Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Holmlid is not dead yet; why not? Why is no radiation detected by Holmlid > even when he has detected muons by the ton? > You make an excellent argument that Holmlid is NOT seeing muons! :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
Holmlid is not dead yet; why not? Why is no radiation detected by Holmlid even when he has detected muons by the ton? On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:48 PM, wrote: > > Fusion of 2 Si-28 to Fe 56 produces about 18 Mev excess mass energy, or >> about 1 muon mass for for 18 fusion transitions. Muons that were to carry >> away mass may not be noticed. >> > > If muons were to carry away that mass, they would quickly decay to more > basic matter, e.g., electrons, positrons, neutrinos and annihilation > photons, after exiting the smelter, presenting a lethal radiation field > within the facility and depositing a good portion of the energy into the > surroundings. > > Eric >
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Eric Walker wrote: If we assume 1.3 tons excess iron following Narayanaswamy, then the amount > of energy released into the environment for this first reaction would be: > > 1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe > 23241.288159 mols (28Si + 28Si) = 46482.576318 mols 28Si = > 1300.4396227 kg 28Si > 1300.4396227 kg - 1300 kg = 0.4396227 kg => 3.9e16 J > > That is to say, (3.9e16 J / 84 TJ = 464 "Fat Man" nuclear bombs per 24 > hours). > I didn't quite do that right. I should have gone from 28Si to 56Ni: 1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe => 23241.288159 mols 56Ni = 1300.167211 kg 56Ni (1300.4396227 kg - 1300.167211 kg = 0.2724117 kg => 2.4e16 J) So that would be (2.4e16 J / 84 TJ = 285) "Fat Man" nuclear bombs per 24 hours. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:48 PM, wrote: Fusion of 2 Si-28 to Fe 56 produces about 18 Mev excess mass energy, or > about 1 muon mass for for 18 fusion transitions. Muons that were to carry > away mass may not be noticed. > If muons were to carry away that mass, they would quickly decay to more basic matter, e.g., electrons, positrons, neutrinos and annihilation photons, after exiting the smelter, presenting a lethal radiation field within the facility and depositing a good portion of the energy into the surroundings. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:34 PM, wrote: Two Si atoms gives a Ni atom, not an Fe atom. However if the formation of > Ni56 > involved enhanced/altered electron capture to Fe56:- > > Ni56 => Co56 (2 MeV; half life 6 days) > > Co56 => Fe56 (4.6 MeV; half life 77 days) > > ...and ALL the energy were carried away by the neutrinos, then there might > be > something to it, but I don't think it's very likely. (Enhanced/altered, > because > the normal decay process would kill all the workers with gamma radiation). > The first of the three reactions in this series is: 28Si + 28Si => 56Ni + gamma + 10.9 MeV Whether or not that gamma is thermalized efficiently, e.g., via internal conversion, the heat will be released into the environment, in contrast to the energy that is lost in the subsequent reactions from neutrino emission. If we assume 1.3 tons excess iron following Narayanaswamy, then the amount of energy released into the environment for this first reaction would be: 1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe 23241.288159 mols (28Si + 28Si) = 46482.576318 mols 28Si = 1300.4396227 kg 28Si 1300.4396227 kg - 1300 kg = 0.4396227 kg => 3.9e16 J That is to say, (3.9e16 J / 84 TJ = 464 "Fat Man" nuclear bombs per 24 hours). Eric
RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
Fusion of 2 Si-28 to Fe 56 produces about 18 Mev excess mass energy, or about 1 muon mass for for 18 fusion transitions. Muons that were to carry away mass may not be noticed. Bob Cook Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: H LV Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 4:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20 Does it necessarily require a violation of CoE? It could be we don't know enough about nuclear matter to know how to build or take apart nuclei with much less energy. With a sledge hammer and a great deal of force a structure can be assembled or broken down without knowing much about the nature of the structural connections. However, if one knows the structural connections are screws rather than nails much less energy is required. Harry On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote: If transmutation is always accompanied by meson production, then the area around the electric furnace might have an elevated background radiation profile. Four tone of transmutation would imply a huge number of muons produced on a daily basis. If you go this route, you will have to address Narayanaswamy's own admission that [1]: A simple calculation shows (see Appendix A) that corresponding to 4.27 tons of metal transmutation [comprising the production of both silicon and iron], the power generated should have been the equivalent of the total thermal power generated by a couple of thousand 1 GWe nuclear power stations in one 24 hr day! This may truly be termed as an astronomical number! Thus if indeed the Silcal transmutation claims are confirmed it would clearly point to the operation of new Science which is even more bizarre than claimed by most other LENR experiments! 