Re: [Vo]:X-rays, IR, RF & the Rossi effect

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Coincidentally, a similar procedure used by Lehigh to test the Thermacore
> powder in the early nineties after a successful run. Lehigh was able to see
> the signature emission line predicted by Mills at 55 eV instead of the
> cop-out “continuum” which Mills now tries to cover with. A continuum with a
> cutoff cannot be a signature. It is basically noise. Or in Mills case, it
> is noise with spin …


I was thinking about the "continuum spectrum" purportedly predicted by
Mills's theory.  In this connection I want to propose that the basic
reaction behind Mills's work is the induced beta decay/electron capture of
40K, 58Ni, 59Ni and similar isotopes.

In a beta decay, the beta electron that is emitted follows a continuum
spectrum with a maximum value of the Q value of the decay.  As the electron
is stopped, there will be a continuous spectrum of bremsstrahlung as well
as excitation of electrons in surrounding atoms resulting in photons with
characteristic (sharp) energy.  In the case of 40K, the upper bound on the
energy of the beta electron is 1.3 MeV.  Most beta electrons will have far
less energy than this, the remainder of which will go to the neutrino, and
the energy that they do have will not be lost all at once; instead it will
be gradually shed off in small increments as the electron is stopped.

This description of beta decay is to be contrasted with electron capture,
which might also be occurring in some of these isotopes.  In that case, a
neutrino is emitted with a distinct energy equal to the Q value of the
decay, escaping the apparatus.  But there is a cascade of photoemission and
Auger electrons that follows as the electron orbitals adjust to the new
nucleus that will convey a small but significant amount of energy to the
environment.

Beta plus decay, which normally competes with electron capture, can be
ruled out experimentally, for we do not see significant annihilation
photons (or their equivalent, if one does not like the premise of
matter-antimatter annihilation).  I do not see its absence as an
overwhelming obstacle for this account of things, for there might be a
simple explanation for electron capture successfully competing with beta
plus decay.  In order for 58Ni to be involved, there would have to be
double-electron capture, which I don't think I've ever heard of before.
It's possible that 58Ni is not involved.

In both beta +/- decay and electron capture there is a subsequent gamma
photon/internal conversion electron as the excited daughter nucleus
transitions to the ground state.  The gamma photon is perhaps ruled out by
experiment, but note that it will typically be a small fraction of the
overall decay Q value, which in the case of 40K is 1.3 MeV, so perhaps ~
200 keV (in the hard x-ray range; penetrating, but not as much as gammas).
If such photons are absolutely ruled out by experiment, there might be a
simple explanation for why internal conversion competes successfully
against gamma photon emission.

Eric

[Vo]:new images RAR Energia gravity motor

[a.ashfield]

RAR Energia have published some clearer images of the mechanism at the 
end of their web page.   The design has some modifications but it is 
still not clear (to me) how it is supposed to work.  It seems they have 
not given up.

http://www.rarenergia.com.br/

Re: [Vo]:EIA graphs shows the decline in coal use, increase in natural gas and wind

[Jed Rothwell]

Alain Sepeda  wrote:


> I'm not convinced Powerwall will be less expensive than LENR capacity, but
> why not.
>

I do not think of full-scale power wall would be needed with a cold fusion
generator. The PowerWall has 7 kWh capacity. I think that a steam turbine
cold fusion generator will take some time to reach peak output, so it will
need some sort of buffer -- either a battery or a super capacitor. You also
needs something for power spikes and short-term load leveling. When you
turn on most machines they tend to spike momentarily.

I suppose 1 or 2 kWh would be enough. I assume that the cold fusion
generator would be large enough to meet peak demand, but it might take ~5
minutes reach the highest power level.

https://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall

In the message I wrote before, ". . . in this scenario they have a Tesla
Powerwall, so they do not need a generator capable of peak demand," I meant
the scenario with solar panels and a small gas-fired backup generator.

