Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

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

[Axil Axil]

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

[Eric Walker]

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

[Eric Walker]

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

[Eric Walker]

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

[bobcook39923]

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

[Eric Walker]

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

[bobcook39923]

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

[Jones Beene]

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

[mixent]

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

[Axil Axil]

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

[Jones Beene]

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

[mixent]

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

[Jed Rothwell]

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

[Jones Beene]

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

[Bob Higgins]

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

[H LV]

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

[Peter Gluck]

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.

[Harvey Norris]

  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/