2000 GWe * 24 hours = 1.7e17 J. By comparison, the bomb that fell on Nagasaki in 1945 had about (84 TJ = 8.4e13 J) [2]. That means that if Narayanaswamy's calculation in Appendix A is correct, the energy output in a 24-hour period would have been equivalent to (1.7e17 J / 8.4e13 J = 2023 "Fat Man" bombs), or 1.4 nuclear bombs per minute. All in a smelting facility in Coimbatore, India, that was very successful and made a decent profit. This possibility takes us into the hoary but cute Vortex violation-of-COE discussions. Eric [1] https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/951-narayanaswamy-corrected-extended-abstract-17th-sept-2016-pdf/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:06 PM, H LV wrote: Does it necessarily require a violation of CoE? > It could be we don't know enough about nuclear matter to know how to build > or take apart nuclei with much less energy. > It's not necessarily a matter of COE; e.g., perhaps most of the energy was quietly dissipated via neutrinos, following Robin's suggestion. But if there is a nuclear transformation from not-iron to iron, and neutrinos were not a big factor, then the physics is straightforward: E = mc^2 = [ (mass of not-iron) - (mass of excess iron) ] c^2 = [delta mass] c^2 If for some reason this situation does not hold, then it seems to me that the CoE discussion comes up again. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
The issue of the Coulomb barrier being a concern in transitions of a coherent system makes no sense IMHO. Two-body interactions yes, but for a many bodied entangled systems no. Bob Cook Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: mix...@bigpond.com Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 8:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20 In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 12 Mar 2017 20:32:30 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Yes - that's correct... the impossibility of fusing the starting >elements into iron in a smelting operation comes from overcoming the >Coulomb barrier, not from the final energy balance. Correct. > >There is no calcium at the start, but if there were - long before carbon >and calcium could fuse (if this were happening on a dying star) - the >carbon would fuse with another carbon or other light element. There is >no "clean" pathway to get iron alone as a desired goal, especially >without deadly radioactivity. The Ca was just an example, for the energy calculation. > >It's kind of absurd really. Bottom line - no mechanism exists to get >excess iron via transmutation of silica and carbon. There might in theory be something that involves a weak force reaction, with the neutrino(s) carrying away the reaction energy, but I grant that it's far fetched. Another option might be a mix of exothermic & endothermic reactions where the net change in energy is either very small, &/or carried by neutrinos. >Even if there were, >it would not add mass magically. Did he really claim that mass was added magically, or only that iron was added magically? IOW was there an (unmeasured?) loss of something else to compensate for the increase in iron? >Thus, it is likely that gross >measurement error is the likely explanation. Otherwise, this kind of >thing does not go unnoticed in a poor country. India is not exactly a >major iron producer but would be if this were not some kind of silly >anecdote. (It's a bit early for April 1). [snip] I suspect the most likely explanation is that they weigh the iron without determining the actual chemical composition, and that other elements are dissolved (alloyed) in the metal. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
Pluto has an x-ray source - which is a surprise and it is in the range of Rydberg energies from Millsean transitions from nickel and iron 200-300 eV. Pluto is mostly ice, not dense - but could have iron/nickel debris from meteorite impacts over the past few billion years. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305713927_The_Puzzling_Detection_of_X-rays_From_Pluto_by_Chandra Axil Axil wrote: Does anybody want to talk about where the internal heat inside Ceres and Pluto comes from. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/pluto-alive-where-heat-coming Pluto is alive—but where is the heat coming from?
