Thanks. I already have a temperature logger. Not so good butt it works temporary. But I also need to logg the electric current (Ampere). Its electrolytic experiments. On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 08:15:35 -0600, Bob Higgins wrote: Rather than a data logging multimeter, I would really recommend using something like the USB data acquisition (DAQ) units from the Labjack series ( http://www.labjack.com  ). These units are very flexible and allow you to measure multiple temperatures (you can choose which thermocouple type), voltages, and counts (for example from geiger counters), and sample them all from 1 device with the computer. You can use their application to read the inputs or use custom software written in C, basic, or Labview to read and control the data acquisition. A versatile DAQ like this Labjack (there are also other brands) is a great core for measuring and automating your experiments. On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:45 PM, wrote: Hi! I'm in for making my LENR experiments better. I deed measure and log the current (A). Summon here has said something about a affordable multimeter with a logger. Its need to buy soon so I'm would be happy for advises about a proper devise and were to buy. Links: --  http://www.labjack.com  mailto:torulf.gr...@bredband.net
Hi! I'm in for making my LENR experiments better. I deed measure and log the current (A). Summon here has said something about a affordable multimeter with a logger. Its need to buy soon so I'm would be happy for advises about a proper devise and were to buy.
There are non nuclear mechanisms how may generate x-gamma radiation. Tape can produce it. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/012345/full/news.2008.1185.html Maybe same mechanism is in work during crack formation. The energy may be enough to produce gamma rays if its enough to produce fraktofusion. If the thermal effect observed real is exes heat this will indicate that cracks is the NAE. On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:16:21 -0600, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: Jones, the moral of the story is that the large amount of lead (and it probably took a whole lot for the HPGe detector) converted some of the cosmic rays into a small neutron flux. MFMP did not measure neutrons. To play devil's advocate, the hypothetical neutron flux could have produced short-lived beta radioisotopes when they activated something in or near the experiment. (This might or might not be plausible.) Eric Links: --  mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
Sokal article is clerly an danger in this field. On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:59:32 -0500, Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Maybe the intent is to shame Mats - or Rossi, or the whole field by promoting a spoof? Can you rule this out? Maybe. That possibility brings to mind this incident, where a fake article written by a physics professor was published in a journal of postmodern cultural studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair  Eric Links: --  mailto:jone...@pacbell.net  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
I had Holmlid as lecturer in the basic course of physical chemistry at Göteborg university around 1990. He had a reputation as a brilliant scientist but a awful advisor among the graduated students. At that time he was involved in development of solar cells. On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 16:58:41 -0400, Axil Axil wrote: I don't know if its wise to disabuse Holmlid from his opinion at this early juncture. It might be better to get other main stream scientists to replicate his work assuming it is hot fusion. It would then be great to show that all that replicated technology was in fact cold fusion. Let us not kill this chicken before it can hatch. On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: Hey Axil, The technical reasons he is no good is your opinion. I have no way to counter that. Just make sure you are not going to have to eat that. It is easy to be categoric using all existing knowledge and in the end have to eat crow. :) If you are right and he has the time to google our blog he will certainly think it over. If I could I would tell him your point. I just do not fully see the difference. I am sure you can email him at Goteborg's univeritet. He looks alive:0 Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com  lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 "Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort." PJM On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Holmlid is not thinking logically. First, there is only hot fusion and cold fusion, nothing in between. If he is producing hot fusion, then he would see gamma radiation coming from the impact of high speed neutral particles produced by the copper shield that surrounds the reaction spot. The lack of gamma radiation is a sure sign that the reaction that he is producing is cold fusion. Holmlid is a smart guy, it is hard to understand how he could not understand the difference between hot and cold fusion. Could Holmlid be doing the same thing that R. Mills has done, to deny that his research is based on LENR to get people to take him seriously. Does he want to get the scientific community to swallow the hook so that he can reel them in? Once they are flopping around on the dock, he will tell them that they are seeing cold fusion. One of those hot fusion developers will eventually ask how Holmlid is not dead from high energy neutron exposure and gamma radiation, What will Holmlid say then? He cannot hide reality from the world forever. On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: http://www.chem.info/news/2015/09/scientists-closing-small-scale-nuclear-fusion  http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/karnkraft/article3933699.ece  Too bad Mats didn't get to write that :( Links: --  mailto:lenn...@thornros.com  http://www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com  mailto:janap...@gmail.com  mailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com  http://www.chem.info/news/2015/09/scientists-closing-small-scale-nuclear-fusion  http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/karnkraft/article3933699.ece
