Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

[Bob Cook]

Dave--

Muon induced cold fusion was known before  the P-F effect was demonstrated.  

I always assumed the magnetic field in the P-F effect was somehow involved with 
the event.  Pd has a large magnetic susceptibility and a large electronic heat 
capacity associated with effectively heavy S band electrons.  The large B field 
inside the Pd metal would reduce the number of possible quantum states for the 
deuterium particles and cause them to be aligned, spin-wise, parallel or anti 
parallel to the local (internal)  B field.   

  I have an idea about the synthesis of He from the deuterium that involves the 
spin, angular momentum and  transfer of residual energy via spin coupling to 
the electronic structure of the lattice, assuming a continuous "quantum 
connected" system.  I have always thought that the He formed in the process 
starts out as an excited He* with a high spin quantum state and associated 
energy which is rapidly (instantaneously) released to the lattice electrons 
(conserving angular momentum)  and hence vibrational phonons--heat.  Linear 
momentum and kinetic energy is not involved in the process.  

Also, apparently similar (perceived the same)  physical phenomena have 
differing causes--the issue is in what's apparent and what really is the cause. 
 I tend to agree with Axil.   His comment that if you look deep enough (the 
picture will make  sense) is the basis for scientific investigation.   
 

Bob Cook (Stalecookie)  (My first response to this blog.)
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 2:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev


  I agree with your approach Ed.  I just wanted to point out that we must not 
put on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that some other reaction 
is taking place than the suspected one.  It is prudent to begin with the most 
likely concepts to explore and to keep our eyes wide open for results that do 
not quite match our expectations.

  It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different processes 
are identified.   Time and experimentation will settle the issue and it is 
premature to declare victory.

  For example, if you go back to the time before P&F there was no possible way 
for cold fusion to occur according to what was known and the doors need to 
remain open to new discoveries that might come from unexpected locals.  If the 
magnetic field reported by DGT turns out to be real, then a whole new series of 
paths become possible.  I have been considering the application of positive 
feedback involving the interaction of a locally powerful magnetic field and 
some form of nuclear fusion process that couple into each other.  A large scale 
version of this phenomena would not have been possible to observe before Rossi 
or DGT had systems with adequate power.  The way nickel looses it gross 
magnetic characteristic once the temperature reaches a threshold might allow 
the underlying process to initiate.

  Dave

Re: [Vo]:Magnetism doesn't exist

[Bob Cook]

Harry--

A photon--light is thought to be an electric field and an orthogonal magnetic 
field which oscillate with an amplitude and frequency characteristic of the 
energy of the photon, and propagate through space empty space at the speed of 
light c.  There is no charge that creates the magnetic field of the photon nor 
the electric field  that I know of.   

Also there is a recent experiment from Sweden or Finland that seems to identify 
a magnetic monopole at very low temperatures.  Magnetic monopoles have been 
conjectured for many years--even before I studies physics in the late 50's.  It 
is not clear how a circulating charge could create a monopole.  Check this 
link--http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7485/full/nature12954.html

Bob


  - Original Message - 
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 12:42 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Magnetism doesn't exist





  On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:25 PM, John Berry  wrote:

Except for when I have written it, I have never seen the words "Magnetism 
doesn't exist" written.


But this confuses me because while the illusion of magnetism is pretty 
convincing we can all agree the expected forces in any magnetic situation are 
electric at each end (magnetic fields are created by and felt as electric 
fields orthogonal to the claimed magnetic field).
And the expected so-called magnetic forces are predicted by the distortion 
of motion on electric fields.


Each and every magnetic force/induction from magnetism can be expected by 
looking at how the electric fields are distorted through motion.


And when I first figured that out, I thought it was just my idea, till the 
good folks on this list many years ago pointed out that all of this was known, 
that Special Relativity included precisely this.


So given that the forces are expected without any magnetic field, just a 
complete (and complex) analysis of electric fields distorting from motion 
(vector sum analysis).
And given that magnetic fields are only created by moving charges and only 
ever felt as a perpendicular electrical force.


They why does no one else but me say "Magnetic fields do not exist!"??




  This requires that motion also does not exist or is illusion.

  Harry


Certainly they are a convincing and useful illusion. 
Sure, holding 2 permanent magnets can make holding this belief very hard, 
but but if the permanent magnets are replaced with electromagnets it is easy to 
see how all the expected forces and induction occurs from the moving electric 
fields pancaking, and the lines bending when feed AC.


John


  For 

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

[Bob Cook]

Dave--

I suspect that most of the theory is Yeong Kim's and the experimental 
description is from  John   Hadjichristos of DGT. 

 Kim had proposed the BEC idea some time ago. 

I find Kim's theory quite reasonable.  The ability to predict the rate of 
reactions is significant and the importance of the B field, which is induced as 
explained in the ICCF-18 report, is also noted.  

If what Kim believes is true, it could also be true in Rossi's reactor.  Both 
the DGT reactor and the E-Cat apparently have nano size Ni particles.  The 
Rossi Cat may be merely a external magnetic field applied to control the 
reaction by creating the magnetic traps for the BEC to form.  Careful 
manufacturing of the Ni nano particles and appropriate alignment in the reactor 
may significantly improve the reactivity response to a magnetic field.  I am 
not sure what Rossi's reactor vessel alloy is--if its magnetic or not.

It would be interesting to know whether the SS316 used in the DGT reactor has 
any magnetic susceptibility.  Cold working this alloy can create a metal that 
responses weakly to magnetic fields.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev


  Thanks for the refresher in all things DGT. :-) The link exposes the large 
difference between what you are proposing and what they claim.

  Dave
  -Original Message-
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, Feb 4, 2014 9:22 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev







  On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:01 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

 The large magnetic field reported by DGT supports the coupling concept, 
but there is question as to whether or not the report is accurate.



  It is valuable to review again what DGT said in their report.


   At the time of the ICCF-18 report, DGT revealed the existence of the 
localized magnetic traps (LMT). Their theory does not correspond to what we 
have been discussing in this thread. 


  http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-2.pdf


  The theory describing the creation of LMT is based on nano-scale explosions 
(“Bosenova”) and proton super currents.


  DGT: “These hydrogen pairs or hydrogen molecules may be trapped in an LMT and 
form a Boson cluster state (BCS) in the LMT.”


  DGT thinks that the LMT contains hydrogen and that the LMT explodes producing 
a super proton current directed at the nickel powder.


  The LMT must be floating around in the hydrogen gas outside of the powder 
zone.


  DGT: “These predicted super currents in turn will create super magnetic 
field.”


  DGT think that the proton current produces the strong magnetic field. The 
explosion of the LMT causes the fusion of protons with large Z elements via the 
optical effect.

  All this DGT theory has is completely unlike what we are describing as 
related to the soliton monopole.


  The Bosenova reveals that the LMT storage capacity has limits and when that 
limit is exceeded the LMT explodes dumping its energy content into the hydrogen 
envelope.


  The NiH reactor must enter into a cycle of LMT creation and destruction which 
starts with spark ignition.

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

[Bob Cook]

Dave--

One other idea is that the early failure of many of the P-F effect experiments 
did not pay attention to the magnetic field present in  P-F's original  
experiment.  Hagelstein's current lectures at MIT point this out indirectly by 
displaying the arrangement of the electrodes in the cells--they did not have 
the platinum coil that P & F used.   There was no comparable magnetic field 
applied to the Pd electrode in  those null experiments.   

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev


  Thanks for the refresher in all things DGT. :-) The link exposes the large 
difference between what you are proposing and what they claim.

  Dave
  -Original Message-
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Tue, Feb 4, 2014 9:22 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev







  On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:01 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

 The large magnetic field reported by DGT supports the coupling concept, 
but there is question as to whether or not the report is accurate.



  It is valuable to review again what DGT said in their report.


   At the time of the ICCF-18 report, DGT revealed the existence of the 
localized magnetic traps (LMT). Their theory does not correspond to what we 
have been discussing in this thread. 


  http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-2.pdf


  The theory describing the creation of LMT is based on nano-scale explosions 
(“Bosenova”) and proton super currents.


  DGT: “These hydrogen pairs or hydrogen molecules may be trapped in an LMT and 
form a Boson cluster state (BCS) in the LMT.”


  DGT thinks that the LMT contains hydrogen and that the LMT explodes producing 
a super proton current directed at the nickel powder.


  The LMT must be floating around in the hydrogen gas outside of the powder 
zone.


  DGT: “These predicted super currents in turn will create super magnetic 
field.”


  DGT think that the proton current produces the strong magnetic field. The 
explosion of the LMT causes the fusion of protons with large Z elements via the 
optical effect.

  All this DGT theory has is completely unlike what we are describing as 
related to the soliton monopole.


  The Bosenova reveals that the LMT storage capacity has limits and when that 
limit is exceeded the LMT explodes dumping its energy content into the hydrogen 
envelope.


  The NiH reactor must enter into a cycle of LMT creation and destruction which 
starts with spark ignition.

Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Alan--

I watched the Hagelstein 5th day lecture last night.  With respect to the 
NiH system some of his optic and sonic coupling arguments went over my head. 
I did understand the electron shielding argument associated with overcoming 
the coulomb repulsion issue in the Ni matrix.  Its not apparent how this 
shielding would function at a surface, however.


I thought that the solubility of H in nano Ni particles may be considerably 
higher than it is in bulk Ni.  In the Defkalion system there is apparently a 
Ni matrix which would have low H concentration compared to the nano Ni with 
its high surface area to volume ratio.  This would help focus the energetic 
reaction in the nano particles and preserve the integrity of the base Ni 
matrix, keeping the fuel in tact.


Hagelstein did not significantly address spin conservation and coupling 
between the H, D and electrons or spin of the Ni or Pd atoms themselves. 
This coupling may be buried in his equations and operators--I'm not sure. 
I think spin coupling  is important, particularly  with whatever magnetic 
fields exist within the respective systems.


Finally,  I do not think Hagelstein addressed the electron-positron reaction 
with its 0.51 MEV gammas that Rossi and Focardi have identified associated 
with Cu isotope production, nor other radiation observed in various 
experiments on the NiH system done by Focardi and others.  Check out: 
Focardi, S., Gabbani, V., Montalbano, V., Piantelli, F. and Veronesi, S., 
Focardi, S., et al. "Evidence of Electromagnetic Radiation From Ni-H 
Systems," Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Condensed 
Matter Nuclear Science, Marseille, France, (2004)


I would be surprised that Focardi did not monitor He-3 and/or H-3, for the 
same reason Hagelstein indicated interest in He-3 production in the NiH 
experiments.


Bob


- Original Message - 
From: "Alan Fletcher" 

To: "vortex-l" 
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 6:40 PM
Subject: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems



All of Ruby Carat's/Jeremy Ry's  videos are now up
http://coldfusionnow.org/2014-cold-fusion-101-video-lectures/


Particularly day 5  Hagelstein
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Al7NMQLvATo

From my cryptic notes (H:M) :

1:25 : he disagrees with Ed Storms, because you need the electron 
cloud/Gamow factor

  for the reaction rates. (Gives up 10 orders of magnitude)

1:29 NiH

  Talks about H2 clustering in Ni
  Keywords are Fukai phase and elevated vacancy formation

1:50+- Phonon/Accoustic coupling should be about 8Thz -- compare with the 
recent

  discussion about Bushnell's 5-30Thz stimulation
  (Actually I couldn't see Bushnell saying that)

  Says Piantelli encountered charge generation -- compare Rossi EMF 
and

  Defkalion Magnetic effects (I think it comes from He3 creation)

2:05 Briefly discusses Rossi and Defkalion. Says that their COP from Ni 
powder

is in line with Piantelli's rod.

Says they should NOT be dismissed out of hand.


My thoughts : since H doesn't easily diffuse into Ni (Unlike D in Pd) it's 
more

likely to be a surface effect.

Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Harry--

Its not so difficult if you suspect HD--you need to dissociate the HD molecule 
first and then do a mass spec test on the gas coming out of the system.  
Neither the H nor the D have a atomic weight (AW) of 3 and a charge of +2.  H-3 
would be the other most likely AW of 3 and it would be radioactive.  It could 
be gettered from the gas stream with a hydrogen getter.

Hagelstein wished during the lecture 2 or 3 times that he could get funding to 
check for He-3--he commented on loosing funding once for the He-3 testing. He 
implied that the funding entities did not want him to find He-3.


Bob
- Original Message - 
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 1:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems







  On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

I would be surprised that Focardi did not monitor He-3 and/or H-3, for the 
same reason Hagelstein indicated interest in He-3 production in the NiH 
experiments.

Bob


  Hagelstein said that detecting a He-3 signal with a mass spectrometer is 
difficult because it might be confused with a HD signal depending on resolution 
of the spectrometer.  


  Harry

Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

I agree that there are a number of alloys that do better at hydrogen 
solubility than Ni.  However, they may not have the body centered crystal 
array and may actually have differing phases, some of which hold the 
hydrogen better than others in the same alloy.  The simple crystal structure 
of pure Ni may be of an advantage in the LENR business.


Also I suspect that the nano Ni that is produced is pretty pure.  That may 
be why Rossi uses it and may be the reason other researchers do not have 
very good luck at getting a good reaction.  If you want to be careful about 
how you stimulate a quantum system with fixed input frequencies, various 
crystals and impurities may not help.


Bob

- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 1:48 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems


-Original Message-----
From: Bob Cook

My thoughts : since H doesn't easily diffuse into Ni (Unlike D in Pd) it's 
more likely to be a surface effect.



Perhaps - but misleading. Pure nickel is not a great proton conductor- and 
one must pay dearly to get pure nickel. But why?


It takes only a small amount of selected other metals, as alloying agents 
for nickel, to far exceed palladium. For instance, 95% nickel and 5% 
palladium is superior to palladium, at a fraction of the cost.


There is a wealth of data on hydrogen storage alloys which tends to be 
overlooked as candidate alloys for LENR.


Jones

Re: [Vo]:New Report from Attendee of MIT Cold Fusion Seminar

[Bob Cook]

Harry--

Frenchette--the new reporter of the MIT seminar, stated the following:
 "In the case of nickel the hydrogen forms tight clusters. It does not 
occupy the voids in the lattice as in palladium. This may explain the higher 
temperatures which are observed with the Hot Cat. (my conjecture)"

I doubt that the D occupies the voids in the Pd lattice.  The Pd would have to 
have a lot of voids to get the loading Pd:D of .85  and higher.  The D must 
occupy cubic spaces in the center of the Pd face-centered crystaline cell.  
These spaces  would not normally be called voids. 

My thought at hearing the same comment from Hagelstine about the clusters of H 
in the Ni was that they may be BEC's  consistent with what Kim thinks.

Bob




  - Original Message - 
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 2:06 PM
  Subject: [Vo]:New Report from Attendee of MIT Cold Fusion Seminar


  New Report from Attendee of MIT Cold Fusion Seminar

  
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/02/new-report-from-attendee-of-mit-cold-fusion-seminar/




  Harry

Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Eric--

Your bring up some interesting questions about the Rossi reactor.  The 
information I have included come from Rossi and Focardi's international patent 
application noted below.

1. Is Rossi separating Ni isotopes for the Ni he uses in the reactor?  

This would be expensive.  The natural isotopic abundances are: 
Ni-58, 68.08%;
 Ni-59, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 80,000 years;
 Ni 60, 26.22%;
 Ni-61, 1.14%;
 Ni-62, 3.63%;
 Ni-63, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 92 years; 
 Ni-64, 0.93%. 
I would pick Ni-60 because it is more than one transmutation (Ni-proton fusion) 
away from a radioactive residue.

2. Is there radioactive ash (Ni-59 or Ni-63) left in the spent reactors?
Rossi and Focardi seem to contradict themselves with the statements below:
"...we believe that form of energy involved is nuclear, and more 
specifically, due to fusion processes between protons and Nickel nuclei.

They are exothermic with an energy release in the range 3-7,5 MeV, 
depending on the Nickel isotope involved."

"No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the 
process."

 This information attributed to Focardi and Rossi comes from their instructive 
statements, which suggest the nuclear Ni-proton fusion,  in the following 
paper: 
A new energy source from nuclear fusion 

S. Focardi(1) and A. Rossi(2)--(1)Physics Department Bologna University and 
INFN Bologna Section, (2)Leonardo Corp. (USA) - Inventor of the Patent, March 
22, 2010  (international patent publication N. WO 2009/125444 A1)  

My final observation is that the Rossi-Focardi comment that there is no 
radioactivity in the residue needs to be checked.  Other Ni-hydrogen materials 
that have been produced  by other experimenters should be carefully checked for 
both the potential radioactive Ni isotopes---Ni-59 and Ni-63.  They should be 
easy to detect given their well known decay modes and probable gamma emissions. 
 (I will look up this information and put it in a subsequent comment.)   I know 
that both Ni-59 and Ni-63 are problems when it comes to nuclear waste disposal 
of activated metals.)   A null radioactivity essay would be revealing as to the 
process actually occurring in the Ni-hydrogen reactions.  

Bob

  - Original Message - 
  From: Eric Walker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 7:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems


  On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:


Also I suspect that the nano Ni that is produced is pretty pure.  That may 
be why Rossi uses it and may be the reason other researchers do not have very 
good luck at getting a good reaction.


  I'm guessing that the purity of Rossi's nickel (in terms of 62Ni and 64Ni) is 
related to avoiding beta-plus and beta-minus decay, and, with beta-plus decay, 
the 511 keV positron-electron annihilation photons.


  Some vorts may enjoy this video of a small cloud chamber [1].  It's 
remarkable that such a small event can have macroscopic effects.


  Eric


  [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQVMrkJYShc

Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Bob--Bob Cook here

Your comments are revealing.  I believe quantum systems that are big enough to 
handle the energy fractionation that Hagelstein identifies in his lectures are 
a requirement for any solid state nuclear reaction.  A thermal conductor to get 
the heat out is also necessary.  These two objectives are probably at the heart 
of Rossi's design. 

 Of course the Kim BEC theory may occur at discrete locations in the Ni 
creating new quantum systems during the reactor operation.  However maintaining 
such nice locations for months of operation for the BEC's to form is 
questionable.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Higgins 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Bob Higgins 
  Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 7:43 AM
  Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems


  Rossi has stated that he starts with 10 micron sized particles (since 
identified as a nickel powder produced from the carbonyl process), adds a 
catalyst (widely believed to be a nanopowder of some kind), and processes the 
mix "in a way that leads to amplified tubercles on the surface".


  A search of tubules will not find the reference, he used "tubercles".


  I have replicated the growth of tubercles by doing just what Rossi described. 
 Begin with micron scale nickel powder (from the carbonyl precipitate process), 
add a nanopowder, mix, and heat in an oven with cycling H2, Ar, O2 process gas. 
 The result is a porous structure of "tubercles" with nanowires growing from 
the surface.  I suspect that both the nanowires and the tubercle structure are 
indicators that I am using similar processing of the powder mix as Rossi, but 
are not themselves the LENR NAE.  The observation is that when processed in 
that manner, there are plenty of NAE somewhere.  It is easy to believe that 
this structure (from the SEM pictures) will be rife with nanocracks as Dr. 
Storms suggests for the NAE.  In fact, the NAE are likely to be features you 
cannot see under the SEM rather than the features you can see.


  Bob Higgins



  On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

As Eric realizes, this is a critical issue for anyone wanting to replicated 
Rossi.



In fact, the material shown in the previous image, could indeed be called 
"micron sized" and one would not be dishonest. However the importance of hollow 
nickel tube could be the sine qua non of the Rossi scheme.



Rossi has a history in his revelations, at least back when he was in full 
fund-raising mode, of first providing a bit too much information 
(inadvertently) and then backtracking later to try to minimize the damage.



Thus, we often see conflicting statements which can be rationalized if one 
understands the history of "Rossi-speak". 



This "tubule" mystery could be an exemplary example of what I am talking 
about. But did he actually ever say it?



From: Eric Walker 



  Does anyone  have the citation for Rossi's nickel lattice having 
"tubules"?
  Cannot find it. But check this out.

Yes, please.  If anyone has a reference to Rossi using nickel with 
"tubules," "nanotubules," "nanohairs," etc., please provide it.  My 
understanding is that he uses micron-sized nickel powder, treated in some way, 
and rather than something "nano-".  There are carbon nanotubes, of course, and 
Rossi, as far as anyone knows, does not use them.




It's remarkably difficult to pin the precise details down and keep them 
pinned down.  They keep on moving around and morphing through some kind of 
process of entropy.

Re: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Fran--

I agree fully.

Bob Cook
  - Original Message - 
  From: Roarty, Francis X 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:36 AM
  Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems


  IMHO grain size and geometry of these "other" alloys as powders will have a 
major effect on their LENR activity.

  Fran

   

  From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
  Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 5:16 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

   

  From: Jed Rothwell 

   

  Superior for what? Conducting protons? Surely not for loading hydrogen. I 
have never heard that.

   

  Surely you read Ahern's Arata replication for EPRI ? 

   

  He achieved better loading than the standard of 1:1 with nickel-palladium 
alloy (at low Pd ratio in the alloy).

   

  Many alloys which are tailored for hydrogen storage are in fact better than 
palladium for that single property (which is the atomic ratio of lattice atoms 
to hydrogen atoms)

   

  This does not meant they will be more active for LENR - only that they will 
absorb more atoms of hydrogen per atom of lattice. That is what they are 
designed for.

   

  In fact, the alloys which store the most hydrogen are most often NOT 
anomalous as to energy release, when further stimulated. Unfortunately, the two 
fields have not been systematically investigated for determining the best of 
both worlds.

   

  Jones

Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Ed--

One simple question--In all the Ni-H systems has there been a good evaluation 
of the residuel radioactivity? 

What do you mean by " fragmentation" and  "Ni fission"?  For example, what are 
possible fission products?  Lighter isotopes which are radioactively stable? Is 
the fission process like the reaction of a neutron with U-235 producing  
fragments with kinetic energy, or do the fragments merely stay put.  

However,  If what you suggest happens, i.e. the introduction of d to the Ni 
nuclei, why not the following reactions?:
 Ni-58 goes to Cu-60 (radioactive) 
 Ni-60 goes to Cu-62 (radioactive)
Ni-61 goes to Cu-63 (stable) 
  Ni-62 goes to Cu-64 (radioactive) and
 Ni-64 goes to Cu-66 (radioactive).

All the radioactive Cu isotopes emit electrons or positrons and additional 
x-rays or soft gammas to boot, in addition to the .51 mev x-ray associated with 
positrons-electron reaction.  Cu short-lived activity should be seen if the 
D-Ni reaction occurs.  

Rossi and Focardi did not appear to advocate such reactions.  And I would have 
estimated that they would have looked for them.  Remember they indicated no 
residual activity and did not mention the P-e-P reaction in their patent 
application. .   Focardi must surely have known about it--the P-e-P reaction.  
Everything I have heard Focardi say and write  has made sense to me and has  
seemed to be without obfuscation.  (I cannot say  this for hot fusion advocates 
and the APS establishment.)  However, it would not be the first time I was 
wrong.   A mentor once said "it takes $1,000,000 worth of mistakes to make a 
good engineer," and that was in the late 60's.  Luckily I do not have to worry 
about the issues Hagelstein and others make about my future career.  

Bob Cook
  - Original Message - 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:32 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems


  Bob and Eric, the issue of transmutation is basic to understanding LENR. 
First of all, transmutation has a very high barrier requiring an explanation of 
how this can be overcome.  Second, the resulting energy has to be dissipated in 
ways known to be possible. I propose the hydrogen fusion process provides the 
required energy and dissipates much of the excess mass-energy. In other words, 
transmutation can not occur unless fusion is taking place at the same time and 
place in the material. 


  We now know that two kinds of transmutation occur. Iwamura shows that D can 
be added to a target resulting in a stable heavier product. Most other claims 
for transmutation are based on fragments of Pd being found.  Explaining these 
two different results is the challenge.


  In the case of Ni+H, I propose the p-e-p fusion process deposits the 
resulting d in the Ni nucleus, resulting in fragmentation of the product in 
order to dissipate the excess mass-energy. I believe 2d enter all isotopes of 
Ni when the fusion reaction is operating. As a result, the 1.9 MeV obtained 
from the p-e-p reaction is added to any energy resulting from occasional 
transmutation. When the Ni fissions, it must conserve n and p, which produces a 
distribution of products that can be calculated. This calculation shows a 
distribution that is consistent with what is reported and reveals Ni-58 to be 
the most active isotope for energy production.  I will provide much more detail 
and justification in my book. Meanwhile, you might consider this proposed 
process.


  I propose transmutation takes place in the Rossi cell, but he has incorrectly 
identified its source and incorrectly attributed the energy to transmutation. I 
propose most energy results from p-e-p=d fusion, with transmutation resulting 
from fission of Ni adding only a minor amount of energy.  If this is the case, 
focus on Ni is a waste of time.


  Ed Storms

  On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Bob Cook wrote:


Eric--

Your bring up some interesting questions about the Rossi reactor.  The 
information I have included come from Rossi and Focardi's international patent 
application noted below.

1. Is Rossi separating Ni isotopes for the Ni he uses in the reactor? 

This would be expensive.  The natural isotopic abundances are:
Ni-58, 68.08%;
 Ni-59, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 80,000 years;
 Ni 60, 26.22%;
 Ni-61, 1.14%;
 Ni-62, 3.63%;
 Ni-63, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 92 years;
 Ni-64, 0.93%. 
I would pick Ni-60 because it is more than one transmutation (Ni-proton 
fusion) away from a radioactive residue.

2. Is there radioactive ash (Ni-59 or Ni-63) left in the spent reactors?
Rossi and Focardi seem to contradict themselves with the statements 
below:
"...we believe that form of energy involved is nuclear, and more 
specifically, due to fusion processes between

Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Ed--Bob Cook here--

Another question is if D is formed in the Ni-H system as you propose, why not 
the generation of He-4 as in the Pd system without the nasty fragmentation or 
fission of the Ni?

The key to controlling the Rossi process maybe  controlling the formation of D. 
 The energy transfer process would be coupled by spin and distribution of 
angular momentum  between the  initially excited He-4* at a high spin state and 
the electrons of the system and maybe the various Ni nuclei in the system.  
Nuclear-magnetic spin of nuclei is of course coupled to electromagnetic 
irradiation signals in MRI technology.  The math must be well established.  

Again spin state coupling with appropriate energy transfer should be explored 
in  theory--this is above my head.  Do you know if anyone has looked at this?

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:32 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems


  Bob and Eric, the issue of transmutation is basic to understanding LENR. 
First of all, transmutation has a very high barrier requiring an explanation of 
how this can be overcome.  Second, the resulting energy has to be dissipated in 
ways known to be possible. I propose the hydrogen fusion process provides the 
required energy and dissipates much of the excess mass-energy. In other words, 
transmutation can not occur unless fusion is taking place at the same time and 
place in the material. 


  We now know that two kinds of transmutation occur. Iwamura shows that D can 
be added to a target resulting in a stable heavier product. Most other claims 
for transmutation are based on fragments of Pd being found.  Explaining these 
two different results is the challenge.


  In the case of Ni+H, I propose the p-e-p fusion process deposits the 
resulting d in the Ni nucleus, resulting in fragmentation of the product in 
order to dissipate the excess mass-energy. I believe 2d enter all isotopes of 
Ni when the fusion reaction is operating. As a result, the 1.9 MeV obtained 
from the p-e-p reaction is added to any energy resulting from occasional 
transmutation. When the Ni fissions, it must conserve n and p, which produces a 
distribution of products that can be calculated. This calculation shows a 
distribution that is consistent with what is reported and reveals Ni-58 to be 
the most active isotope for energy production.  I will provide much more detail 
and justification in my book. Meanwhile, you might consider this proposed 
process.


  I propose transmutation takes place in the Rossi cell, but he has incorrectly 
identified its source and incorrectly attributed the energy to transmutation. I 
propose most energy results from p-e-p=d fusion, with transmutation resulting 
from fission of Ni adding only a minor amount of energy.  If this is the case, 
focus on Ni is a waste of time.


  Ed Storms

  On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Bob Cook wrote:


Eric--

Your bring up some interesting questions about the Rossi reactor.  The 
information I have included come from Rossi and Focardi's international patent 
application noted below.

1. Is Rossi separating Ni isotopes for the Ni he uses in the reactor? 

This would be expensive.  The natural isotopic abundances are:
Ni-58, 68.08%;
 Ni-59, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 80,000 years;
 Ni 60, 26.22%;
 Ni-61, 1.14%;
 Ni-62, 3.63%;
 Ni-63, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 92 years;
 Ni-64, 0.93%. 
I would pick Ni-60 because it is more than one transmutation (Ni-proton 
fusion) away from a radioactive residue.

