has reported they have expert third party
confirmation that it is operating well Other independent reports are
that it is running well with a COP of 20 – 80(!) Photos of the plant
http://andrea-rossi.com/1mw-plant/

LENR is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Some of your people like NASA
Chief Scientist Dennis Bushnell endorse it but DOE doesn’t. From direct
experience of DOE (eg. cleaning up the radwaste at Hanford – we would
have finished by now) I don’t expect DOE to help, but you should
re-evaluate money you are spending on renewable energy, like ITER and
solar, and fire the group-think physicists who have provided such poor
advice, missing something as important as LENR.

You have been with tasked with implementing critical Department *of
*Energy missions in support of President Obama's goals of growing the
economy, enhancing security and protecting the environment. But by not
even considering cheap, safe, pollution free LENR I think you have
failed in your duty.

Sincerely,

Adrian Ashfield

[Vo]:5 FUNDAMENTAL LENR QUESTIONS, INFO TOO

2015-12-03 Thread Peter Gluck

Who has the best answers or can question away these difficult LENR
Questions?

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/12/03-dec-2015-lenr-5-questions-plus-info.html

You know my Answers..

Peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

Fran--

Thanks for that nice description of the effects of 5D space.  Do you have a 
reference to Calvert’s ideas?

Does the theory have any parameter(s) associated with the 5th dimension that 
are akin to those in 4D space-time?  It seems that 5th D may have a metric like 
dB/dz where B is the magnetic field vector and z is the space metric of the 
vector B.  It may also merely have the dimension of angular momentum. 

I wonder if the spin quanta of a virtual particle moving from 5D to 3D changes 
or is conserved.  

It sure seems that the various LENR dots are being connected—SPP’s, intense 
magnetic fields, nano geometry and Casimir effects, anomalies in gravitation, 
changes in radioactive isotopic decay rates-- 
all seem to crop up in LENR.  The LENR may happen via the connection to the 5th 
dimension, through interaction of real particles with virtual particles.  

The question of how the energy released in LENR turns up as heat with little or 
no high energy EM in 3D still needs an explanation IMHO.  The flow of virtual 
particles may  somehow allow (catalyze) the change of mass potential energy of 
nuclei  to vibrational kinetic energy of many particles in the macroscopic 3D 
realm.  This may be a transformation of  mass into individual spin energy 
quanta associated with intrinsic spin angular momentum and/or electron orbital 
angular momentum.

Vorts may have anticipated this later comment(: ).

Bob Cook

From: Roarty, Francis X 
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 3:31 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

Axil, I am glad you included the tachyon because it embraces relativistic 
effects and would explain some of the odd radiation measurement claims  made a 
short distance from the reactor  while not detectable at or within the reactor 
wall as mentioned in a recent thread.  Jones recently cited 
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-1/calvet-final.htm which taken in 
conjunction with your suggestion of tachyons would provide a 5D vector “around” 
the reactor wall that seemingly contracts and then re-expands in our 3d exactly 
opposite of the virtual particles which  very briefly “bend” into our 3d then 
back out into 5d..  IMHO gravitational force on the macro and Casimir force on 
the nano are both virtual particle density. We have established open space 
/dirac sea as 0 gravity which is the isotropic density of our 3d plane BUT just 
like the atmosphere you can create a vacuum where that density is even lower 
such as Casimir effect. Going negative by breaching the isotropy with nano 
geometry is radically different than near C spatial displacement and unrelated 
to the squared Pythagorean relationship between V and C. I shudder every time I 
talk about time dilation and contraction because we are so ingrained with the 
near luminal velocities and energies required for a particle to achieve these 
effects on a macro scale –there is also the square law effects that we also 
wrongly assign to Casimir effects, the gravitational effects achieved do not 
have to effect all the surrounding 3d space in the conventional square law 
nature we assume for “equivalent” acceleration. We have to assume “equivalent” 
decleration for the same reason we would select equivalent acceleration for a 
space craft –  because the energy the particle or spacecraft are reacting to 
are not self contained, a black hole gravity well enlarges what Calvert calls a 
“ window” between our 3d and 5d and the bending virtual particles stream slows 
down in a ventorii like effect we perceive as negative time dilation. In the 
case of a  Casimir cavity we accelerates this particle flow by suppressing the 
window that increases the pressure and flow rate around the visiting hydrogen 
atoms in the cavity – with Casimir suppression  positive time dilation occurs 
which we loosely perceive as catalyzation or in the extreme decay rate 
anomalies. So far no substantiated claims of gravity anomalies beyond the EM 
drive are known and even attempts to stack Casimir cavities by Italian 
researchers in the early 2k failed to prove the gravitational connection 
between Casimir effect and gravity I am convinced this will all change soon. A 
relativistic effect in a confined space means both extreme differences in 
inertial frames and linkage with the cavity walls creating the field are 
already established – something that is excluded in “equivalent”  near C 
Lorentzian effects where the square law would place a spaceship in a gravity 
well too distant and diluted to exploit from outside the well despite the huge 
difference in equivalent gravity of the ship and stationary observer outside 
the well. IMHO the anomalous energy in LENR is based upon this interaction with 
5D and we will discover gravitational anomalies are already present immediately 
after we engineer a robust sustained LENR reaction. 