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:04:14 -0700: Hi, [snip] > >Which brings us back to another source of heat for Earth's core. >According to "America's Genius" the corona of our sun is in effect a >giant factory for hydrinos, which get carried to earth via the solar >wind, where they are deposited in the oceans of earth, and being dense >and small, will eventually work their way into the mantle layers - which >is composed of two molten catalysts - iron and nickel. Judging by the lava from volcanoes, I think the mantle is mostly molten rock. However water does get transported into the bowels of the Earth at subduction zones, and at the temperatures prevalent in the mantel should readily undergo thermolysis, which in turn could provide some free Hydrogen capable of being shrunk. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
Does anybody want to talk about where the internal heat inside Ceres and Pluto comes from. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/pluto-alive-where-heat-coming Pluto is alive—but where is the heat coming from? On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Which brings us back to another source of heat for Earth's core. According > to "America's Genius" the corona of our sun is in effect a giant factory > for hydrinos, which get carried to earth via the solar wind, where they are > deposited in the oceans of earth, and being dense and small, will > eventually work their way into the mantle layers - which is composed of two > molten catalysts - iron and nickel. > > Thus, further densification occurs in the core, giving up more heat - > following which, after millions of years, the ultra-dense hydrogen ends up > all the way to the solid core, where it is the densest component of the > core. This may offer a better explanation for why the core is solid but the > mantle is liquid. > > > > mix...@bigpond.com wrote: > >> Bob Higgins wrote: >> >>> It is interesting to consider the implications were some nucleosynthesis taking place in this report. The steel mills are a place on the surface of the Earth that most resembles the core of the Earth. For a long time, there has been speculations regarding the source of the heat in the core of planets, Earth included. Could the Earth actually be growing the mass of iron in its core via nucleosynthesis from lighter elements? >>> Not to mention the massive electrical current flowing through the molten >>> iron in earth's core (so-called dynamo theory) is mimicked by the >>> electrical current of the steel mill... >>> >> .. and Mills is also using massive electrical current in his latest >> endeavor. >> >> >> >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
Which brings us back to another source of heat for Earth's core. According to "America's Genius" the corona of our sun is in effect a giant factory for hydrinos, which get carried to earth via the solar wind, where they are deposited in the oceans of earth, and being dense and small, will eventually work their way into the mantle layers - which is composed of two molten catalysts - iron and nickel. Thus, further densification occurs in the core, giving up more heat - following which, after millions of years, the ultra-dense hydrogen ends up all the way to the solid core, where it is the densest component of the core. This may offer a better explanation for why the core is solid but the mantle is liquid. mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Bob Higgins wrote: It is interesting to consider the implications were some nucleosynthesis taking place in this report. The steel mills are a place on the surface of the Earth that most resembles the core of the Earth. For a long time, there has been speculations regarding the source of the heat in the core of planets, Earth included. Could the Earth actually be growing the mass of iron in its core via nucleosynthesis from lighter elements? Not to mention the massive electrical current flowing through the molten iron in earth's core (so-called dynamo theory) is mimicked by the electrical current of the steel mill... .. and Mills is also using massive electrical current in his latest endeavor.
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:20:26 -0700: Hi, [snip] > >Bob Higgins wrote: >> It is interesting to consider the implications were some >> nucleosynthesis taking place in this report. The steel mills are a >> place on the surface of the Earth that most resembles the core of the >> Earth. For a long time, there has been speculations regarding the >> source of the heat in the core of planets, Earth included. Could the >> Earth actually be growing the mass of iron in its core via >> nucleosynthesis from lighter elements? > >Not to mention the massive electrical current flowing through the molten >iron in earth's core (so-called dynamo theory) is mimicked by the >electrical current of the steel mill... ... and Mills is also using massive electrical current in his latest endeavor. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:NEDO project update
I wrote: > This is project to be funded at $1 million per year for 20 years, with 15 > different research categories. So I guess we are talking about $67,000 per > year. > Sorry, I misread that. The grants are for 1 or 2 years, and there are 15 categories. The amount of the grant is either 100 million yen, or 20 million yen, depending. ($1 million or $200,000.) This is explained in section III in the main page: http://www.nedo.go.jp/koubo/CA1_100134.html III. 研究開発テーマの規模・NEDO負担率 1億円程度以内/(年・件) (委託:NEDO負担率100%) (注)大学・公的研究機関のみによる実施の場合は、規模は2,000万円を上限とする。 Google translate with comments added by me: III. Scale of R & D theme · NEDO burden ratio About 100 million yen / (year · [*per*] matter [*meaning subject; project*]) (consigned: NEDO burden ratio 100%) (Note) In the case of implementation only by universities / [*or*] public [*government owned*] research institutions, the scale is limited to 20 million yen. In other words, when the project is conducted only at a university or national lab, the maximum budget is 20 million yen. The project in question has corporate participants so I guess it is slated for $1 million. Participants are: Technova Inc., Nissan Automobile, Kyushu Nat. University, Tohoku Nat. University. http://www.nedo.go.jp/library/seika/shosai_201607/2016000621.html You can do a search for information on this project, limiting the search to NEDO pages, with the following Google search term: site:http://www.nedo.go.jp 金属水素 This works better than the longer search term I listed before. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
Bob Higgins wrote: It is interesting to consider the implications were some nucleosynthesis taking place in this report. The steel mills are a place on the surface of the Earth that most resembles the core of the Earth. For a long time, there has been speculations regarding the source of the heat in the core of planets, Earth included. Could the Earth actually be growing the mass of iron in its core via nucleosynthesis from lighter elements? Not to mention the massive electrical current flowing through the molten iron in earth's core (so-called dynamo theory) is mimicked by the electrical current of the steel mill...
[Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
It is interesting to consider the implications were some nucleosynthesis taking place in this report. The steel mills are a place on the surface of the Earth that most resembles the core of the Earth. For a long time, there has been speculations regarding the source of the heat in the core of planets, Earth included. Could the Earth actually be growing the mass of iron in its core via nucleosynthesis from lighter elements? Could excess heat from this nucleosynthesis be the source of the core heat of the Earth? Fun to think about. On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 5:06 PM, H LV wrote: > Does it necessarily require a violation of CoE? > It could be we don't know enough about nuclear matter to know how to build > or take apart nuclei with much less energy. > > With a sledge hammer and a great deal of force a structure can be > assembled or broken down without knowing much about the nature of the > structural connections. However, if one knows the structural connections > are screws rather than nails much less energy is required. > > Harry >
Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
Does it necessarily require a violation of CoE? It could be we don't know enough about nuclear matter to know how to build or take apart nuclei with much less energy. With a sledge hammer and a great deal of force a structure can be assembled or broken down without knowing much about the nature of the structural connections. However, if one knows the structural connections are screws rather than nails much less energy is required. Harry On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > If transmutation is always accompanied by meson production, then the area >> around the electric furnace might have an elevated background radiation >> profile. Four tone of transmutation would imply a huge number of muons >> produced on a daily basis. >> > > If you go this route, you will have to address Narayanaswamy's own > admission that [1]: > > A simple calculation shows (see Appendix A) that corresponding to 4.27 >> tons of metal transmutation [comprising the production of both silicon and >> iron], the power generated should have been the equivalent of the total >> thermal power generated by a couple of thousand 1 GWe nuclear power >> stations in one 24 hr day! This may truly be termed as an astronomical >> number! Thus if indeed the Silcal transmutation claims are confirmed it >> would clearly point to the operation of new Science which is even more >> bizarre than claimed by most other LENR experiments! > > > 2000 GWe * 24 hours = 1.7e17 J. By comparison, the bomb that fell on > Nagasaki in 1945 had about (84 TJ = 8.4e13 J) [2]. That means that if > Narayanaswamy's calculation in Appendix A is correct, the energy output in > a 24-hour period would have been equivalent to (1.7e17 J / 8.4e13 J = 2023 > "Fat Man" bombs), or 1.4 nuclear bombs per minute. All in a smelting > facility in Coimbatore, India, that was very successful and made a decent > profit. > > This possibility takes us into the hoary but cute Vortex violation-of-COE > discussions. > > Eric > > > [1] https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/951-narayanaswamy-corrected- > extended-abstract-17th-sept-2016-pdf/ > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent >
[Vo]:LENR_FALSE INFALLIBILITY, USELESS CRUELTY
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/03/mar-14-2017-lenrlenr-false.html peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Further Comment made on Quora concerning Non-Symmetrical Separations in Space.
I see that Victor Toth has had his “comments” thread disabled for the same answer given in this thread. I wanted to ask him why the following example showing a non-symmetry between observers is not true? So since I can’t ask him I am repeating this question for the readers which sort of expands on the original thesis. If we are going to entertain speculations about the relativity of moving systems to one another we must apply that relativity problem to ALL possible angles of symmetrical movements and not merely a simple one dimensional movement of points moving away from each other. If we take the first of the platonic solids called a tetrahedron which is four equilateral triangles glued together on the edges in 3d space we can postulate four points from four vertexes moving away from the center of volume. Since these four points in movement away from a center also see the other points in movements symmetrically or having identical movements away from each other; irrespective of the four different viewpoints being used, no absolute standard reference frame can be established between them. But the movement away from the fifth center point will be at a different (slower) velocity away from each other. So from the viewpoint of any of the actual points in movement they see three points moving away at identical velocities and a fourth point separating a a different velocity. But from that center point it sees something DIFFERENT from the other points in movement which is four points separating equally from itself. The former assumed assertions of relativity concerning the symmetrical observations of points moving apart in space have now been swept asunder. Next we need to prove likewise that time dilation effects are also non symmetrical with respect to each other, and that a localized relativistic effect is in fact possible without movements in space.Harvey D Norris's answer to What is the 'relativity' part in General relativity? - Quora | | | | || | | | | | Harvey D Norris's answer to What is the 'relativity' part in Ge... | | | | Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/