2. Is there radioactive ash (Ni-59 or Ni-63) left in the spent reactors?
Rossi and Focardi seem to contradict themselves with the statements 
below:
"...we believe that form of energy involved is nuclear, and more 
specifically, due to fusion processes between protons and Nickel nuclei.

They are exothermic with an energy release in the range 3-7,5 MeV, 
depending on the Nickel isotope involved."

"No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from 
the process."

 This information attributed to Focardi and Rossi comes from their 
instructive statements, which suggest the nuclear Ni-proton fusion,  in the 
following paper: 
A new energy source from nuclear fusion

S. Focardi(1) and A. Rossi(2)--(1)Physics Department Bologna University and 
INFN Bologna Section, (2)Leonardo Corp. (USA) - Inventor of the Patent, March 
22, 2010  (international patent publication N. WO 2009/125444 A1) 

My final observation is that the Rossi-Focardi comment that there is no 
radioactivity in the residue needs to be checked.  Other Ni-hydrogen materials 
that have been produced  by other experimenters should be carefully checked for 
both the potential radioactive Ni isotopes---Ni-59 a

Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

  - Original Message - 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:32 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems


  Bob and Eric, the issue of transmutation is basic to understanding LENR. 
First of all, transmutation has a very high barrier requiring an explanation of 
how this can be overcome.  Second, the resulting energy has to be dissipated in 
ways known to be possible. I propose the hydrogen fusion process provides the 
required energy and dissipates much of the excess mass-energy. In other words, 
transmutation can not occur unless fusion is taking place at the same time and 
place in the material. 


  We now know that two kinds of transmutation occur. Iwamura shows that D can 
be added to a target resulting in a stable heavier product. Most other claims 
for transmutation are based on fragments of Pd being found.  Explaining these 
two different results is the challenge.


  In the case of Ni+H, I propose the p-e-p fusion process deposits the 
resulting d in the Ni nucleus, resulting in fragmentation of the product in 
order to dissipate the excess mass-energy. I believe 2d enter all isotopes of 
Ni when the fusion reaction is operating. As a result, the 1.9 MeV obtained 
from the p-e-p reaction is added to any energy resulting from occasional 
transmutation. When the Ni fissions, it must conserve n and p, which produces a 
distribution of products that can be calculated. This calculation shows a 
distribution that is consistent with what is reported and reveals Ni-58 to be 
the most active isotope for energy production.  I will provide much more detail 
and justification in my book. Meanwhile, you might consider this proposed 
process.


  I propose transmutation takes place in the Rossi cell, but he has incorrectly 
identified its source and incorrectly attributed the energy to transmutation. I 
propose most energy results from p-e-p=d fusion, with transmutation resulting 
from fission of Ni adding only a minor amount of energy.  If this is the case, 
focus on Ni is a waste of time.


  Ed Storms

  On Feb 7, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Bob Cook wrote:


Eric--

Your bring up some interesting questions about the Rossi reactor.  The 
information I have included come from Rossi and Focardi's international patent 
application noted below.

1. Is Rossi separating Ni isotopes for the Ni he uses in the reactor? 

This would be expensive.  The natural isotopic abundances are:
Ni-58, 68.08%;
 Ni-59, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 80,000 years;
 Ni 60, 26.22%;
 Ni-61, 1.14%;
 Ni-62, 3.63%;
 Ni-63, 0%--its radioactive with 1/2 life of 92 years;
 Ni-64, 0.93%. 
I would pick Ni-60 because it is more than one transmutation (Ni-proton 
fusion) away from a radioactive residue.

2. Is there radioactive ash (Ni-59 or Ni-63) left in the spent reactors?
Rossi and Focardi seem to contradict themselves with the statements 
below:
"...we believe that form of energy involved is nuclear, and more 
specifically, due to fusion processes between protons and Nickel nuclei.

They are exothermic with an energy release in the range 3-7,5 MeV, 
depending on the Nickel isotope involved."

"No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from 
the process."

 This information attributed to Focardi and Rossi comes from their 
instructive statements, which suggest the nuclear Ni-proton fusion,  in the 
following paper: 
A new energy source from nuclear fusion

S. Focardi(1) and A. Rossi(2)--(1)Physics Department Bologna University and 
INFN Bologna Section, (2)Leonardo Corp. (USA) - Inventor of the Patent, March 
22, 2010  (international patent publication N. WO 2009/125444 A1) 

My final observation is that the Rossi-Focardi comment that there is no 
radioactivity in the residue needs to be checked.  Other Ni-hydrogen materials 
that have been produced  by other experimenters should be carefully checked for 
both the potential radioactive Ni isotopes---Ni-59 and Ni-63.  They should be 
easy to detect given their well known decay modes and probable gamma emissions. 
 (I will look up this information and put it in a subsequent comment.)   I know 
that both Ni-59 and Ni-63 are problems when it comes to nuclear waste disposal 
of activated metals.)   A null radioactivity essay would be revealing as to the 
process actually occurring in the Ni-hydrogen reactions. 

Bob

  - Original Message -
  From: Eric Walker
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 7:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems


  On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:


Also I suspect that the nano Ni that is produced is pretty pure.  That 
may be why Rossi uses it and may be the reason other researchers do not have 

Re: [Vo]:Clarke describes the Internet in 1972

[Bob Cook]

Jed--

 Thanks for the observations of Clarke--its is an optimistic observation as are 
many regarding LENR.  The pessimistic ones don't seem to be coming up as often. 
  

Bob --an old optimist
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 12:19 PM
  Subject: [Vo]:Clarke describes the Internet in 1972


  It is often said that people cannot predict future technology, even a few 
decades in advance. Some people cannot, but others can. Here is something 
Arthur Clarke wrote in 1972. He and others predicted the Internet and many of 
its ramifications.




  . . . It will be a future in which men do much less commuting and more 
communicating. Even today, probably 90 percent of the average executive's 
business could be performed without leaving home, by the use of equipment which 
is already available on an experimental basis. During the next decade, we will 
see the evolution of a general-purpose, home-communications console providing 
two-way vision, hard-copy readout so that diagrams and printed material can be 
exchanged, and a keyboard to allow "conversation" with the computers and 
information banks upon which our world will increasingly depend.

  Before we consider its practicability, let us see what we could do with such 
a device. Far more than business discussions and conferences would be possible; 
the housewife could go shopping by dialing the catalogue of her favorite 
stores; scholars and students would have instant access to any book or 
periodical stored in the global electronic library; this minute's news, 
continually updated, would be displayed in printed headlines, and any selected 
item could be expanded as desired, according to taste. This, incidentally, 
raises the possibility of something quite new -- the "personalized" electronic 
news service, tailored to the interests of the individual subscriber!

  Today, such a receiving console would cost tens of thousands of dollars-and 
would be useless, because the communications network to service it does not yet 
exist. But this network will be built up during the next decades; one of the 
great enterprises of the twentieth century will be the establishment, with the 
help of satellites, of a planetary "information grid." It will join the other 
networks we have developed during the last hundred and fifty years, and which 
we now take so much for granted that we forget their existence, except when 
they break down. Chronologically, they are: water, sewerage, gas, electricity, 
telephone -- and now cable TV, or video. The forthcoming information grid will 
absorb the last two. . . .





  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Ed--Bob Cook here

Thanks for you response.  I need a little more time to think about your ideas.  
I need to look at the respective products you identify and the likely other 
respective fission pieces to see if I agree with what you say makes sense.   
Just roughly thinking, I would expect a neutron or 2 and maybe an alpha in such 
a fission process.  

Is there a good reference on what you call rules of nuclear chemistry?  

Bob Cook

  
  - Original Message - 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 2:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems




  On Feb 7, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Bob Cook wrote:


Ed--

One simple question--In all the Ni-H systems has there been a good 
evaluation of the residuel radioactivity? 


  Bob, evidence shows that when Pd or Ni experience transmutation, the 
resulting nucleus breaks into two parts. These two parts are not radioactive. 
In other words, the system tries to dissipate all the energy while producing 
nuclei that have no residual energy, i.e. are not radioactive.  Addition of 
2(p-e-p) to Ni results is a distribution of stable products, with O, Mg, Si, S 
Ca, and Ti being the most frequent. Si is matched with S. Prompt alpha emission 
also occurs leaving behind Ni.  This process results from the normal rules of  
nuclear chemistry. NO copper isotopes are formed. The detected copper has 
normal isotopic composition, which is not possible to produce from 
transmutation. I suspect copper results from contamination by materials in the  
cell.  If copper formed, the nucleus would have no way to dissipate the energy, 
which is essential. 


What do you mean by " fragmentation" and  "Ni fission"?  For example, what 
are possible fission products?  Lighter isotopes which are radioactively 
stable? Is the fission process like the reaction of a neutron with U-235 
producing  fragments with kinetic energy, or do the fragments merely stay put. 

However,  If what you suggest happens, i.e. the introduction of d to the Ni 
nuclei, why not the following reactions?:
 Ni-58 goes to Cu-60 (radioactive)
 Ni-60 goes to Cu-62 (radioactive)
Ni-61 goes to Cu-63 (stable) 
  Ni-62 goes to Cu-64 (radioactive) and
 Ni-64 goes to Cu-66 (radioactive).

All the radioactive Cu isotopes emit electrons or positrons and additional 
x-rays or soft gammas to boot, in addition to the .51 mev x-ray associated with 
positrons-electron reaction.  Cu short-lived activity should be seen if the 
D-Ni reaction occurs. 

Rossi and Focardi did not appear to advocate such reactions.  And I would 
have estimated that they would have looked for them.  Remember they indicated 
no residual activity and did not mention the P-e-P reaction in their patent 
application. .  


  This is true. They clearly have no understanding of nuclear chemistry. They 
saw transmutation produced and from this observation ASSUMED that heat resulted 
from transmutation because they found the p-e-p reaction impossible to explain. 
 My approach is to violate as few basic laws as possible and to find an 
internally consistent process. That goal involves d-e-d, d-e-p and p-e-p type 
reactions. In addition, transmutation requires energy that is only available 
from the fusion reaction. These conclusions lead logically to a model that can 
explain all observations without ad hoc assumptions or using novel processes. 
Unfortunately, the justification and details require a book to explain, so 
don't expect a proof here. 


  Ed Storms


Focardi must surely have known about it--the P-e-P reaction.  Everything I 
have heard Focardi say and write  has made sense to me and has  seemed to be 
without obfuscation.  (I cannot say  this for hot fusion advocates and the APS 
establishment.)  However, it would not be the first time I was wrong.   A 
mentor once said "it takes $1,000,000 worth of mistakes to make a good 
engineer," and that was in the late 60's.  Luckily I do not have to worry about 
the issues Hagelstein and others make about my future career. 

Bob Cook
  - Original Message -
  From: Edmund Storms
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Cc: Edmund Storms
  Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:32 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems


  Bob and Eric, the issue of transmutation is basic to understanding LENR. 
First of all, transmutation has a very high barrier requiring an explanation of 
how this can be overcome.  Second, the resulting energy has to be dissipated in 
ways known to be possible. I propose the hydrogen fusion process provides the 
required energy and dissipates much of the excess mass-energy. In other words, 
transmutation can not occur unless fusion is taking place at the same time and 
place in the material.   


  We now know that two kinds of transmutation occur. Iwamura shows th

Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Ed--Bob Cook here

Spin states of a quantum system reflect the angular momentum of the system and 
hence the energy associated with that angular momentum.  High spin quantum 
numbers reflect the higher energy of the system.  The allowable states are 
quantized.  In magnetic fields the direction of the spin is controlled more or 
less depending upon the field strength.  The allowable number of states is 
reduced from the situation where there is no magnetic field.  Resonant magnetic 
oscillating fields input to a nucleus with a magnetic moment and non-zero spin 
state for  its ground state, can add energy to the quantum system by changing 
the spin number of the quantum system.  This is the basis for the MRI 
technology which is an accounting of the energy absorption  at a given 
resonance frequency at well determined locations, identifying the nucleus with 
the specific resonance frequency absorption .   

 If there is spin coupling, (a basic assumption is that spin is conserved in 
any nuclear reaction at the end of the reaction)  a coupling between various  
particles subject to integer, J, quantum seems probable.   Thus, any He-4* with 
a high spin integer J quantum number and excess energy--say 10 mev--would  
distribute this high angular momentum to  electrons or other particles in the 
quantum system--all the many electrons  and particles at the same time.  The 
electrons (and other particles) in turn would distribute their excess spin 
energy (angular momentum) to the lattice as electromagnetic field oscillations 
or  radiation and hence lattice heat.  In the end the net spin would be what it 
was to start with.  The reaction would be fast and cause results of the 
distribution of quantum angular momentum and lattice motion instantaneously.   
No energetic (kinetic energy) particles are  involved, only angular momentum 
with its corresponding rotational energy.  The rotational energy may actually 
be rotating electric and or magnetic fields associated with the particle with 
the high spin quantum state.  

Again I do not understand the details of spin coupling, the actual timing nor 
the most likely fractionation of the spin/angular momentum among the particles 
of the quantum system.  The basic idea is that the energy associated with the 
mass loss first shows up as angular momentum or spin of the newly found He-4*  
and this spin is distributed to the rest of the system.  

Bob Cook
  - Original Message - 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 2:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems




  On Feb 7, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Bob Cook wrote:


Ed--Bob Cook here--

Another question is if D is formed in the Ni-H system as you propose, why 
not the generation of He-4 as in the Pd system without the nasty fragmentation 
or fission of the Ni?


  That answer is too complicated to explain here. That is why the book is 
required. Take my word for the present that I have a good reason for this 
model. 


The key to controlling the Rossi process maybe  controlling the formation 
of D.  The energy transfer process would be coupled by spin and distribution of 
angular momentum  between the  initially excited He-4* at a high spin state and 
the electrons of the system and maybe the various Ni nuclei in the system.  
Nuclear-magnetic spin of nuclei is of course coupled to electromagnetic 
irradiation signals in MRI technology.  The math must be well established.


  These fragmentation products release about 11 MeV/fragment. Please tell me 
how spin state coupling can transfer this amount of energy.  Even adding a p to 
Ni requires about 6 MeV be dissipated. I know of no example of this much energy 
being transferred by any kind of coupling mechanism. Do you?


  Ed Storms


Again spin state coupling with appropriate energy transfer should be 
explored in  theory--this is above my head.  Do you know if anyone has looked 
at this?

Bob
  - Original Message -
  From: Edmund Storms
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Cc: Edmund Storms
  Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:32 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems


  Bob and Eric, the issue of transmutation is basic to understanding LENR. 
First of all, transmutation has a very high barrier requiring an explanation of 
how this can be overcome.  Second, the resulting energy has to be dissipated in 
ways known to be possible. I propose the hydrogen fusion process provides the 
required energy and dissipates much of the excess mass-energy. In other words, 
transmutation can not occur unless fusion is taking place at the same time and 
place in the material.   


  We now know that two kinds of transmutation occur. Iwamura shows that D 
can be added to a target resulting in a stable heavier product. Most other 
claims for transmutation are based on fragments of Pd being found.  Explaining 
these two

Re: [Vo]:So close but so far away ... or was it?

[Bob Cook]

Jones-- Bob Cook here--

I doubt there was no connection.  I would guess the work at SPAWAR  became a 
black project.  LENR clearly has potential for ship propulsion and other 
high energy density fuel needs in the Navy.


Bob Cook
- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 1:24 PM
Subject: [Vo]:So close but so far away ... or was it?



http://www.google/patents/US4489049

In 1982 - several years before P&F made the big splash, scientists working
under US Navy contracts filed for what became US 4489049 for "Solid state
hydrogen pumping and storage material."

Abstract: A solid-state hydrogen storage system. A layer of an amorphous
binary metal alloy of a lanthanide and iron, nickel or cobalt is disposed 
on

a suitable substrate and overcoated with palladium metal.

Geeze, it would be a bit of a surprise, thirty+ years thereafter to learn
that the nickel version of this hydrogen pump did not produce some small
amount of anomalous heat.

Of course, there would have been no reason to look for excess heat, at 
that

time, but who knows how careful they were in the details?

Funny that years later, on the cancellation of SPAWAR some doubts linger 
as

to ultimate motivations and to what could be going on behind the scenes.
Yet, on or about early November 2011, one Rear Admiral Patrick Brady,
commander of SPAWAR, ordered researchers to terminate all LENR research. 
He

may or may not have initiated the order, but one is left to wonders where
Brady, or his superior, was located in 1982 and was he involved in
continuing R&D on the hydrogen "storage" system ?

Anyway, his order came about a week after News broke about Rossi's 
October,

2011, demonstration of the E-Cat.

Probably no connection just a coincidence... nothing to see here, 
please

move on.

Let's turn this over to the conspiracy theorists now so that it will be
certain to be discredited as with the rest of LENR...

Jones

Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Eric--Bob Cook here--

It may be that laser radiation at selected frequencies could activate organic 
Ni compounds selectively based on the mass of the Ni isotope.  The activation 
may be ionization or other molecular changes to increase or decrease solubility 
and the opportunity for separation.   Selective activation may also be possible 
via the magnetic properties  of the respective Ni isotopes with oscillating 
magnetic fields

I think you have the decay scheme for Ni-59 wrong.  It has a 76,000 year half 
life and decays by electron capture as you said.  The data I have  indicate no 
gamma activity, in the transition to the Cu-59 nucleus.  This is unusual  
situation that the new nucleus is not formed in an excited state.  This is a 
nice feature of Ni-59, and  it should cause no problems.  Ni-59 does have a 
neutron activation cross section, and checking for it in reactor residue should 
not be to difficult.  One would  use  neutron activation with gamma evaluation 
of the activated product.One would need to use a research reactor for a 
source of neutrons like the U of Missouri has.

Bob

 Original Message - 
  From: Eric Walker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 8:17 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems


  On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:



1. Is Rossi separating Ni isotopes for the Ni he uses in the reactor? 


This would be expensive.


  I can only imagine.  I'm not sure how one would go about enriching select 
isotopes of nickel.  Perhaps they have sufficiently different properties to 
make separation straightforward?  (E.g., maybe the spin-0 claim one hears 
occasionally in connection with some isotopes, which is something I know 
nothing about, can be made use of.)  Hank Mills reports that Rossi has found a 
cheap way to enrich the nickel, although I do not have an opinion about this 
[1].


2. Is there radioactive ash (Ni-59 or Ni-63) left in the spent reactors?


  I was thinking of radioactive species of copper and zinc, primarily.  By 
contrast, I believe 62Ni and 64Ni would go to stable isotopes of copper after 
proton capture.  In natural abundance, 58Ni is the most prevalent, at 68 
percent:


  p + 58Ni → 59Cu + ɣ + Q (2.9 MeV)


  Here 59Cu is an unstable species which will beta-plus decay to 59Ni, which 
will then transition to 59Co via electron capture.  I believe it will be 
accompanied by an Auger cascade, so there will be lots of activity taken 
together.  By contrast,


  p + 62Ni → 63Cu + ɣ + Q (5.6 MeV)


  Here 63Cu is a stable isotope.  If one assumes the ɣ is somehow being 
fractionated as a large set of lower-energy photons through some as-yet 
discovered mechanism, as I suspect is happening (I'm rooting for an interaction 
with the electronic structure, here), then you want 62Ni and 64Ni, because 
there will be no activity with these isotopes afterwards.  Using nickel in its 
natural isotopes will be like banging the keys on a piano -- there will be lots 
of noise leaving the system.
My final observation is that the Rossi-Focardi comment that there is no 
radioactivity in the residue needs to be checked.

  Yes, very much so.  This is one of those mutating details, subject to a 
mysterious law of entropy, where one doesn't know what to believe.  In a 
related connection, I recall an anecdote of an experiment by one of the Italian 
researchers, perhaps Piantelli, where some nickel that had been undergoing a 
reaction was placed in a cloud chamber and all kinds of activity was seen.  If 
there is proton capture happening at a significant level, and there is no 
activity, my guess is that this would be primarily because Rossi has succeeded 
in enriching the nickel to suitable isotopes to a high degree.  But my 
understanding is that it is also the case that in PdD experiments, 
transmutations are often seen to stable isotopes, so there may be something 
inherent to cold fusion that leads to stable isotopes, mitigating perhaps the 
need for enrichment to very high levels.


  Eric

Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Eric--

I am looking at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Chart of the Nuclides, 
Thirteenth Addition Revised as of July 1983.  This chart does not include 
proton capture  cross sections.   I do not believe I have seen proton capture 
cross sections for any isotopes.  The cross section would have to be a function 
of the proton energy.  The thermal neutron cross section of the proton is 0.333 
barns and its integral cross section is 0.150 barns.


Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Eric Walker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems


  On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:


I think you have the decay scheme for Ni-59 wrong.  It has a 76,000 year 
half life and decays by electron capture as you said.


  It's good that you seem to know your way around these nuclear transitions.  
That makes you and Robin and a few others who can keep the rest of us honest.


The data I have  indicate no gamma activity, in the transition to the Cu-59 
nucleus.


  I'm thinking of this reaction:


  
https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/servlet/X4sSearch5?reacc=28-NI-62(P%2CG)29-CU-63%2C%2CSIG



  What data are you using?  Do they include proton capture cross sections?  Up 
to now I have only been able to work out the Q values but have had no insight 
into the cross sections.  The Exfor cross section data are hard to make sense 
of.


  Eric

Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Eric--Bob here

I looked at the link and have now seen a list of cross sections for the Ni-59, 
P reaction.  I must study the protocol for measuring the specified cross 
sections to understand the sig and dsig data.  Off hand I do not understand 
these labels.  My guess is that the energies listed are the average of the data 
within a 1 sigma band  of all the data (and also a 2 sigma band of all the 
data) at a specified incident proton energy.   

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Eric Walker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:07 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems


  I wrote:


I'm thinking of this reaction:




https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/servlet/X4sSearch5?reacc=28-NI-62(P%2CG)29-CU-63%2C%2CSIG


  Sorry, that should have been:


  
https://www-nds.iaea.org/exfor/servlet/X4sSearch5?reacc=28-NI-58(P%2CG)29-CU-59%2C%2CSIG



  Eric

Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Ed--Bob Here--

I would note that testing by the manipulation of spin is possible by changing 
the static magnetic fields or the oscillating fields given known nuclear 
magnetic resonance parameters.  You suggest that energies associated with spin 
are not found to involve the magnitude of energy involved.  Who determined this 
situation?  Is there a reference supporting  this conclusion other that mere 
assertion?   


I know of Japanese researcher data regarding the formation of various heavier 
isotopes after forcing  D gas through thin films.  However, I am not familiar 
with the data you suggest for the splitting of Pd and Ni.  A couple references 
would be good.

When do you expect to finish your book on the subject?  If you have a partial  
bibliography of references, maybe that would give me the pertinent leads.  

Bob Cook


  - Original Message - 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 7:12 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems


  Bob, we are presented with a complex puzzle. A solution requires testing 
possibilities against what is observed. A solution is made difficult if 
mechanisms are proposed that can not be tasted. For example, spin coupling can 
not be tested against what is known and, in addition, it is not found to 
involve the magnitude of energy involved. KThe human mind can imagine an 
infinite number of possibilities. Some way must be used to limit these 
possibilities.


  I do this my making as few assumptions as possible and then limit these to 
the most basic possibilities. If this approach fits the data, then we have the 
answer. If the data are not fit, then additional assumptions are added only 
where absolutely necessary as exceptions. 


  To start, you need to stop thinking of the LENR process as being caused by 
ordinary nuclear reactions. For example cross-section data have no application. 
This data is based on use of high energy particles for which a reaction rate is 
determined as this energy is changed. This process does not happen during LENR. 
If this process were operating, LENR could not happen. In fact, rejection of 
the claim results because this kind of thinking is used. We are dealing with a 
new kind of nuclear reaction. The challenge is to discover the rules that apply 
to this reaction, not keep using rules that apply to conventional reactions. 
The rules of conventional reactions make LENR impossible. 


  The data show that Pd and Ni split into smaller parts.  This data results 
from hundreds of studies and is not in doubt. This fact is the starting point 
for a search for an explanation. The first assumption results from the need to 
have something cause this result. That event is assumed to be addition of 
either one or more d or p to the nucleus by some unknown process, followed by 
fragmentation. Such a process requires the number of p and n in the initial 
nucleus to equal the total number in the fragments.  As a result, if 2d entered 
the Ni, the fragments would have to contain a total of 30 p. This limits the 
element combinations that can result. Such calculations can be called nuclear 
chemistry because the same rule applies to chemical reactions. 


  In the case of nuclear reactions, unlike chemistry, the number of neutrons 
also has to remain unchanged. Each isotope of an element has a different number 
of neutrons.  Therefore, different isotope combinations  are possible.  At this 
point, we need one more assumption. This assumption says the isotope 
combination must always be non-radioactive, because that is what is observed 
most of the time. When this assumption is applied, the combinations are further 
limited, with some isotopes of Ni having many element combinations and some 
having only a few possibilities.  The periodic table can be searched to 
discover which elements between He and Ni satisfy these two conditions.  I have 
done this and obtained a distribution. This distribution matches what is 
observed.  Therefore, the two assumptions appear to be correct. Once this 
information is obtained, the energy from each reaction can be calculated along 
with the frequency of each reaction, with no other assumptions being required. 


  So you ask how the d or p got into the Ni nucleus. This is a separate 
question requiring different assumptions.  First, energy must be available and 
it must be applied at the time and place where the nuclear event occurs. In 
addition, this energy must have a form that does not interact with the 
surrounding chemical structure. This requirement is unique to LENR, unlike what 
can happen in plasma.  I propose a structure forms I call a Hydroton in which 
the fusion process takes place. This reaction, and only this reaction, has 
enough energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier for Ni or Pd.  This fact further 
limits what can be proposed to happen.  Of course, a person can imagine all 
kinds of novel quantum

Re: [Vo]:New German LENR Company

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

Why do you say the patent appears to be photoelectric?

It seems to identify  another way of loading a Pd or other metal with D or H 
or both at the surface of the metal and inducing solid state fusion  of the 
loaded materials--probably D based on what the inventers  say.


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 9:32 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:New German LENR Company



This patent has been issued.  Here is the latest version:

Method for producing thermal energy - CA 2621914
Chttps://www.google.com/patents/CA2621914C

Here are a couple of papers which one of the patent applicants may
have co-authored.

Simulation of boron nitride sputtering process and its comparison with
experimental data
ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel4/.../00747890.pdf

Detection of Combustion Generated Nanoparticles (NOC) behind Vehicle
Engines using Mass Spectrometry
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/224790309_Detection_of_Combustion_Generated_Nanoparticles_(NOC)_behind_Vehicle_Engines_using_Mass_Spectrometry


Jones Beene wrote:

-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com

E-Cat World website finds a new LENR company in Germany, PURRATIO AG -



Here is their patent - it appears to be photoelectric

https://www.google.com/patents/EP1924387B1?cl=en&dq=PURRATIO&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8
mP2Uu6YKoXuyQGb74DgAw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA

Method for producing thermal energy

Abstract
The invention relates to a method for producing thermal energy, wherein
light, initial material is introduced into a plasma arc (10) which is
located between a cathode (4) and an anode (3) and which is adapted to
fusion processes by supplying electric energy into the plasma state. A
metal
cathode, which allows particles which are produced in the plasma to be
diffused, is used and allows a fusion process to take place in the metal
grid. The invention has a high degree of efficiency in corresponding
systems
such that said method can be used anywhere where fossils and/or renewable
and/or chemical fuel can be used, in order to use the thermal energy
directly or by conversion.

Re: [Vo]:New German LENR Company

[Bob Cook]

Eric---Bob here--

I agree with your assessment.  However, it does imply fusion of D and in fact 
uses the term "fusion".  The following is a copy (translated from German with 
some mistakes) of the paragraph 12 of the patent :

"Particularly preferably, the cathode material has been found to palladium, 
which is a result of its comparison to the other in the given materials high 
electron work function of 5.6 eV particularly well. With corresponding cooling 
of the cathode can thus much more of a produced by the resulting at the cathode 
heat electron current through the plasma arc can be prevented, as this for the 
heat generation process contributes nothing or these rather hindered as to 
produce a desired direction cathode particle to trigger fusion of the not 
produced in the cathode or impeded. Similar to achieve with other materials, it 
is necessary because of the lower work function of a much higher expense of 
cooling in order to prevent the undesired electrode current from the cathode 
and to minimize."

Reading the whole patent is interesting, especially noting the timing of 
controlling input energy pulses.  