This may be relevant. http://phys.org/news/2015-07-short-wavelength-plasmons-nanotubes.html On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:00:20 -0700, "Jones Beene" wrote: One of the most memorable details from Defkalion's flash-and-burn fiasco is/was the claim of large magnetic field enhancement. Another datum: the Letts/Cravens effect requires a magnetic field - along with laser light, and one implication is that SPP formation is accentuated by an applied magnetic field, even when the light source is not obvious. There is also the lore about carbon nanotubes LENR - or as in the patent app. of Cooper (US 20130266106 to Seldon Technologies). Can we connect the dots? Here is the site which links CNT to nickel and to a greatly enhanced magnetic field. http://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.82.193410  GIANT MAGNETIC MOMENT ENHANCEMENT OF NICKEL NANOPARTICLES EMBEDDED IN MULTIWALLED CARBON NANOTUBES …. "We report a giant magnetic moment enhancement of ferromagnetic nickel nanoparticles …embedded in carbon nanotubes …. The giant moment enhancement is unlikely to be explained by a magnetic proximity effect but possibly arise from the interplay between ferromagnetism in nickel nanoparticles and strong diamagnetism in multiwalled carbon nanotubes." Links: --  http://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.82.193410
If this is true it may support the theories by Hagelstein. The Th nucleus picking up vibration quanta until its emits alpha or brakes with cold fission. On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:29:33 -0400, Axil Axil wrote: This experiment did not produce neutrons or gamma radiation. These characteristics are common attributes of Cold Fusion and can be used to identify an experiment as LENR that deals with nuclear changes. The experimenters would loss their status if they said that the cause of this reaction was LENR. They came up with another explanation that should have produced neutrons and gamma radiation. On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: In the recent past the Kiplinger newsletter has mentioned the fact that there are renewed efforts underway in researching & developing nuclear power from Thorium decay. It's my understanding that many decades ago the US lost interest in developing Thorium-based energy when it became clear to them that they couldn't create atom bombs out of the low decaying element. I'm curious, What qualifies this as a so-called CF experiment? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks  FROM: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com ] SENT: Sunday, September 13, 2015 4:38 PM TO: vortex-l SUBJECT: [Vo]:Main stream science performs cold fusion experiment. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.5177.pdf  Speeding-up Thorium decay http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.5391.pdf  Remarks on the cavitation of Thorium-228 I doubt that Jed has anything by Fabio Cardone in his library. Links: --  mailto:orionwo...@charter.net  http://zazzle.com/orionworks  mailto:janap...@gmail.com  mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org  http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.5177.pdf  http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.5391.pdf
May the muons come from LENR in the substrate, initiated by the Rydberg mater, not from the Rydberg mater it selves. Its may be a kind of HAD. On source for muons may be pion-decay. Pion-exchange is a part in nuclear reactions and have been suggested by Takahashi. (side 574) _http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedl.pdf_ But the Pions in nuclear reactions are virtual particles. I know if a virtual particle can be real. On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:09:56 -0400, Axil Axil wrote: There are indications that Muons are extended in there lifetimes by Rysberg matter. The muons are produced for hours and days after the Rydberg matter is exposed to light. As referenced from the HolMlid paper as follows: The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. But in the experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not open ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If the ability for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open ended, the count of detected muons would reach a stable condition since cosmic muons arrive at a relitivly constant rate. . I believe that this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the coherent superconductive nature of Rydberg matter. Furthermore, the mean energy of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about 4 GeV. Muons, This energy level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid in his experiment. This implies that the muions seen in the experiment were produced locally by Rydberg matter. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene wrote: To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime of muon s (as opposed to creating them from nothing) . I think that we all agree that extending the lifetime of a catalytic particle like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural source - is functionally identical to making them anew. In either case, a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons would happen within the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not quantized. In the end, until Holmlid's experiment is better explained as something other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No? This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the thermal anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves muons interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does not involved gamma radiation. This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal anomaly - one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse to deuterium, despite the spin problem, and lack of evidence in the ash. Another possibility is that SPP formation is inherently energetic - but this is unlikely since SPP are seen in optoelectronics with no energy gain. My suggestion is simpler and based on the solar model. It suggests that the catalyzed fusion reaction happens but is instantly reversible, due to Pauli exclusion. Excess energy derives from conversion of a portion of proton mass to energy via QCD during the brief time when the diproton exists as a helium-2 nucleus, before reverting to two protons and a renewed muon. Until there is evidence of deuterium in the ash we have an ongoing debate in which the physical evidence favors one argument over the other. FROM: Bob Cook Eric-- Note my comment to Jones before I read your questions. Bob FROM: Eric Walker  Jones Beene wrote: D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a heavy electron with a short life, but now we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? … Maybe it's pretty high says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning - this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. A muon could possibly carry away as kinetic energy the energy that would otherwise go to a gamma. But if we're talking about a single muon, how do you propose that the spin of the missing photon is conserved? Eric Links: -- 
Muons forms from decay of pions. There are different pions and ways of decays but some without gamma, for example Pi+=U`+ neutrino. The Pions are involved in nuklear reactions as proton neutron exchange. _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion_ The Muons in Holmlids measurements may come from Pion decay. And the Muons must be an essential part in the LENR reactions. I had Holmlid as lecturer in physical chemistry and thermodynamics long time ago.
_Wealth is created by learning curves that result from millions of falsifiable experiments in entrepreneurship..._ Its says noting about the quality of this experiments. Some may really create new value but some only redistribute value. Even with gold its may be more safe to invest in old dept than in new technology. Or in extracting gold as Jed said. I think this only is a new version of the old mantra the government must do as little as possible. Yes central banks can screw tings up but they can also assuage things then the market screw things up. On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:53:52 +, Chris Zell wrote: FDR was nearly the victim of a fascist coup that is usually left out of history textbooks. And we do have nasty inflation in services, which is often overlooked in gov. stats. (NPR). Wages have suffered relative deflation as minimum wage will not pay for rent ( properly) in any of the 50 states. I understand that this may extend to all counties now. I am tempted by the viewpoint that society is like a 3 year old child just before bedtime. There is much commotion and resistance and yelling - and then sudden capitulation. We are seeing and hearing all sorts of craziness in resisting changes that our world must make. I believe that the Soviet Union and Fascist Spain ended because their leaders lost all faith in the system - followed by sudden change. In this, perhaps there is hope.
There are no bigger difference between government organizations and private corporations in this. There are more of the corps and therefore there are more chance some of them fit to new realities. On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 19:03:17 +0300, Peter Gluck wrote: Thanks, we will see it later. Peter On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: Dear Peter, I agree. There needs to be more flexibility in the current opinions. What I mean is that all to often the debate ends with a certain reason something is wrong because of known facts. That cut of the discussions and maybe the answer is in challenge a well known truth. I think so. No I am hardly able to understand the discussion in its finer nuances so it is not like I have an answer. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com  lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Lennart, Please me in the campaign of re-thinking LENR, it is very difficult because it is counter-stream thinking but I feel it is absolutely true anmd it is necessary to stop the existing theories to retard the field. Thanks, Peter On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: I think you bringing up the THEORY OF MANAGEMENT IN BROAD SENSE IS THE NEW PHILOSOPHY is of great importance. We have abilities we do not explore. The understanding of that our limitation often is determined by our knowledge is a great observation in my mind. I have often experienced that in life in all fields I have operated. I call it the competence of incompetence. One reason that competence exists is that when we do not understand what is true we can ask stupid questions, which question the truth. There are many schools of management and leadership development and I think they basically say the same. Just as most religions has the same message of love as a center piece. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com  lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Friends, With this: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/07/a-day-under-sign-of-paradox-for-lenr.html  I am continuing to support the Technology First approach. Axil says important things, well. Rossi's revelation- the E-cat can work beyond the melting temperature of nickel can be a game changing fact, if LENR takes place indeed in molten metal. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com  -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com  -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com  Links: --  mailto:lenn...@thornros.com  http://www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com  mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com  mailto:lenn...@thornros.com  http://www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com  mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/07/a-day-under-sign-of-paradox-for-lenr.html  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Its may be correct if the alphas not are from alpha decay but direct from LENR reactions. The alphas may have energy producing soft x-rays. On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:34:28 -0400, Axil Axil wrote: Regarding: ... the E-Cat is a massive source of alpha particles I have not seen this confirmed as an experimental observation. I understand that this statement has its origins in the theory proposed from N. Cook. I find this statement hard to believe since energetic alpha particle emission produces lots of powerful EMF such as gamma rays in the process of Alpha thermalization. Out of the various successful replications, no one has confirmed the detection of Alpha radiation or gamma radiation. To make the N. Cook theory complete, there should be reasons and mechanisms provided that explain how the gamma radiation from Alpha particles are thermalized or downshifted. Furthermore, it is bad to base a theory of E-Cat reaction on the production of ionizing radiation. Any source of nuclear radiation has, is, and will be regulated. This most probably will place regulation of the E-Cat under the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) nationally in the U.S.A. and the IAEA internationally. In other words to make a long story short, the theory of Alpha particle production will KILL the E-Cat and all its various uses worldwide. Does Rossi understand that his current reaction theory will kill the E-Cat? The theory of the E-Cat has quintessential political and regulatory ramifications. The formulation of LENR theory must explain how the LENR reaction is not harmful in any way, shape or form, that it is totally benign, and that it is supported by experiential observation. The theory of LENR must be crafted so that it does not place a killing weapon into the hands of the opponents of LENR. Does Rossi understnd this? I would advise Rossi to change his theory for LENR now.
Some pitchblende contains radium how emits gammas. On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 09:31:35 +1000, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 10 Apr 2015 12:48:35 -0700: Hi, [snip] which is why even small pitchblende samples make the Geiger counter go wild. Try putting a sheet of paper between the Geiger counter and the pitchblende. I think you will find that it makes a huge difference. Most of the activity detected is due to alphas emitted from the surface. (Got your saw handy? ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
May be of interest. https://fys.kuleuven.be/iks/ns/files/thesis/raabephdthesis.pdf On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:51:24 -0700, Jones Beene wrote: FROM: Bob Higgins Jones, What is your evidence for your statement: The Lugano isotope data, even if it could be believed, completely negates the entire scenario since Li-7 is NOT depleted according to the Lugano report - but instead is converted to Li-6. First of all, there is a crude assay based on the size of the pure sphere - and no evidence of large imbalance of Li-7 elsewhere. More importantly, 85 years of nuclear physics can present no thermal process where the bulk isotopic distribution varies more than a few percent per stage, yet the Lugano report, if it can be believed shows extremely pure Li-6 appearing in what is essentially one stage in one sample - many orders of magnitude purer than any know process can deliver. There are three possibilities - either the starting material was enriched in pure Li-6, which is most likely, or else the process of heat generation has converted the missing Li-7 into Li-6, which is endothermic, and unlikely to have happened in a process where excess heat is generated. The third possibility is that the ash was spiked with pure isotope. Neither of these possibilities can in any way support a conclusion of lithium-7 plus proton fusion, especially with the lack of the expected gamma, and no indication of helium. To say that Levi's crew did not test for helium is a complete cop-out and only indicative of further incompetence on the part of this team. With this claimed excess heat over 30 days there should have been a large amount of helium, actual overpressure: that is - if lithium fusion were taking place. A sample of gas should at least have been stored for later testing. Most likely conclusion - Rossi