Suppose your average daytime use is ~8 kWh per hour, with an occasional
peak of 14 kWh for one hour. I think an 11 kW gas backup generator plus a
Powerwall could meet this. During the day the Powerwall would fill up with
solar PV power. On rainy days or at night the gas generator would turn on,
as needed. Before you run the washing machine, you might check the
Powerwall screen to see if there is enough solar power + generator power +
plus stored Powerwall energy. If it says "washing machine cannot be run"
you press a button to turn on the gas generator. It runs until the
Powerwall battery is full. The machine beeps and you know you can now run
the washing machine.

This kind of monitoring and juggling of resources would not be necessary
with cold fusion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:new images RAR Energia gravity motor

[John Berry]

Sheesh, that monstrosity is only meant to generate 30KW.

So even IF it works perfectly, it is a terrible sounding investment!

I can kinda understand that they might be having trouble with it even IF
they are right about the concept, there are so many moving parts in that
thing it would be easy to lose a decade trying to get it to all work
together smoothly, with low enough friction etc...

And it is hard to believe in an impossible sounding, unclear complex
design...

John


On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 7:21 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> RAR Energia have published some clearer images of the mechanism at the end
> of their web page.   The design has some modifications but it is still not
> clear (to me) how it is supposed to work.  It seems they have not given up.
> http://www.rarenergia.com.br/
>
>

[Vo]:a new book about A. Rossi, good for LENR! plus a ~PdD NiH debate

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/12/dec-16-2015-lenr-debate-new-book-about.html

I have put passion in the debate, actually it is about the "Principle of
the Chief Engineer"- the guide of my professional life.

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

Re: [Vo]:EIA graphs shows the decline in coal use, increase in natural gas and wind

[Alain Sepeda]

This look rational.
Note that even with the grid surviving, we would not need the usual
transcontinental grid, but a small clustered nano/microgrid.

One place for optimisation is connection different consumers like housing
and industry, or commerces, and offices, electric cars, ...

I'm not convinced Powerwall will be less expensive than LENR capacity, but
why not.
Just pluging to the block-microgrid, or just to your building nano-grid may
be more efficient than powerwall... or you share the powerwall.

some UberPop sharing economy may replace utilities.

whatever happen they have to change their model.
like for Telcos they cannot sell energy, except to industrialists by MW...
they will sell maintenance, renting, capacity, sharing of clients capacity.

The economic model of big corp will probably mostly die as it was required
for 19th industry, for mass production of clone products in big
zombie-workers factories, for continental grids and GW powerplants.

modern economic model is fabless design, independent distributed production
by specialized SMB working in ecosystems, distributed sales through
platforms using grid computing in cloud, proposed by uberPop style of micro
business selling computer nodes power.

2015-12-16 16:21 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> Here is a situation that I think would be unfair to the power companies,
> and unsustainable. The Tesla Powerwall project aims to put small batteries
> in houses so that solar power can be saved up during the day and used at
> night. Suppose this pans out, and also solar arrays get cheaper and larger.
> A household with a solar array will no longer sell excess electricity to
> the power company, so the power company will not act as a broker, and it
> loses that source of revenue. The household seldom need to buy electricity,
> except in cloudy weather or late at night, so it buys no more than 5 or $10
> worth of electricity per month. In other words, the household treats the
> power company like a standby backup generator used only occasionally.
>
> If enough households and commercial accounts did this, it would be a
> disaster for the power company.
>
> The power company would be justified in asking for an arrangement like the
> one the Koch brothers recommended, where you pay $50 a month just to be
> hooked up to the power company. You pay that whether you use the
> electricity or not. However, if they tried to charge much more than thant,
> say $100, many people might cut the wire and discontinue electric company
> service. They would install a gas powered backup generator that turns on
> automatically. This costs about $3000 for a small 11 kW unit (2.5 years of
> $100 payments to the power company).
>
> If you are not power company customer there is no way they can charge you.
>
> I expect most people will soon cut the wire if cold fusion ever pans out.
> Some commentators have suggested that it would be more economical to
> install a small cold fusion generator with less capacity than you need, and
> then draw on the electric power company from time to time. I expect the
> incremental cost for a larger cold fusion generator will not be much, so
> there will be no point to installing a generator a little too small for
> your needs. If anything, you might want two generators, each with 2/3rds of
> your expected demand. If one of them fails, you stay online with the lights
> on while the repairman fixes it. Manufacturers might design a single unit
> that keeps running with tandem components. Back in the 1980s there were
> fault-tolerant tandem minicomputers. See:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem_Computers
>
> After the technology matures, I expect cold fusion generators will cost
> roughly as much as today's standby generator. In other words, a cold fusion
> cell and steam turbine will cost roughly as much as the gas powered motor
> in a standby generator. You probably need a battery or super capacitor for
> load leveling, and you need a generator capable of nearly continuous duty.
> So it might end up costing a few thousand dollars more. You can see the
> range of power and the costs of today's standby generators here:
>
>
> http://www.lowes.com/Electrical/Generators/Home-Standby-Generators/_/N-1z0x2n8/pl#
> !
>
> As I described in my book, you do not need as much electric power capacity
> as we use today, because many applications will use cold fusion heat
> directly.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:I need shields now Scotty!