Bob  
  - Original Message - 
  From: Eric Walker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 10:41 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:New German LENR Company


  On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:


Here is their patent - it appears to be photoelectric [snip]
Abstract
The invention relates to a method for producing thermal energy, wherein
light, initial material is introduced into a plasma arc 

  I don't think it claims to involve a photoelectric effect; it does not appear 
to make any attempt to explain what's going on.  It seems to be a water torch 
invention in the lineage of Brown's gas, where water is dissociated into 
hydrogen and oxygen, and it tries to improve upon a 1990 cold fusion patent 
[1].  It refers to water rather than noble gasses, so I think the comparison to 
Papp's device only goes so far.  But it definitely reminds me of many of the 
electric arc devices/experiments.  The present patent focuses a lot on the 
electric arc and the waveform used to drive it.


  It is surprising to me that someone can write all of this stuff up and get a 
patent for it.  There is very little to clearly differentiate this patent from 
any number of experiments and patents that are out there.  I recall hearing 
that in the European patent system, you get a patent automatically upon 
application, but this does not imply that it is defendable.


  Eric




  [1] https://www.google.com/patents/EP0393465A2

Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Jones--Bob Cook here--

I saw that mention also and planned to follow up to address some of Ed concerns 
about it not being possible.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jones Beene 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 9:24 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems


   

   

  From: Jones Beene 

   

  .it is far worse to attempt to rationalize a mechanism which we know for sure 
cannot work, like P+P fusion to deuterium.

   

  Essentially this explanation is dead-in-the-water on two fronts - the lack of 
tritium, which must be there if the reaction can fuse two protons, and the lack 
of 1+ MeV quanta.

   

  Some kind of spin coupling is far preferable to a proposed reaction which 
cannot happen.

   

   

  By the way - the S. Jones paper/slide-presentation mentioned last evening 
does in fact present a plausible method of spin coupling - PLUS he has real 
data of the RF signature for such coupling.

   

   

   

   

   

Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Eric--

I agree with your observation about Jones and Ed.  In their give and take just 
before this message I was not sure who was saying what.  The > symbol seemed to 
have no significance as to who was talking.  

Bob Cook
  - Original Message - 
  From: Eric Walker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:26 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems


  On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:


No, I provide two facts from the Rossi experiments. No gamma. No tritium. 
... These are facts, not assertions.



  Jones, your analysis is often insightful.  But here you're stating facts, and 
then implying assumptions on the basis of those facts as facts as well.  You 
assume that d+d fusion will result in a gamma, and then when no gamma is seen, 
you assume that d+d fusion in NiH is not possible.  You have assumed away some 
mechanism that might be fractionating the gamma.  And then later you draw upon 
related arguments to support this assumption.  In repeating this line of 
reasoning, you are as guilty of simple, repetitive assertion of your 
assumptions as Ed is of his.  Simply asserting an assumption to be true, or 
drawing upon such an assumption implicitly to reason about other things, does 
not make the assumption true.


  I suspect d+d fusion is not going on in Rossi's reactor either, but for 
reasons other than a missing gamma.  We have no evidence one way or another 
about tritium, but no specific reason to believe it is there either.


In fact, all the important evidence shows the two cannot be similar in any 
meaningful way.


  This is an overstatement.  Can we all adopt a more measured tone?


There is no high energy event in the Rossi effect, or it would have been 
seen in the Bianchini radiation monitoring.


  Can you provide a link to the Bianchini report?  For some reason I'm having 
trouble finding it.  I assume that this was the appendix provided in connection 
with the Elforsk test?  The only report I'm finding deals with a different 
subject relating to the E-Cat, in 2010 [1].


  In the Elforsk test, no radiation was seen.  There were obviously working 
parameters for the radiation monitor and an upper and lower threshold beyond 
which it would not have been effective.  I do not know what type of monitor was 
used or what these thresholds were.  But what we can deduce from this situation 
is that no penetrating radiation was escaping the system.  It is a nonsequitor 
to conclude anything about the amount of energy being dissipated, let alone to 
conclude something about spin coupling as a possible mechanism. 


Spin coupling does not apply to the fusion of deuterium into helium. You 
are intentionally conflating two unrelated effects.


  This is a simple assertion.  Can we lay off of these a little?


  Eric




  [1] http://e-cataustralia.com/pdf/Levi_Bianchini_and_Villa_Reports.pdf

Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Eric, Jones and Ed--Bob Cook here--

Note that Pam Mosier Boss and Larry (the radiation count specialist consultant 
for SPAWAR) talked about the CR-39 scheme for monitoring radiation from the 
Pd-D system they worked with.  (This was 2009 at the U of Mo.)  They saw 
evidence of tritium, neutrons, and high energy alphas and He-3.  Gamma 
radiation was also apparent.However there was no apparent gamma radiation 
associated with the major reaction of 2 D's going to He-4, only the evidence of 
large melted areas in the Pd electrode and no apparent kinetic energy 
associated with those alphas.  They alphas from the D-D fusion  were produced 
in the Pd electrode, apparently standing, yet there was distribution of  the 
excess energy to the electrode to cause the significant melting of the Pd.  
They did not see any indication of fission parts of the Pd. . At least if there 
was any they did not report it.  If such fission products were energetic they 
would have been observed in their CR-39 detector.   The reaction (D-D fusion) 
was real and with no irradiation measured.  

My assessment is that it happened much like a small nuclear explosion except 
much faster--instantaneously--once the quantum system was properly stimulated.  
 

Bob

- Original Message - 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:32 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems




  On Feb 8, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Eric Walker wrote:


On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:


  No, I provide two facts from the Rossi experiments. No gamma. No tritium. 
... These are facts, not assertions.



Jones, your analysis is often insightful.  But here you're stating facts, 
and then implying assumptions on the basis of those facts as facts as well.  
You assume that d+d fusion will result in a gamma, and then when no gamma is 
seen, you assume that d+d fusion in NiH is not possible.  You have assumed away 
some mechanism that might be fractionating the gamma.  And then later you draw 
upon related arguments to support this assumption.  In repeating this line of 
reasoning, you are as guilty of simple, repetitive assertion of your 
assumptions as Ed is of his.  Simply asserting an assumption to be true, or 
drawing upon such an assumption implicitly to reason about other things, does 
not make the assumption true.


I suspect d+d fusion is not going on in Rossi's reactor either, but for 
reasons other than a missing gamma.  We have no evidence one way or another 
about tritium, but no specific reason to believe it is there either.


  Eric, no one believes d+d  fusion occurs in the Rossi reactor. The d we are 
discussing results from p-e-p fusion only.  I agree with the other comments you 
make. 


  Ed Storms



  In fact, all the important evidence shows the two cannot be similar in 
any meaningful way.


This is an overstatement.  Can we all adopt a more measured tone?


  There is no high energy event in the Rossi effect, or it would have been 
seen in the Bianchini radiation monitoring.


Can you provide a link to the Bianchini report?  For some reason I'm having 
trouble finding it.  I assume that this was the appendix provided in connection 
with the Elforsk test?  The only report I'm finding deals with a different 
subject relating to the E-Cat, in 2010 [1].


In the Elforsk test, no radiation was seen.  There were obviously working 
parameters for the radiation monitor and an upper and lower threshold beyond 
which it would not have been effective.  I do not know what type of monitor was 
used or what these thresholds were.  But what we can deduce from this situation 
is that no penetrating radiation was escaping the system.  It is a nonsequitor 
to conclude anything about the amount of energy being dissipated, let alone to 
conclude something about spin coupling as a possible mechanism. 


  Spin coupling does not apply to the fusion of deuterium into helium. You 
are intentionally conflating two unrelated effects.


This is a simple assertion.  Can we lay off of these a little?


Eric




[1] http://e-cataustralia.com/pdf/Levi_Bianchini_and_Villa_Reports.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[Bob Cook]

Foks0904, Brian and Jones--Bob Cook here--

Thanks for the reference to spin coupling.

 If electrons love to pair up in atoms because of spin coupling, why not 
protons in a metal lattice quantum system?  Kim seems to think that D's with 
integral spin can get together at significant temperatures in a BEC and act 
like one entity.  Maybe 2 paired protons act like a Bose particle with parallel 
and anti-parallel spins in a Pd or Ni lattice.  A magnetic field would help the 
protons to align themselves to pair up, particular at higher temperatures.  

Excited D particles, above their ground spin state of 0, in a magnetic field 
may pair up to regain a 0 spin combination; they would need  to react with a 
pair of electrons at the same time to form highly stable He-4 with 0 spin at 
the end of the reaction.  Energy of course would be fractioned to other nuclei 
and electrons in small spin quanta and hence to the lattice as thermal heat 
during this reaction.  It would all depend on a coherent quantum system and 
coupling between the various particles.  Such a reaction may be what Bockris 
and Sundaresan encountered and were able to control  with the external magnetic 
field.   800 gauss applied field  would produce a tremendous B magnetic field 
in the Pd electrode with corresponding higher spin energy quantum states for 
excited particles.  Nuclear based gamma lasers studied extensively in the 
1970's and 80'  make use of excited nuclear spin/energy states which are 
induced to decay in a coherent manner. I note this in way of pointing that  
exciting nuclei with tuned radiation or other means (not generally neutrons to  
my knowledge)  is not unheard of.

I make the above conjectures for protons and D particles to make a point that 
spin coupling may be important in both Pd and Ni lattices with the hope of 
making LENR theory simple--connecting the various dots in the multitude of 
experiments.   

I will check out Bockris and Sundaresan ASAP.   They may have checked the Pd 
for He-4 or other potential reaction products. 

George Miley should have a good handle on this issue, since he has worked with 
the Pd system extensively.   He's another researcher to check out.   SPAWAR 
seems to have blacked out so I would not look to them for additional 
information on the Pd system and spin coupling.  SRI, well maybe.

Thanks to all that contribute ideas to this conversation,

Bob

 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Foks0904 . 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...


  What accounts for the Heat/Helium correlation in this reaction mechanism? Is 
it discounted?



  On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -

Here is a magnon-ymous tribute to John Bockris, who passed away last summer.
Bockris authored over 700 papers and 24 books. This blip is courtesy of
Brian Ahern who has been developing a nanomagnetism hypothesis for
non-nuclear gain in LENR which involves magnons,  spin coupling and Curie
point recycling.
It does not necessarily replace fusion, but may be another (one of many)
sources of thermal gain. In fact there is the possibility that given the
strangeness of QM - the way that one gets to a reactionless version of
helium fusion is to already have given up the 24 MeV with spin coupling !!!

This finding below should be a strong indication that even Pd-D has a robust
spin coupling mechanism, which is unrelated to fusion - but which is
definitely thermally gainful and could precede fusion.

I mean to say "probably unrelated to fusion" since in the following - there
was NO ENERGY applied, simply a magnetic field. Most proponents of Pd-D
realize that helium cannot arise without some energy input, but the point is
that even here, there could be another distinct route to thermal gain.

From Bockris and Sundaresan 1994

2.3. Magnetic Stimulation

After the cathode had been charged with deuterium for 48 hours at a current
of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the field of a permanent magnet of 200
Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte temperature rose to 5 ° C (Fig.10.)
after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds, the magnet was replaced by two, one
inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss field placed as described earlier.
The temperature immediately started increasing and reached 13.5 ° C in about
15 minutes and remained constant. The temperature returned to 3.5 ° C when
the magnet was removed.

Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems

[Bob Cook]

Bob Higgins--Bob Cook here--

I agree with your logic regarding 100% efficient fractionating as possible.  As 
I noted in an earlier comment Mosier-Boss etal at SPAWAR saw two separate 
reactions, the one LENR with no radiation being D-D going to He-4.  It was also 
the dominant reaction that happened in their Pd-D unshielded cell.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Higgins 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Bob Higgins 
  Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems


  I am not going to try to quote who and what from this thread regarding 
fractionating gammas (too long of a story line now).  


  What I have come to believe and what I initially missed, and what I think 
many Vorts may be missing in this, is that the LENR reaction and the 
fractionating are not two separate processes.  Jones (et al) are correct that 
if there is a fractionating mechanism that is an independent effect, it could 
not be 100% efficient and some high energy photons would escape as a marker of 
this inefficiency.  


  The important possibility to realize is that the fractionating and the LENR 
are both part of the SAME mechanism.  There can be no leaks because without the 
fractionating mechanism operating, there would not be any LENR.  On each pair 
of hydrons, the fractionating mechanism is required to allow the nuclear 
reaction to occur.  This guarantees no leakage, except for secondary effects.


  So in this scenario, 100% efficient fractionating is possible.


  Bob Higgins 

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[Bob Cook]

A better scheme to extract energy from the Coriolis force is the spinning earth 
creates is to erect a windmill or your sailboat in the trade winds which are 
caused by this effect. 

Bob


- Original Message - 
  From: Blaze Spinnaker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 4:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine


  Yes, some combination of that and tidal forces from the moon, perhaps.



  On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:18 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.  
wrote:

Perhaps the energy is coming from the rotational energy of the earth, i.e. 

Coriolis effect

( which as I look at it, is a fudge factor needed to account for anomalies 
when you assume you're

in an inertial frame of reference, but really aren't due to the rotation of 
the earth.).



One could extract energy from the earth by raising a weight vertically, 
then letting it fall

whilst letting it's east-west tendency generate force X distance.  For 
example if the

surface of the earth is moving at 1000 km/hour and you raise a weight such 
that the speed is

now 1001 km/hour, as you let it fall you could extract 1 km/hour of kinetic 
energy from it.



I think that'd be a pretty small effect, hence the huge machine to get 
anything useful.

It would be interesting to see if it's orientation was north-south along 
its rotational axis.



Hoyt Stearns

Scottsdale, Arizona US







-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine



On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:



> Actually, the person you want to convince is Terry Blanton. He is our 

> resident expert in magnetic motors. He says he looked at some of them 

> closely and found they did not work.



Skeptical by experience.  We tested spirals, pulsed, shielded . . .

every configuration we could imagine and found them conservative.

But, I'm still open if someone has a new idea.





This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! 
Antivirus protection is active. 
 

Re: [Vo]:More Magnetic Coupling Thoughts

[Bob Cook]

Dave--Bob Cook here

Pd has one of the highest magnetic susceptibility of any metal.  The electrons 
line up in an applied field to establish a very large B field in the Pd matrix. 
 The susceptibility determines the relative intensity of the internal and 
external magnetic fields.  I am not sure how the susceptibity changes with 
temperature.  It may also decrease as with Ni.  Nuclei with high nuclear 
magnetic moments would respond to this B field and line up their spin vector  
parallel or anti-parallel to the local B field.  Thus, impurities may make for 
local variations in the B field or magnetic traps for particles which have a 
magnetic moment and are  free to move through the matrix.   Ni is a ferro 
magnetic metal which can retain an alignment of the electrons so as to create a 
permanent magnet and B field after the elimination of an external field.  Pd 
which is paramagnetic* loses its internal B field when an external magnetic 
field is removed.  

Some compounds, for example rare earth oxides, magnetic susceptibilities 20 to 
30 times the susceptibility of Pd.  They might be the catalyst that Rossi talks 
about.  

The following link identifies magnetic susceptibities for various compounds and 
metals.
http://www.reade.com/Particle_Briefings/magnetic_susceptibilities.html

*Diamagnetic atoms have only paired electrons, whereas paramagnetic atoms, 
which can be made magnetic, have at least one unpaired electron.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 9:31 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:More Magnetic Coupling Thoughts


  There is no limit on the strength of a magnetic field.



  From the inverse square law, how strong can a magnetic field be at one 
nanometer on the walls of a nano-cavity, when it is detected at 18cm to be 1.6 
tesla? It is at least atomic level (10^5 tesla) or on the high end about 10^12 
to 10^16 tesla.  








  On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:19 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Looking deeper into the magnetic coupled positive feedback LENR reaction, I 
have a few ideas to pass along.  I understand that a magnetic field has 
essentially unlimited access to the atomic structure.  By this I mean that a 
large, static external field can penetrate through the electron cloud 
surrounding atoms as well as proceed directly throughout the region of the 
nucleus.  The same is certainly not true for an electric field since movement 
of charged particles takes place to eliminate any internal field outside the 
atoms themselves.

This freedom of magnetic field movement enables coupling to exist among 
electrons and protons that make up the atomic structures of all connected, and 
particularly nearby, atoms.  i suspect that any magnetic coupling path which 
transports a significant quantity of energy away from a reaction site would 
exhibit rapid variations in its magnitude and direction.   This rapid flux 
change would likely be attenuated as it passes through the conductive metal 
lattice and tends to limit the distance of the effective coupling.  The 
expected attenuation is proportional to the rate of fluxuation.

Another interesting feature of the magnetic field behavior is that nickel 
has magnetic domains that modify the local field pattern within the metal at 
low to moderate temperatures.  At above the Curie temperature(355C) this effect 
goes away and that also happens to be in the range of temperatures at which 
LENR activity begins to become important.  This may be a coincidence, but I 
suspect not.

I believe that a positive feedback mechanism is in play because of the 
large magnitude of the measured external magnetic field reported by DGT.  Any 
random process that results in charge movement must tend to cancel out the 
field when integrated over a significant volume of material.   So, if the 
magnetic coupling among the active sites enhances the reaction rate and those 
induced reactions increase the initial field in phase, then both build to a 
large level as I have mentioned previously.

A characteristic of this type of system would be for it to exhibit a 
threshold effect.  Until adequate coupling between sites exists, very little 
LENR activity would be expected to occur.  Too few of what we typically refer 
to as NAE and you only see weak nuclear activity.  Perhaps the normal magnetic 
domains of moderate temperature nickel disrupt the process which again might 
attenuate the coupling.  Impurities within the metal could be a factor to 
contend with in some instances.  The list of problems which prevent the 
positive feedback from reaching the required threshold may be extensive and has 
done a significant job of obscuring LENR.

DGT apparently has discovered the recipe that enables the magnetic coupling 
to occur.   The same likely is true of Rossi, although he has not publicly 
described any magnetic field effects except in coded terms.  The recent 
revelation that P&F used a l

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[Bob Cook]

Jones--Bob Cook here--

Your message rings true to me.  Here are some additional comments and 
thoughts/conjectures.


I first did NMR experiments in  my senior year, 1961, at Ed's alma mater, 
and we were ever increasing the magnetic field  to get better signals and 
absorption of RF input.  GE has improved since then with practical MRI 
devices.


Pd with a susceptibility of +576 CGS units in the Earth's weak magnetic 
field generates a reasonable B magnetic field in the crystalline matrix.  Ni 
would also, and  it is ferro magnetic to boot.  Heat generation as a 
function of the direction of the external magnetic field, especially for the 
Pd system would be a good experiment to run.   It may cause the reaction to 
slow down and then increase.  The Bockris, etal. experiment, which you 
identified in a previous message,  may have included such redirection of the 
external magnetic field.


Rossi's setup with its nano Ni powder may selectively orient itself in an 
external field and become disoriented  with temperature and lack of magnetic 
field, although, given the ferro magnetic nature of Ni, disorientation may 
not happen too fast.


SRI also probably has good information on this issue in both Ni and Pd 
systems. SRI should be queried.


Another area of investigations by researchers regarding ways of  stimulating 
nuclei was by Pacific Northwest Laboratory in the late 1970's.  Their team 
looked at a number of ways to handle high-level nuclear waste for the DOE or 
ERDA at the time.  The thick report is publically available.  It identified 
electromagnetic stimulation of the nuclei via dipole and   QUADRAPOLE 
moments of radioactive isotopes, as well as neutron irradiation to stimulate 
the nuclei.  The former was thought to be impossible because of electronic 
shielding of the electron cloud around the nuclei and weak signal generation 
capability.  The latter was too expensive.  The idea for both schemes was to 
excite the radioactive nuclei and get them to decay to a stable state.


Since the late 70's the technology for precise control of the energy 
(frequency) by laser input and other schemes has made the electromagnetic 
stimulation of nuclei relatively easy.  The important resonances are not 
those of the electronic cloud of electrons.  That is why MRI's work.


Another item I remember was the work of a nuclear physicist at, I believe, 
the University of Arizona in the early 1980's.  He was Prof. Roy and had 
written a text book on nuclear physics.  He developed a scheme and a patent 
for this scheme to TRANSMUTE radioactive isotopes to non-radioactive 
species.  The invention was written up in the news.  I was never able to 
find the patent.  I concluded it must have become classified--never to be 
heard of again.  Nevertheless I reviewed his text book to see if he said 
anything about nuclear stimulation.  As I recall the textbook had a section 
on nuclear dipole and quadrapole coupling to electromagnetic oscillating 
fields, and I concluded  that this coupling was probably the crux of his 
"invention".


I do not recall if there was a section on spin coupling in Roy's textbook.

Bob


- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:00 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...


Attn: spin doctors

Hope this is not belaboring the point about the intrinsic magnetic
connection that exists, and may in fact be causative - to a finding of gain
in LENR systems. Consider one further major point in the context of Steven
Jones' finding of an RF signature.

Consider the field of NMR but in the context of RF. The importance of an RF
signal in NMR is not RF alone, but than an intense single resonant frequency
is seen, which is determined by the external field alignment of the nucleus.
The stronger the field the more robust the signal

OK backtracking to Steven Jones, and his slide showing an RF signal - we
must realize that because of the strong self-field of hydrogen (deuterium)
even the very weak magnetic field of earth is enough to see some signal but
only with hydrogen or deuterium.

See where this is heading?

Connect the dots and we are looking at more than NMR, and more than LENR -
it is NMR in the context of LENR, as perhaps the driving force.

_


For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -  2.3. Magnetic
Stimulation

After the cathode had been charged with deuterium for 48
hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the field of a permanent
magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte temperature rose to 5 ° C
(Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds, the magnet was replaced by
two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss field placed as described
earlier. The temperature immediately started increasing and reached 13.5 ° C
in about 15 minutes and remained constant. The temperature returned to 3.5 °
C when the magnet was removed.

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[Bob Cook]

Jones--Bob Cook here--

Good work..

Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:36 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...



To backtrack from a post 3 months ago. The Rabi frequencies.

We did not know what to make of it, back then, except that there was a
possible fit to one LENR experiment. The Rabi frequency (paraphrased from
two sources) is the frequency of oscillation for a given atomic transition
in a photonic light field. It is associated with the strength of the
coupling between the photons and the transition - flopping between the
levels of a 2-level system which is illuminated with resonant photons. The
Rabi frequency has an interesting cross connection to Rydberg values, and to
NMR.

In the context of a nuclear magnetic resonance experiment, the Rabi
frequency is the nutation frequency of a sample's net nuclear magnetization
vector about a radiofrequency field. (Note that this is distinct from the
Larmor frequency, which characterizes the precession of a transverse nuclear
magnetization about a static magnetic field.)

OK - There is indeed one RF signal which appears to have a strong
correlation to excess
heating events, in one kind of LENR. This is from the recent paper at ICCF17
by Steven Jones. It is in the range of a Rabi frequency, but it is too early
to say that there is a definitive relationship.

The signal seen in that slide has a frequency of .43 MHz (430 kHz). This
seems to be a real signature - and a strong one. I have looked high and low
to find some broader significance to this particular frequency, but little
turns up. It is "longwave" once used for Morse code and warning beacons, but
not much used anymore.

There is some relevance of 430 kHz to a Rabi frequency and to MRI, and a
real connection to nuclear events - but linking all of these seems remote,
given the wavelength - but it is there, and knowing why it is there could be
important. Very strange... not unlike QM itself...
_
From: Jones Beene

Attn: spin doctors

Hope this is not belaboring the point about the intrinsic
magnetic connection that exists, and may in fact be causative - to a finding
of gain in LENR systems. Consider one further major point in the context of
Steven Jones' finding of an RF signature.

Consider the field of NMR but in the context of RF. The
importance of an RF signal in NMR is not RF alone, but than an intense
single resonant frequency is seen, which is determined by the external field
alignment of the nucleus. The stronger the field the more robust the signal

OK backtracking to Steven Jones, and his slide showing an RF
signal - we must realize that because of the strong self-field of hydrogen
(deuterium) even the very weak magnetic field of earth is enough to see some
signal but only with hydrogen or deuterium.

See where this is heading?

Connect the dots and we are looking at more than NMR, and
more than LENR - it is NMR in the context of LENR, as perhaps the driving
force.


_


For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -
2.3. Magnetic Stimulation

After the cathode had been charged with
deuterium for 48 hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the
field of a permanent magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte
temperature rose to 5 ° C (Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds,
the magnet was replaced by two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss
field placed as described earlier. The temperature immediately started
increasing and reached 13.5 ° C in about 15 minutes and remained constant.
The temperature returned to 3.5 ° C when the magnet was removed.

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Bob Cook]

Blaze--

I would not touch big oil with a 10 foot pole.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Blaze Spinnaker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:29 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%


  Also, anyone notice that XOM/Chevron are down 10% YTD?



  On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Blaze Spinnaker  
wrote:

Increasing the probability to 47% on the basis on Nanor / MIT videos.





On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Blaze Spinnaker  
wrote:

  Put that back to 43%:


  Mr. Darden earned an MRP in environmental planning from the University of 
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a JD from Yale Law School and a BA from the 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was a Morehead Scholar. 




  On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
 wrote:

Correction, make that 41%.  It's not Cherokee but rather  Tom Darden 
(investor, co founder of Cherokee) and Mr. Vaughn (senior analyst at Cherokee, 
BA Economics)  who are the players here.


It'd be good to find out who those other investors are.






On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
 wrote:

  Increasing the probability to 44% on the basis of Cherokee PR 
release.  


  Big big BIG news.   Now this is no longer about Rossi, but about 
Cherokee.



  I know you guys think I'm a git for my doubt, but hey, my model is 
wy ahead of the curve than the vast majority of the investing universe.
XOM is still trading near historical highs, for example.







  On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
 wrote:

Increasing the probability back to 35% based on the latest news 
coming out of BLP and McKubre.


Hopefully we'll see some more encouraging things soon.   The next 
indie report on the ecat should be an interesting inflection report. 



On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
 wrote:

  Fulvio , the tech Director & R.D. at Leonardo Corporation MIAMI - 
FL - USA previous job was:


  "Frelance ConsultantEuropean Gaming and Gambling Tech Market"


  -4%


  Now back to 31%.



  On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
 wrote:

This is based on 
  a.. STMicro patent (Increased about 4.5%)
  b.. Cherokee Investments (Increased about 2.5%) 
  c.. Rossi stating third party reports in March (increased 2%)
  d.. Lack of news from Defkalion (-1%) 
News seems to be coming in fairly rapidly at this point.   
Could be updating this probability more frequently.

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[Bob Cook]

Lou--

Bob Cook here-

Do you know if the Bose thermal bath that the second referenced report talks 
about is the same thing as a Bose -Einstein Condensate (BEC)?


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...



Perhaps there are some counter-intuitive ways to extract heat energy
from the environment using spin reservoirs.  If real, probably just an
apparent (but useful) exploitation of a 2nd Law loophole.

A couple of references:

"Single-reservoir heat engine: Controlling the spin"
http://fqmt.fzu.cz/13/pdfabstracts/605_1f.pdf

"Work extraction in the spin-boson model"
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0411018

-- Lou Pagnucco

Jones Beene wrote:

Attn: spin doctors

Hope this is not belaboring the point about the intrinsic magnetic
connection that exists, and may in fact be causative - to a finding of
gain
in LENR systems. Consider one further major point in the context of 
Steven

Jones' finding of an RF signature.

Consider the field of NMR but in the context of RF. The importance of an
RF
signal in NMR is not RF alone, but than an intense single resonant
frequency
is seen, which is determined by the external field alignment of the
nucleus.
The stronger the field the more robust the signal

OK backtracking to Steven Jones, and his slide showing an RF signal - we
must realize that because of the strong self-field of hydrogen 
(deuterium)

even the very weak magnetic field of earth is enough to see some signal
but
only with hydrogen or deuterium.

See where this is heading?

Connect the dots and we are looking at more than NMR, and more than 
LENR -

it is NMR in the context of LENR, as perhaps the driving force.

_


For the various Spin Doctors on Vortex -  2.3. Magnetic
Stimulation

After the cathode had been charged with deuterium for 48
hours at a current of 80 mA, the cell was placed in the field of a
permanent
magnet of 200 Gauss strength. The cell electrolyte temperature rose to 5 
°

C
(Fig.10.) after 230 seconds, After 576 seconds, the magnet was replaced 
by
two, one inch Neodymium magnets with a 800 Gauss field placed as 
described
earlier. The temperature immediately started increasing and reached 13.5 
°

C
in about 15 minutes and remained constant. The temperature returned to 
3.5

°
C when the magnet was removed.

Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

[Bob Cook]

Nigel and Hoyt--Bob here--

I would say the trade winds are a good example of the extraction of energy from 
the rotation of the Earth.  Heat certainly is generated and Man has used these 
winds to cross the oceans for years.  
Nigel, what is the external body in the case of trade winds that is present for 
the extraction of energy from the Earth's rotation?

Bob
- Original Message - 
  From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:15 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine


  You're undoubtedly right.  It makes me wonder if these simple newtonian 
problems from dynamics 101 can be so

  mind blowing, what's the chances of analyzing these bizarre non-linear 
maxwellian/relativistic/quantum mechanical kinds

  of problems.

   

  Hoyt 

   

  From: Nigel Dyer [mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk] 
  Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:34 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

   

  As I found out some years ago when I spent a couple of months on this, 
whatever system you come up with, when you actually go through the maths it 
comes up with the same answer, and that is that you cannot extract energy from 
the rotation of the earth without reference to some external body.  You can 
come up with complicated systems that makes the maths more difficult (our 
gyroscopes on railway tracks travelling between the pole and the equator was 
particularly 'interesting' to analyse.  I'm not sure that 15 years later my 
brain is still up to it, that why I get my son to do it), and that is what may 
have happened with the RAR machine.   Its complexity hides a mistake in the 
analysis of the forces and moments which made it appear that it was possible to 
extract energy from the earths magnetic field.

  Nigel

  On 09/02/2014 16:16, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote:

But if the shell is instead constrained inside a straight tube, the tube 
would experience a lateral force and if allowed to move

against an energy absorber, one could extract that energy.

 

Hoyt

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:35 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:: RAR gravity engine

 

You make an excellent point Nigel.   Even an artillery shell that has its 
apparent path diverted by the coriolis effect is not given extra energy from 
the earth, but instead travels in a free path.  The earth rotates out from 
beneath the original aim point.  A similar process must be happening to the air 
flowing due to wind.

Dave

 

 

 

  

 

   




--
  This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
protection is active. 
   

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Bob Cook]

Blaze--Bob here--

I would not touch coal with a 20 foot pole.  

What about natural gas--does it have any future?

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Blaze Spinnaker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 2:38 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%


  How about coal?  BTU is down 15% YTD and Arch COal is down 12% YTD



  On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:



  It's also not hard to imagine Saudia Arabia and others panic dumping onto 
the market in order to get out while the getting is good, thus driving the 
price of oil down quickly.


An economist told me that is sure to happen with cold fusion. Even a strong 
rumor that cold fusion is real might trigger that.




James Bowery  wrote:


  I'm not sure where I stored Jed's book on my computer but I presume he 
analyzed the critical point in EROEI where it no longer makes sense to use 
various grades of the in-the-ground reserves even as chemical feedstocks.  As 
long as a given grade of reserve remains valuable as chemical feedstock, the 
other valuations will remain to the extent they are related to those grades.


I did not do the maths, but I read papers about this, and corresponded with 
petrochemical engineers.


Plus I heard from a group of oil company honchos via Hal Putoff. (They 
wanted to know about cold fusion.) See chapter 13:


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



Here's the story in a nutshell, from that chapter:





". . . I have discussed cold fusion with petroleum experts several times. 
They begin by saying that it will not matter in the long run if the market for 
oil fuel dwindles away, because oil has many other uses as an industrial raw 
material for things like plastic. Nineteen percent of oil is used in non-energy 
applications, but experts say that the market will grow in the future. When Hal 
Puthoff met with the presidents of Pennzoil, Texaco, Marathon, Coastal, and 
other oil companies, they told him they would welcome zero-cost energy. He 
paraphrased them: "When we take our precious resource out of the ground to make 
nylons, plastics, drugs, etc., we don't use up much and we have a large profit 
margin. When we take it out of the ground to power automobiles and heat 
people's homes, it's like heating your home by burning van Goghs and Picassos. 
Please take this burden off our industry. And, by the way, let us buy some to 
make our refineries more efficient." With all due respect, I think these 
executives were kidding, or this was false bravado. No sane executive would be 
so sanguine at the prospect of losing 81% of his business. Why should the oil 
company care what the customer does with the product? They get the same $40 per 
barrel whether the customer burns the stuff or makes nylon out of it. In any 
case, I think these executives are wrong. They will lose 100% of their 
business. Oil will be worth nothing. I have asked experts: "Could you 
synthesize oil from raw materials? If I gave you carbon and water, could you 
make any hydrocarbon petrochemical you like?" They say yes, but it would take 
fantastic amounts of energy. It would take as much energy to synthesize oil 
from carbon and water as you get from burning the oil, plus some overhead. This 
would be the most uneconomical chemical plant on earth. It does not occur to 
them, at first, that the plant would be cheap to run if energy costs nothing. . 
. ."




Actually, they can probably synthesize enough petrochemicals for the 
feedstock and lubricant markets from organic sources such as garbage. This is 
done already with depolymerization, as I explained in the next paragraph. This 
would be a lot cheaper and safer than extracting oil from the Middle East and 
shipping it thousands of miles around the world. You can find local sources of 
garbage everywhere in the world. The people who have garbage will pay you to 
take it from them. You make money at both ends. The only reason oil is cheaper 
today is because they extract and ship so much of it already, they can ship an 
extra 19% with economies of scale. Using today's oil industry to produce only 
19% of today's output would be a losing proposition.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:More Magnetic Coupling Thoughts

[Bob Cook]

Jones--Bob Cook here--

I am not real up on what happens at the Curie point.  Axil had some comments 
on that issue.


It will take a little time to digest what you say below.  However, I agree 
with your last sentence.  The complexity includes the coupling with spin of 
all the particles in the QM system being considered.  The Pd system may be 
less complex.


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 8:53 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:More Magnetic Coupling Thoughts




From: Bob Cook

* Ni is a ferro magnetic metal which can retain an alignment of the
electrons so as to create a permanent magnet and B field after the
elimination of an external field.  Pd which is paramagnetic loses its
internal B field when an external magnetic field is removed.

Bob,

Nickel does not exactly "lose" its B field at the Curie point. In Ahern's
testing of lattice samples based on the Arata experiments, the thermal 
gain

which was seen was indeed associated with the Curie point of Ni at around
350C. But note that some observers have not appreciated the most important
fine detail of that magnetic transition.

The Curie point is where a material's permanent magnetism changes to 
induced

magnetism, but the internal field does not necessarily fade away or
randomize, especially if that material is "loaded" so to speak. The field
lines can be imagined as shifting between antiferromagnetic and
ferrimagnetic alignments when hydrogen is loaded into a nickel matrix, or
even adsorbed by a surface layer - since hydrogen favors 
antiferromagnetism.

This is a profound difference in the context of sequential phase-change
manipulation in nickel (or palladium) and it points to a non-nuclear
mechanism for gain (actually it is nuclear, but not in an obvious way).

When fully loaded, then - a ferromagnetic lattice (like Ni or an alloy) 
will

benefit from the opposite spin alignment of hydrogen which maintains
internal antiferromagnetic order across the Curie point via inductance. 
And

one detail of Ahern's work was to try to maintain the cell on the knifes
edge of the transition temperature. This Curie point is also a 
phase-change.

Phase changes can be surprisingly energetic in themselves (in the 1+ eV
range)

Thus, there is a suspicion that phase change itself can be the anomalous
energy source in some systems - instead of LENR. But isn't that a cop-out?
How would this kind of phase change system be ultimately powered - so as 
not

to violate CoE?

That is the $64 question, but phase change, magnons, spin coupling and QCD
are all interconnected ... and Ni-H is probably, in its ultimate 
incarnation
in the E-Cat - a strong force reaction where proton average mass is 
depleted
over time, just as excess energy is put into the system by spin coupling 
to

protons in QCD color charge dynamics.

Proton mass cannot be quantized because quark mass is not quantized and
there is about a 7 ppm variation in mass across any sample. This allows
protons to give up several keV via spin coupling to magnons - and retain
full identity as protons. This limitation explains why Ni-H system will 
not

have the level of energy which we associate with nuclear energy.

Alloys and dopants can make a large difference in that Curie point value,
but it corresponds nicely to an important THz excitation spectra which is
within what can be called the NASA range - of important IR levels of
quasi-coherency (5-30 THz) which is the photons that interact with SPP
(surface plasmon polaritons).

The magnetic interaction in Ni-H is very complex, but is now unfolding.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Spin this ...

[Bob Cook]

Jones--Bob Cook here--

I know the Zeeman effect and studied it way back when.  The Stark effect I 
am not familiar with, however it sounds like it splits an energy state of 
the quantum system to introduce different resonance frequencies as 
influenced by the local electric field.  It may also affect the spin quantum 
states.  I do not understand the coupling between an electric field and the 
spin state of a QM system.  It may occur through the electric quadrapole 
moment of the system in question.  My experience inflated to its max amounts 
to less than .01 atmosphere.


If you recall at the beginning of this line of questions on the spin issue, 
my first input was aimed at getting somebody identified that knows the 
coupling mechanisms well.  Its been a long time--50 years-- since I have 
quantitatively addressed the subject.


I need to get a good text book and do some study.   The one I mentioned by 
Roy in a previous comment may be useful.


I would not dismiss anyone like Mills.  He is smart and has been working in 
the field for a long time.  Jones is in the same category.   I think the 
Italian group at Bologna may have been the real leaders in theory, with 
Focardi being the best.  It took Rossi to make it practical from an 
engineering standpoint.


My experience has primarily been in the fission reactor arena with waste 
management as a add-on late in life.  However, what you say about the devil 
is in the details is absolutely correct from this experience.  There may be 
several devils in the LENR process.  I think Rossi has them collared though.


In the Jones experiment I would definitely look at the effect of electric 
dipole oscillating fields as well as electric  quadrapole oscillating 
fields.  The orientation of these fields with respect to the external 
magnetic field should be checked as to effect.  A look at the magnetic 
moments of the nuclei in the system and any known magnetic or electric 
resonances would be prime input frequencies to check for effects on energy 
output as was seen in the Jones experiment.  (Rossi must have good data in 
this regard for the Ni system.)


The Mossbauer effect may relate to coupling of lattice vibrations and 
nuclear high spin state decay--energy fractionation in the lingo of 
Hagelstein.  If that were the case, stimulation of the lattice may allow 
high (excited) spin states to exist since fractionation would be more 
probable.


Can you explain your idea of an "inverse Mossbauer effect" for Ni-61 a 
little better.


Keep in mind that these QM systems try to decay to the lowest energy state 
possible considering conservation laws of energy and angular 
momentum--spin--etc.   Given the big energy sink of the He-4 particle, I 
would not be surprised to find it in the Ni system as a product.  It would 
be interesting to know the pressure increase or decrease in the Rossi 
reactor with time which would shed light on hydrogen depletion and helium 
production, if any.   Without helium production the reactor pressure should 
go to 0 as the hydrogen is used.  Would not that be nice.


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 3:03 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spin this ...



-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook

I first did NMR experiments in my senior year, 1961, at Ed's alma 
mater...


With that kind of NMR experience, Bob, perhaps you can help me out with
this. We could be on the door steps of locating a missing piece of the
puzzle connecting LENR to NMR.

The devil is in the details. I've stumbled upon what could be an important
reference to the "Stark shift" in hydrogen at 429 kHz. That is unlikely to
be a coincidence with the SJ presentation.

The Stark effect is the electric analogue of the Zeeman effect where a
spectral line is split into several components due to the presence of a
magnetic field. It is mentioned in Randell Mills work, and it has Rydberg
values written all over it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_effect

Of course, many in LENR look at Mills' work as little more than a
predecessor state or transitory condition which leads to LENR, and one 
which

is perhaps not even exothermic on its own. It therefore must progress to
something nuclear to achieve thermal gain. That lack of full understanding
is why BLP has been unable to show anything more interesting than
spot-welder "firecrackers" in 2014.

But this finding of Steven Jones - of an RF signature at ~430 kHz 
coincident
with a large energy spike in LENR could be a smoking gun which opens up 
the

entire field to a higher level of understanding.

The obvious next step - when one knows the signature for gain (assuming 
this

is it) - is to apply input power at that frequency (or maybe a quarter wl)
and look for positive feedback.

After all the surname of NMR is resonance. Heck, we could be looking an
"inverse Mossbauer effect" in 61 Ni.

Re: [Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles

[Bob Cook]

Axil and Ed--Bob here--

Note that I assumed that electrons also were around when the 4 H reaction took 
place.  The electrons react with the assembled system of particles  to make 
neutrons as required to conserve spin in the reaction and to get to a low 
energy ground state consistent with an increase of entropy in the system.  

Bob 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fusion by Pseudo-Particles


  You also need to account for the neutrons in such a process and explain how 
so many H can enter the nucleus. You have simply thrown the clay against the 
wall to see what sticks rather than creating a pot. Anyone can do this. We need 
to know how to make a pot.  







  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture







  Electron capture is a process in which a proton-rich nuclide absorbs an inner 
atomic electron, thereby changing a nuclear proton to a neutron and 
simultaneously causing the emission of an electron neutrino. Various photon 
emissions follow, as the energy of the atom falls to the ground state of the 
new nuclide.








  On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:



On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Axil Axil wrote:


  Ed states:

  This happens in a chemical system, not in plasma where your concept would 
apply. Any separation of charge must take into account the surrounding 
electrons and atoms. A "vibration" has to take place in a local region having 
no connection to the chemical structure. That is the role of the Hydroton. 
Where is your "hydroton"?


  Axil:

  The NiH reactor has a localized region of plasma formation only. This 
reactor is a pulsed system in which plasma is produced periodically in a 
localized zone. Most of the volume of the reactor's hydrogen envelope is a 
chemical system where vigorous heat driven dipole vibration of hydrogen and 
other elements occur.

  This dipole activity happens in the micro particles an nano-particles 
arrogates that condense out of the plasma.



But Axil, a lot of experience shows that this does not happen spontaneously 
in a chemical system. 


Yes, DGT applies a plasma but not to the active Ni, which is shielded in Ni 
foam. Rossi did not apply plasma initially, yet his e-Cat worked. Many other 
people have studied the Ni-H2 system without using applied plasma. Obviously, 
applied plasma is not required.  I'm trying to understand what IS REQUIRED not 
what might be imagined. 


Spontaneous plasma formation simply does not happen in a chemical system. 



  Ed states:

  I have no idea what this means and how it can happen.  We know electrons 
can be separated from the atoms and can result in an electric current  when 
voltage is applied. Where is the applied voltage in your case?  What drives the 
charge separation, which requires energy? Where does the voltage gradient come 
from that is required to move the electrons?  Without such answers, this 
description is just hand-waving.


  When two nanoparticles draw close together under the electrostatic 
attraction, they may come into contact at a limited connection. 

What causes electrostatic attraction? You must be assuming the particles 
are in a vacuum because if they have contact with a material they have no 
charge because the excess electrons have been conducted away. 




  The electrons associated with the heat driven dipole motion will hit the 
dialectic hydrogen filled boundary between the nanoparticles where they will 
form a vortex current (hot spot). This is standard nanoplasmonic theory that 
has been experimentally demonstrated. 



This simply does not happen. I have no idea what you base this idea on. 
Particles in contact do not form a discharge at their contact. The particles 
are attached to each other by chemical interaction that does not cause an 
energy difference such that the surrounding H2 is changed in any way. Your 
citation has NO relationship to what you describe. 


The waves you cite are generated on surfaces by a applied electromagnetic 
field. In addition, these waves have very little energy and localize very 
little energy, with no ability to initiate a nuclear reaction. Nuclear 
interaction requires much more energy than such processes can supply. We know 
this because this energy can be measured and reactions occur ONLY when this 
energy is supplied. LENR obviously uses a different process, but one that you 
are not addressing. 


Notice in the citation, this idea is applied to photons, not to protons.



  The evanescent waves constrain the EMF (electrons and heat) closely to 
the surface of the nanoparticles and the space between them so when their 
wavelengths eventually match, they bind together in a pair. That is what a 
polariton is. 

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave


  Ed states:

  Cooper pairs are known to form only at low temperature 

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Bob Cook]

Blaze--Bob here--

If you follow Rossi's blog, he has already considered the potential of Sterling 
engines.  I agree with Bob Higgins that small is not bad.  I could use one in 
my off-grid home in Alaska.  Even a small thermo-electric device hooked to the 
NANOR  would be useful.

Bob

- Original Message - 
  From: Blaze Spinnaker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%


  http://bettigue.blogspot.de/



  This guy has very cool stirling engines.  I wonder how much heat energy you 
need to run these, though perhaps they could be optimized for a Nanor device.



  On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Blaze Spinnaker  
wrote:

What I want to see is this thing hooked up to a minature sized sterling 
engine




On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Bob Higgins  
wrote:

  I believe you are underestimating the value of a small and efficient LENR 
device.  I spoke with Mitchell about this on the bus at ICCF-18.  I believe 
small is beautiful and I have a perfect application.  Today 2-way public safety 
radios use lithium batteries that only work to about -10C, but the radio 
electronics are qualified to -40C. It is entirely plausible to use a NANOR as 
an efficient way to keep the portable lithium battery warm when the ambient 
temperature is below -5C.  If he can make the NANORs repeatably and operate 
them in optimum COP with a small uC, that could well be the first LENR device 
to make it to market.  Having a shipping product inside another product is a 
sure track to a device patent.  This could be the finger removed from the dike.


  Bob Higgins





  On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edmund Storms  
wrote:

Swartz is credible! However, such a small effect is not a credible 
support for investment in a working devoice. I did not make this clear. I hope 
it is clear now.  If Swartz supplies devices that survive testing, this would 
be useful to basic research but not to a development study.  My point is that 
we need emphasis placed on basic research. 


Ed Storms

Re: [Vo]:Energy and momentum / was RAR

[Bob Cook]

Harry and Dave--Bob Cook here--

Keep in mind that the law is that angular momentum must be conserved.  However 
systems with angular momentum can also have significant energy that can be 
changed to heat.  

 Take two planets in the solar system with direction of rotation in opposite 
directions.  One planet with a vector pointing to the North Star and other one 
with its vector pointing in a direction opposite to the North Star. They drift 
slowly together and eventually collide.   If they have about equal mass and 
size and collide their total angular will approach zero.  However there will be 
a lot of heat energy released.  Angular momentum is a vector quantity--energy 
is a scalar with no direction attached.   This holds for quantum systems with 
the Spin quantum angular momentum J associated with particles being a vector 
quantity.  Electrons pair up to reduce their angular momentum to zero.  Many 
quantum systems of particles tend to low spin states since low is consistent 
with the lowest energy state, and consistent with reactions that increase their 
entropy--the second law of thermodynamics.

I think you two are forgetting the vector nature of angular momentum and 
mechanisms for its conservation.

I do not agree with Harry's corollary.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy and momentum / was RAR


  Your corollary would be an excellent addition to my discussion.

  Dave







  -Original Message-
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Mon, Feb 10, 2014 5:49 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy and momentum / was RAR













  On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:17 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

OK.  Energy is proportional to velocity squared.  If you double the 
velocity, you have four times as much energy as in the first case.  Also the 
direction of the motion is not important.  For example, a ball moving to the 
right has a certain amount of energy and a second one moving to the left with 
the same mass and velocity will have the same amount as well.  Energy adds, so 
you have two times the amount contained within one.

Momentum is proportional to velocity directly.  The direction of the 
movement is important since momentum is a vector quantity, unlike energy.  The 
two ball case above results in a net momentum for the system of zero.  The two 
vectors are equal and point in opposite directions so they cancel.

Energy and momentum require different rules of behavior and can not be 
interchanged.

Dave


  That is a good summary.
  As a corollary to the last statement, I would add that momentum cannot be 
turned into heat since heat is considered a form of energy.


  Harry

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

[Bob Cook]

Jed etal--Bob Cook here--

I was impressed with Swartz's presentation on the 5th day of the MIT lectures 
series.  He seems like a real enthusiastic researcher and inventor with a very 
significant invention, although small, based on a LENR process, whatever it 
turns out to be,  The fact that he and Hagelstein talk with each other is also 
significant. 

 I think Swartz has a good product that will sell if he can get it pronounced 
to be safe and hooked to a thermo-electric couple.  There are many devices that 
can  use low quantities of electrical energy and would be more desirable with a 
portable long-life energy source.

Bob  
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:11 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%


  Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:


AGAIN, it's not 4mW excess, it's 4mW * 27 excess.  IT was 4mW input, which 
is obviously easy to measure.


  Ah, this is a new claim. That would be 100 mW output, which is easier to 
measure than his previous claims of 20 to 50 mW.


Swartz is doing one better than publishing a paper or giving a lecture.  
He's selling the experimental devices so people can replicate in their own labs.


  Has he sold any yet? Did he say who he sold it to? Did he present any test 
results from other people, using other calorimeter types?


Please, people, watch the video before commenting.


  I find his lectures somewhat incomprehensible. I'll wait for a paper.



  You guys are credible only when you talk about something you know.


  I know about his previous experiments and his previous papers.


  - Jed

[Vo]:Re: Energy and momentum / was RAR

[Bob Cook]

I agree—the closed system did not change its  angular Momentum.  In a losed 
system AM is conserved—this applies to QM systems.

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 7:59 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy and momentum / was RAR

I do not see where we differ in understanding Bob.  The system you describe had 
nearly zero total angular momentum before and after the collision so it remains 
conserved.  The rotational energy can be extracted by various means as I also 
stated.

Harry has concluded that angular momentum can not be converted into heat, which 
is always true.  He also states that angular energy can be converted into other 
forms or energy including heat.   Can you demonstrate a closed system where 
this is not the case?

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Feb 10, 2014 10:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy and momentum / was RAR


Harry and Dave--Bob Cook here--

Keep in mind that the law is that angular momentum must be conserved.  However 
systems with angular momentum can also have significant energy that can be 
changed to heat.  

Take two planets in the solar system with direction of rotation in opposite 
directions.  One planet with a vector pointing to the North Star and other one 
with its vector pointing in a direction opposite to the North Star. They drift 
slowly together and eventually collide.   If they have about equal mass and 
size and collide their total angular will approach zero.  However there will be 
a lot of heat energy released.  Angular momentum is a vector quantity--energy 
is a scalar with no direction attached.   This holds for quantum systems with 
the Spin quantum angular momentum J associated with particles being a vector 
quantity.  Electrons pair up to reduce their angular momentum to zero.  Many 
quantum systems of particles tend to low spin states since low is consistent 
with the lowest energy state, and consistent with reactions that increase their 
entropy--the second law of thermodynamics.

I think you two are forgetting the vector nature of angular momentum and 
mechanisms for its conservation.

I do not agree with Harry's corollary.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy and momentum / was RAR

  Your corollary would be an excellent addition to my discussion.

  Dave




  -Original Message-
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Mon, Feb 10, 2014 5:49 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy and momentum / was RAR









  On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:17 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

OK.  Energy is proportional to velocity squared.  If you double the 
velocity, you have four times as much energy as in the first case.  Also the 
direction of the motion is not important.  For example, a ball moving to the 
right has a certain amount of energy and a second one moving to the left with 
the same mass and velocity will have the same amount as well.  Energy adds, so 
you have two times the amount contained within one.

Momentum is proportional to velocity directly.  The direction of the 
movement is important since momentum is a vector quantity, unlike energy.  The 
two ball case above results in a net momentum for the system of zero.  The two 
vectors are equal and point in opposite directions so they cancel.

Energy and momentum require different rules of behavior and can not be 
interchanged.

Dave

  That is a good summary.
  As a corollary to the last statement, I would add that momentum cannot be 
turned into heat since heat is considered a form of energy.

  Harry

[Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

[Bob Cook]

Jones--Bob Cook Here--

Can you show how the p-e-p reaction as you understand it conserves spin?

I would think that the newly fused particle, whatever it is, would have 1/2 
or 3/2 spin--I do not know.


If a  positron is emitted, its spin would be -1/2 I think.   That would make 
the new particle have 0 or 1 spin.


The reaction of the positron and electron give photons with 0 spin.

Bob


.

-Original Message- 
From: Jones Beene tt

Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev



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


The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no

gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory
proposes can be valid because gammas are expected.

Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p
reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because the
energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, which
is almost undetectable.

Hi,

Not so - the reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an
electron producing 2 gammas. They net energy is over 1 MeV and easily
detectable.

Jones

[Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

[Bob Cook]

Ed--Bob here--

The protons are fermi particles with a spin of 1/2, so 2 protons would 
create a new particle spin of 1 plus the 1/2 from the electron for a total 
of +1-1/2.
I think deuteron's are Bose particles with a spin of 0.  Correct me if I am 
wrong.


What happens to the excess spin?

Bob
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:30 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Bob, these three particles create a deuteron after all of the excess mass 
energy has been emitted as photons. The neutrino has very little energy 
because very little remains when the d forms. The creation process is unique 
to lenr and applies to all the isotopes of hydrogen, at least that is my 
model. if lenr is to be explained, you need to stop thinking in conventional 
terms. This is a new kind of nuclear process.


Ed Storms

Sent from my iPad


On Feb 12, 2014, at 3:00 PM, "Bob Cook"  wrote:

Jones--Bob Cook Here--

Can you show how the p-e-p reaction as you understand it conserves spin?

I would think that the newly fused particle, whatever it is, would have 
1/2 or 3/2 spin--I do not know.


If a  positron is emitted, its spin would be -1/2 I think.   That would 
make the new particle have 0 or 1 spin.


The reaction of the positron and electron give photons with 0 spin.

Bob


.

-Original Message- From: Jones Beene tt
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev



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

The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are 
no
gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your 
theory

proposes can be valid because gammas are expected.

Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p
reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because 
the
energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, 
which

is almost undetectable.

Hi,

Not so - the reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an
electron producing 2 gammas. They net energy is over 1 MeV and easily
detectable.

Jones

[Vo]:Re: Fusion by Pseudo-Particles

[Bob Cook]

Axil—Bob Cook here--

I would note that the discussion in Wikipedia applies to a hydrogen molecular 
QM system.  The individual protons retain their 1/2 spin.  When a Hydrogen 
enters a  matrix it may remain as a molecule or it may enter as an ion.  If 
there is an ionization process available, it probably enters as an ion.  In the 
Ni-H system it is not clear to me what happens.  Rossi is vague.   Once in the 
Ni system the magnetic fields would  influence  what happens next to each of 
the various hydrogen molecule isomers identified in the Wikipedia item, if they 
enter the matrix as a molecule. 

Ed may know what happens when hydrogen is mixed with Ni or Ni nano particles 
under 12  Atmospheres.

Ionization within or without the matrix may be influenced by Rossi’s catalist.  
Keep in mind the reaction, whatever it  is,  must conserve spin.  Therefore it 
may be more probable that the isomer with 0 spin is the one that reacts last 
since it would have a lower energy then the other isomers and would take more 
activation energy to react.  
However, if two protons with antiparallel spins are found together in a single 
Ni matrix cell flooded with electrons, it may be possible to form a D (+ CHARGE 
AND 0 SPIN) using 1 eletron and producing 1 positron.  Angular momentum and 
spin would be conserved.  The big question is whether the molecular spin of the 
original H molecule being 0 can couple to the nuclear process which ends up 
with 0 spin.  Other Hydrogen molecular isomers  may also react under different 
conditions and differing schemes for spin conservation.

Bob

From: Axil Axil 

Upon further reflection, the paired proton conjecture may be on the right track 
after all. In the ICCF-18 paper, Dr. Yeong E. Kim defines his reactions in 
terms of deuterons, but deuteron formation can only happen when the hydrogen 
isotope used in the LENR reaction is deuterium.
When protium hydrogen having a single proton and zero neutrons is used, only 
protons form the hydrogen nucleus.  Deuteron formation cannot happen because 
there are no neutrons in the hydrogen.

So to form a hydrogen nuclear pair, only protons are available and not 
deuterons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_isomers_of_hydrogen

The parahydrogen form of hydrogen spin isomers has zero spin and itas 
consistent with the zero spin rule of thumb for photofusion.

Dr. Kim may have made a major mistake by taking his deuteron base theory of 
Pt/D fusion and moved it unmodified into the Ni/H reactor theory. This error is 
what has confused me lately. If I am not thinking correctly, please correct me.





On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

  I stand corrected.  Dr. Yeong E. has proposed a double deuteron pair as the 
boson component of his Bose Einstein condensate theory for many years.



  The ion member of the hydrogen dipole will be a deuteron so a cluster fusion 
reaction consistent with Kim would include those neutrons in that hydrogen ion 
pair.



  So sorry, please excuse me, I just made a human mistake and was not trying to 
aggravate Ed.






  On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Edmund Storms  
wrote:


[From Axil] It is a safe assumption that pairing of protons is 
occurring.