understood from the start that lithium-6 is the active isotope, and he provided fuel which was highly enriched, and at the same time, provided a different fuel for the testing of the before sample. Only Rossi handled this fuel. He had complete control, and no one complained. BTW - The cost of that much lithium-6 (about 50 milligrams) available from several suppliers, is about $10. Jones What I drew from the report was the only thing that can be concluded was that the 7Li is more commensurate to the 6Li in the ash as compared to the fuel. There was no mass assay that determined how much total Li was present in the ash compared to the fuel. We know that physically, a lot of the Li will be on the walls of the alumina tube, so we don't have any idea of the absolute depletion of Li mass in the reaction. While it is possible that the 7Li is converted to 6Li, it is only one of the possibilities. The ICP-MS analysis is a full volume analysis and showed both Li isotopes near equal in percentage in the ash. How these isotopes became nearly equal is just blind speculation at the moment without further experimental data. All of the possibilities for the ratio change from fuel to ash should be laid out and the plausibility of each examined. Bob
There have been p/Ni lenr with K and no Li. On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 12:18:36 -0700, Bob Cook wrote: I am not surprised that He has not been reported from the Lugano E-Cat test heretofore. Helium is hard to collect, being an inert gas, and at temperatures it diffuses rapidly in porous materials. I would have said much of the He in the Lugano test would have escaped the reactor, either during operation or upon opening for inspection. Rossi may have gone to some extent to collect the He that he is now reporting to confirm the Rossi--Cook theory of its generation. I am surprised at the suggested incredible occurrence of He in the Hot Cat test. It has been reported by SPAWARS and several others in early LENR experiments and has been associated with excess heat. Some of these experiments included Li in the reaction, making it a not-uncommon possible reactant in cases where He was actually identified as a product. This conversation leads me to guess at another mechanism to get to the high Li-6 ratio Jones indicates is difficult to reach by any known means, including expensive isotope separation processes. That mechanism would be the generation of Li-6 from deuterium and or protium directly in the Ni and Pd lattices. It may be that Li-6 was not necessary to produce He in the Pd lattice, but is necessary in the Li--Ni lattice system. In other words in the Ni system to arrive at the stable He nuclei it is necessary to go through the Be-8 configuration, using every bit of Li-7 available, and producing new Li-7 via He-6 and Li-6 or some other route making use of the available protium as the feed stock. If the Lugano analysis of the ash for Li-6 ratio is accurate, I do not believe that Li-6 could have been added after the completion of the test, given the difficulty noted above to make such a highly concentrated Li-6 batch of metal by any known means--Jones's observation, with which I agree. It is clear that Li-7 is a lot better liked by nature than Li-6 given their natural ratios. The wonder is that there is any Li-6 around if the natural generation was via He-4. As Jones apply points out He-6 may be the smoking gun to get to Li-6 and hence back to He the stable entity which nature likes because of its high binding energy. The Second Law has strange ways of expressing itself, particularly when it comes to nuclear reactions and coherent systems. Jones has suggested the coupling of Spin energy of a composite particle with the strong force/energy field provided by gluons and the effective mass they add to composite particles. It is suggested that the two sources of composite particle energy may be exchangeable in terms of mass. I have not heard of this, however, it may be the case. Assuming a wave function exists for composite particles, then this coupling I assume would be evident in the mathematics of the wave function. Does anyone have knowledge of papers relative to this issue of the mechanism for the exchange of spin energy to mass. (It should involve the conservation of angular momentum as well as energy.) Bob Cook - Original Message - FROM: Jones Beene  TO: email@example.com  SENT: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 10:51 AM SUBJECT: RE: [Vo]:mainstream physics paper bout the Hot Cat, co-author Andrea Rossi FROM: Bob Higgins Jones, What is your evidence for your statement: The Lugano isotope data, even if it could be believed, completely negates the entire scenario since Li-7 is NOT depleted according to the Lugano report - but instead is converted to Li-6. First of all, there is a crude assay based on the size of the pure sphere - and no evidence of large imbalance of Li-7 elsewhere. More importantly, 85 years of nuclear physics can present no thermal process where the bulk isotopic distribution varies more than a few percent per stage, yet the Lugano report, if it can be believed shows extremely pure Li-6 appearing in what is essentially one stage in one sample - many orders of magnitude purer than any know process can deliver. There are three possibilities - either the starting material was enriched in pure Li-6, which is most likely, or else the process of heat generation has converted the missing Li-7 into Li-6, which is endothermic, and unlikely to have happened in a process where excess heat is generated. The third possibility is that the ash was spiked with pure isotope. Neither of these possibilities can in any way support a conclusion of lithium-7 plus proton fusion, especially with the lack of the expected gamma, and no indication of helium. To say that Levi's crew did not test for helium is a complete cop-out and only indicative of further incompetence on the part of this team. With this claimed excess heat over 30 days there should have been a large amount of helium, actual overpressure: that is - if lithium fusion were taking place. A sample of gas should at least have been stored for later testing. Most likely conclusion - Rossi understood