[Axil Axil]

http://phys.org/news/2010-03-magnetic-monopole-cern-rewrite-laws.html

Magnetic monopole experiment at CERN could rewrite laws of physics

"Pinfold says the discovery of electronic monopoles will open up a whole
new future for materials and technology if scientists can produce large
numbers of them. "Monopoles could make materials strong enough to withstand
a nuclear explosion and could also enable magnetic levitation."


This is what has been seen in LeClair's experiments. The monopole field
produced at the head of the water crystal can withstand nuclear bomb level
energy. Why the monopole field can be so durable as a material shield is
not clear to me yet.

[Vo]:Double slit

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

Hi all,

This is a wild idea. I was following an interesting discussion at,

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/index.php

search for double slit.

The idea here is that the particle wave duality comes from an interaction
with the slit via
momentum transfer. Whatever you think, it is a good discussion, and will
give a lot of
insight to the problem by just following the discussion.

Now my problem with the suggestion is that neutron as well as photons and
electrons all show
this wave like pattern. But here I have a wild idea.

One of my visualisations of gravity is that in free space there is a
pressure in all directions that are equal and that gravity comes from a
shading effect where a mass standing in the way will shield off pressure
rays and cause an attraction. When you pass an atom through a slit the
shielding will vary and somehow I sense that this could cause a momentum
transfer that can be in quantas hence leading to the seen refraction
patterns. Not sure if the effect is strong enough but taking the facts that
there should be a natural explanation to the double slit experiment and
that F=ma may factor out the mass dependency and leave out only the simple
dependent parameters in the double slit experiment and also allow for all
particle types to interact similarly and also that EM fields and photons
should react to the change in the gravity field. You may think that gravity
is too weak to play an effect. I'm not sure because the gradient may be
very sharp as the particle hit the slit with great speed. At least it is
worth a micro second or so of focus. The problem to validate or disprove my
idea is that we have no working general relativity / QM theory that works.
Could we design some experimental method to explore this idea in order to
disprove it?

Why not do a test where we try to reduce the gradient by having a massive
guide that slowly introduce the slit as the beam approaches the slit
object. If the effect has the same magnitude
The idea would be disproved.

Regards
Stefan

Re: [Vo]:new images RAR Energia gravity motor

[Jed Rothwell]

John Berry  wrote:

Sheesh, that monstrosity is only meant to generate 30KW.
>
> So even IF it works perfectly, it is a terrible sounding investment!
>

Like a tokamak plasma fusion reactor.

Seriously, I think the people making this think it can only work on a
gigantic scale, which is similar to a tokamak.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

[Bob Cook]

Fran--

It seems an experiment would be possible to see some change.  A lens in an 
intense magnetic field may be all that is  required.  The magnetic 
susceptibility may act to shield the intense magnetic field to some extent. 
Two lens with differing susceptibilities may be necessary to determine, if 
there is a change in the image that emerges from each lens.   A little iron 
dissolved in a clear glass would maybe work to change the susceptibility of 
the resulting glass.