  I see no reason for this assumption. Such pairs are only found in H2, 
which is not nuclear reactive. 

Ed, Axil is playing with you.  See:  
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=forum+troll

Eric

[Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

[Bob Cook]

Axil—Bob Cook here-

That sounds possible from the spin part. 

How does the  double proton form?  I think the electrons and the two protons 
may  all react in the QM Ni system at the same time (< 10 x e-18 sec.)

Bob



From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 9:54 AM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

There is one complication that does not fall out of these various single track 
theories of LENR fusion. That complication is the Fission/Fusion reaction. What 
causes many protons to fuse with a high Z element like nickel? This process 
results in many and various secondary reaction trees producing one or more of 
the light elements including helium, boron, beryllium, and lithium to form 
coming out of one LENR reaction.



Such a fission/fusion reaction can be explained by a complete suspension of the 
coulomb barrier in a volume of neighboring nuclei would allow a single nucleus 
to form with a very large and unsustainable amount of positive charge to be 
accumulated in one unstable large nucleus. When the Coulomb barrier is switched 
back on, the unstable nucleus with many excess protons would fission into many 
light atoms and one or two heaver atoms.



In a series of independent secondary reactions, excess protons within the 
nuclei of this collection of multiple fission reaction products would then be 
converted to neutrons through electron capture after the primary fusion event 
has occurred. 




On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

  I say in LENR that the double proton(spin 0) fusion happens then after this 
fusion occurs an electron(spin -1/2) capture comes next (reverse beta decay) 
the spin of 1/2 is removed by an electron neutrino.  

[Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

[Bob Cook]

Axil—Bob Cook Here—

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

  I say in LENR that the double proton(spin 0) fusion happens then after this 
fusion occurs an electron (spin -1/2) capture comes next (reverse beta decay) 
the spin of 1/2 is removed by an electron neutrino.  
 

Axil I believe electrons have a spin of +1/2, not –1/2.  The outgoing  neutrino 
would have to have a –1/2 spin—maybe an electron anti neutrino or whatever its 
called—a positron neutrino.

Bob

Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

[Bob Cook]

Ed --Bob Here-

I have assumed spin--angular momentum--is conserved.  Are you saying forget 
about that conventional thinking--that angular momentum is not

conserved in the lenr new nuclear process?

Bob

-Original Message- 
From: Bob Cook

Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:52 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Ed--Bob here--

The protons are fermi particles with a spin of 1/2, so 2 protons would
create a new particle spin of 1 plus the 1/2 from the electron for a total
of +1-1/2.
I think deuteron's are Bose particles with a spin of 0.  Correct me if I am
wrong.

What happens to the excess spin?

Bob
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:30 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Bob, these three particles create a deuteron after all of the excess mass
energy has been emitted as photons. The neutrino has very little energy
because very little remains when the d forms. The creation process is unique
to lenr and applies to all the isotopes of hydrogen, at least that is my
model. if lenr is to be explained, you need to stop thinking in conventional
terms. This is a new kind of nuclear process.

Ed Storms

Sent from my iPad


On Feb 12, 2014, at 3:00 PM, "Bob Cook"  wrote:

Jones--Bob Cook Here--

Can you show how the p-e-p reaction as you understand it conserves spin?

I would think that the newly fused particle, whatever it is, would have 
1/2 or 3/2 spin--I do not know.


If a  positron is emitted, its spin would be -1/2 I think.   That would 
make the new particle have 0 or 1 spin.


The reaction of the positron and electron give photons with 0 spin.

Bob


.

-Original Message- From: Jones Beene tt
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev



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

The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are 
no
gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your 
theory

proposes can be valid because gammas are expected.

Actually not only would I not expect to detect any gammas from a p-e-p
reaction, I wouldn't expect to detect any energy at all. That's because 
the
energy of the p-e-p reaction is normally carried away by the neutrino, 
which

is almost undetectable.

Hi,

Not so - the reaction produces a positron, which annihilates with an
electron producing 2 gammas. They net energy is over 1 MeV and easily
detectable.

Jones

[Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

[Bob Cook]

Dave—Bob Cook Here--

The electron neutrino may have high energy and 1/2 spin for sure.
I think high energy electron neutrinos have be seen  coming from the Sun. 

Bob

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:20 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Axil, if the reaction involves the capture of an electron, and there are many 
available nearby, the positron - electron annihilation would not occur.   This 
would explain why no 511 keV radiation is seen.  Of course the energy escaping 
via the neutrino would be significant. 

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Feb 13, 2014 10:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev


I say in LENR that the double proton(spin 0) fusion happens then after this 
fusion occurs an electron(spin -1/2) capture comes next (reverse beta decay) 
the spin of 1/2 is removed by an electron neutrino.  

[Vo]:Re: The Rossi effect as an Inverted Mossbauer Effect

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

You sound like you must be Dan Brown in real life.

Bob Cook

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Rossi effect as an Inverted Mossbauer Effect

Dyslexic correction of previous post: "In contrast, Ne-10
does not keep boron from having an isotope at 10." This should be "In
contrast, B-10 does not keep neon from having an isotope at 20."

And yes, there are other reasons why helium has special
stability in the periodic table, so this is not a particularly strong
metaphor - but it does suggest that there are indeed forbidden isotopes at a
few specific atomic mass levels - which are in effect "reserved" by other
elements, such as in the case of He-4 which keeps Be-8 from stability.

If there were not an LENR connection, this would be the end
of the story but there is more. For instance wrt the Rossi effect, 100% of
cobalt is amu 59 which seems to be "reserved" by cobalt (element 27).

IOW - this isotopic level - amu 59 - belongs to cobalt, even
though Co is to the left of nickel in the PT, which is element 28... and
nickel's main isotope is Ni-58 - which is one of the few instances in nature
where a lighter amu element follows a heaver one (as the main isotope).

Notably, Ni-59 decay is gammaless. However, this is not the
nickel Mossbauer isotope which is Ni-61.
Nickel seems so commonplace, at first ... so few-cents-worth
- yet this element has 7 unusually strong physical anomalies, which could
relate to LENR and in comparison with other metals is an oddball.
The 7 anomalies. It is ferromagnetic, has a Mossbauer
isotope, has the heaviest stable isotope (as a % of the most common isotope
Ni-58 vs Ni-64), is lower amu than the next lower mass z (the most common
isotope is lower amu than Co), has the highest innate stability (Ni-62 has
highest binding energy per nucleon of any known nuclide 8.7945 MeV), has an
unstable isotope with gammaless decay - and has two adjoining Rydberg levels
in electron orbitals. Wow. Could this all be coincidental?

What's in a name? The German word "nickel" came from "Old
Nick" which was a name for the devil; and the reasons for that historic
association are arcane ... but in the modern day context of LENR, where the
devil is in the details - let's just say nickel may be our Maxwell's demon.
The unification of good and evil, no less?

[Vo]:Re: The Rossi effect as an Inverted Mossbauer Effect

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

Well I think the magnetic properties are most important, since large 
magnetic fields are allowed along with the allowable spin quantum states and 
the various (higher) energy states associated with such a system.


Bob

-Original Message- 
From: Jones Beene

Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 7:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: The Rossi effect as an Inverted Mossbauer Effect

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook


Jones-- You sound like you must be Dan Brown in real life.


Well, Bob - if I was getting royalties from Di Vinci code, they would go to
solving the Rossi code...

BTW - Blaze wants to know: what is "real life"? :-)

Jones


Worth repeating for those who do not appreciate the significance (of what
could be the unholy grail of new energy).

The 7 physical anomalies of nickel which could be related to LENR.

1) It is ferromagnetic - one of three elements

2) Has a Mossbauer isotope

3) Has the heaviest ratio stable isotope in the P.T. for nuclei containing
neutrons (as a % of the amu of the most common isotope of that element -
Ni-58 vs Ni-64) - a singularity

4) The main isotope is lower amu than a lower z element (Ni-58 is lower amu
than Cobalt) which is extremely rare in the P.T.

5) Has the highest innate stability isotope (Ni-62 has highest binding
energy per nucleon in the PT 8.8 MeV) - a singularity

6) Has an unstable isotope with gammaless EC decay- very rare

7) Has adjoining Rydberg levels in electron orbital ionization potentials -
one of three elements ... and curiously the other two are also
ferromagnetic.

Could this combination be coincidental to the Rossi effect?

Is there a common denominator in the this range of properties... such as
spin?

BTW - an associate has told me that nickel is one of two elements in the PT
with two isotopes which are "double magic" Ni-56 and Ni-48, but because
neither of these are stable, it was deemed to be not important to LENR -
only further proof of nickel's oddities.

[Vo]:Re: The Rossi effect as an Inverted Mossbauer Effect

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

One other note Re what you mentioned a day or so ago.  Its my understanding 
that the NRC does not have the authority to regulate LENR.  Their authority 
extends to fissile materials and the materials made radioactive from devices 
that utilize fissile materials to cause activity in other materials.  Thus 
for example NRC does not regulate accelerators.  A number of schools have 
unregulated accelerators.  Production of tritium by sono-luminescence is not 
regulated.  However Co-60 made radioactive in a reactor would be regulated.


Bob

-Original Message- 
From: Jones Beene

Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 7:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: The Rossi effect as an Inverted Mossbauer Effect

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook


Jones-- You sound like you must be Dan Brown in real life.


Well, Bob - if I was getting royalties from Di Vinci code, they would go to
solving the Rossi code...

BTW - Blaze wants to know: what is "real life"? :-)

Jones


Worth repeating for those who do not appreciate the significance (of what
could be the unholy grail of new energy).

The 7 physical anomalies of nickel which could be related to LENR.

1) It is ferromagnetic - one of three elements

2) Has a Mossbauer isotope

3) Has the heaviest ratio stable isotope in the P.T. for nuclei containing
neutrons (as a % of the amu of the most common isotope of that element -
Ni-58 vs Ni-64) - a singularity

4) The main isotope is lower amu than a lower z element (Ni-58 is lower amu
than Cobalt) which is extremely rare in the P.T.

5) Has the highest innate stability isotope (Ni-62 has highest binding
energy per nucleon in the PT 8.8 MeV) - a singularity

6) Has an unstable isotope with gammaless EC decay- very rare

7) Has adjoining Rydberg levels in electron orbital ionization potentials -
one of three elements ... and curiously the other two are also
ferromagnetic.

Could this combination be coincidental to the Rossi effect?

Is there a common denominator in the this range of properties... such as
spin?

BTW - an associate has told me that nickel is one of two elements in the PT
with two isotopes which are "double magic" Ni-56 and Ni-48, but because
neither of these are stable, it was deemed to be not important to LENR -
only further proof of nickel's oddities.

[Vo]:Re: Slow quantum packets can tunnel thru high Coulomb barrier

[Bob Cook]

Axil—Is this just the uncertainty principle in action?

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 10:38 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Slow quantum packets can tunnel thru high Coulomb barrier

More...

The spin produced by slow light will also be squeezed. When the position of the 
spin of slow light is highly confined, its magnitude will be wide-ranging. For 
example, if the spin of a squeezed light packet averages at 5 tesla, its 
fluctuation may amplify the maximum power that it can produce in orders of 
magnitude by 10 or 20 times based on its slowness.

Coulomb barrier screening is directly related to the strength of the EMF field 
which can grow very large when light is squeezed.




On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

  How do we slow light down…we squeeze it. Even though this slow light is 
restricted in position, it is wide-ranging in momentum. Small optical cavities 
slow down light but in doing so, this squeezing makes it very potent in 
momentum.



  .




  On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:27 PM,  wrote:

New Arxiv.org paper related to LENR -

"Tunneling of slow quantum packets through the high Coulomb barrier"

ABSTRACT:
We study the tunneling of slow quantum packets through a high Coulomb
barrier. We show that the transmission coefficient can be quite different
from the standard expression obtained in the plane wave (WKB)
approximation (and larger by many orders of magnitude), even if the
momentum dispersion is much smaller than the mean value of the momentum.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3837

"Slow" packets here refer to relatively narrow packets whose center moves
at a relatively slow velocity.  Narrow wave packets can contain high
momentum components.

I believe that the following 2013 presentation made by Allan Widom -
"Electro-Weak and Electro-Strong Views of Nuclear Transmutations"
  vglobale.it/public/files/2013/Cirps-Widom.pdfý
- points out a similar effect.
I.E, on slide 12 "Electron Mass Renormalization I"

He notes that "Slowly Varying u(x) and Quickly Varying S(x)" can
represent an wave packet with much more energy than a simple observation
of its envelop "u(x)" would lead one to expect if its phase "S(x)" is
rapidly oscillating within the a slow (even almost static) envelop.

-- Lou Pagnucco

[Vo]:Re: Slow quantum packets can tunnel thru high Coulomb barrier

[Bob Cook]

Axil-

The squeezing of a H molecule or a proton inside a Ni body-centered cubic cell 
may change  the angular momentum of the trapped entity and facilitate spin 
coupling  with one or more  different Ni nuclei, and transmutation to a lower 
energy,  if such a state is available with the particles  in the system.

Bob
From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 10:38 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Slow quantum packets can tunnel thru high Coulomb barrier

More...

The spin produced by slow light will also be squeezed. When the position of the 
spin of slow light is highly confined, its magnitude will be wide-ranging. For 
example, if the spin of a squeezed light packet averages at 5 tesla, its 
fluctuation may amplify the maximum power that it can produce in orders of 
magnitude by 10 or 20 times based on its slowness.

Coulomb barrier screening is directly related to the strength of the EMF field 
which can grow very large when light is squeezed.




On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

  How do we slow light down…we squeeze it. Even though this slow light is 
restricted in position, it is wide-ranging in momentum. Small optical cavities 
slow down light but in doing so, this squeezing makes it very potent in 
momentum.



  .




  On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:27 PM,  wrote:

New Arxiv.org paper related to LENR -

"Tunneling of slow quantum packets through the high Coulomb barrier"

ABSTRACT:
We study the tunneling of slow quantum packets through a high Coulomb
barrier. We show that the transmission coefficient can be quite different
from the standard expression obtained in the plane wave (WKB)
approximation (and larger by many orders of magnitude), even if the
momentum dispersion is much smaller than the mean value of the momentum.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3837

"Slow" packets here refer to relatively narrow packets whose center moves
at a relatively slow velocity.  Narrow wave packets can contain high
momentum components.

I believe that the following 2013 presentation made by Allan Widom -
"Electro-Weak and Electro-Strong Views of Nuclear Transmutations"
  vglobale.it/public/files/2013/Cirps-Widom.pdfý
- points out a similar effect.
I.E, on slide 12 "Electron Mass Renormalization I"

He notes that "Slowly Varying u(x) and Quickly Varying S(x)" can
represent an wave packet with much more energy than a simple observation
of its envelop "u(x)" would lead one to expect if its phase "S(x)" is
rapidly oscillating within the a slow (even almost static) envelop.

-- Lou Pagnucco

[Vo]:Re: The Rossi effect as an Inverted Mossbauer Effect

[Bob Cook]

Jones-- 


However,

1. Static magnetic fields should align particles with a magnetic moment.
2. The strength of the field should separate the energy level levels for 
spin associated with the system.p
3.  These spin states would fix the resonant oscillations of a magnetic 
field that would  couple with the system for additional energy--much like in 
NRM technology.
4. Other coupling via electric dipole moments and quadrapole moments may 
also be possible for the system and allow devising a scheme for adding 
resonantly coupled E -M
energy.  The added energy would  excite the system and provide energy for  a 
transition reaction to a more stable state with excess energy being 
distributed to the system's metal matrix.


Bob


-Original Message- 
From: Jones Beene

Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: The Rossi effect as an Inverted Mossbauer Effect
y
Apologies for the typos in the previous hasty message...

To follow up on a few details related to NMR/Mossbauer in nickel - and to
include one recently learned tidbit of information:

Iron-57 is 2.2% of natural iron and has spin of ½ and nuclear magnetic
moment of .09 and a resonance transition frequency of 14.4 keV

Nickel-61 is 1.13% of natural nickel has a spin of 3/2 and a nuclear
magnetic moment of .75 and a resonance transition frequency of 67.4 keV

The new information, which could be relevant, is that nickel has a known
x-ray resonance level at 8.4 keV. This level could have avoided detection in
the Rossi experiments and others, barely. It is apparently an octave removed
from the Mossbauer resonance.

The question arises as to the low percentage of Ni-61 in natural nickel and
whether that 1% would be too low - unless it was enriched.

I do not know, but consider that Uranium with a percentage of less than 1%
fissile, will support a neutron chain reaction - which is only a metaphor,
but the question then would be whether the x-ray dynamics in nickel exist
with which to support a limited photon chain reaction, which is in phase
with a superradiant thermal spectrum in the far infrared. For me, this
Mossbauer hypothesis is a diversion and a waste of time without
consideration of IR semi-coherence in the FIR, which is the overriding
factor.

That overlap seems to be where an inverted Mossbauer effect is going, if
there is anything to it: which is a photon chain reaction, which is inverted
to the extent that very intense and semi-coherent IR radiation stimulates
nuclear resonance at a higher, but undetectable level, such as 8.4 keV.

If anything, the new information adds to the likelihood that something of
the sort is remotely possible. It is still remote.
_

Arnaud,

First, off - I am not an expert in NMR and that is why I have been
quizzing Bob Cook about a subject that came up as far back as 1990 - in an
effort to explain the excess energy of LENR - and the lack of detectability
of gamma radiation.

Generally speaking, an isotope - usually with odd numbered amu such
as iron-57 or nickel-61, can permit a limited kind of "photon chain
reaction" of moderate energy photons due to a loss-free (recoilless)
absorption/emission nuclear property, and this would be especially true
within an "exciton" of the host metal.

I'm guessing that since the role of 57Fe is well-known in
spectroscopy, you are really asking how a corresponding nickel isotope
nickel participates in a similar reaction, where we are interested in bulk
energy effects and not subtle physical effects which are illuminated by the
coherence.

That bulk effect, if it exists - would be the "inverted" reaction.
Of course, the reaction must involve photons below the detection limit -
since no gamma is detected. It would also probably need to involve infrared
coherence, and the idea is that in an inverted reaction there can be
frequency upshifting so two widely separated spectra are locked in phase.

In nickel at 350 degrees C, the nuclei will be moving chaotically
due to thermal motion, but not as chaotically if there is IR coherence
(superradiance) at near 10 THz. This part has actually been detected by NASA
but not the rest of the hypothesis. A moderate energy photon, of the
Mossbauer type - but below the detection limit of about 4 keV interacts
with, or is emitted by a nucleus which has a spread of vibrational values,
and there is a the Doppler effect. This photon can be called a gamma ray,
since it is of nuclear origin, but because the energy level must be low to
avoid detection - the terminology is x-ray. This is all hypothetical of
course.

Problem is: and may you realize this - the known value for nickel-61
of a resonant photon is 67.4 keV which would have been detected in the Rossi
experiment. Therefore either there is either a second active Mossbauer
isotope, or a lower level resonance, below the detectability level. Of more
likely - the inverted Mo

[Vo]:Re: The Rossi effect as an Inverted Mossbauer Effect

[Bob Cook]

Amaud and Jones--

Keep in mind that at least for magnetic coupling--spin/angular momentum and 
its associated energy-- it is possible to modify resonant energy levels of 
the QM system by changing the magnitude of the static H field.  Transitions 
between J spin states can be created to match the necessary energy to make a 
nuclear transition probable.


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: Arnaud Kodeck

Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 7:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: The Rossi effect as an Inverted Mossbauer Effect

Ni61 is the only odd isotope of Ni and count only for 1% of the natural
Nickel. It will be huge cost to "enrich" the Ni61.

Ni61 + p => Cu62 which is beta+ emitter which would be easy detected in
positron/electron annihilation. I don't think this is the reaction which
happends inside Rossi's reactor.

The debye temperature is around 180°C for the nickel. Above this
temperature, phonon can move freely in the lattice at the speed of
sound. Axil always keeps speaking of coupling phonon/photon (polariton)
at same resonant frequency could make the lattice to oscillate. If
excitation frequency (photon) matches the resonant frequency of the
lattice (phonon), wouldn't be like an invertedmossbauer effect?

Just thoughts ...



On 2014-02-18 15:53, Jones Beene wrote:

From: Arnaud Kodeck

From DGT, we know that the nickel needs to be above the debye
temperature for the Rossi effect to take place. Vibration in the lattice 
is

a key element. The Mossbauer effect could be the excitation needed for the
vibration in the lattice to take place.

Jones, can you explain what do you mean by Mossbauer isotope?

Arnaud,

First, off - I am not an expert in NMR and that is why I have been 
quizzing
Bob Cook about a subject that came up as far back as 1990 - in an effort 
to

explain the excess energy of LENR - and the lack of detectability of gamma
radiation.

Generally speaking, an isotope - usually with odd numbered amu such as
iron-57 or nickel-61, can permit a limited kind of "photon chain reaction"
of moderate energy photons due to a loss-free (recoilless)
absorption/emission nuclear property, and this would be especially true
within an "exciton" of the host metal.

I'm guessing that since the role of 57Fe is well-known in spectroscopy, 
you
are really asking how a corresponding nickel isotope nickel participates 
in

a similar reaction, where we are interested in bulk energy effects and not
subtle physical effects which are illuminated by the coherence.

That bulk effect, if it exists - would be the "inverted" reaction. Of
course, the reaction must involve photons below the detection limit - 
since

no gamma is detected. It would also probably need to involve infrared
coherence, and the idea is that in an inverted reaction there can be
frequency upshifting so two widely separated spectra are locked in phase.

In nickel at 350 degrees C, the nuclei will be moving chaotically due to
thermal motion, but not as chaotically if there is IR coherence
(superradiance) at near 10 THz. This part has actually been detected by 
NASA

but not the rest of the hypothesis. A moderate energy photon, of the
Mossbauer type - but below the detection limit of about 4 keV interacts
with, or is emitted by a nucleus which has a spread of vibrational values,
and there is a the Doppler effect. This photon can be called a gamma ray,
since it is of nuclear origin, but because the energy level must be low to
avoid detection - the terminology is x-ray. This is all hypothetical of
course.

Problem is: and may you realize this - the known value for nickel-61 of a
resonant photon is 67.4 keV which would have been detected in the Rossi
experiment. Therefore either there is either a second active Mossbauer
isotope, or a lower level resonance, below the detectability level. Of 
more

likely - the inverted Mossbauer effect is a fiction.

Anyway, to produce a resonant third signal, the two energies - the main
x-ray photon and Doppler shifted photon need to overlap at the IR 
resonance
(this signal will be in the range of FIR - far infrared at about 5-30 
THz).
Thus a putative inverted system would be in limited photon/phonon 
coherence
and possess a limited photon/phonon chain reaction capability at some 
level

which is not detectable by normal Geiger/radiation meters.

To backtrack, what Mössbauer discovered is that when the atoms are within 
a

solid matrix the effective mass of the nucleus is very much greater. The
recoiling mass is now effectively the mass of the whole system and if the
photon energy is small enough the recoil of the nucleus is too low to be
transmitted as a phonon and so the whole system recoils as if it were
coherent and it can be actually coherent in the IR range if the blackbody
peak is narrowed.

In the inverted version, presumably the resonance will allow FIR energy to
resonate as if the whole system were coherent and 

[Vo]:Re: MFMP starting work with nickel powder

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

The K could be a supplier of heavy eletrons  per the  W-L theory.   I have no 
idea how its radioactive decay  could influence a LENR,  unless it were by the 
spectrum of lattice  vibrations caused by the K-40 decay.  Is the energy 
sufficient?  The K-40 gamma may be degraded by the lose  of energy to the 
lattice such that it is never noticed.

Bob

PS  I believe Rossi.  He probably does not consider K radioactive.  

Bob

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:08 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:MFMP starting work with nickel powder

From: a.ashfield 

 

See 
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/powder-test-cells/361-powder-push

There seems a disagree   ment, with MFMP saying. 
"In the E-cat reactor, the Rydberg state is probably created by using of some 
radioactive isotope, while in the Hyperion reactor a high voltage discharge is 
used."

And Rossi confirming again today that he uses no radioactive materials.
" I repeatedly wrote, said that we do not use radioactive materials of sort, do 
not produce radioactive materials of sort,"

Anyway, I'm glad to see the MFMP going this route that, to me, sounds much more 
promising to generate significant power.

 

I think they are getting off to a terrible start on an early design choice. It 
will doom this project if they stick with it.

 

A homemade pulsed power supply is NOT the way to go. Ahern had a fabulous 
pulsed power supply built by an leading expert - and it failed on the first 
day. Skimping on this component. Or trying to do it oneself - is beyond stupid. 

 

BTW Ahern has a provisional patent application on using pulsed power with 
nanopowder for thermal gain, if it should hold up but that should stop no one 
from trying it.

 

Best advice is to buy a good used EDM power supply on eBay or elsewhere. EDM is 
a mature and robust technology, and one could never build an adequate home-made 
system which compares to what is available on the used market. Another option 
would be to work with an EDM manufacturer. They would stand to benefit in the 
end. 

 

There is always a risk with used equipment, but the risks may be far greater 
with do-it-yourself.

 

To backtrack – whatever you may think about him, no one on the planet has more 
experience with Rydberg states than Mills/BLP. Mills theory is based on 
achieving this via catalysis instead of brute force. That is precisely why 
Rossi does not need a radioactive seed any longer, but he probably did use one 
in his initial demo – which Celani detected. That could have been due to 
Rossi’s desire to make absolutely sure it started – since there were dozens of 
high level observers in attendance.

 

We know - from the Rossi spectroscopy scan which he inadvertently left in an 
early patent filing, that Rossi used a great deal of potassium in his mix – 
which is exactly the catalyst used by Thermacore and others. I doubt if this 
mix has changed very much. A catalyst with pulsed power is what DGT uses. It is 
almost certainly potassium-based since they admit to copying Rossi’s formula 

 

(and you get a little radioactivity for free in the 40K).

 

Please, anyone who is contact with Hunt – alert him to the fact that there is a 
far better option than trying to build one’s own pulse power supply, even if 
getting hold of a good EDM supply costs far more than this one.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Precision-EDM-Power-Supply-/120700449368?pt=US_Heavy_Equipment&hash=item1c1a4eb258

 

Jones

 

 

 

 

 

[Vo]:Re: Dr. Stoyan Sarg steps up

[Bob Cook]

Alan--

Any good theory added freely to general understanding of LENR should make 
National news.


Bob

-Original Message- 
From: Alan Fletcher

Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 10:41 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dr. Stoyan Sarg steps up


From: "Blaze Spinnaker" 
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 10:37:12 PM



http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/powder-test-cells/361-powder-push


Well, Stoyan has a LOT of experience in this area and is willing to share 
that too!


- - - -

Huh?

Re: [Vo]:The Knight Field

[Bob Cook]

Jones and Axil--

Axil--Your link to Frydman is a great find—Note his bio below in the item you 
identified.  His connections to the U of Mo and U of Ill is more than 
coincidence.

Paired protons may be  what enters the Ni  matrix. 
A varying external  magnetic field which creates a 0 B field in the matrix  
from time to time may be the key.

Bob

Frydman earned a Ph.D. in physical chemistry (1990) from the University of 
Buenos Aires. In 1992, after a postdoc at the University of California, 
Berkeley, he became professor in the Department of Chemistry of the University 
of Illinois in Chicago. In 2001, he moved to Israel to become professor at the 
Weizmann Institute, where he currently works in the Department of Chemical 
Physics. In 2012, Frydman became the director of the Helen L. and Martin S. 
Kimmel Institute for Magnetic Resonance, and chief scientist in chemistry and 
biology at the U.S. National High Magnetic Field Lab. Frydman’s research 
focuses on magnetic resonance spectroscopy and imaging in solids, liquids, and 
under in vivo conditions.

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:06 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: [Vo]:The Knight Field

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.1288v1.pdf

Nuclear magnetization in gallium arsenide quantum dots at zero magnetic fields

Another example as follows:

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v7/17

Long-lived singlet states—zero-spin states made of two spin-particles—can 
be created by combining two different atomic species such as carbon and 
hydrogen.

The production of a proton pair with zero spin can be done by applying a Zero 
magnetic field known as a knight field. A very large Knight Field is the 
effective field experienced by the nuclei in the presence of a spin polarized 
electron.

If the magnetic field does not vary, this constant field will lineup the spin 
and anti-spin of the particles along a constant and unchanging magnetic field 
line direction. This looks like an anapole field produced by the soliton (aka 
NAE) to me.  This knight field spin locks the two particles together. The pair 
will remain together for a long time after they are locked together.

[Vo]:Re: The Knight Field

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

Don’t forget Rossi had some good theory behind him in the voice and intellect 
of Prof S Focardi, bless his soul.