Good but with a reservation. In some labs are sometimes storages of old chemicals how can be used decades after being buy. Torulf. On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 09:54:36 -0700, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jones, Li6 production was stopped in 1963. The depleted lithium that was a by-product of enrichment has (probably) long ago been distributed and used up. It is highly unlikely that current producers are changing the natural ratio of Li-6 to Li-7-- as depleting it for the general public would involve enriching into a controlled material with no (current) demand. You can buy 99% pure lithium ingots for $50/kg and at that price it will not be depleted. That said, MFMP reports: The first packet of Dr. Parkhomov powder arrived at Bob Higgins in New Mexico a few hours ago and a portion of that will be going to Dr Edmond Storms for SEM / EDX tomorrow by post. We may all know exactly what his fuel Nickel looks like before we get a chance to run it! - Brad On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Correction: Some new information received just now indicates that the Li-6 problem was recognized early on, at least at one conference. (Provo) I will try to check this out if I can locate the documents. Since this information did not turn up in a google search, it could be that the details of lithium depletion were known early on, but not widely appreciated – at least in implications. Everyone seems to have been convinced that cold fusion was deuterium fusion so the isotopic contribution of electrolyte would not matter. If this depletion of Li-6 had been widely appreciated in potential impact, then one would think that two experiments, one with Li-6 and one with Li-7 would have been performed years ago. A reference for that does not turn up either. From: Jones Beene Up until very recently – when a researcher – even at a top Lab - bought lithium hydroxide, it almost never contained the natural level of Lithium-6 (which is already low). This is an undisputable fact, not revealed until circa 2010 – that for 50 years in the USA there has been a hidden isotopic depletion in commercial lithium – which was a relic of the cold war. Don’t ask don’t tell. What does this mean for LENR, in the historical perspective - “if and when” it is finally shown that the active isotope – going all the way back to 1989 is and always has been Li-6 and not deuterium? For one thing, this helps to explain why the cold fusion reaction was so hard to replicate. Obviously is success depends on one rare isotope which is never more than 7-8% under the best of circumstances (unless deliberately enriched)– and that isotope is systematically removed from some but not all commercial electrolytes – then it becomes very difficult to achieve the same results from run to run. Most of the available electrolyte was severely depleted and simply will not work at all. RELEVANT QUOTE: “Because of the fact that the enrichment of Li-6 was part of a classified military weapons program, the general scientific community and the public were never provided information that the lithium being distributed in the chemical reagents was depleted in Li-6. This distribution resulted in labels on containers of reagents, which had incorrect atomic weight values listed on them.” http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/2010/3201/3_holden.html I have come to believe in recent weeks that Li-6 is the active isotope for thermal gain. Admittedly that is not proved yet, but I think it will be in the next few months. It really pisses me off that this charade has been going on for all of these years and some of the biggest critics of cold fusion, early on – probably knew this all along. Jones
Its may be a simple test to see if a sample not have natural atomic weight. Make an 0.100M solution of LIOH from the natural atomic weight. Titrate with standard HCl solution. From the difference from the expected volume HCl can the difference in atomic weight be calculated. Torulf. On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 16:12:26 -0700, Jones Beene wrote: Up until very recently - when a researcher - even at a top Lab - bought lithium hydroxide, it almost never contained the natural level of Lithium-6 (which is already low). This is an undisputable fact, not revealed until circa 2010 - that for 50 years in the USA there has been a hidden isotopic depletion in commercial lithium - which was a relic of the cold war. Don't ask don't tell. What does this mean for LENR, in the historical perspective - if and when it is finally shown that the active isotope - going all the way back to 1989 IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN Li-6 and not deuterium? For one thing, this helps to explain why the cold fusion reaction was so hard to replicate. Obviously is success depends on one rare isotope which is never more than 7-8% under the best of circumstances (unless deliberately enriched)- and that isotope is systematically removed from some but not all commercial electrolytes - then it becomes very difficult to achieve the same results