Fran

 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

We can’t build a bridge without a plan. We can’t get LENR to work without a
valid theory. I am beginning to think that LENR is caused by magnetic
particles, let’s call them Exotic Neutral Particles (ENP) that can float on
currents of air. This theory has implications to getting LENR to work. If a
reactor is build out of material that is transparent to ENPs then these
important particles could escape the reactor without producing more ENPs
thus keeping the LENR reaction energy starved. But if the reactor could be
insulated from EMP escape, then the reactor would hold onto the energy that
it produces and become gainful.

Replicators are perplexed by the success of Parkhomov’s reactor. Why can’t
anybody get the Parkhomov reactor to work even with the same fuel that he
used? But everybody is amused by the old iron pot that Parkhomove ran his
experiment in. That iron pot could be keeping the magnetic ENP from
escaping the confines of his reactor. All the other replicators let their
precious ENPs escape into the air.

Why does Rossi enclose his fuel in a cartridge containing layers of steel?
Could the iron particle in the Lugano fuel sample come from a magnetic
confinement system? Does Rossi have an iron mesh inside the alumina tube to
produce magnetic confinement? If theory says that keeping ENPs confined is
important, then the use of iron and steel in Rossi type reactors becomes
interesting.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:11 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> I assume that your concepts include the various particles such as the
>> polyneutron, Erzion, etc. but Rossi has never mentioned any of these.  They
>> may be involved in the LENR process, but I suspect that Rossi has never
>> used those terms within his postings.
>>
>
>
> http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/
>
>
> Rossi’s closest technician and engineer since 2012, *Fulvio Fabiani:*
>
> "And then you realize that it is something unique. We have it all filmed,
> which still cannot be disclosed. We have photographs of creatures that emit
> pure light that have completely melted the reactor down, all in a very
> quiet way. You just turn off the stimuli system and the reaction is
> switched off. It’s impressive."
>
> These "creatures that emit pure light" are the photonic based Exotic
> Neutral Particles(ENP) the other people has seen in their experiments.
>
> The ENPs looks and act differently because they are holding different
> light wavelengths based on the level of power they contain.
>
> These ENPs are weak in the infrared, visible at intermediate
> light strength levels, and very powerful in the XUV and x-ray ranges. This
> is what R, Mills sees as black light in his experiments.
>
> This is what I call dark mode Surface Plasmon Polaritons.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

2015-12-03 Thread Jed Rothwell

a.ashfield  wrote:

> Likewise, THE government expertise in energy is supposed to reside in the
> Dept of Energy.
>

For most sources of energy that is true. The DoE does have top experts in
coal, oil, and nuclear power and other conventional energy.

>   I have had an extended discussions with them about LENR and can confirm
> that the universal consensus there is that LENR is impossible because there
> is now way of overcoming the Coulomb barrier at low temperature.   I have a
> friend there that tries to bring up the subject, but he is told to shut up
> as LENR is pseudo science.  Experts are not immune from group-think.
>

You misunderstand. Those are not experts. Not with regard to cold fusion.
They are probably experts about other sources of energy, or about physics.
They think of themselves as experts on cold fusion, but actually they are
ignorant. If they were experts they would know that cold fusion is real.

They are also not experts on the scientific method, because they do not
understand that experiments overrule theory.

Just because people call themselves experts and just because many members
of the public think they are experts, that does not actually make them
experts. They have to be correct about critical aspects of the subject
matter.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

2015-12-03 Thread Lennart Thornros

Jed, glad you can see that the government cannot just select who is the
expert. I hope you can find the conclusion that it is only people that can
get results. Next conclusion could be; that if people are positioned in a
comfortable way, with very little impact from the result achieved, they
will tend to avoid risk taking. CYA becomes the norm.
Your argument to why the people addressed are the wrong people is very
typical. You can search for ever and never ind the RIGHT person/position as
they are all more or less CYA or as you say they get fired because
revolting.
In other words there is no way we can ask the government what will happen
with the climate. Impact by Exxon, Goldman Sachs and all the others will
impact the response.
Going back to the Paris meeting; do you think there will be anything
positive coming out of that? There is a bunch of politicians, influential
economic interest and a lot of people cashing in perks meeting with a few
scientists. With very few exceptions the scientists has no way of
communicate with the others as the others are as poorly educated in the
subject as I am in regards to the scientific speculations about LENR. Would
you like me to make decisions about how to go ahead with LENR research?