A good experiment would be to determine what a spin bound pair of protons 
absorbs in the way of oscillating magnetic fields and what it takes to “ionize” 
such an item.  The folks that worked with the Knight field may know the 
answers, having already done  the experiment.

Bob

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Knight Field

From: Bob Cook  

Paired protons may be what enters the Ni matrix. 

 

A varying external  magnetic field which creates a 0 B field in the matrix  
from time to time may be the key.

 

In practice, there are several experimental details which support at least the 
second part of this suggestion. 

 

There is evidence that 

1)a modest magnetic field is just as effective as a strong field. 600 Gauss 
works.

2)a change in the orientation of field lines helps.

3)a pulsed field, or a pulse with a long delay works better than static 
field. Even a single pulse works.

 

None of these details is logical based on hot fusion parameters - where the 
purpose of the field is ostensibly to contain plasma and inductively heat it. 
Here the purpose is not as clear, since “field continuity” is not necessary, 
and could be detrimental.

 

Moreover, if we look at the Hot-Cat … (which I keep referring to as the 
pinnacle of applied R&D in LENR, but that assessment awaits further proof)…

 

…and the possibility that Rossi got lucky, once again, just as he did with 
whatever additions he has made to the basic nickel, potassium, and hydrogen 
fill (possibly CNT) in the original version … 

 

…or else, Rossi is fully the brilliant inventor that Rothwell thinks he is… 

 

… consider the magnetic field which is created in this device by the resistance 
wire. It matches the anecdotal information above which came from other 
experiments. Inspired or lucky?

 

Indeed, The HotCat field near its circumference would be modest, pulsed and the 
field lines would change spatially with the pulses, since the wiring pattern 
“in the slots” is back and forth… and, notably, the field along the axis would 
be weak or nonexistent at times. 

 

Essentially, one could look at this reactor design (in the context of its 
magnetic field) as not simply a “heater” but much more - and as either as ESP, 
inspiration, massively accurate intellect, or plain luck… but apparently it 
works.

 

Knight to e5… Check-mate… 

 

Jones

 

In fact, many great inventors like Tesla were not University graduates, so we 
should never have made a stir about Rossi. Much has been made of Tesla's 
amazing ability to visualize intensely real images from his mind, which were 
complete inventions ab initio - which he merely built from memory later. This 
can only be described as a spiritual talent. I wonder if Rossi is inspired in 
some similar way? (assuming that he is not a fraud)

 

Before he was famous, Tesla worried that he was suffering from madness. He 
would probably have been label as high functioning autistic today (as are many 
famous - and infamous individuals) 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Curious paper from SLAC

[Bob Cook]

Jones-Axil, Ed, etal

Check out the current (Feburary) issue of Scientific American--page 
32--regarding the radius of the proton.  Seems the wave functions overlap 
better than one might have concluded from old theory.


The researchers have interesting connections to active long-term LENR theory 
development at MIT.  Ironical.


Bob
-Original Message- 
From: Jones Beene

Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:35 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Curious paper from SLAC


A contact from LBNL told me years ago that there were researchers in top
labs doing LENR-related research, but the Lab administrators would never
known it - since the title and field of inquiry would be carefully
constructed to hide the fact.

This seemed preposterous to me back then, but I just stumbled on a paper
that makes me wonder. Well, it clearly is not a ruse, but it would be a
great surprise if Nilsson's group had not seen an energy anomaly in this
work.

http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/QeJ5maLQQrugiSYMF3ATDA/2.1.4.4.nilsson_06.pdf

The paper turned up using the search terms:
hydrogen, nickel, potassium, CNT
since that combination seems like the best guess for the Rossi
formula...

No smoking gun of course, but interesting parallel path.

http://ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/nilssongroup/index.html

Re: [Vo]:The Chiral Magnetic Effect (CME)

[Bob Cook]

Axil--

How do you get wind of all these good items?

Bob

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:10 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: [Vo]:The Chiral Magnetic Effect (CME)

http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf

A 10^16 magnetic field will deconfine the quarks in the nucleus. This high 
level of magnetic fields are seen in quark plasma production in heavy ion 
collisions  and in LENR.

[Vo]:Re: Curious paper from SLAC

[Bob Cook]

Jones--nice work--

This is not to much different from my original guess as to the reaction of 
d-d in Pd matrix.  Only I guessed the resulting He nucleus was excited in a 
high spin state and fractioned the energy by spin coupling to the other 
particles in the system.


I did not know about quantum gravity ideas nor the Lamb shift.

However, I assume the Lamb shift would be obse rvedwith D as well as H.

Maybe Axil knows.

Bob
-Original Message- 
From: Jones Beene

Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 8:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Curious paper from SLAC

To add a few more details into the mix for future reference,
here are some slides with most of the basic mathematical formalities.


http://moriond.in2p3.fr/QCD/2011/FridayAfternoon/Pachucki.pdf

The overriding proposition is this: Essentially, quantum
gravity facilitates two protons coming together in a metal matrix in LENR.
Of course, protons cannot fuse permanently- thus the nearly instantaneous
reversal of the diproton back to two protons follows, with the emphasis on
"nearly".

The "extra energy" of LENR would come from the strong force
during the short diproton lifetime, and be expressed via Lamb shift
asymmetry from spin coupling to the diprotons, the nickel lattice or both -
so the energy gain remains nuclear, but without the indicia. Mass is
converted to energy.

Now we have a succinct theory which provides more than a
hint at Lamb shift asymmetry as the working dynamic of LENR - via
gravitoweak unification and spin coupling. In fact, at the low THz level,
the a sequential Lamb shift can easily provide the gain seen in the Rossi
HotCat and much more.

The Lamb shift energy is tiny, in the range of 10^-25 J, and
inherent asymmetry would be a faction of that. But, this low energy is "per
reaction" "per proton pair" ... therefore, even if the asymmetry is a small
fraction of a very low initial energy - the transaction rate is THZ ... and
with a gram of hydrogen adsorbed into nickel, we are feasting on Lamb
Bar-B-Q courtesy of the HotCat.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism

[Bob Cook]

John--

What does SR stand for or mean?

Bob

From: John Berry 
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 3:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism

Here we go again... 


I have strongly argued that according to SR, magnetic fields occur due to 
relative motion between electric charges, maybe also electric fields and an 
observer with a relative motion to the charge/fields. 

This view makes a lot of sense because you can even show that all magnetic 
forces are expected distortions of electric fields from motion.

But I do not believe in SR one bit, and there is evidence to the contrary for 
this view of magnetism.

First we may assume that ferromagnetism can be modelled as a lot of tiny 
electromagnets that create a large virtual electromagnet winding.

Of course if in fact the ferromagnetic field is the results of spins, and 
protons on the nucleous then these arguments would be weakened somewhat as it 
would differ greatly in many respects.

Anyway, if we set a homopolar disk into rotation in the direction of the 
ferromagnetic electron motion direction (the direction the electrons would move 
in the coil), then the relative magnetic field the disk sees from these 
electrons would decrease as it begins to match their velocity and the disk 
would see pancaking of protons instead. This would reverse the polarity of the 
radial voltage from the wire both from an electric field pancaking view, or 
from the perspective of magnetic flux lines moving with the protons view.

But there would be a tell tail limit, once the electron velocity of the 
magnetic field source is matched (which is glacial in an air core 
electromagnet, but possibly very swift with ferromagnetism), no further 
increase of induction voltage would take place however much the RPM in 
increased, since any movement would lead to an equal enhancement to both the 
electron and proton generated magnetic field.

But additionally, if the rotation direction is reversed, then no voltage would 
have been produced at all if in a stationary magnet the proton is not 
contributing to the field.

The reason is that if the field is relative to the motion of the charges, and a 
stationary magnet relies entirely on electron motion to establish a magnetic 
field, then moving against the electrons motion increases the electrons 
magnetic inductive effect and by equal and opposite increase the proton's 
effect inductive effect to achieve no net effect as I understand it. Basically 
the induction from the protons would cancel the induction from the electrons.

I have never heard of a homopolar/unipolar/n-machine generator caring which 
direction it is rotated.

And even if the protons were responsible for some of the magnetic field in a 
stationary magnetic field, then it would still be unlikely that the 2 
influences are balanced.

Such a variation should have been noted, indeed this would even apply to hall 
effect measurements, where some orientations, positions and polarity of applied 
current would lead to no, or less hall effect being produced than seemingly 
identical equivalent situations.

It is not impossible, but it seems very unlikely that this would have gone 
unnoticed.

If however the magnetic field is created by relative motion of the electrons 
through the wires reference frame, there is no expectation for any of these 
issues or limits since the magnetic field would exist in all frames 
identically, and no magnetic field from the protons in a wire would exist no 
matter what your motion is relative to that wire.

John






Because the 

Re: [Vo]:Is there an echo in here?

[Bob Cook]

Jones--Bob here.


Due to two emergent memes coming together at the same time, one wonders if
Andrea Rossi was paid in Bitcoins :-)


I do not think so.

Bob

- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 6:20 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Is there an echo in here?



Emergent memes are merging this year...
Paraphrased from recent articles: Bitcoin is a digital currency, backed by
no commodity or central bank. It exists because a small number of humans
have chosen to believe in its legitimacy. The implication is that once a
threshold number of true believers are convinced - whether it be in 
finance,

politics, religion or science, objective truth is almost immaterial. (with
the emphasis on "almost").
The Rossi E-Cat is an advanced but unproved energy device which has been
publicly replicated by no reliable laboratory, and exists because a small
number of humans working on similar projects have chosen to believe in its
legitimacy. The implication is that once a threshold number of true
believers are convinced - whether it be in finance, politics, religion or
science, objective truth is almost immaterial - except in science you only
get a "data holiday" as Ahern calls it, which exists for several years.
Bitcoin's pseudonymous creator "Satoshi Nakamoto" willed that currency 
into

existence in 2009, yet the software scheme had all the hallmarks of a gag:
"a great, metastasizing practical joke played by clever coders" *
  who came to realize, if only by serendipity - that all
government-backed currencies are ultimately less reliable than any 
invented

currency whose supply can be carefully controlled. Thus Bitcoin succeeded
because of lack of a credible alternative, ... which is to say - lack of a
Mint and lack of a currency printing press. Even the US dollar is not a
credible alternative to any future Bitcoin scheme which is done correctly
(this one was apparently not done correctly).
E-Cat's creator, who could be one of the World's great geniuses, or else a
great con-man (no one is sure), realizing that his past would catch up him
eventually, decided to present to the World his past failings at the same
time he released his invention. Coincidentally, one of those failings was 
in

currency transfer. This tactic of disclosure won over potential naysayers,
and since his demonstrations were open and moderately convincing, and 
since

no credible skeptic emerged, Rossi succeeded in gaining a well-funded
sponsor in the end.
Rossi's ultimate success, however, does depend on factuality instead of
faith (as does Bitcoin's success depend on reliable control of the 
currency

supply instead of faith).
Nevertheless the data holiday of Rossi is almost over, and the careful
control of Bitcoin's control capability has come into question.
Due to two emergent memes coming together at the same time, one wonders if
Andrea Rossi was paid in Bitcoins :-)

Re: [Vo]:Is there an echo in here?

[Bob Cook]

Jones--Bob here.


Due to two emergent memes coming together at the same time, one wonders if
Andrea Rossi was paid in Bitcoins :-)


I do not think so.

Bob

- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 6:20 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Is there an echo in here?



Emergent memes are merging this year...
Paraphrased from recent articles: Bitcoin is a digital currency, backed by
no commodity or central bank. It exists because a small number of humans
have chosen to believe in its legitimacy. The implication is that once a
threshold number of true believers are convinced - whether it be in
finance,
politics, religion or science, objective truth is almost immaterial. (with
the emphasis on "almost").
The Rossi E-Cat is an advanced but unproved energy device which has been
publicly replicated by no reliable laboratory, and exists because a small
number of humans working on similar projects have chosen to believe in its
legitimacy. The implication is that once a threshold number of true
believers are convinced - whether it be in finance, politics, religion or
science, objective truth is almost immaterial - except in science you only
get a "data holiday" as Ahern calls it, which exists for several years.
Bitcoin's pseudonymous creator "Satoshi Nakamoto" willed that currency
into
existence in 2009, yet the software scheme had all the hallmarks of a gag:
"a great, metastasizing practical joke played by clever coders" *
  who came to realize, if only by serendipity - that all
government-backed currencies are ultimately less reliable than any
invented
currency whose supply can be carefully controlled. Thus Bitcoin succeeded
because of lack of a credible alternative, ... which is to say - lack of a
Mint and lack of a currency printing press. Even the US dollar is not a
credible alternative to any future Bitcoin scheme which is done correctly
(this one was apparently not done correctly).
E-Cat's creator, who could be one of the World's great geniuses, or else a
great con-man (no one is sure), realizing that his past would catch up him
eventually, decided to present to the World his past failings at the same
time he released his invention. Coincidentally, one of those failings was
in
currency transfer. This tactic of disclosure won over potential naysayers,
and since his demonstrations were open and moderately convincing, and
since
no credible skeptic emerged, Rossi succeeded in gaining a well-funded
sponsor in the end.
Rossi's ultimate success, however, does depend on factuality instead of
faith (as does Bitcoin's success depend on reliable control of the
currency
supply instead of faith).
Nevertheless the data holiday of Rossi is almost over, and the careful
control of Bitcoin's control capability has come into question.
Due to two emergent memes coming together at the same time, one wonders if
Andrea Rossi was paid in Bitcoins :-)

Re: [Vo]:BrightSource

[Bob Cook]

Jones--you wrote:

>The only way the USA could have achieved the same reliable nuclear program as 
>France did is essentially with Socialism, and a national policy for nuclear. 
>Having coal made that policy impossible here – so we did not do that, and now 
>the cost of nuclear is through the roof.

We  did not need Socialism and we had a national policy for nuclear in the 
Price Anderson Act which was only partial Socialism.

All we needed were good regulations for the reactor design part of nuclear and 
for the economics of the public utilities that thought Nuclear was the best 
invention, since sliced bread; regulations that  mandated  simple, small design 
that used components that could be made by a dozen vendors and could be 
assembled in 2 years or less.   

The simple small design is related to safety concerns and providing for 
competition in the componets and plant construction. 

This was course the nuclear navy took successfully.   The Navy selected 1 
reactor design for subs after the initial R&D period and built 60 of 
essentially the same design with huge savings in consturction, competitive 
pricing and operater training, not to mention increased safety, reliability and 
design understanding of materials under long term use. 

Nuclear did not need 4 different designs--the CE, the Westinghouse, the GE and 
the B&W designs--which made operating nuclear plants much more expensive 
considering training and repair, design, construction etc.  associated with the 
4 different plants.  

 How bad it was to make a spent fuel wet storage facility above ground level as 
in the GE design.  A simple regulation regarding safty concerns should have 
nixed this  dubious "cost effective" design feature.  We all know what happened 
at Fukishima with this design. 

In the commercial arena the USA had the likes of the Washington Public Power 
Supply (WPPS) board of directors deciding that it was desirable to have 3 
different reactor designs at one site.  They were sold a bill of goods that big 
was beautiful and that variety was the spice of life.  It did not matter that 
it took 6  years to build one plant.  The second and third plants at the Site 
reached 30% and 70% completion before it was decided they were too expensive.  
A good regulation on technical management know-how and design assurance should 
have been required by regulation.   Controling management capability may sound 
socialistic, but it is warranted in a capitalistic system where cost accounting 
trumps safety and environmental accounting. 

The current effort in China to build nuclear plants, considering the lack of 
control on necessary high integrity, safety and environment management, will 
lead to disasters like the Fukishima one and other notable Russian and US 
"accidents". 

Germany and Japan may have gotten the message.

Hopefully LENR will help avoid a Chinese and Indian nuclear disaster.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jones Beene 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 9:20 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:BrightSource


  From: a.ashfield  

  The Andasol 1 plant cost around €300 million (US$380 million) to build … It 
produces power at $0.35/kWh which is guaranteed for 25 years(!)  With 
successful plants like that who needs failures?

  If you live in a country with little coal, hydro, oil or gas, 35 cents is 
about average. 

  Electricity costs more than that in Germany, Denmark and a few other 
countries with better resources than Spain. With Russia doubling the price of 
natural gas every 5 years - that 35 cent price will look great in a decade, and 
it is guaranteed.

  There is no doubt the French did it right going to almost all nuclear, at a 
time when it was affordable - since like Spain, they have little coal, hydro, 
oil or gas. Now they have electricity for half the price of most of Europe. 

  http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/France/

  But what is the real cost of a nuclear meltdown, especially in a country with 
high tourism income? If the ratepayer in France had to pay for insurance 
against Fukushima type accidents, the cost could be closer to that of solar in 
Spain.

  The only way the USA could have achieved the same reliable nuclear program as 
France did is essentially with Socialism, and a national policy for nuclear. 
Having coal made that policy impossible here – so we did not do that, and now 
the cost of nuclear is through the roof.

  In the long run, any renewable like solar at high initial cost is better in 
the long run than even nuclear … unless we reprocess – like the French do. 
Impossible in the USA due to politics. 

  Interesting fact which is more than a metaphor for solar – the Golden Gate 
Bridge was almost not built because the price seemed incredibly high at the 
time. 

  Nowadays, with the 6 buck toll, it returns the initial investment every 6 
months. 

   

Re: [Vo]:Is there an echo in here?

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

I make the same mistake frequently.

Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 8:02 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Is there an echo in here?



-Original Message-----
From: Bob Cook

Jones--Bob here.


Due to two emergent memes coming together at the same time, one wonders

if Andrea Rossi was paid in Bitcoins :-)


I do not think so.


Hi Bob,

Sometimes my best effort at a bit of cynical humor do not shine through :)

[Vo]:Re: BrightSource

[Bob Cook]

Alain--

You wrote:

The problem is that it is killing incentive, and blocking innovations, 
enforcing conformism, preventing entrepreneur to focus on their business, and 
too much focusing on fiscal questions.
US have similar problems of conservatism, innovation blockage, among which 
LENR, but it is less general.

The root cause of all these problems is that the government (conservative and 
liberal)  is in bed with big business that wants to maintain a lock on its 
business and maintain profits.  The “Nuclear Village” in Japan is a good 
example of how this arrangement causes problem for the environment and safety 
of the people.

I agree with your assessment completely.

Bob Cook

From: Alain Sepeda 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:52 AM
To: Vortex List 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:BrightSource

The socialism (some explain that Gaulism is right-winged socialism, a kind of 
paternalist state, while pink socialism is maternalism) have some success, 
especially in place were state is quite efficient and people experienced to 
regulation (french entrepreneur can survive in very complex regulation). 

The problem is that it is killing incentive, and blocking innovations, 
enforcing conformism, preventing entrepreneur to focus on their business, and 
too much focusing on fiscal questions.
US have similar problems of conservatism, innovation blockage, among which 
LENR, but it is less general.

Today the mother-state have succeed in pushing our youth into depression (>60% 
18-35  thinking they will live worse than their parents, and ready for a 
revolution), 
anyway state is not all, and entrepreneur are used to run 100m race with 
concrete shoes. The day we remove just one of that shoe (many french succeed 
today in silicon valley), they will be top athlete.





2014-02-26 20:12 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene :

  From: Bob Cook


  >> The only way the USA could have achieved the same
  reliable nuclear program as France did is essentially with Socialism, and a
  national policy for nuclear. Having coal made that policy impossible here –
  so we did not do that, and now the cost of nuclear is through the roof.


  *   We  did not need Socialism and we had a national policy for nuclear

  in the Price Anderson Act which was only partial Socialism.


  *   All we needed were good regulations for the reactor design part of

  nuclear and for the economics of the public utilities that thought Nuclear
  was the best invention, since sliced bread; regulations that  mandated
  simple, small design that used components that could be made by a dozen
  vendors and could be assembled in 2 years or less.


  Well, Bob - that would pretty much be the definition of the kind of modern
  socialism which I am referring to and which France enjoys today. NYT had a
  good article on this recently. The French are happier and healthier than we
  are in the USA even without oil and other resources. Isn’t “happiness” what
  it is all about?

  Modern socialism is top-down in planning - but often depends entirely on
  heavily controlled capitalism for the implementation. Best of both worlds if
  you can keep politicians out of the planning stage.

  This type of Socialism was already embedded in the policies of FDR which got
  us out of the Great Depression, and should have accomplished, in Energy,
  what the Canadian form of Socialism did for them - with their nuclear effort
  – the CANDU.

  This is the only sane basic reactor design ever built, due to use of natural
  U, and it should have implemented here as well. A joint North American
  effort would improved the end product for both countries due to financial
  and R&D input from the USA in the sixties and seventies – EXCEPT we wanted
  to enrich uranium for the Cold War.

  Thus, everyone suffers today to some degree - instead of benefiting from
  what “could have been” had we jointly built a CanAm “CAMDU” here using the
  kind of modularity you speak of.

[Vo]:Re: Is there an echo in here?

[Bob Cook]

Jed--

What about gold?

Bob

From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 12:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is there an echo in here?

H Veeder  wrote:

  If people stopped valuing flowers, the tulip bulb would cease to have value.

True, but people have valued flowers in every culture, in every era in recorded 
history. It seems to be inborn. Or instinctual. So there is little chance that 
people will stop valuing them. Whereas people do stop valuing fad items such as 
pet rocks.

Consuming anything other than food, water and housing might be considered a 
whim. Or optional. There is no chance out values will change so much that 
people stop buying pretty things such as paintings, clothing or flowers.


  Likewise if people stopped valuing computer science, bit coins would cease to 
have value.

I would not say computer science. Computer science is valuable in its own 
right, and lucrative. Bitcoins are a product of computer science but their lure 
is they let you hide money transactions from governments. They are "anonymous 
and untraceable" (sez Krugman -- I wouldn't know). They are less effective as a 
way to store money, since the value fluctuates so much.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Progress to date

[Bob Cook]

Fran and Axil--

Don’t forget the Chiral effect   
http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf  a quote from 
the previous link:

“In strong magnetic field quarks and antiquarks pair more effectively!
S.P. Klevansky and R. H. Lemmer ('89); H. Suganuma and T. Tatsumi ('91) - 
effective models
V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky and I. A. Shovkovy ('94, '95, '96,...) → real 
QCDxQED
Enhancement of the chiral symmetry breaking at strong B
1) Dimensional reduction (3+1)D → (1+1)D: In a very strong
magnetic field the dynamics of electrically charged particles (quarks,
in our case) becomes effectively one-dimensional, because the
particles tend to move along the magnetic field only.

2) Quarks interact stronger in one spatial dimension: In (1+1)D an
arbitrarily weakest interaction between two objects leads to pair
formation. This fact: (i) follows from Quantum Mechanics; (ii) is
known as a “Cooper theorem” in solid state physics.”

and the Lamb effect.  The Chirl Effect  depends on the dimensions acting --1, 
vs 2, vs 3, vs 4, vs 5 etc. 

Bob

From: Roarty, Francis X 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Progress to date

Axil, I am in total agreement with your first 5 paragraphs and I agree with 
where you are going but disagree that magnetism will increase or decrease 
particle production… even used in conjunction with nano geometry which 
restricts larger virtual particles in a casimir like manner the magnetism is 
only segregating the virtual particles between regions of various suppression.. 
I can see this providing a spatial bias to virtual particles that would 
unbalance the  normal cancelation of random uncertainty.. perhaps a self 
assembled maxwellian demon of sorts. Would like to see if you can still put 
your theory forward without relying on a breach of the isotropy or at least 
stipulating that the breach is a function of the geometry which your magnetism 
is leveraging somehow.

Regards

Fran  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:04 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Progress to date

 

The following post is a synthesis of a number of individual and disjointed 
posts that I have produced in recent months to make sense of a complicated 
issue. That issue is the confusion incipient in the vast differences and 
contradictions seen in a wide variety of LENR systems. 


>From system to system, LENR is subject to a variation of strength. To my way 
>of thinking, this variability in the characterization of the unique mix and 
>match LENR processes instantiated in each LENR system are directly based on 
>the strengths of magnetic fields inherent in each LENR system.

Magnetic fields interact with the vacuum and produce a number of different 
breakdown mechanisms as a function of that field’s strength.  

To start this detailing, virtual particle production in the vacuum is one of 
the sources of the uncertainty in quantum mechanics as particles come randomly 
into and out of existence. Tunneling and radioactivity is a result of this 
vacuum based uncertainty.

Magnetic fields interact with the vacuum to produce particles in a 
deterministic way. As the strength of the magnetic fields increase, the 
probability that the vacuum will generate particles will also increase. This 
increase particle production in the vacuum increases the rates of tunneling and 
radioactivity.


As the magnetic field gains strength to intermediate levels, the vacuum 
produces composite particles from fermions. The magnetic field interacts with 
the various types of fermions to catalyze virtual charge carrying 
quasi-particle pairs that are bound to the fermions as the fermions attempts to 
minimize its particular energy level. 

As the magnetic field reaches it maximum strength, this field produces mesons 
out of the vacuum which effectively guaranties nuclear disruption in terms of 
charge screening, cluster fusion, fission, and isotope and radioactivity 
stabilization


In summary, a single primary magnetic field based causation produces strength 
based mix and match results centered on a hierarchy of magnetically catalyzed 
vacuum based particle production mechanisms.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Progress to date

[Bob Cook]

Fran--

Don't thank me.  Axil identified the reference about a month ago.  I just 
happened to download it, read it, and understand some of it.  I thought it was 
a very well written paper with  nice data.  

It seems to me that there should be some good Nobel class research going on in 
this area of dimensional control and its effect on particle interactions.  In 
my high energy physics courses back in the early 1960's  I do not recall any 
discussion of this effect.  Solid state physics was just beginning to be 
respected.   However, as we know the high energy boys seemed to get more money 
for their research here in the USA, and the rest of the world for the most part 
went along with this trend.  Oh well that's water over the dam.  

The French, bless their soul, still like to think in their own language.  Of 
course they are competing with the nearby Italians. 

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Roarty, Francis X 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:56 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Progress to date


  Bob, thanks for the refs – apparently Axil was correct that a magnetic field 
can increase production – at least in one dimension along the magnetic field, I 
had assumed this to be only directing the existing pairs but I stand corrected. 
You know I posit a relativistic explanation of Casimir effect based on Naudts 
2005 paper regarding the hydrino as relativistic hydrogen. I don’t believe the 
longer vacuum wavelengths are actually displaced from the cavity but rather 
that they reshape space time where time occurs faster to give the particles the 
“space” they need to exist full size from their local perspective…and that this 
is the root cause of catalytic action – when different geometries exist in 
closer quarters than the square law should allow in violation of the isotropy 
trumped by the inverse cube of boundary spacing. I think we will someday 
discover the geometry and conductivity of very active skeletal catalysts is 
mimicked to lesser degrees by all catalysts and that this dynamic suppression 
of larger virtual particles is the underlying cause for all catalytic action.. 
I guess my primary objection to Axils point is that he understated the 
importance of the geometry and the interaction to the magnetic field.

  Fran

   

  From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 6:13 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: Progress to date

   

  Fran and Axil--

   

  Don’t forget the Chiral effect   

  http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf  a quote from 
the previous link:

   

  “In strong magnetic field quarks and antiquarks pair more effectively!

  S.P. Klevansky and R. H. Lemmer ('89); H. Suganuma and T. Tatsumi ('91) - 
effective models

  V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky and I. A. Shovkovy ('94, '95, '96,...) → real 
QCDxQED

  Enhancement of the chiral symmetry breaking at strong B

  1) Dimensional reduction (3+1)D → (1+1)D: In a very strong

  magnetic field the dynamics of electrically charged particles (quarks,

  in our case) becomes effectively one-dimensional, because the

  particles tend to move along the magnetic field only.

   

  2) Quarks interact stronger in one spatial dimension: In (1+1)D an

  arbitrarily weakest interaction between two objects leads to pair

  formation. This fact: (i) follows from Quantum Mechanics; (ii) is

  known as a “Cooper theorem” in solid state physics.”

   

  and the Lamb effect.  The Chirl Effect  depends on the dimensions acting --1, 
vs 2, vs 3, vs 4, vs 5 etc. 

   

  Bob

   

  From: Roarty, Francis X 

  Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:06 PM

  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Progress to date

   

  Axil, I am in total agreement with your first 5 paragraphs and I agree with 
where you are going but disagree that magnetism will increase or decrease 
particle production… even used in conjunction with nano geometry which 
restricts larger virtual particles in a casimir like manner the magnetism is 
only segregating the virtual particles between regions of various suppression.. 
I can see this providing a spatial bias to virtual particles that would 
unbalance the  normal cancelation of random uncertainty.. perhaps a self 
assembled maxwellian demon of sorts. Would like to see if you can still put 
your theory forward without relying on a breach of the isotropy or at least 
stipulating that the breach is a function of the geometry which your magnetism 
is leveraging somehow.

