[Vo]:Disproving Piantelli's H- LENR causation theory

[Axil Axil]

In astrophysics, the photometric H band, centered at 1.65 µm, falls in a
very special place, at or near the flux maximum in the energy distributions
of nearly all stars cooler than the Sun. The reason is that this feature is
caused by the wavelength dependence of absorption by the negative hydrogen
ion (H− , being a proton with two electrons). Photons in the part of the
spectrum shortward of 1.65 µm have enough energy to knock one of the
electrons from an H− ion, being absorbed in the process while photons at
longer wavelengths can be absorbed by a free free process (here a passing
electron happens to be close to a neutral hydrogen atom when the photon
comes by). The total absorption by H− is the sum of these two processes,
which has a minimum value at 1.65 µm.

At high temperatures, the the H- ion decomposes and therefore cannot be a
cause in the LENR reaction since reactor meltdowns produce temperatures on
the 4000 K range where H- ions would surly decompose.

Stellar Spectra in the H Band
aavso.org/media/jaavso/2016.pdf

[Vo]:A pico hydride of iron

[Jones Beene]

Today is the start of a symposium in France on LERN -- as has been reported
on several sites, but so far - few details have emerged.

One topic of special interest to anyone who has followed Holmlid's work is
this one:
"Synthesis of a Pico-hydride of Iron" by Jacques Dufour et al. I hope the
paper will be published soon, if it has not been already. and especially
that it contains useful data instead of hypothesis.

A pico-hydride is somewhat akin to the molecule which would be formed by a
transition metal bound to fractional hydrogen - e.g. the Mills' hydrino,
Holmlid's UDD, Meulenberg's DDL and/or Arata's "pychno". I doubt if there is
any significant difference, in the final accounting, between any of these
conceptions of f/H; which means that much of the theoretical credit will
eventually go to Mills. 

However, Mills has failed miserably to bring anything to market in 25 years,
nor produced many convincing papers - at least none that point at a usable
implementation or can be promoted as being proof of an anomaly. Notably
Mills has avoided iron as catalyst - despite it looking better in ionization
properties than nickel. The Rydberg vacancies are at lower ionization, and
the fit is closer. The use of structured hematite, with or without nickel -
as a replacement for nickel only - could be the straw that finally breaks
the camel's back of ingrained skepticism. 

As for looking deeper: Is there a general reason that evolution has chosen
iron and not nickel or cobalt or copper as the key ingredient in blood.
(besides the greater supply of Fe in the environment)? Maybe. Most of the
iron in mammals is found in red blood cells which transport oxygen. A few
cold-blooded species use copper instead, because it carries oxygen better
than iron. Horseshoe crabs use copper and their blood is blue. Yet, no
vertebrate uses anything except iron, as found in hemoglobin and myoglobin
despite its inferiority in the main function of oxygen transport. Iron has
been strongly selected by evolution, a million-fold over copper because it
has superior chemical properties OTHER than oxygen transport. perhaps, more
properties than meets the eye. In short, there could be hidden reasons (such
as slight excess energy) which we are not yet documenting in biology.

Wouldn't it be "ironic" so to speak, if it turns out that the use of
palladium or nickel going back to the early days of LENR - was less than
optimal, and has in fact held the field back by several decades? And doubly
ironic for Mills, whose theory predicts iron oxide would be a superior
catalyst - yet he didn't benefit from that insight.

[Vo]:the first day of the French LENR symposium (Alain Coetmeur reports)

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-20-2016-lenr-info-plus-first-day-of.html

An important event, interesting presentations.
Some news too- and surely COMING!

Peter

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

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

[a.ashfield]

The establishment may know moire about LENR than I had supposed.

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/something-really-bothers-me-about-the-apcoworldwide-lenr-connection/#comments

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/license1.png

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

[a.ashfield]

Peter, you are welcome to publish it.
I sent that comment on 3/16/2016 and don't know why it took so long to 
be posted.

I would now add a couple of points:

1 He will be "connected" to Mats Lewan's symposium in Sweden in June
2 The location of the E-Cat X plant will be disclosed at 1.
3 He hopes the E-Cat X plant will be installed in April.
4 The trial for the E-Cat X plant will be over in 2016.
5 The 1 MW plant production will start pending a satisfactory ERV report.
6  He thinks he, together with Prof. Cook are very close to a good theory
7. Despite rumors to the contrary, IH 's license covers all the E-Cats
8. IH say they are evaluating the evidence to plan future steps.  It 
maybe that the E-CatquarkX is so much better that the original E-Cat 
design will be dropped.