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> Likewise, THE government expertise in energy is supposed to reside in the
>> Dept of Energy.
>>
>
> For most sources of energy that is true. The DoE does have top experts in
> coal, oil, and nuclear power and other conventional energy.
>
>
>
>>   I have had an extended discussions with them about LENR and can confirm
>> that the universal consensus there is that LENR is impossible because there
>> is now way of overcoming the Coulomb barrier at low temperature.   I have a
>> friend there that tries to bring up the subject, but he is told to shut up
>> as LENR is pseudo science.  Experts are not immune from group-think.
>>
>
> You misunderstand. Those are not experts. Not with regard to cold fusion.
> They are probably experts about other sources of energy, or about physics.
> They think of themselves as experts on cold fusion, but actually they are
> ignorant. If they were experts they would know that cold fusion is real.
>
> They are also not experts on the scientific method, because they do not
> understand that experiments overrule theory.
>
> Just because people call themselves experts and just because many members
> of the public think they are experts, that does not actually make them
> experts. They have to be correct about critical aspects of the subject
> matter.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

Where would the 3He be coming from?  3He is only 7e-12 in the atmosphere.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
> This is a clearly refutes the skeptic's position in his argument that the
>> Coulomb barrier cannot be overcome at low temperature.  If that fundamental
>> argument is wrong, what else do they have wrong?
>>
>
> I like your argument in general, as well as your summary of the problem of
> inadequate knowledge about Coulomb barrier penetration.
>
> About the Coulomb barrier in relation to the appearance of tritium of the
> kind seen by Tom Claytor, it is possible that the two are unrelated, and
> the tritium comes from other processes.  An example is the possibility of
> an endothermic electron capture along the following lines:
>
> e- + 3He => e- + neutrino + t - 19 keV
>
> Eric
>

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

2015-12-03 Thread Lennart Thornros

If I take your own arguments and ask you to read them. Does that not tell
you that government are incapable of handling changes and to take risks.
You say that the people knows more about other issues but LENR. Just one
single argument for that statement would be a surprise. Why do you not
accept that large organizations foster a CYA mentality.

As we talked about the Paris conference I had an email from a health letter
I subscribe to. For reasons I do not understand sometimes they send me
investment advices. Here is what this newsletter said. I think that is a
correct observation.
December 3, 2015

The War on Climate Change Means Big Profits for Savvy Investors
by Keith Fitz-Gerald

Dear *Total Wealth* Investor,

More than 30,000 diplomats have converged on Paris, France for what is
being called "one of the most important international conferences in
history."

*"Tackling climate change is a shared mission for mankind," said China's
President Xi Jinping, the head of the world's largest carbon emitter. "All
eyes are now on Paris."*

*"If we act here, if we act now," President Obama added, "if we place our
short-term interests over air our young people will breathe... it won't be
too late for them." *

*"Here in Paris," French President Hollande declared, "we will decide on
the very future of the planet." *

Perhaps I'm too skeptical for my own good, but that's very similar to what
world leaders said in 1997 just before the Kyoto Accords. And *those* have
proven to be little more than lip service.

Even if 100% of the Kyoto requirements are followed by 100% of the 192
countries that signed them, they will deliver less than 0.020 C in cooling
by *2050* despite costing hundreds of billions of dollars.

Is that worth it?

I have no idea - I'm not a scientific expert.

But I do know beyond any shadow of a doubt that trillions of dollars are
going to get set in motion no matter what happens in *La Ville Lumière*.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> "For most sources of energy that is true. The DoE does have top experts in
>> coal, oil, and nuclear power and other conventional energy."
>>
>> I don't buy the argument that you can be specialized in conventional
>> energy and dead ignorant about anything new.
>
>
> They are dead ignorant about cold fusion. It is likely they are not so
> ignorant about other new discoveries.
>
> As everyone here knows, there is widespread bias against cold fusion. A
> great deal of misinformation about it spread by opinion makers such as
> Nature magazine, Scientific American and even Wikipedia. The DoE experts
> are affected by society and they share this bias. That is not surprising.
> Many scientists outside the DoE also share in it. This is why there are no
> corporations or universities developing cold fusion.
>
> Michael Melich was talking to a top DoE official. He asked: "Why do you
> put the editor of Nature in charge of US energy policy?" I do not think the
> guy answered. He was reportedly miffed.
>
>
>
>> The staff are almost all PhDs, supposedly the best scientists our
>> universities can turn out . . .
>
>
> They are necessarily the very best, but they are in the top tier. For that
> matter so are the editors at Nature and the administrators at the APS. Yet
> we know they are completely ignorant of cold fusion. Smart people often
> believe stupid things. History is full of examples.
>
>
>
>> . . .  what the hell do they learn about science if they are not able to
>> look at anything new?
>
>
> I expect they look at other things, but not cold fusion.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

FWIW … At the MIT Colloquium last summer, Claytor indicated he has switched
> to Mu metal as giving significantly better results than palladium.


Is this for excess heat, or for generating tritium?

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

2015-12-03 Thread Jones Beene

From: Bob Higgins
 
*   Sorry for the characterization of Claytor's work as electrochemical - 
it was gas phase plasma with Pd.  While it is a gas phase plasma reaction, the 
reaction appears to be occurring at the metal surface.

FWIW … At the MIT Colloquium last summer, Claytor indicated he has switched to 
Mu metal as giving significantly better results than palladium. 

Specifically he mentioned Co-Netic AA, a brand of Mu metal consisting of 
nickel(80%), iron(15%) and molybdenum(5%) with permeability of 30,000.  
Notably, all three are Mills catalysts.