  Regards

  Fran  

   

  From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:04 PM
  To: vortex-l
  Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Progress to date

   

  The following post is a synthesis of a number of individual and disjointed 
posts that I have produced in recent months to make sense of a complicated 
issue. That issue is the confusion incipient in 

Re: [Vo]:My personal brilliant blunder

[Bob Cook]

Fran--

I am not sure I understand what Axil thinks was his blunder. 

Maybe he will explain further.

Bob

- Original Message - 
  From: Roarty, Francis X 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 5:08 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:My personal brilliant blunder


  VERY INTERESTING!

   

  From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:20 PM
  To: vortex-l
  Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My personal brilliant blunder

   

  Mario Livio states as follows:  "In my own life as a scientist, there was one 
occasion when I felt that a deep secret of nature had been revealed to me. This 
was my personal brilliant blunder. I remember it with joy, even though my 
dreams of glory were shattered. It was a blissful experience. It arose out of 
work that I did with my colleague Andrew Lenard from Indiana University, 
investigating the stability of ordinary matter. We proved by a laborious 
mathematical calculation that ordinary matter is stable. The physical basis of 
stability is the exclusion principle, a law of nature saying that two electrons 
can never be in the same state. Matter is stable against collapse because every 
atom contains electrons and the electrons resist being squeezed together.

  My blunder began when I tried to extend the stability argument to other kinds 
of particles besides electrons. We can divide particles into two types in three 
different ways. A particle may be electrically charged or neutral. It may be 
weakly or strongly interacting. And it may belong to one of two types that we 
call fermions and bosons in honor of the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi and the 
Indian physicist Satyendra Bose. Fermions obey the exclusion principle and 
bosons do not. So each particle has eight possible ways to make the three 
choices. For example, the electron is a charged weak fermion. The light quantum 
is a neutral weak boson. The famous particle predicted by Peter Higgs, and 
discovered in 2012 at the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN), is a 
neutral strong boson.

  I observed in 1967 that seven of the eight possible combinations were seen in 
nature. The one combination that had never been seen was a charged weak boson. 
The missing type of particle would be like an electron without the exclusion 
principle. Next, I observed that our proof of the stability of matter would 
fail if electrons without the exclusion principle existed. So I jumped to the 
conclusion that a charged weak boson could not exist in a stable universe. This 
was a new law of nature that I had discovered. I published it quietly in a 
mathematical journal."

  Oh contraire; but what Mario Livio had not understood was that electrons can 
become bosons when they combine with photons to form the quasi-particle the 
polariton in condensed matter physics. 

  Because they are bosons, Polaritons can be squeezed together in a special 
case called LENR.  This squeezing can provide polaritons and the electrons that 
lurk within them with massive amounts of energy because one time fermions avoid 
the constraints of the exclusion principle. As a result of this marriage of 
electron and boson and the unusual conditions of their wedding, matter does 
fall apart when exposed to polaritons under these very special conditions.

  Mario Livio should get his old book of equations out and brush it off. Soon 
we will need that book of equations for reference.

   

   

   

Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,

[Bob Cook]

Ed--

You stated--
>If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually 
>observed, the explanation becomes much clearer.

What limitations do you have in mind?

Bob Cook
  - Original Message - 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:07 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,


  Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I can say 
with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not 
acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often various 
esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the 
requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and 
observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is 
actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in particular, 
throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. As a 
result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is known 
about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like. 


  Ed Storms





  On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote:


The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge “how much is 
enough” or “how far do we need to zoom in”.

The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most 
theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue.

To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly 
complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true essence of 
a problem.  To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive at truth, he 
asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling 
different parts of the elephant's body. The men were led into a darken room 
where an elephant quietly stood. The man who feels its leg says the elephant is 
like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the 
one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who 
feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly 
says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the 
elephant is like a solid pipe.


The king explains to them: All of you are right. The reason every one of 
you is telling it differently is because each one of you have touched the 
different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features 
you mentioned. To know the true essence of the elephant, you must put all these 
characteristics together into a coherent whole.

Like a huge elephant standing quietly in a darkened room, the reason why 
there are so many theories of LENR is because each theory limits itself to just 
one particular manifestation of the LENR phenomena.  

We must not confuse effect with cause. We must keep our hands moving and 
groping and feeling the huge dark animal that stands before us. We must keep on 
zooming in to find the true essence of what LENR is all about and not restrict 
ourselves to just one part of a vastly more complicated whole.

Re: [Vo]:My personal brilliant blunder

[Bob Cook]

Fran--

On further reflection and careful reading, I do not think Axil considers he has 
blundered--only Mario.

Mario's blog does not say boo about LENR as far as I can tell.  

He is interesting, nevertheless.  Here is one of his statements:

"Some fallacies are very seductive, and avoiding them requires a close 
examination of the logic involved. A famous one concerns the warning against 
stepping onto a "slippery slope." No one likes to embark on something that 
inevitably leads to disaster, but one should always investigate how likely such 
a slide truly is. The fact that something could happen doesn't necessarily mean 
that it will, or even that it is likely to happen-not every action opens the 
floodgates. In particular, we should never allow fear of fallacious slippery 
slopes to stifle our natural curiosity."-Mario Livio 10 /2012

It strikes me regarding the current  Vortex-l thread  --- Is There An Echo In 
Here"--   regarding bitcoin happenings, this suggestion by Mario may have been 
bad  advice for some bitcoin proponents.  

However, thankfully, many LENR advocates have followed Mario's 
advice--particularly the part about "we should never allow fear of fallacious 
slippery slopes to stifle our natural curiosity."

Bob 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Roarty, Francis X 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 5:08 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:My personal brilliant blunder


  VERY INTERESTING!

   

  From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:20 PM
  To: vortex-l
  Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My personal brilliant blunder

   

  Mario Livio states as follows:  "In my own life as a scientist, there was one 
occasion when I felt that a deep secret of nature had been revealed to me. This 
was my personal brilliant blunder. I remember it with joy, even though my 
dreams of glory were shattered. It was a blissful experience. It arose out of 
work that I did with my colleague Andrew Lenard from Indiana University, 
investigating the stability of ordinary matter. We proved by a laborious 
mathematical calculation that ordinary matter is stable. The physical basis of 
stability is the exclusion principle, a law of nature saying that two electrons 
can never be in the same state. Matter is stable against collapse because every 
atom contains electrons and the electrons resist being squeezed together.

  My blunder began when I tried to extend the stability argument to other kinds 
of particles besides electrons. We can divide particles into two types in three 
different ways. A particle may be electrically charged or neutral. It may be 
weakly or strongly interacting. And it may belong to one of two types that we 
call fermions and bosons in honor of the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi and the 
Indian physicist Satyendra Bose. Fermions obey the exclusion principle and 
bosons do not. So each particle has eight possible ways to make the three 
choices. For example, the electron is a charged weak fermion. The light quantum 
is a neutral weak boson. The famous particle predicted by Peter Higgs, and 
discovered in 2012 at the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN), is a 
neutral strong boson.

  I observed in 1967 that seven of the eight possible combinations were seen in 
nature. The one combination that had never been seen was a charged weak boson. 
The missing type of particle would be like an electron without the exclusion 
principle. Next, I observed that our proof of the stability of matter would 
fail if electrons without the exclusion principle existed. So I jumped to the 
conclusion that a charged weak boson could not exist in a stable universe. This 
was a new law of nature that I had discovered. I published it quietly in a 
mathematical journal."

  Oh contraire; but what Mario Livio had not understood was that electrons can 
become bosons when they combine with photons to form the quasi-particle the 
polariton in condensed matter physics. 

  Because they are bosons, Polaritons can be squeezed together in a special 
case called LENR.  This squeezing can provide polaritons and the electrons that 
lurk within them with massive amounts of energy because one time fermions avoid 
the constraints of the exclusion principle. As a result of this marriage of 
electron and boson and the unusual conditions of their wedding, matter does 
fall apart when exposed to polaritons under these very special conditions.

  Mario Livio should get his old book of equations out and brush it off. Soon 
we will need that book of equations for reference.

   

   

   

Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,

[Bob Cook]

Ed--

You said--

>Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. 

I would note that the lattice is a QM system and,  although complicated, obeys 
the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all like 
femions in the system and   angular momentum for each particle at any given 
time and other properties associated with the wave function (WF) appropriate 
for the lattice with all its particles as a function of time.  

I would further note that  lattice WF can be approximated and the interaction 
with various external stimuli estimated to allow engineering changes in the  
state of the system including lower total potential energy and higher kinetic 
energy in the form of heat.  The changes may include nuclear and chemical 
changes at the same time.  


>From what you say--

>"the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure."

I find no basis for this conclusion. We seem not to agree on the basic natural 
laws that apply to the various LENR systems. 

 For example I would say as a proton enters the Pd lattice it becomes part of 
the QM lattice system,  effecting a change in the potential energy, the kinetic 
energy and angular momentum of the system as a whole--with the various 
respective  particles in the system changing and sharing the energy and 
momentum based on their respective characteristics of mass, charge, spin etc. 

Even considering our conceptual differences, I will read your book regarding 
LENR science when it comes out and probably have comments.

Bob 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:17 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,


  Exactly right John. The site of the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the 
chemical structure.  Once the correct location is identified, QM can be applied 
in ways that are consistent with this environment. Trying to fit QM to the 
lattice is a waste of time. 


  Ed Storms

  On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Foks0904 . wrote:


Bob,


Not to speak for Ed, but I believe he means that if a nuclear process were 
to take place within an empty lattice vacancy (i.e. the "chemical environment" 
of the cathode; either in bulk or on the surface) that we would see a number of 
chemical changes within the system well before a nuclear effect could manifest 
itself. This is why Ed postulates "nano-cracks" or "nano-voids" as the likely 
nuclear active environment (NAE) in the cathode, because these are domains that 
operate independently of the chemical lattice environment (i.e. are not 
influencing the cathodes' atomic structure) where nuclear effects can then 
manifest.


Regards,
    John



On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

  Ed--

  You stated--
  >If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is actually 
observed, the explanation becomes much clearer.

  What limitations do you have in mind?

  Bob Cook
- Original Message - 
From: Edmund Storms 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Cc: Edmund Storms 
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,


Axil, after considerable thought and examination of the literature, I 
can say with certain that the various theories are flawed because they do not 
acknowledge the chemical conditions in which LENR occurs. Too often various 
esoteric quantum processes are applied that are in basic conflict with the 
requirements imposed by the chemical structure and by well know laws and 
observation. If the limitations imposed by chemistry are applied to what is 
actually observed, the explanation becomes much clearer. You in particular, 
throw any idea that comes to mind at the wall and hope something sticks. As a 
result, your wall makes no sense to you. If you would focus on what is known 
about LENR, you would find out exactly what the elephant looks like.  


Ed Storms





On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote:


  The primary issue that the LENR theorist faces is to judge “how much 
is enough” or “how far do we need to zoom in”.

  The reason why there are so many cold fusion theories is that most 
theorists have not approached the essence of the LENR issue.

  To illustrate the situation that LENR faces as a huge and vastly 
complicated issue is similar to the King who wanted to know the true essence of 
a problem.  To teach his advisors a lesson on how best to arrive at truth, he 
asked his advisors to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling 
different parts of the elephant's body. The men were led into a darken room 
where an elephant quietly stood. The man who feels its leg says the elephant is 
like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the 
one who feels the tru

Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,

[Bob Cook]

Ed--

I agree with Axil.  I just wrote some other comments regarding this item.  They 
basically say the same thing about HUP and PEP.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,


  Ed:
  Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time. 

  Axil:
  No Ed, this is a critical mistake. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and 
the Pauli Exclusion Principle are critical in understanding what the electrons 
and photons are doing and where they get their great power from.

RE: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,

[Bob Cook]

ess. It is a nuclear reaction. I claim that 
LENR can not occur in a chemical structure. I do not know how to make this more
 clear. Instead, I propose it occurs only in a gap in a material. 







LENR is a topological process that has nothing to do with chemistry. 



LENR is a nuclear reaction that occurs somewhere in a material. This is 
observed fact. Whether it is a topological process is a matter of opinion. 







Cracks are a topological mechanism. 




Cracks are a gap or absence of material within a material. This is they how 
they are defined. The mechanism that might operate is a matter of debate. 








To generalize the concept, any system that is topologically equivalent, will 
show the same LENR capabilities. For example, this includes cavatation and 
dusty plasma systems. If magnetic constraints are observed, the materials used 
don’t matter if they support
 the “crack topology”. For example, water will do just as well as nickel. 



I have no idea what these words mean or how they apply to the discussion. 







Under "there must be only one LENR cause" constraint, Ed Storms theory is 
inadequate. It does not explain, LENR in cavatation, in spark discharge, in 
exploding foils, in dusty plasmas (NiH reactor) in carbon arcing, LENR is 
lightning discharge, in volcanism,
 and so on. All these systems are topologically equivalent and can produce LENR 
reactions without any regard to chemistry.


 



My theory does not explain these things because you have not heard me apply the 
theory to these events. You have no way of knowing whether the theory is 
inadequate or not. Nevertheless, I admit the theory is in the process of 
development.
 You are invited to help this process. 










Ed seems not to understand the concept of topological materials and topological 
systems. For example, a nanowire made of carbon, or nickel, or iron, or 
hydrogen, or water all behave in basically the same way without the constants 
of chemistry.



 


Again, I have no idea what this means. These materials do not behave the same 
way. The properties and behavior are all very different, even with respect to 
LENR.


 


Ed Storms









 




Some background

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTaiIkQTmEc

 



 

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

 



On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Bob Cook wrote:








Ed--


 


You said--


 


>Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time.


 


I would note that the lattice is a QM system and,  although complicated, obeys 
the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all like 
femions in the system and   angular
 momentum for each particle at any given time and other properties associated 
with the wave function (WF) appropriate for the lattice with all its particles 
as a function of time. 



 


While what you say is true, Bob, it is irrelevant to LENR.  These comments 
apply to many features of a lattice, but not to a nuclear reaction. A nuclear 
reaction is prevented by the Coulomb barrier. This barrier is known to be very 
effective
 and can only be overcome by applying high energy. That amount of energy is not 
available in a lattice.  Simple hand-waving and using QM does not change this 
fact. 


 


We know this because if this amount of energy could be concentrated by an 
unknown process, no unstable chemical could exist. For example, an explosive 
would not stay stable.  Eventually, this unknown energy-concentrating process 
would be
 initiated and the chemical reaction would take place.  This simply does not 
happen.


 


Yes, energy can be concentrated in special circumstances and to a limited 
amount, but the nuclear process we have to explain requires this process take 
place at at least 10^11 times a second for weeks.  A chemical lattice does not 
contain
 the special features required to support such a process. These features can 
only occur in a gap or crack of a special size. I encourage you to apply your 
efforts to that condition and forget about the lattice. 








 


I would further note that  lattice WF can be approximated and the interaction 
with various external stimuli estimated to allow engineering changes in the  
state of the system including lower
 total potential energy and higher kinetic energy in the form of heat.  The 
changes may include nuclear and chemical changes at the same time. 



 


Yes, energy can be described mathematically by the WF concept. However the WF 
must be applied to a real condition.  The condition to which it is being 
applied is not real. We know from a huge data set that energy is not 
spontaneously concentrated
 in a lattice above a very limited amount. Pretending otherwise is not useful. 








 


 


>From what you say--


 


>"the nuclear process MUST occur outside of the chemical structure."


 


I find no basis for this conclusion. We seem not to agree on the basic natural 
laws that apply to the various LENR systems

RE: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,

[Bob Cook]

 application of a local temperature will be quickly 
spread energy to all parts by vibrations between adjacent atoms, and 
application of a concentration gradient will cause the D+ to move within the 
structure so as to reduce the gradient.




 

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

 



On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote:







Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is predicated 
on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical process.




Axil, I find communication with you to be useless unless you actually read what 
I write. LENR is not a chemical process. It is a nuclear reaction. I claim that 
LENR can not occur in a chemical structure. I do not know how to make this more
 clear. Instead, I propose it occurs only in a gap in a material. 







LENR is a topological process that has nothing to do with chemistry. 



LENR is a nuclear reaction that occurs somewhere in a material. This is 
observed fact. Whether it is a topological process is a matter of opinion. 







Cracks are a topological mechanism. 




Cracks are a gap or absence of material within a material. This is they how 
they are defined. The mechanism that might operate is a matter of debate. 








To generalize the concept, any system that is topologically equivalent, will 
show the same LENR capabilities. For example, this includes cavatation and 
dusty plasma systems. If magnetic constraints are observed, the materials used 
don’t matter if they support
 the “crack topology”. For example, water will do just as well as nickel. 



I have no idea what these words mean or how they apply to the discussion. 







Under "there must be only one LENR cause" constraint, Ed Storms theory is 
inadequate. It does not explain, LENR in cavatation, in spark discharge, in 
exploding foils, in dusty plasmas (NiH reactor) in carbon arcing, LENR is 
lightning discharge, in volcanism,
 and so on. All these systems are topologically equivalent and can produce LENR 
reactions without any regard to chemistry.


 



My theory does not explain these things because you have not heard me apply the 
theory to these events. You have no way of knowing whether the theory is 
inadequate or not. Nevertheless, I admit the theory is in the process of 
development.
 You are invited to help this process. 










Ed seems not to understand the concept of topological materials and topological 
systems. For example, a nanowire made of carbon, or nickel, or iron, or 
hydrogen, or water all behave in basically the same way without the constants 
of chemistry.




 


Again, I have no idea what this means. These materials do not behave the same 
way. The properties and behavior are all very different, even with respect to 
LENR.


 


Ed Storms









 




Some background

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTaiIkQTmEc

 



 

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

 



On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Bob Cook wrote:








Ed--


 


You said--


 


>Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time.


 


I would note that the lattice is a QM system and,  although complicated, obeys 
the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all like 
femions in the system and   angular
 momentum for each particle at any given time and other properties associated 
with the wave function (WF) appropriate for the lattice with all its particles 
as a function of time. 



 


While what you say is true, Bob, it is irrelevant to LENR.  These comments 
apply to many features of a lattice, but not to a nuclear reaction. A nuclear 
reaction is prevented by the Coulomb barrier. This barrier is known to be very 
effective
 and can only be overcome by applying high energy. That amount of energy is not 
available in a lattice.  Simple hand-waving and using QM does not change this 
fact. 


 


We know this because if this amount of energy could be concentrated by an 
unknown process, no unstable chemical could exist. For example, an explosive 
would not stay stable.  Eventually, this unknown energy-concentrating process 
would be
 initiated and the chemical reaction would take place.  This simply does not 
happen.


 


Yes, energy can be concentrated in special circumstances and to a limited 
amount, but the nuclear process we have to explain requires this process take 
place at at least 10^11 times a second for weeks.  A chemical lattice does not 
contain
 the special features required to support such a process. These features can 
only occur in a gap or crack of a special size. I encourage you to apply your 
efforts to that condition and forget about the lattice. 









 


I would further note that  lattice WF can be approximated and the interaction 
with various external stimuli estimated to allow engineering changes in the  
state of the system including lower
 total potential energy and higher kinetic energy in the form of heat.  The 
changes may 

RE: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,

[Bob Cook]

basic conditions that all events occurring in such 
a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the 
where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the 
consequence of this flow.
 These conditions are:



1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between 
the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the 
structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy.  
This behavior results
 from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics.



2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase 
in average energy of this structure. Local fluctuations in energy are possible 
but always remain within a limited range of value too small to even affect the 
chemical structure.




3. Because the electrons and nuclei in a chemical structure are part of a 
collective, conditions at some locations cannot be changed without affecting 
other locations. For example, application of a small voltage will cause the 
free electrons to move in an effort
 to reduce the voltage, application of a local temperature will be quickly 
spread energy to all parts by vibrations between adjacent atoms, and 
application of a concentration gradient will cause the D+ to move within the 
structure so as to reduce the gradient.



 
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
 


On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote:





Ed Storms is inconsistent in his logic. First he states that LENR is predicated 
on crack formation, and then he says that LENR is a chemical process.



Axil, I find communication with you to be useless unless you actually read what 
I write. LENR is not a chemical process. It is a nuclear reaction. I claim that 
LENR can not occur in a chemical structure. I do not know how to make this more
 clear. Instead, I propose it occurs only in a gap in a material. 





LENR is a topological process that has nothing to do with chemistry. 


LENR is a nuclear reaction that occurs somewhere in a material. This is 
observed fact. Whether it is a topological process is a matter of opinion. 





Cracks are a topological mechanism. 



Cracks are a gap or absence of material within a material. This is they how 
they are defined. The mechanism that might operate is a matter of debate. 






To generalize the concept, any system that is topologically equivalent, will 
show the same LENR capabilities. For example, this includes cavatation and 
dusty plasma systems. If magnetic constraints are observed, the materials used 
don’t matter if they support
 the “crack topology”. For example, water will do just as well as nickel. 


I have no idea what these words mean or how they apply to the discussion. 





Under "there must be only one LENR cause" constraint, Ed Storms theory is 
inadequate. It does not explain, LENR in cavatation, in spark discharge, in 
exploding foils, in dusty plasmas (NiH reactor) in carbon arcing, LENR is 
lightning discharge, in volcanism,
 and so on. All these systems are topologically equivalent and can produce LENR 
reactions without any regard to chemistry.

 


My theory does not explain these things because you have not heard me apply the 
theory to these events. You have no way of knowing whether the theory is 
inadequate or not. Nevertheless, I admit the theory is in the process of 
development.
 You are invited to help this process. 








Ed seems not to understand the concept of topological materials and topological 
systems. For example, a nanowire made of carbon, or nickel, or iron, or 
hydrogen, or water all behave in basically the same way without the constants 
of chemistry.



 

Again, I have no idea what this means. These materials do not behave the same 
way. The properties and behavior are all very different, even with respect to 
LENR.

 

Ed Storms







 



Some background
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTaiIkQTmEc
 


 
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
 


On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Bob Cook wrote:






Ed--

 

You said--

 

>Trying to fit QM to the lattice is a waste of time.

 

I would note that the lattice is a QM system and,  although complicated, obeys 
the various laws of QM including separate and unique energies for all like 
femions in the system and   angular
 momentum for each particle at any given time and other properties associated 
with the wave function (WF) appropriate for the lattice with all its particles 
as a function of time. 


 

While what you say is true, Bob, it is irrelevant to LENR.  These comments 
apply to many features of a lattice, but not to a nuclear reaction. A nuclear 
reaction is prevented by the Coulomb barrier. This barrier is known to be very 
effective
 and can only be overcome by applying high energy. That amount of energy is not 
available in a lattice.  Simple hand-waving and using QM does not change this 
fact. 

 

We know this

RE: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,

[Bob Cook]

Axil--

Are the polaritons found in the crack with its high magnetic field?

Bob

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:57:03 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
From: janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

The polariton is how the electrons become bosons. Polaritons are not subject to 
the exclusion principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton


On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:




Axil--

Can the electrons pair up to form a Bose particle to avoid the PEP considering 
they are free electrons and not in a QM system where PEP acts?  I am thinking 
of a plasma like group of electrons.


Bob

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:30:51 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,
From: janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


Ed:
 "The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei to 
get closer than would be normally possible".

The physics of quantum dots restricts this process from happening. Packing 
electrons is prohibited by the exclusion principle. Packing electrons into a 
crack is very energy intensive.

The effects of the Pauli Exclusion Principle must be removed from "crack 
packing". Ed does not explain how the removal of the Pauli exclusion principle 
can happen.
This Pauli exclusion principle violation is a physics sin that is just as bad 
as violating the conservation of energy or ignoring the coulomb barrier.



On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Roarty, Francis X  
wrote:









Axil, again well said [snip] The energy necessary for fusion does not come from 
chemical sources, it is derived from a quantum mechanical "squeezing"
 of EMF (photons and electrons) through the uncertainty principle without  
fermion exclusion imposed.[/snip] but this is beyond what ED is willing to 
hear.. you are endorsing a form of ZPE in violation of our current definition 
of COE. I happen to agree with
 you but this is really the sticking point trying to convince mainstream that 
quantum effects of geometry can do useful work based on HUP and PEP. I have 
always argued the effects are based on interactions with the random motion of 
gas atoms but am quite willing
 to accept your interpretation based on interaction with photons and 
electrons…. The challenge is proving that quantum effects can actually provide 
useful energy and arguing over how they do it can wait. Ed is saying show me 
the money..I mean energy.



Fran

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]


Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:17 PM

To: vortex-l

Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,

 



The energy necessary for fusion does not come from chemical sources, it is 
derived from a quantum mechanical "squeezing" of EMF (photons and electrons) 
through the uncertainty principle without  fermion exclusion imposed.





 



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle



 



This energy is HUGE...almost unlimited,,,on the atomic scale.



 



 




 


On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:


Axil, these statements below describe the conditions that exist in a chemical 
structure. These conditions influence how energy can be localized and focused 
on a nuclear reaction taking place in the structure. The mechanism that is 
proposed
 to cause the nuclear reaction has to be consistent with these requirements and 
rues. The mechanism is not independent of its environment. Chemistry affects 
the mechanism that is proposed to cause LENR.  You must not pretend that LENR, 
which is a nuclear process,
 can take place without considering the environment in which this occurs.  The 
environment imposes limitations on what can happen, on the amount of energy 
that can be focused, and on how the released mass-energy is dissipated. These 
limitations involve the
 chemical properties of the environment. This is not like hot fusion that takes 
place in plasma, to which chemistry does not apply. LENR takes place in a 
material to which chemistry applies and must be considered. 




 



Ed Storms



 


 



On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote:










Ed:



LENR is not a chemical process.



 



What Ed says about the role of chemistry in LENR:



 



Role of the Chemical Lattice and Chemical Environment





A chemical system has three basic conditions that all events occurring in such 
a system must take into account. These conditions are basic to identifying the 
where because they limit how energy can flow in a chemical structure and the 
consequence of this flow.
 These conditions are:





1. A chemical system attempts to create a structure and a relationship between 
the atoms having the lowest possible Gibbs energy. A spontaneous change in the 
structure or in the atomic relationship must involve a loss of Gibbs energy.  
This behavior results
 from application of the Third Law of Thermodynamics.





2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies and prohibits spontaneous increase 
in average energy of this

Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,

[Bob Cook]

Axil--

How would you measure such a magnetic field inside a NCE?  It must be deduced 
by other than direct measurement I would guess.  However, if possible, it would 
be conclusive as to your soliton/crack idea.

Bob



- Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:The elephant in the room,


  To account for the appearance of superconductivity and cluster fusion in the 
NiH reactor, I predict that a magnetic field of 10^16 tesla emanating from the 
NAE will be announced as an experimental finding from NiH reactor research. 


  Such an experimental  finding will be selective and conclusive in LENR theory.



  On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:



2014-02-28 19:07 GMT+01:00 Edmund Storms :

  approach 

thanks for the advice.


I asked you that, not only for my personal curiosity (anyway I took my 
distance with theories), but because businessmen I know ask me opinion on 
researchers and their theories...
My main message it to be very careful,  to flee theory, and not trust 
NASA&al trust in WL, nor any theoretician until the lab guys agree...


Your points convinced me, and I take them as you say.
I don't feel any mechanism can be so efficient as to screen neutrons and 
gamma at 1-10^-6...
Anyway you mostly add constraints, and give no answer... I like it... ;-)


Really theory of LENR is a hell... problem is theory is important for 
engineers, and required for... insurers (key actors in LENR).
I hope the irrational love of some theoretician for their theory won't 
block research work ...


my feeling is that LENR was damned by theory... because most physicist 
could not find a theory they imagined it was artifact or fraud. and for those 
who accepted the experiments, since they could not find a theory in classical 
QM, they invented new physics...

Hard for modern minds to admit ignorance, and admit only negative knowledge 
(what it cannot be).


best regards.

Re: [Vo]:Continuous spin particles

[Bob Cook]

Axil--

Check this out---

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-hidden-electrons.html   

It sounds like pressure may make the electrons react with lattice of a metal 
oxide in an unusual way yet to be explained--

Bob

- Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:41 PM
  Subject: [Vo]:Continuous spin particles


  http://phys.org/news/2014-02-long-range-particles.html



  Can long-range forces can be mediated by continuous spin particles?



  I am coming to the realization that the only thing that is important in this 
universe is spin.



  If magnetic fields can change the spin of photons, those magnetic fields can 
control the force projections of those particles.



  This referenced article is supportive of this concept.