Russia, China and the US are planning to spend major funds getting to 
Mars.  Russia is talking about a nuclear powered rocket to do the trip 
in six weeks.   If the E-Cat X can produce electricity directly, it 
might be used for an ion drive with great advantage. The next disputed 
territory may be space.

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[David Roberson]

If nothing is remaining of the ship then it can not have a finite value of 
kinetic energy relative to any observer.  Remember this was an example of 
carrying the process to the extreme.  That technique can point out problems in 
many visual concepts.

If you apply the same technique to a normal rocket then all of the original 
energy and mass can be accounted for in the exhaust.  Nothing vanishes.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H LV 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 12:36 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Relative to its initial state it has gained kinetic energy. If the
Emdrive needs and external source of energy then it may work by
preserving CoE but by violating CoM.

Harry

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, David Roberson  wrote:
> Of course the EM drive ship that remains in this extreme case(actually
> nothing at all if zero exhaust is present) is at rest which means it has
> zero kinetic energy relative to itself.  Again, this is not a problem for a
> normal rocket that spits out reaction mass.  In that case all the missing
> mass and energy can be located by analyzing the exhaust stream.  This is
> true regardless of what reference frame you choose.  A normal rocket obeys
> CoE and CoM whereas the EM Drive ship does not.
>
> If it can be shown that the EM drive emits its mass in the form of radiation
> out the exhaust then all is well.  But thus far it is suggested that nothing
> is performing that function.
>
> Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mixent 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 9:29 pm
> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
>
> In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 15 Mar 2016 11:19:13 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>When might somehow be important but if you take the process to the extreme
>> you get a result that doesn't make any sense. For example, if the spaceship
>> continues to use up its mass in a constant acceleration process that
>> requires power and thus energy to be expended for the drive, then eventually
>> there will be no mass left at all. All of the original mass is lost if this
>> takes place. That does not make sense.
>
> The process stops, when all the mass has been converted into kinetic energy.
>
> The only thing I know of that only has kinetic energy and no mass is EM
> radiation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Parhomov paper

[Bob Higgins]

We could ask Parkhomov through Bob Greenyer if the Ni powder he used was
enriched in 64Ni.  However, as far as we know, and in particular during
these reported runs, Parkhomov was on a shoestring budget that would have
precluded buying isotopically enriched Ni.  As far as we know all of his
reported experiments have been fueled with Ni out of a single reagent jar.
MFMP has samples of that Ni powder (including me).  I know that in the US,
96% enriched 64Ni would probably be about $30k per gram.

MFMP has recently purchased 70mg of 96+% isotopically enriched 62Ni.

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Bob, you know the protocol - if the author finds an error of that
> severity, he withdraws the paper. Since they have not done so after a year,
> isn’t it fair to assume that the enrichment in the heavy isotope was
> deliberate?
>
>
>
> In Moscow, there is a famous lab (Kurchatov)  which does most of the
> nickel enrichment for the entire world.
>
>
>
> It would not be difficult for Parkhomov to find and use nickel enriched in
> 64Ni.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Jones--
>
>
>
> I agree with you about the report of the Ni-64 ratios presented in the
> report.  They should be asked to confirm the original Ni-64 ratio.
>
>
>
> I doubt it is correct, since it would have taken some effort to start with
> the enriched Ni-64, which they would surely have noted as a particularly
> important attribute of the starting fuel.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:E-Cat progress

[a.ashfield]

Progress with the E-Cats seems to be moving swiftly now.
Rossi says:
1 He will be "connected" to Mats Lewan's symposium in Sweden in June
2 The location of the E-Cat X plant will be disclosed at 1.
3 He hopes the E-Cat X plant will be installed in April.
4 The trial for the E-Cat X plant will be over in 2016.
5 The 1 MW plant production will start pending a satisfactory ERV report.
6  He thinks he, together with Prof. Cook are very close to a good theory

There must be an important clue in the new E-Cat X being so small - 100 
Watts.  This would make a conventional control system for a large plant 
seem excessive.  I wonder is the new design is sufficiently stable that, 
after start up,  it can be controlled by varying the amount of 
electricity extracted.