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

2015-12-03 Thread CB Sites

Claytor does seem to have some interesting work.  Indeed.

In regards to the physics of global warming, it's very real.  It is certain
to be very disruptive to civilization and biosystems for 1000s of years.
For some background, this is an award winning student physics paper that
provides some mathematical bases for acceptance of global warming.

 http://sections.maa.org/epadel/students/studentWinners/2010_Hamermesh.pdf

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
>
>
> Ø   Sorry for the characterization of Claytor's work as
> electrochemical - it was gas phase plasma with Pd.  While it is a gas phase
> plasma reaction, the reaction appears to be occurring at the metal surface.
>
> FWIW … At the MIT Colloquium last summer, Claytor indicated he has switched
> to Mu metal as giving significantly better results than palladium.
>
> Specifically he mentioned Co-Netic AA, a brand of Mu metal consisting of
> nickel(80%), iron(15%) and molybdenum(5%) with permeability of 30,000.
> Notably, all three are Mills catalysts.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

2015-12-03 Thread Daniel Rocha

What axil says is true. Not regarding odd particles and stuff. But the
confinement to improve. But this is not something Rossi discovered. Rather,
it was one of the things that led another group to be discredited.

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> If the process was neutron capture, where are you proposing that the
> neutrons are coming from?
>

The thought was that if the amount of tritium was on the order of the
background count for neutrons, the tritium might come from very low levels
of free neutrons generated within the system itself by some unknown process
(e.g., spallation).  If the level of tritium is significantly above that of
the background neutron count, this hypothesis wouldn't make sense.

I am only vaguely familiar with Claytor's work.  He may actually be seeing
low but significant levels of neutrons at times.  Some researchers have
reported them at low levels.

I have a hard time believing this can occur without overcoming the Coulomb
> barrier such that either the proton or the neutron in a deuterium is in
> contact with the neutron of the donor nucleus.  Once they are in contact,
> and the strong force is in play with both nuclei, the neutron would
> statistically be transferred in some cases, but doing this would still
> require overcoming the Coloumb barrier at low temperature.
>

Do you have any ideas for donor nuclei?  This is possible with nickel,
palladium or lithium, but simple transfer reactions are endothermic,
implying that the deuterons must be energetic, even if there's no Coulomb
barrier getting in the way:

d + 61Ni => t + 60Ni + -1563 keV
d + 105Pd => t + 104Pd + -837 keV
d + 7Li => t + 6Li + -994 keV

There are some interesting exothermic fragmentation reactions:

d + 105Pd => t + 50Ti + 54Cr + 18133 keV
d + 6Li => p + t + 4He + 2559 keV

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Where would the 3He be coming from?  3He is only 7e-12 in the atmosphere.
>

It might be a daughter of another reaction.  Because the tritium is in
small (but detectable) amounts, not commensurate with heat (I've even heard
that it is not correlated with heat, but am less sure about this), there's
more room for explanations that do not quite fit within the constraints of
the primary heat-generating process.

Another possibility is that tritium arises from neutron capture with
deuterium. Again, because there's so little tritium in general, you
wouldn't need too many neutrons.

I'm having a hard time thinking of a situation in which a charged particle
like a proton would lead to tritium, since there's an overabundance of
neutrons, unless it's through spallation or ejection of some kind.  What do
you propose in this connection that would normally be prevented by the
Coulomb barrier but in this case is not?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

2015-12-03 Thread Jed Rothwell

a.ashfield  wrote:

> "For most sources of energy that is true. The DoE does have top experts in
> coal, oil, and nuclear power and other conventional energy."
>
> I don't buy the argument that you can be specialized in conventional
> energy and dead ignorant about anything new.

They are dead ignorant about cold fusion. It is likely they are not so
ignorant about other new discoveries.

As everyone here knows, there is widespread bias against cold fusion. A
great deal of misinformation about it spread by opinion makers such as
Nature magazine, Scientific American and even Wikipedia. The DoE experts
are affected by society and they share this bias. That is not surprising.
Many scientists outside the DoE also share in it. This is why there are no
corporations or universities developing cold fusion.

Michael Melich was talking to a top DoE official. He asked: "Why do you put
the editor of Nature in charge of US energy policy?" I do not think the guy
answered. He was reportedly miffed.

> The staff are almost all PhDs, supposedly the best scientists our
> universities can turn out . . .

They are necessarily the very best, but they are in the top tier. For that
matter so are the editors at Nature and the administrators at the APS. Yet
we know they are completely ignorant of cold fusion. Smart people often
believe stupid things. History is full of examples.

> . . .  what the hell do they learn about science if they are not able to
> look at anything new?

I expect they look at other things, but not cold fusion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments


Bob,
Thank you for your comment.  That is a good argument using tritium.

Possibly Eric means another way for forming tritium that doesn't involve 
the Coulomb barrier.  To use a nonsensical example because I can't think 
of a good one.  Quarks disassembling and reassembling elsewhere else.