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: Roarty, Francis X

Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 4:42 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

Bob you said the light entering the field would regain its original 
characteristics upon exiting - which I agree with but it does suggest some 
interesting experiments of a different nature, shaped and nested fields of 
electromagnets or electrostatics [maybe both] with variable spacing [focus] 
along a LOS for a camera to try and unbalance and amplify like a telescope 
or microscope -also wrt to Robins suggestion would a microscope focused on 
the region "float" the original image to our frame or would it become 
unfocused as it translates out of the field? Both questions above are 
basically the same, can "lenses" embedded in two different fields utilize 
focus effects on light to overcome the normal return to original 
characteristics? Changing the path and orientation in different frames would 
be small but like a telescope multiple lenses would multiply the effect.

Fran

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 11:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

That sounds like a good experiment.

Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:50 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:21:38 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]

Light entering the intense magnetic field would regain its original
characteristic upon exiting the field.  However, if your eyes were also in
the magnetic field they would sense the changes effected by the magnetic
field IMHO.


It should be possible to put a camera in close proximity to a powerful
magnet,
then see if any change is detected as the magnet is turned on and off (would
need to be an electromagnet).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:EIA graphs shows the decline in coal use, increase in natural gas and wind

[Chris Zell]

In some areas such as where I live, there are separate charges for delivering 
electricity and the actual electricity itself on the utility bill.

Many months I pay more for line delivery charges than for actual electricity 
itself.

Re: [Vo]:EIA graphs shows the decline in coal use, increase in natural gas and wind

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is a situation that I think would be unfair to the power companies,
and unsustainable. The Tesla Powerwall project aims to put small batteries
in houses so that solar power can be saved up during the day and used at
night. Suppose this pans out, and also solar arrays get cheaper and larger.
A household with a solar array will no longer sell excess electricity to
the power company, so the power company will not act as a broker, and it
loses that source of revenue. The household seldom need to buy electricity,
except in cloudy weather or late at night, so it buys no more than 5 or $10
worth of electricity per month. In other words, the household treats the
power company like a standby backup generator used only occasionally.

If enough households and commercial accounts did this, it would be a
disaster for the power company.

The power company would be justified in asking for an arrangement like the
one the Koch brothers recommended, where you pay $50 a month just to be
hooked up to the power company. You pay that whether you use the
electricity or not. However, if they tried to charge much more than thant,
say $100, many people might cut the wire and discontinue electric company
service. They would install a gas powered backup generator that turns on
automatically. This costs about $3000 for a small 11 kW unit (2.5 years of
$100 payments to the power company).

If you are not power company customer there is no way they can charge you.

I expect most people will soon cut the wire if cold fusion ever pans out.
Some commentators have suggested that it would be more economical to
install a small cold fusion generator with less capacity than you need, and
then draw on the electric power company from time to time. I expect the
incremental cost for a larger cold fusion generator will not be much, so
there will be no point to installing a generator a little too small for
your needs. If anything, you might want two generators, each with 2/3rds of
your expected demand. If one of them fails, you stay online with the lights
on while the repairman fixes it. Manufacturers might design a single unit
that keeps running with tandem components. Back in the 1980s there were
fault-tolerant tandem minicomputers. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem_Computers

After the technology matures, I expect cold fusion generators will cost
roughly as much as today's standby generator. In other words, a cold fusion
cell and steam turbine will cost roughly as much as the gas powered motor
in a standby generator. You probably need a battery or super capacitor for
load leveling, and you need a generator capable of nearly continuous duty.
So it might end up costing a few thousand dollars more. You can see the
range of power and the costs of today's standby generators here:

http://www.lowes.com/Electrical/Generators/Home-Standby-Generators/_/N-1z0x2n8/pl#
!

As I described in my book, you do not need as much electric power capacity
as we use today, because many applications will use cold fusion heat
directly.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:EIA graphs shows the decline in coal use, increase in natural gas and wind

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> They would install a gas powered backup generator that turns on
> automatically. This costs about $3000 for a small 11 kW unit (2.5 years of
> $100 payments to the power company).
>

Note that in this scenario they have a Tesla Powerwall, so they do not need
a generator capable of peak demand. A generator large enough for average
demand will do, with the Powerwall for load leveling.

I assume the Powerwall will have sophisticated diagnostics and warnings, so
if storage and generation are low it will warn you not to run the washing
machine.

- Jed