  This could well be what is behind the rotation of magnetic fields as an anti 
gravity mechanism.


  I think we can turn a rotating NiH reactor into an anti gravity device.

Re: [Vo]:Continuous spin particles

[Bob Cook]

Axil--

Your next avocation or vocation should be science fiction writing or at least 
advising...also consider consulting for Hollywood.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:57 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Continuous spin particles


  More,,,



  http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.1577



  On the Theory of Continuous-Spin Particles: Helicity Correspondence in 
Radiation and Forces






  On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-long-range-particles.html



Can long-range forces can be mediated by continuous spin particles?



I am coming to the realization that the only thing that is important in 
this universe is spin.



If magnetic fields can change the spin of photons, those magnetic fields 
can control the force projections of those particles.



This referenced article is supportive of this concept.


This could well be what is behind the rotation of magnetic fields as an 
anti gravity mechanism.


I think we can turn a rotating NiH reactor into an anti gravity device.

Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice

[Bob Cook]

Jones Bob here--

You indicated the following:

   >>Chris did not mention SPP implying that he probably does not know of 
the plasmon  polariton mechanism. It's too late now even though applications 
can be altered and augmented (but one loses priority).


Has anyone you know mentioned SPP in a patent?  Axil sure has talked about 
it and there may be others.  Axil's EGO  lecture last year  that Peter Gluck 
posted was pretty descriptive in this regard.  Axil has a little addition to 
the theory with his solariton particle, that may or should  be included in a 
patent application.  Fran may be interested as well as others.


Fran's experiment needs a window to look for high magnetic fields also to 
get a better handle on the science.This may make it more expensive.


Final question:

Has Kim published anything about BEC with paired +spin/-spin particles that 
are in effect  a Bose particle?  For example paired electrons, an electron 
and a proton, paired muons, a muon and electron, a He-3 with a D, etc.   I'm 
trying to think outside of Ed's box.


Such paring may help explain the D flux-through- Ca oxide  transmutations 
( 2,  4,  8,  OR 12 AMU)  in the Japanese experiments several years ago. 
Maybe they have already explained the transmutation phenomena they observed, 
I do not know.


Bob

- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 6:49 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen 
in a lattice




Hi Kevin,

Yes the is the same inventor I posted about yesterday-
Christopher Cooper. Everyone interesting in this facet of LENR should look
at the patent drawings and the simplicity of the claims. This should be a
breeze to replicate - if there is anything to it. This situation begs for
more information, but it looks like you were on that particular 
"wavelength"

(as Van Morrison would opine).

Yesterday - all indications seemed to be that Cooper's
several patent applications were speculative, as opposed to "reduced to
practice." This is due to his lack of publications and lack of data - 
which

can be explained by wanting to "fly under the radar" until the patent was
granted (it has not been granted). Moreover, as suggested in that post, if
one is in the business of CNT - which his company is - and one has read 
any
of the LENR literature mentioning CNT, then there would have been no 
reason

not to try it in a simple form, which seems to be the case.

Then, one can cogently argue that if he tried CNT with heavy
water and saw gain that is by definition "reduced to practice." No 
argument

there. And - on closer look, his application claims priority going back to
2005 so he is no newcomer to the field. I am stunned that he has not
published or availed himself of expertise outside of his own skills -
because of a major problem.

The problem is that this alone may not be patentable, due to
prior art - and yet he is using a light source for the input ! That pushes
everything into another realm of very high importance, depending on other
details. This could have been a huge breakthrough - except that Chris did
not mention SPP implying that he probably does not know of the plasmon
polariton mechanism. It's too late now even though applications can be
altered and augmented (but one loses priority).

That is too bad because otherwise he might have broad
coverage. As it stands now, this disclosure is terribly deficient in prior
art and looks unprofessional to an extent. Sadly, I think he will have 
very
little IP coverage in the end, when he realizes what is to be found in 
prior

art. But he came very close to a significant filing here. Too bad he chose
to fly under the radar. That strategy almost never works out well.

From: Kevin O'Malley

Hello Jones:
There is an interesting CNT patent mentioned on ECat World.

Carbon Nanotube Energy? New Patent Filed by Seldon
Technologies
Posted on February 28, 2014


Jones Beene wrote:
Another factor favoring CNT - as the containment mechanism
for hydrogen in an alternative version of LENR (instead of a metal 
lattice)

is the similarity to graphene in presence of electrons.
There is every reason to suspect that CNT would support
ballistic electrons at least as well as graphene. New paper.

http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/02/ballistic-transport-graphene-suggests-new-
type-electronic-device
From: Jones Beene
Hi Kevin,
I did include two variants of BEC- one is
associated with Kim and one with Takahashi. Neither can adequately explain
operation at elevated temperatures.

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

[Bob Cook]

Fran and Jones--

Maybe they make a thin substrate ( that H diffuses through, gouge out a line 
with a laser beam or electron beam, lay in the nanotubes and then make 
layers of the nanotube filled substrate film, sandwich these between good 
heat conductors with high magnetic susceptibility and finally  fuse the 
assembly together in a plate-like array under temperature and pressure.


That could do away with finding a geometric compound that naturally forms 
alternating geometries.


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Frank roarty" 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 6:37 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"



Jones, Yes, I agree.. the paper from Cornell re catalytic action only
occurring at openings and defects in nano tubes would also lend support to
your suspicion that he may be legit. He is in the correct industry and may
have discovered a way to increase the defects thru self assembly that 
would

surpass the random nature of the tubules approach. We know water molecules
do some unique alignments when drawn thru a nano filter and we know
multiwall nanotubes basically self assemble so perhaps he has married 
tubes

to some geometric compound that naturally forms alternating geometries
inside the nanotube..basically the Haisch- Modell tunnels but much smaller
and self assembled.
Fran

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 3:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"


Prolific inventor, possibly in LENR: "Christopher H. Cooper"

https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=ininventor:%22Christophe
r+H.+Cooper%22

Is Chris legit ... or is he more of a patent troll?

Over 200 hits and no known data or publications that I can find to back up
the claims... at least the excess energy claims. No papers on LENR-CANR or
elsewhere pop up on google.

Here is why I ask - many of his filings are definitely LENR based, but 
there

is not much evidence that any have been reduced to practice. Most of them
seem to have been filed after the Rossi information about "tubules" or
whatever it was.

https://www.google.com/patents/US20110255644

However, he appears to be affiliated with a water filtration company, 
Seldon

Technologies of Vermont, which seems to be a player in CNT filters - so it
is quite possible that he stumbled onto the energy anomaly via other R&D.

I would love to see the data - if there is any.

Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice

[Bob Cook]

Jones--
Thanks.

Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 9:26 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen 
in a lattice




-Original Message-----
From: Bob Cook

Jones Bob here--

You indicated the following:

 >> Chris did not mention SPP implying that he probably does not know of
the plasmon polariton mechanism. It's too late now even though 
applications

can be altered and augmented (but one loses priority).


Has anyone you know mentioned SPP in a patent?


Yes but the first instance is not clear. See Egely: WO 2012164323 A3
https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012164323A3

But one cannot be the inventor of anything already known in prior art
whether it is mentioned in a patent filing or in the scientific 
literature.


Mention of SPP was made in the literature as far back as 1985. The first
instance I can find on Vortex is from GJB in 2011:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg58521.html

But I think the main credit for SPP in LENR goes to Julian Brown. I cannot
find the exact paper but he is/was prolific.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878

This is an important point and it would be helpful to track it down, but I
do not have time today.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

[Bob Cook]

Ken--

Is Chris's grandfather Leon Cooper?

The following excerpt is from Wikipedia regarding Cooper Pairs.


>>>n condensed matter physics, a Cooper pair or BCS pair is two electrons (or 
>>>other fermions) that are bound together at low temperatures in a certain 
>>>manner first described in 1956 by American physicist Leon Cooper.[1] Cooper 
>>>showed that an arbitrarily small attraction between electrons in a metal can 
>>>cause a paired state of electrons to have a lower energy than the Fermi 
>>>energy, which implies that the pair is bound. In conventional 
>>>superconductors, this attraction is due to the electron-phonon interaction. 
>>>The Cooper pair state is responsible for superconductivity, as described in 
>>>the BCS theory developed by John Bardeen, Leon Cooper, and John Schrieffer 
>>>for which they shared the 1972 Nobel Prize.[2]

Although Cooper pairing is a quantum effect, the reason for the pairing can be 
seen from a simplified classical explanation.[2][3] An electron in a metal 
normally behaves as a free particle. The electron is repelled from other 
electrons due to their negative charge, but it also attracts the positive ions 
that make up the rigid lattice of the metal. This attraction distorts the ion 
lattice, moving the ions slightly toward the electron, increasing the positive 
charge density of the lattice in the vicinity. This positive charge can attract 
other electrons. At long distances this attraction between electrons due to the 
displaced ions can overcome the electrons' repulsion due to their negative 
charge, and cause them to pair up. The rigorous quantum mechanical explanation 
shows that the effect is due to electron-phonon interactions.

The energy of the pairing interaction is quite weak, of the order of 10?3eV, 
and thermal energy can easily break the pairs. So only at low temperatures a 
significant number of the electrons in a metal are in Cooper pairs. The 
electrons in a pair are not necessarily close together; because the interaction 
is long range, paired electrons may still be many hundreds of nanometers apart. 
This distance is usually greater than the average interelectron distance, so 
many Cooper pairs can occupy the same space.[4] Electrons have spin-1?2, so 
they are fermions, but a Cooper pair is a composite boson as its total spin is 
integer (0 or 1). This means the wave functions are symmetric under particle 
interchange, and they are allowed to be in the same state. The tendency for all 
the Cooper pairs in a body to 'condense' into the same ground quantum state is 
responsible for the peculiar properties of superconductivity.

The BCS theory is also applicable to other fermion systems, such as helium-3. 
Indeed, Cooper pairing is responsible for the superfluidity of helium-3 at low 
temperatures. It has also been recently demonstrated that a Cooper pair can 
comprise two bosons.[5] Here the pairing is supported by entanglement in an 
optical lattice.<<<



Maybe the nanotubes support high temperature Cooper pairing.

Bob

  - Original Message - 
  From: Ken Deboer 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 9:56 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"


  RE C. Cooper
  Hi, Found out a little bit about Chris Cooper.  He was actually the founder 
of Seldon Technologies, which is based on his work with CNT's. He was trained 
in nuclear physics and may have a Ph., D. in it. He ( and maybe his father? 
William  Cooper) have fairly recently written over a dozen patent apps, mostly  
on CNTs in various applications.  The water purification technology, which is 
quite straightforward is described in this paper DeVolder M.  et al 2013, 
Carbon nanotubes: Present and future commercial applications. Sci 339:534-9.
I have been following various aspects of graphene for a little while for 
bionanotechnology apps, but mostly for the hell of it, but also always looking 
for its possible use as  lattice materials, some of which was kindled by Jones' 
comments a while back on silicon carbide. Graphene can be made a number of 
ways, some of which involves splitting of carbon nanotubes to form ribbons, 
including tunable ones, 'armchair' and the like. It can also be made directly 
from silicon carbide (Peng et al 2013. Direct transformation of amorphous 
silicon carbide into graphene under low temperature and ambient pressure. 
Scientific reports 3(1148) FREE).   Also they form Dirac cones which I gather, 
although I know nothing about them myself, are interesting. 
  cheers, ken 



  On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

Fran and Jones--

Maybe they make a thin substrate ( that H diffuses through, gouge out a 
line with a laser beam or electron beam, lay in the nanotubes and then make 
layers of the nanotube filled substrate film, sandwich these

Re: [Vo]:[OT] 740,000 Bitcoins Missing

[Bob Cook]

Terry--

Sounds like a good idea for the thief--steal the bitcoins, destroy them and 
increase the worth of the ones you have in another exchange.  The ones that 
remain may be worth a lot more, or maybe nothing.  It will be interesting to 
see what happens to bitcoin mining activity.


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Blanton" 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] 740,000 Bitcoins Missing



Here is Forbes' explanation:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedia/2014/02/28/bitcoin-mass-hysteria-the-disaster-that-brought-down-mt-gox/

The thief changed the transaction id and placed it ahead of MtGox's
transaction and the thief then claimed the transaction never occurred
according to this explanation.

Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

Brown's 2007 item you refer to below is close to my first impression of what 
was happening back in 1989 in the P-F experiment.   An excerpt from Brown's 
paper is included below:


Enhanced low energy fusion rate in palladium (Pd) due to vibrational 
deuteron dipole-dipole interactions and associated resonant tunneling that 
over-cancels the Jastrow factor between deuteron pair wavefunctions

J.S.Brown
(Submitted on 12 Nov 2007)
 We show that interstitial hydrogen nuclei on a metallic lattice are 
strongly coupled to their near neighbors by the unscreened electromagnetic 
field mediating transitions between low-lying states. We then show that in 
almost-stoichiometric PdD clusters, in which most interstitial sites are 
occupied by a deuteron, certain specific superpositions of many-site product 
states exist that are lower in energy than the single-site ground state, 
suggesting the existence of a new low temperature phase. The modified 
behaviour of the two-particle wavefunction at small separations is 
investigated and prelimary results suggesting an over-canceling of the 
effective Coulomb barrier are presented. <<


I concluded that it was not unlikely that 2 D could occupy the same lattice 
position inside the Pd face center cubic array and pair up in the magnetic 
field that existed as an internal B field with high + and - spin states (a 
virtual helium nucleus) and decay to a ground state--stable helium--with 
distribution of the spin energy to the electronic structure of the Pd 
lattice.


I was not aware of the idea of Cooper pairs  of electrons in 1989.

I think I even wrote this down.

I need to better understand the coupling that Brown refers to regarding the 
pair of D particles.  It will be interesting to see whether he has the 
magnetic field represented in the coupling expression.


Bob



- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 9:26 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen 
in a lattice




-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook

Jones Bob here--

You indicated the following:

 >> Chris did not mention SPP implying that he probably does not know of
the plasmon polariton mechanism. It's too late now even though 
applications

can be altered and augmented (but one loses priority).


Has anyone you know mentioned SPP in a patent?


Yes but the first instance is not clear. See Egely: WO 2012164323 A3
https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012164323A3

But one cannot be the inventor of anything already known in prior art
whether it is mentioned in a patent filing or in the scientific 
literature.


Mention of SPP was made in the literature as far back as 1985. The first
instance I can find on Vortex is from GJB in 2011:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg58521.html

But I think the main credit for SPP in LENR goes to Julian Brown. I cannot
find the exact paper but he is/was prolific.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878

This is an important point and it would be helpful to track it down, but I
do not have time today.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice

[Bob Cook]

Jones and Fran--

Brown in the paper cited does NOT include the effect of magnetic fields. 
This omission would seem to be relative to one of his conclusions which 
follows from the paper:
The intrinsic complexity of this exact method and the inapplicablity of a 
per-


turbative approach have so far confounded our attempts to establish a lower

bound on the absolute minimum site energy. It follows from the variational

principle that inclusion of higher |s, n) states, as well as further 
increase in pla-


quette size, will result in even lower minimum energies. A mean-field 
approach


is perhaps indicated, but we have as yet to find a sufficiently accurate 
formula-


tion. It is nevertheless already clear from the above data that entangled 
states


are favoured in the stoichiometric regime. The existence of a low 
temperature


phase in which all the deuterons cohere in a mesoscopically entangled state 
is


hence strongly indicated.<<



He suggests the inclusion of higher Spin--s--,n states will make reactions 
possible at lower energy input to the system.


The math may be very hard to do the magnetic field/spin coupling?

Bob


- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 9:26 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen 
in a lattice




-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook

Jones Bob here--

You indicated the following:

 >> Chris did not mention SPP implying that he probably does not know of
the plasmon polariton mechanism. It's too late now even though 
applications

can be altered and augmented (but one loses priority).


Has anyone you know mentioned SPP in a patent?


Yes but the first instance is not clear. See Egely: WO 2012164323 A3
https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012164323A3

But one cannot be the inventor of anything already known in prior art
whether it is mentioned in a patent filing or in the scientific 
literature.


Mention of SPP was made in the literature as far back as 1985. The first
instance I can find on Vortex is from GJB in 2011:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg58521.html

But I think the main credit for SPP in LENR goes to Julian Brown. I cannot
find the exact paper but he is/was prolific.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878

This is an important point and it would be helpful to track it down, but I
do not have time today.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

Refeerences used in Brown's 2007 paper are as follows:
 >>
[1] G. Kurizki, A. Kofman, V.Yudson, Phys. Rev. A53 R35-R38 (1996).

[2] J.Brown, arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608292

[3] H.Krimmel, L. Schimmele, C. Els¨asser, M. F¨ahnle, J.Phys. Condens. 
Matt. 6


7679-7704 (1994).

[4] M.Dyer,C.Zhang,A.Alavi, ChemPhysChem 6, 1711-1715 (2005).

[5] M.Puska, R.Nieminen, Phys. Rev. B29, 5382-5397 (1984).<<



Note the oldest was 1984.



Bob

- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 9:26 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen 
in a lattice




-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook

Jones Bob here--

You indicated the following:

 >> Chris did not mention SPP implying that he probably does not know of
the plasmon polariton mechanism. It's too late now even though 
applications

can be altered and augmented (but one loses priority).


Has anyone you know mentioned SPP in a patent?


Yes but the first instance is not clear. See Egely: WO 2012164323 A3
https://www.google.com/patents/WO2012164323A3

But one cannot be the inventor of anything already known in prior art
whether it is mentioned in a patent filing or in the scientific 
literature.


Mention of SPP was made in the literature as far back as 1985. The first
instance I can find on Vortex is from GJB in 2011:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg58521.html

But I think the main credit for SPP in LENR goes to Julian Brown. I cannot
find the exact paper but he is/was prolific.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878

This is an important point and it would be helpful to track it down, but I
do not have time today.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

We may have to wait for Ed's book.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jones Beene 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 1:20 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"


   

  From: Edmund Storms 

   

  Nice thought Kevin. Chris and I collaborated to see if CNT were nuclear 
active. They were not, at least when using our methods. I suspect the 
conditions in the tube are not correct to form the Hydroton. 

   

  Well, it is good to know that you and Chris collaborated, but not so good to 
learn that his technique may not work, as claimed.

   

  Can you describe what methods were used?

   

  Did you use a coherent or nearly coherent light source? Without a source of 
coherent light, SPP are unlikely to form.

   

  Jones

   

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

[Bob Cook]

Ed-- 

Regarding your comment copied from below--"No amount of discussion about 
magnetic fields, hidden electrons, particle spin, etc is useful unless it can 
show exactly what needs to be done to cause the reaction to occur in the first 
place. " --I agree.  However, you seem to always take on a discussion to find 
the cause of the reaction considering basic physical parameters that you seem 
to recognize as real.

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 1:43 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"


  As I have posted repeatedly, the key to developing an active and very strong  
reaction is to provide a wide range of micro/nanoparticle sizes. This 
requirement  comes from nanoplasmonic doctrine.

  A single sized particle does not work. 

  For example, in the open source high school reactor (cop = 4) that does work, 
the design calls for a tungsten particle collection of varying diameters.


  The 5 micron micro-particles coated with nanowire is important in feeding 
power into the aggregation of smaller nanoparticles.

  This is how Rossi's secret sauce fits in. Potassium nanoparticles provide and 
intermediate sized particle population to the particle ensembles. Hydrogen 
provides the smallest particle population.

  When there are particles of varying size clump together, and alight on the 
nickel nanowires, strong dipole motion in the micro particles drive the 
reactions in the spaces between the hydrogen nanoparticles.

  The bigger particles act like step-up windings in a high voltage transformer 
as power is feed to the smallest particles.

  If a single diameter sized nanoparticle is used, the reaction will not work. 
If only nanoparticles are use in the reaction, the reaction will not be strong. 






  On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:


Nice thought Kevin. Chris and I collaborated to see if CNT were nuclear 
active. They were not, at least when using our methods. I suspect the 
conditions in the tube are not correct to form the Hydroton. 


As is typical, the situation in the chemical structure is more complex than 
expected. No amount of discussion about magnetic fields, hidden electrons,  
particle spin, etc is useful unless it can show exactly what needs to be done 
to cause the reaction to occur in the first place.  


Ed Storms


On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:


  Wouldn't that lend itself to corroborating Ed Storms's theories about 
cracks & the NAE?  




  On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Frank roarty  wrote:

Jones, Yes, I agree.. the paper from Cornell re catalytic action only
occurring at openings and defects in nano tubes   

Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

Too bad we do not have a similar presence in the US Patent Office.  We may 
have been the leaders in LENR.


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 2:11 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen 
in a lattice



BTW - Julian Brown, aka JS Brown, aka J Brown is a top Oxford physicist, who
was very interested in LENR before going over the European Patent Office
(EPO).

All of papers on arXiv are worth rereading.

Unlike the USPTO - patents mentioning LENR are allowed in Europe, probably
due to Brown's influence.


-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook

Jones--

Refeerences used in Brown's 2007 paper are as follows:
 >>
[1] G. Kurizki, A. Kofman, V.Yudson, Phys. Rev. A53 R35-R38 (1996).

[2] J.Brown, arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608292

[3] H.Krimmel, L. Schimmele, C. Els¨asser, M. F¨ahnle, J.Phys. Condens.
Matt. 6

7679-7704 (1994).

[4] M.Dyer,C.Zhang,A.Alavi, ChemPhysChem 6, 1711-1715 (2005).

[5] M.Puska, R.Nieminen, Phys. Rev. B29, 5382-5397 (1984).<<



Note the oldest was 1984.

Re: [Vo]:[OT] 740,000 Bitcoins Missing

[Bob Cook]

Jed--

Who makes the 1% or more mark up on foreign currency exchanges anyway?  Why is 
it not an exchange based on the current international rate with no markup for 
the common trader?  It seems there may be a monopoly in that currency exchange 
business.  

Bob Cook
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 2:26 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] 740,000 Bitcoins Missing


  Craig  wrote:


Borders are opening up as people are now able to trade with each other 
without the expensive exchange rate tax, which every merchant in every 
third-world country experiences when he tries to compete with countries which 
do not want his government's currency.


  Surely we can find a solution to that problem that does not involve a 
ponzi-scheme currency that fluctuates in value by hundreds of dollars a day, 
and that is wide open to the largest theft in the history of banking.



No longer need people be burdened by expensive transaction fees which can 
cost upwards of $50, and a day's time, to send money to some other part of the 
world.


  I often buy things in Japan with a credit card, such as books from Amazon.com 
Japan. It takes no time at all. It is no different from buying things from a 
U.S. vendor. The bank charges a little extra for the currency conversion. You 
can send money to people in Japan with PayPal, I believe.


  Maybe this is not an option in the third world, but I suppose it could be. I 
have seen web sites in Guatemala recently that take credit cards.


  I will grant, buying with a credit card is not an anonymous, untraceable 
transaction. I know that libertarians and drug dealers want it it be anonymous 
and untraceable, but I don't care about that, and I suppose most people do not 
care.



Bitcoin will be to money, what email is to the telephone, and what the 
telephone is to mail: Revolutionary!


  Bitcoin is to the telephone as the "burner" throw-away cell phones are to 
regular cell phones: an ideal way to conduct criminal activities.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

[Bob Cook]

Ed--

I would identify a mechanism for overcoming the classical Coulomb barrier you 
refer to:

See JS Browns idea as copied from his paper written in October 2006--its 
instructive as to possible cause of LENR in the Pd-D system.   
arXiv:cond-mat/0610403v1 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 15 Oct 2006


>>>The normalized amplitude of these dominant configurations is on the order of

2N times greater than in the normal incoherent regime, all cross-terms van-

ishing by virtue of the orthogonality of the component states. The probability

that any one adjacent pair at 01:10 have tunneled through the classically for-

bidden region under their mutual Coulomb barrier is accordingly multiplied by

the same exponential factor (N.B. the tunnelling probability is proportional to

the square of the sum of very many, extremely small, unipolar contributions,

multiplied by the oscillation frequency). In a mesoscopic region comprising

many hundreds of adatoms, this factor amounts to many orders of magnitude

and may transform the otherwise vanishingly small fusion rate into an exper-

imentally observable phenomenon with technological potential.<<

He goes on to say:

>>In view of the finite rate of particle exchange in the bridging sites, the 
>>state of N

coherent bosonic deuteron adatoms will quickly become exchange-symmetric.

Because of this, the amplitude of any one D-D fusion event will be shared

equally over all sites. This translational symmetry will presumably forbid the

emission of quanta of wavelength small compared to the coherence domain

and force a relatively slow radiationless relaxation of the fused deuterons to

helium-4.

References

[1] J.Brown, arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608292 (submitted to J.Phys Condens.

Matt.).

[2] G. Kurizki, A. Kofman, V.Yudson, Phys. Rev. A 53 R35-R38 (1996).

[3] Y. Todate, S.Ikeda, Y.Nakai, A. Agui, Y.Tominaga, J. Phys. Condens. Matt. 5

7761–7770 (1993).<<

Bob Cook



  - Original Message - 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:13 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"


  Yes Bob, LENR is real, it occurs in real materials, and it is caused by a 
real mechanism controlled by real parameters. It is exactly like hot fusion in 
this regard. Unlike hot fusion, a new mechanism is operating that is not like 
what physics has accepted.  Rather than suggesting any idea that comes to mind, 
the effort to identify this mechanism must focus on what is actually observed.  
What is observed creates limits and boundaries on what mechanisms are possible. 
Eventually, all mechanisms but one will be eliminated and at that point LENR 
will be understood.  The process of finding this single mechanism can be 
speeded up by eliminating a lot of proposed mechanisms right from the start. 
For example, any proposed mechanism that conflicts with  the laws of 
thermodynamics can be rejected without further consideration.  Of course, this 
requires these laws be understood and accepted, but that is a different issue. 


  This is like looking for gold. Simply wondering the landscape and pointing at 
every mountain as a possible location of the gold vein is not useful. The 
landscape needs to be studied, the geological events need to be identified, and 
location of found nuggets needs to be considered. Only then can the buried gold 
be found by eliminating all the regions where it cannot be located. I'm 
attempting to do this but I find very little interest in this approach. 


  Ed Storms




  On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Bob Cook wrote:


Ed--

Regarding your comment copied from below--"No amount of discussion about 
magnetic fields, hidden electrons, particle spin, etc is useful unless it can 
show exactly what needs to be done to cause the reaction to occur in the first 
place. " --I agree.  However, you seem to always take on a discussion to find 
the cause of the reaction considering basic physical parameters that you seem 
to recognize as real.

Bob
  - Original Message -
  From: Axil Axil
  To: vortex-l
  Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 1:43 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"


  As I have posted repeatedly, the key to developing an active and very 
strong  reaction is to provide a wide range of micro/nanoparticle sizes. This 
requirement  comes from nanoplasmonic doctrine.

  A single sized particle does not work.

  For example, in the open source high school reactor (cop = 4) that does 
work, the design calls for a tungsten particle collection of varying diameters.


  The 5 micron micro-particles coated with nanowire is important in feeding 
power into the aggregation of smaller nanoparticles.

  This is how Rossi’s secret sauce fits in. Potassium nanoparticles provide 
and intermediate sized particle population to the particle ensembles. Hydrogen 
provides the smallest 

Re: [Vo]:Kiev and Cold Fusion

[Bob Cook]

James and others--

The rumor has it that Industrial Heat, Rossi's underwriter, is negotiating with 
a Chinese Co to produce his reactors.  It may or may not be true.

Bob Cook
  - Original Message - 
  From: Lennart Thornros 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:53 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kiev and Cold Fusion


  Hello Yes, James. 
  If it is just the certification process that stands between LENR at market or 
not, then Kiev is a good idea but for certain many places in China, india, 
South America. . . .are contenders. 
  IP is just most other agreements worth about as much as the paper it is 
written on if there is compelling reasons to disregard. In my opinion all 
agreements are just perfect until the moment when one party feels he needs to 
pull it out of the drawer and read it again, then the agreement is worth 
nothing.




  Best Regards ,
  Lennart Thornros


  www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com 

  lenn...@thornros.com
  +1 916 436 1899
  6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650


  "Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment 
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort." PJM



  On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 3:17 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

So the reading of the situation from my diplomatic contact is that Putin 
will take Crimea and stop, with one exception:


There will be a natural gas shortage in Kiev this fall.


Ukrainians are known for technical improvisation.  Their techies are known 
for flouting international regimes regarding intellectual property.


Faced with a cut off of natural gas heat next winter, and the on-going 
delays in release of cold fusion commercial heaters due to "certification" 
procedures, one wonders if perhaps Kiev might be ground zero of the cold fusion 
revolution come next winter.