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

2015-12-03 Thread Jed Rothwell

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

Jed, glad you can see that the government cannot just select who is the
> expert.
>

Neither can corporations, universities or individual philanthropists.
Problems such as the Dunning-Kruger effect often prevent it. Of course
governments and other institutions succeed sometimes. We would not have
cold fusion if institutions such as the University of Utah did not have
enlightened administrators, especially Peterson:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PetersonCtheguardia.pdf

He gets a large share of the credit for cold fusion.

As I said before, we would not have lasers or computers if governments were
not often good at selecting experts.

I hope you can find the conclusion that it is only people that can get
> results.
>

No, individual people are no better than institutional methods. In most
cases they are worse. For example, institutions such as national
laboratories have strict internal peer review processes which tend to weed
out bad ideas. They are better at this than most individual people.

Next conclusion could be; that if people are positioned in a comfortable
> way, with very little impact from the result achieved, they will tend to
> avoid risk taking. CYA becomes the norm.
>

That is just as true in corporations, universities and elsewhere. But I do
not think it is an important factor. If it were, wealthy people would never
work hard, do good science, or take risks because they are comfortable. I
know many hard-working wealthy people.

Your argument to why the people addressed are the wrong people is very
> typical.
>

It is just as typical of individual judgement as institutional judgement.
Scientists in private life who have no decision making roles at all are
just as biased against cold fusion as the DoE administrators are.

> In other words there is no way we can ask the government what will happen
> with the climate. Impact by Exxon, Goldman Sachs and all the others will
> impact the response.
>

It will also be impacted by the professional researchers at the NOAA and
other climatologists.

All policy decisions, and the funding of any program is always affected by
politics, greed, money and other factors. This is true in government, in
private corporations and when individuals fund research. It is true even
when individuals fund themselves. When Patterson, Rossi, Storms and others
funded their own research by themselves, their decisions were affected by
political factors and money, and by their own biases and weaknesses.

There are always powerful interests opposing every change, every new
technology, and every improvement to safety and public health. The tobacco
interests tried to prevent society from learning that cigarettes cause
cancer, and to try to prevent antismoking campaigns. It succeeded for a
long time but eventually doctors and others won out, and smoking declined.

> Going back to the Paris meeting; do you think there will be anything
> positive coming out of that? There is a bunch of politicians, influential
> economic interest and a lot of people cashing in perks meeting with a few
> scientists.
>

If there are no meetings at all, and the politicians and people with money
never discuss these issues with scientists then I am sure there will be no
progress. No policy and no thought to the future can only result in stasis.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

Sorry for the characterization of Claytor's work as electrochemical - it
was gas phase plasma with Pd.  While it is a gas phase plasma reaction, the
reaction appears to be occurring at the metal surface.

I have heard that he is able to tune the reaction toward tritium production
or heat.  I am not supplying an explanation of how I think this works.

I believe he is working with highly pure deuterium gas.  If the process was
neutron capture, where are you proposing that the neutrons are coming
from?  If not coming from some kind of free neutron, and is instead coming
from another nucleus, this is a nuclear process.  I have a hard time
believing this can occur without overcoming the Coulomb barrier such that
either the proton or the neutron in a deuterium is in contact with the
neutron of the donor nucleus.  Once they are in contact, and the strong
force is in play with both nuclei, the neutron would statistically be
transferred in some cases, but doing this would still require overcoming
the Coloumb barrier at low temperature.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
> Where would the 3He be coming from?  3He is only 7e-12 in the atmosphere.
>>
>
> It might be a daughter of another reaction.  Because the tritium is in
> small (but detectable) amounts, not commensurate with heat (I've even heard
> that it is not correlated with heat, but am less sure about this), there's
> more room for explanations that do not quite fit within the constraints of
> the primary heat-generating process.
>
> Another possibility is that tritium arises from neutron capture with
> deuterium. Again, because there's so little tritium in general, you
> wouldn't need too many neutrons.
>
> I'm having a hard time thinking of a situation in which a charged particle
> like a proton would lead to tritium, since there's an overabundance of
> neutrons, unless it's through spallation or ejection of some kind.  What do
> you propose in this connection that would normally be prevented by the
> Coulomb barrier but in this case is not?
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments


Jed wrote:

"For most sources of energy that is true. The DoE does have top experts in
coal, oil, and nuclear power and other conventional energy."

I don't buy the argument that you can be specialized in conventional 
energy and dead ignorant about anything new. The staff are almost all 
PhDs, supposedly the best scientists our universities can turn out, what 
the hell do they learn about science if they are not able to look at 
anything new?  DOE's primary job is to advise the decision makers what 
to do.  How can they possibly do that if they don't keep abreast of 
developments?
Perhaps a few engineers would help if they can't see ITER like power 
generation will never be economical.


Very few of the prominent "Climate Scientists" have qualifications in 
climate.  I don't think a degree in that subject even existed when they 
were at school.  Any competent person with training in math and 
statistics can do as well or probably better.  Steve McItyre for 
example.  They are just self proclaimed experts.  I think the piece of 
paper has very little to do with their competence.

RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

2015-12-03 Thread Jones Beene

From: Eric Walker 

FWIW … At the MIT Colloquium last summer, Claytor indicated he has switched to 
Mu metal as giving significantly better results than palladium.


Is this for excess heat, or for generating tritium?

 

Eric,

 

I think it is both. The talk was in 2014 and there appears to be no paper 
online. As I recall, his process is tunable for more heat and less tritium, or 
vice versa.

[Vo]:Magnetic Wormhole Created

2015-12-03 Thread Terry Blanton

Hey, Axil, did you write this?  :-)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/magnetic-wormhole-created-in-lab/

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

As I remember from his papers, he actually tested in some tunnels to
improve his neutron detection S/N.  What he found was that the neutrons
were always undetectable in his system, but the tritium measurement was 10
sigma confident.  It set a limit to how many orders of magnitude the
neutron branch of his reaction must be below the tritium branch - something
like at least E6 below the tritium branch.

I have not seen him reporting transmutation of the host metal - perhaps it
is only catalytic.  I do remember seeing what Jones said about having
switched to mu-metal and seeing a boost in tritium production.  Other than
this host metal and its internal purity, I think his gasses are highly pure
(five 9s).

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>
>> If the process was neutron capture, where are you proposing that the
>> neutrons are coming from?
>>
>
> The thought was that if the amount of tritium was on the order of the
> background count for neutrons, the tritium might come from very low levels
> of free neutrons generated within the system itself by some unknown process
> (e.g., spallation).  If the level of tritium is significantly above that of
> the background neutron count, this hypothesis wouldn't make sense.
>
> I am only vaguely familiar with Claytor's work.  He may actually be seeing
> low but significant levels of neutrons at times.  Some researchers have
> reported them at low levels.
>
> I have a hard time believing this can occur without overcoming the Coulomb
>> barrier such that either the proton or the neutron in a deuterium is in
>> contact with the neutron of the donor nucleus.  Once they are in contact,
>> and the strong force is in play with both nuclei, the neutron would
>> statistically be transferred in some cases, but doing this would still
>> require overcoming the Coloumb barrier at low temperature.
>>
>
> Do you have any ideas for donor nuclei?  This is possible with nickel,
> palladium or lithium, but simple transfer reactions are endothermic,
> implying that the deuterons must be energetic, even if there's no Coulomb
> barrier getting in the way:
>
> d + 61Ni => t + 60Ni + -1563 keV
> d + 105Pd => t + 104Pd + -837 keV
> d + 7Li => t + 6Li + -994 keV
>
> There are some interesting exothermic fragmentation reactions:
>
> d + 105Pd => t + 50Ti + 54Cr + 18133 keV
> d + 6Li => p + t + 4He + 2559 keV
>
> Eric
>

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

On the topic of overcoming the arguments of such hardened
pseudo-scientist-skeptics as you encountered at the DOE, I suggest you are
making the wrong argument to break past their inept mindset.

"I have had an extended discussions with them about LENR and can confirm
that the universal consensus there is that LENR is impossible because there
is now way of overcoming the Coulomb barrier at low temperature."

The counter to that argument is the heroic work of Tom Claytor at/from LANL
demonstrating production of tritium from an electrochemical LENR cell.
Unlike helium as a LENR product, which is hard to prove didn't come from an
atmospheric leak, tritium does not exist in the atmosphere in any
measurable quantity.  Its short half life (12.3 years) quickly rids the
environment of any significant accumulation.  Tritium CANNOT be produced
from a chemical reaction - only from a nuclear reaction.  Tom Claytor is a
tritium detection expert and has repeatedly demonstrated tritium production
from his electrochemical cells.  He has produced tritium without
commensurate release of neutrons.  This is not possible on the basis of
conventional fusion theory - neither the production of tritium nor the lack
of commensurate neutron emission.  This is a clearly refutes the skeptic's
position in his argument that the Coulomb barrier cannot be overcome at low
temperature.  If that fundamental argument is wrong, what else do they have
wrong?

Such "scientists", with a position like the one quoted above, are
pseudo-scientists.  They have lost the perspective of what Physics IS.
Physics is the science of modeling natural phenomena using mathematics.
Natural phenomena are infinitely complex, and no model created has ever or
ever will completely and perfectly model all natural phenomena.  Like any
physical model for a sub-behavior of natural phenomena, the model is only
useful within bounds determined by the original simplifying assumptions
used to begin development of the model.  Such simplifying assumptions are
almost always lost to the users of handy mathematical models over the
course of the years.  Many pseudo-scientists (and this is what makes them
"pseudo-") come to believe that the model is a complete description of
natural phenomena.  Such people will gloss over anomalies in the data that
fall outside of modeled behavior because the model is presumed to be
complete and correct - so the anomalies must be error.  These people don't
look into the nature of the anomalies to see if the difference is
consistent with statistics of random error.  Ed Storms neatly examines in
his book, why on a statistical basis, LENR outcomes cannot be just due to
error (he is a first class scientist).