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[ChemE Stewart]

Question:-

"Why would gravity warp spacetime, but not electric and magnetic fields?
According to Axil and Fran, they warp spacetime big time. (SPPs) ;)"



*http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.08377.pdf *

*"Starting from a five dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory, which is toroidally
compactified to yield an effective four dimensional dilaton-Maxwell theory,
we find exact background solutions describing a dilatonic domain wall which
entraps magnetic flux, which has previously been described by Gibbons and
Wells [1]. This type of domain wall is interesting, not only because it
traps magnetic flux, but also because it is nontopological in origin, i.e.,
the solution is not stabilized by a nontrivial topology of the vacuum
manifold. "*

*My best guess at a "low pressure" Vacuum Manifold:*

*https://sdsimonson.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/waterspout-sunset-key-1.jpg
*


*https://i.imgur.com/gotFHg0.jpg *
*The vacuum ain't stable*


On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 4:27 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:20:20 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:19 PM,  wrote:
> >
> >If the presence of an object warps spacetime (General Relativity), then
> >> something must be present to warp?
> >>
> >
> >General relativity provides a unified description of gravity and
> >spacetime.  The EM Drive makes use first and foremost of the
> >electromagnetic interaction.  What about the EM Drive would be causing the
> >warping of spacetime?
> >
> >Eric
>
> The interactions between photons and spacetime? Just guessing.
>
> Question:-
>
> Why would gravity warp spacetime, but not electric and magnetic fields?
> According to Axil and Fran, they warp spacetime big time. (SPPs) ;)
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Adrian,

an excellent executive summary, please allow me to publish it on the Ego
Out Blog.
Thank you,
Peter

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:33 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Progress with the E-Cats seems to be moving swiftly now.
> Rossi says:
> 1 He will be "connected" to Mats Lewan's symposium in Sweden in June
> 2 The location of the E-Cat X plant will be disclosed at 1.
> 3 He hopes the E-Cat X plant will be installed in April.
> 4 The trial for the E-Cat X plant will be over in 2016.
> 5 The 1 MW plant production will start pending a satisfactory ERV report.
> 6  He thinks he, together with Prof. Cook are very close to a good theory
>
> There must be an important clue in the new E-Cat X being so small - 100
> Watts.  This would make a conventional control system for a large plant
> seem excessive.  I wonder is the new design is sufficiently stable that,
> after start up,  it can be controlled by varying the amount of electricity
> extracted.
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[David Roberson]

-Original Message-
From: Vibrator ! 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 10:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)
>If i slide my beer across the table, it could land on the floor, or my lap.  
>Its PE depends on which part of the desk i knock it off, so does that PE's 
>corresponding relativistic mass fluctuate as i move it around?<

The initial potential energy is the same regardless of how much you allow to be 
converted into other forms.  If the beer drops a greater distance toward the 
center of the earth, then more of it is used up and converted into other forms 
of energy.  An observer from outside the closed system would not detect an 
overall mass decrease unless some form of that total energy escapes the system.

This is very similar to what is seen with an electron orbiting an atomic 
nucleus.  Light is emitted when the potential energy of the overall atomic 
system is reduced.  Before the light is emitted the mass of the atomic system 
could in principle be measured.  The loss in mass from the system would exactly 
match the energy contained within the light plus and kinetic energy due to 
atomic recoil.

An outside observer of the beer and Earth system would see the same effects 
taking place.  If you used energy contained for example within a spring to 
raise your beer, he would not detect any net change to the system mass.  You 
tend to think of nuclear energy as being somehow different, but that is not the 
way I see it.  Nuclear mass could also be used to generate electricity which 
then raises your beer.  The effect is identical to the outside observer, he see 
no net change to the closed system mass again unless some form of radiation 
leaves as a result of the nuclear reaction.

The bottom line is that potential energy due to position of the beer relative 
to the center of the earth is just one form of energy which can be interchanged 
with mass according to Einstein's equation.

Dave

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Jack Cole]

Russ,

I don't know if this has been mentioned previously, but there has been a
hobbiest replication.  Definitely a good place to start.

http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/

Jack

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:22 PM Russ George  wrote:

> Agreed the largest added Q comes from super-cooling. I had asked about
> silver over copper as it is very simple and inexpensive to electroplate
> silver onto a copper EM Drive. Building a LN2 cooled EM Drive has all
> manner
> of engineering issues. Perhaps the 6% added thrust from silver plated
> copper
> is observable and sufficient to prove the Q effect. The next issue is what
> is the ideal microwave electronics and antennae design, as in what
> brand/model of microwave oven do I buy to cannibalize for parts.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:31 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)
>
> In reply to  Russ George's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:18:21 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >In building a Shawyer EM Drive cavity copper is typically used but Shawyer
> notes a higher Q would result with silver. Would a cavity that was made of
> copper sheet then electroplated with silver suffice to give the cavity the
> Q
> of silver? Is there any potential for improved Q based on the design of the
> internal cavity antennae that emits the microwaves.
>
> The conductivity of silver relative to copper is not all that much, so I
> wouldn't expect much of a gain anyway. Far more gain should be obtained by
> cooling. According to Tesla, cooling with liquid nitrogen gives a 5 fold
> improvement.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>
>