There is a whole field of science in data restoration (for example image
restoration) that iteratively seeks to model the source image, apply
modeled known defects to the image, and looks at what is left over.  Does
the remaining data have the characteristics of random noise or is there
still entropy in the residual error data?  If there is still entropy
(information), then the model for the uncorrupted image data is not yet
correct.

The underlying model simplification that is at the core of the Coulomb
barrier argument is a model based on the two-body problem - a drastically
simplified model of natural behavior in the vicinity of a random collision
of two isolated ions in a plasma.  This has an analog in planetary science
- the two-body orbital model.  Kepler neatly solved for the orbits of two
bodies in 1605.  However, what was really desired was a good closed form
orbital model for the Earth-Moon-Sun for navigational calculations.  In
1887, Poincare showed that for 3 or more bodies, there is no closed form
mathematical solution - the problem is infinitely complex and the behavior
depends upon the infinitely variable initial conditions.  To arrive at a
solution, presumptions must be made to simplify the problem; and the
solution, thus realized is only useful within the bounds of the foundation
presumptions.  Compare this to condensed matter nuclear reactions - 10s,
100s, 1000s or more bodies may be involved in the reactions.  How could one
possibly suspect that there would be no cracks in application of a LENR
model based on isolated 2-body ion collisions?  This 2-body model is the
basis of the understanding of the pseudo-scientists.

To top this off, most do not realize how bad is the current state of
modeling of the nucleus.  No single nuclear model predicts all measured
behaviors today.  Further, NONE, of the mainstream models for the nucleus
predict naturally observed asymmetric nuclear fission - they predict even
split fission;  AND, fission is the most used nuclear phenomenon!

Bob Higgins

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:34 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Jed,
> I disagree with your repeated comments about the "experts" understanding
> global warming.
> I wrote "There is nothing unusual about the weather." If you follow the
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

I think the statement, "What happens to a photon in a strong magnetic field
is solved by classical (Maxwell,s) theory I believe." is probably only
correct only in the part that you believe it.  No one really knows what a
photon is (try to find some good scholarly articles on what a photon IS),
so they declared it a fundamental particle.  Maxwell's theory is a good
physical model with wide applicability, but I doubt that the real behavior
of a photon can be modeled with a linear solution like Maxwell's theory.
Some have tried to describe the photon as a soliton, but solitons are a
solution of nonlinear differential equations and Maxwell is linear.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>
> What happens to a photon in a strong magnetic field is solved by classical
> (Maxwell,s) theory I believe.  Axil’s ENP’s may be nothing more that strong
> magnetic lines of force.  Such lines of force may be enhanced by
> ferromagnetic material and/or directed in certain directions in Rossi’s
> reactor.  At sufficient magnitude they may also direct EM radiation and or
> change its frequency.  We do not know what happens in nano materials.
> Rossi has indicated normal physics is all that is required to understand
> his reactor.  He seems to disbelieve the exotic ideas Axil brings to the
> table.  It would be interesting to ask him whether he the concept of
> virtual particles and the 5th dimension Fran and other Vorts have
> hypothesized form time to time.
>
> Bob Cook
>

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

2015-12-03 Thread Ludwik Kowalski

1) Thank you for the link:

   
http://www.scribd.com/doc/242284200/Observation-of-abundant-heat-production-from-a-reactor-device-and-of-isotopic-changes-in-the-fuel

to the 2014 "e-cat report," Isotopic changes in the fuel," by G. Levi (Bologna 
University) and E. Fusch 
(Upsala University)--"Observation  of  Abundant  Heat  Production  from  a  
Reactor  Device  and of  isotopic Changes in the Fuel."  

2) Does anyone know why it was published in the ecatword, rather than in a 
refereed journal, like our CMNS?

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)



On Dec 3, 2015, at 11:34 AM, a.ashfield wrote:

> Jed,
> I disagree with your repeated comments about the "experts" understanding 
> global warming.
> I wrote "There is nothing unusual about the weather." If you follow the link 
> you will see that is true.
>  
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/29/climate-and-human-civilization-over-the-last-18000-years-2/
> Not to mention that the satellite temperature measurements show no increase 
> for the last ~19 years which falsifies the IPCC model projections.
> 
> Likewise, THE government expertise in energy is supposed to reside in the 
> Dept of Energy.  I have had an extended discussions with them about LENR and 
> can confirm that the universal consensus there is that LENR is impossible 
> because there is now way of overcoming the Coulomb barrier at low 
> temperature.   I have a friend there that tries to bring up the subject, but 
> he is told to shut up as LENR is pseudo science.  Experts are not immune from 
> group-think.
> 
> In frustration I wrote the following letter on 7/7/2015.  I have not received 
> a reply.
> 
> To Dr. Ernest Moniz - Secretary of Energy
> 
> Dear Dr. Moniz,
> 
> I read that you have been closely associated with DOE and MIT for many years. 
>  Why have both those organizations ignored LENR (aka cold fusion)?  In fact 
> both were involved in the infanticide of that field in 1989 – 1990.  May I 
> suggest you read the few pages by Beaudette linked here to see why that was a 
> mistake?http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf
> 
> See also the special section on LENR in Current Science, starting with 
> McKubre’s paper. 
> http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/feat.php?feature=Special%20Section:%20Low%20Energy%20Nuclear%20Reactions=10094
> 
> The game changed after Andrea Rossi contacted Prof Focardi in 2007 and he 
> demonstrated a reactor called the E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) in 2011 that was 
> capable of generating kW of heat.  Developed with his own funds, some details 
> of the design were not released.  The refusal of the Patent Office to 
> consider patents on cold fusion – thanks to DOE staff – didn’t help.
> 
> In 2013-2014 ELFORSK (Swedish equivalent of EPRI) tested the later high 
> temperature E-Cat twice at Lugano.  The second time for a month, when it 
> produced 1.5 MW of excess heat.  Late last year and again this year Dr. 
> Parkhomov replicated the Lugano test in Russia.  Reported at the ICCF-19 
> Conference.
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/242284200/Observation-of-abundant-heat-production-from-a-reactor-device-and-of-isotopic-changes-in-the-fuel
> 
> Rossi sold the rights for the E-Cat to Industrial Heat LLC over a year ago.  
> They have built a 1 MW thermal LENR plant that has been operating for 137 
> days (now 9 months)as part of a one year trial.  Norway's largest newspaper 
> Aftenposten has reported they have expert third party confirmation that it is 
> operating well  Other independent reports are that it is running well with a 
> COP of 20 –   80(!)   Photos of the plant  
> http://andrea-rossi.com/1mw-plant/
> 
> LENR is proven beyond reasonable doubt.  Some of your people like NASA Chief 
> Scientist Dennis Bushnell endorse it but DOE doesn’t.  From direct experience 
> of DOE (eg. cleaning up the radwaste at Hanford – we would have finished by 
> now) I don’t expect DOE to help, but you should re-evaluate money you are 
> spending on renewable energy, like ITER and solar, and fire the group-think 
> physicists who have provided such poor advice, missing something as important 
> as LENR.
> You have been with tasked with implementing critical Department of Energy 
> missions in support of President Obama's goals of growing the economy, 
> enhancing security and protecting the environment. But by not even 
> considering cheap, safe, pollution free LENR I think you have failed in your 
> duty. 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Adrian Ashfield

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

This is a clearly refutes the skeptic's position in his argument that the
> Coulomb barrier cannot be overcome at low temperature.  If that fundamental
> argument is wrong, what else do they have wrong?
>

I like your argument in general, as well as your summary of the problem of
inadequate knowledge about Coulomb barrier penetration.

About the Coulomb barrier in relation to the appearance of tritium of the
kind seen by Tom Claytor, it is possible that the two are unrelated, and
the tritium comes from other processes.  An example is the possibility of
an endothermic electron capture along the following lines:

e- + 3He => e- + neutrino + t - 19 keV

Eric

[Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

As I remember, the modeling of a photon  (not known to Maxwell per that name)  
is an oscillating local electric and orthogonal magnetic field that propagates 
in a vacuum at the speed of light in a direction perpendicular to the plane 
established by the electric and magnetic fields.  Maxwell assigned magnetic and 
electric properties to the vacuum to account for the speed of light.  The 
changing electric field generated the magnetic field in the space occupied by 
the disturbance and the changing magnetic field generated the coupled electric 
field of the disturbance—light.   The amplitude of the respective oscillating 
fields defined the energy of the light at any given point in space.  There was 
no concept of a photon as a particle to my knowledge.  

My thought was that a strong magnetic field may disrupt the oscillating nature 
of the light—disturbance—as it passes through the magnetic field, changing its 
frequency and or intensity and direction of propagation.  I would assume that 
the magnetic field intensities would add at any instant of time and space.   

Bob Cook



From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 10:22 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

I think the statement, "What happens to a photon in a strong magnetic field is 
solved by classical (Maxwell,s) theory I believe." is probably only correct 
only in the part that you believe it.  No one really knows what a photon is 
(try to find some good scholarly articles on what a photon IS), so they 
declared it a fundamental particle.  Maxwell's theory is a good physical model 
with wide applicability, but I doubt that the real behavior of a photon can be 
modeled with a linear solution like Maxwell's theory.  Some have tried to 
describe the photon as a soliton, but solitons are a solution of nonlinear 
differential equations and Maxwell is linear.


On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:


  What happens to a photon in a strong magnetic field is solved by classical 
(Maxwell,s) theory I believe.  Axil’s ENP’s may be nothing more that strong 
magnetic lines of force.  Such lines of force may be enhanced by ferromagnetic 
material and/or directed in certain directions in Rossi’s reactor.  At 
sufficient magnitude they may also direct EM radiation and or change its 
frequency.  We do not know what happens in nano materials.  Rossi has indicated 
normal physics is all that is required to understand his reactor.  He seems to 
disbelieve the exotic ideas Axil brings to the table.  It would be interesting 
to ask him whether he the concept of virtual particles and the 5th dimension 
Fran and other Vorts have hypothesized form time to time. 

  Bob Cook

[Vo]:Re: Story on climate crisis would need some comments