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:00:38 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Robin's example of the electric car is different than the EM drive since it 
>allows the evaluation of the conservation of momentum.  The road increases 
>its momentum in the opposite direction the car does.  In the EM case there 
>is no apparent conservation of momentum--at least I do not know how to 
>calculate it.  Does the entire space time existence change its momentum? 
>Maybe Robin could identify how momentum is conserved in the EM drive.
>
>Bob Cook

See my reply to David. Everyone is making the assumption that a force can only
act against another object, because that has always been our experience. This
may be the first tangible experience of a force acting against the vacuum
itself, rather than another object.

If we can warp spacetime, we can also push against it.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Bob Higgins]

The problem with this is creating the anisotropy in emissions from an
induced LENR so as to produce a directional thrust.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Russ George  wrote:

> Of course what the EM Drive energy mystery suggests is an experiment where
> an addition inside the EM Drive might be made, a simple small amount of
> crystalline Li2D2 could well provide more available reactant than what the
> ordinary copper which always has some tramp H2 the EM Drive is made of
> holds.
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:47 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)
>
>
>
> Eric, my understanding of the Crookes radiometer is that it measures light
> intensity by the rotation of its vane, but the effect is NOT due to photon
> emission recoil, it is due to the effects of the differential heating of
> the minute amount of gas present in the bulb.  In a hard vacuum, this
> radiometer would not work - photon emission recoil would be insufficient to
> make the vanes move.  I had one of these as a teen.
>
> As I recall, the radiated photon recoil is proportional to power in the
> photons emitted, but not wavelength of the photon.  For a given power
> emitted, it takes fewer short wavelength photons but you would get more
> recoil per photon.  Laser emission would seem to be ideal.  But the effect
> is very small.
>
>
>
> I wish I had some insight in the case of the Shawyer thrust effect.  I
> cannot say that I really even have an informed opinion - that would require
> far more study than I have done.  It is a marvelous mystery and perhaps
> someday I will participate.  For now, I am trying to stay focused on LENR.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the thrust Shawyer
> calculates and measures from his devices is several orders of magnitude
> higher than what could be obtained from photon radiation recoil - even if
> all of the generated RF were radiated unidirectionally.  A small leak of RF
> would provide an undetectable thrust.  That's what makes his devices
> interesting.
>
>
>
> My intuition is actually in line with this.  Obviously there is no
> observable thrust with a flashlight, for example.  And a powerful spotlight
> doesn't budge, even though enough power is being fed into it to drive a
> motor.  Nonetheless I was curious what the relationship between energy and
> radiation pressure is.  Here is what Wikipedia says for a blackbody emitter:
>
>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>
> P is pressure, epsilon is emissivity, sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann
> constant and T is the temperature.  I wonder what the relationship would be
> for a non-blackbody emitter emitting photons at a specific frequency.
> Although radiation pressure is a small force, apparently it's nonneglible.
> Wikipedia says that "had the effects of the sun's radiation pressure on the
> spacecraft of the Viking program been ignored, the spacecraft would have
> missed Mars orbit by about 15,000 kilometers."  We also see it doing real
> work in the case of a Crookes radiometer:
>
>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>
> I see that the Shawyer device is operating more or less at the level of
> measurement uncertainty. There are no unequivocal results at this point by
> third parties. Some of the tests even show reverse thrust when positive
> thrust was intended.  Given this level of uncertainty, it would seem that
> little can be ruled out at this point.  Even air convection.  One imagines
> that much more testing is needed.
>
>
>
> Have you formed an opinion on what might conserve momentum in the case of
> the EM drive, if something like radiation pressure is ruled out?
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:36:33 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>So the vacuum's momentum changes in the opposite direction of the increased 
>momentum of the ship.  The issue is COM in my mind, not an absolute increase 
>in momentum.  That suggests  momentum is not conserved.
>
>bob Cook

If you are able to push against spacetime, why would momentum not be conserved?
Imagine pushing against the mass of the entire universe.

Another useful visual model might be a group of ice-skaters. You can move by
pushing or pulling another skater, but you can also move by pushing a sharp
object into the ice and pushing against that. Perhaps the EM drive is a sharp
object?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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