from run to run. Most of the available electrolyte was severely depleted and simply will not work at all. RELEVANT QUOTE: Because of the fact that the enrichment of Li-6 was part of a classified military weapons program, the general scientific community and the public were never provided information that the lithium being distributed in the chemical reagents was depleted in Li-6. This distribution resulted in labels on containers of reagents, which had incorrect atomic weight values listed on them. http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/2010/3201/3_holden.html  I have come to believe in recent weeks that Li-6 is the active isotope for thermal gain. Admittedly that is not proved yet, but I think it will be in the next few months. It really pisses me off that this charade has been going on for all of these years and some of the biggest critics of cold fusion, early on - probably knew this all along. Jones Links: --  http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/2010/3201/3_holden.html
Re: [Vo]:Helium-3 Generation from the Interaction of Deuterium Plasma inside a Hydrogenated Lattice: Red Fusion
There are a patent for the same method. https://www.google.com/patents/US20130329844 On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:31:36 +0100, Alain Sepeda wrote: Lou Pagnoco have found a very interesting paper Helium-3 Generation from the Interaction of Deuterium Plasma inside a Hydrogenated Lattice: Red Fusion http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/591/1/012039/pdf/1742-6596_591_1_012039.pdf  It is a D+H fusion at the interface between plasma and hydride, producing He3 without gamma, but with phonon. It really look like a LENR reaction. not far from a Mizuno environment ? It is patented... http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1253-Red-Fusion-Paper-Aneutronic-Patent-Application/  Links: --  http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/591/1/012039/pdf/1742-6596_591_1_012039.pdf  http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1253-Red-Fusion-Paper-Aneutronic-Patent-Application/
The reaction is known in hot p/B fusion. p+B11=C12* C12*=He4+Be8 Be8=2He4 Its another way to form C*. On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:57:23 -0700, Jones Beene wrote: Ø It is pretty much that simple, and it explains cold fusion not as fusion of deuterons but as fusion of Li-6 in the electrolyte. Side note. There is a semantic issue here since the end product - the helium nucleus is of lower mass than the reactant, Li-6 so this cannot be fusion. Technically LENR could be cold fission, instead of cold fusion. J BTW - in case you were wondering, there is such a known phenomenon - called cold fission but it involves very heavy nuclei. This would be an entirely different version of it, if it were real. To be more exact, however, what we are surmising is cold-fusion-fission - where lithium goes to carbon and then back to helium.
If I not remember wrong, Swartz had serial tests of nanors. On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:25:40 -0400, Alberto De Souza wrote: I mean (very truthful, but we need two ammeters, therefore, problems with skeptics). On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Alberto De Souza wrote: If we put the heaters in series, we are sure the current is the same in both. It is easy to measure the voltage on each one of them with a hand voltimeter. With current and voltage, we can compute the resistance of each one and the power each one is dissipating. Conversely, if we put them in parallel, the voltage is the same. But we have to measure the current on each one of them. One can do that with a series ammeter (very truthful, but we need to ammeters, therefore, problems with skeptics) or with a inductive one (not so much truthful because the measurement is indirect; problems with skeptics). I would go with the series circuit. One just need more voltage from the variac transformer to power two reactors. Alberto. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Bob Cook wrote: The resistance of the two legs of the circuit components will change as a function of temperature. Thus, if power input is to be the same or even predictable, the resistances of the coils along their length as a function of temperature should be known. This bit of information is not trivial. Bob - Original Message - FROM: Axil Axil  TO: vortex-l  SENT: Friday, March 20, 2015 1:57 PM SUBJECT: Re: [Vo]:fast LENR news about Parkhomov, etc., Series and parallel circuits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_and_parallel_circuits  In a series circuit, the current through each of the components is the same, and the voltage  across the circuit is the sum of the voltages across each component.  In a parallel circuit, the voltage across each of the components is the same, and the total current is the sum of the currents through each component.  We would also need to show that the current to the two reactors was the same using two ammeters connected to the heater coil of each reactor. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Would we not want to wire the reactors in parallel to avoid a voltage drop between the two reactors if they were connected in series? On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Alberto De Souza wrote: Alain, you are right in your analysis. A skeptic may point out all the problems you have mentioned. But we have something new now: MFMP and their live science approach. If they show (live) the complete process of puting the two reactors in series and the reactor with fuel shows significantly higher temperature for enough time, it is done. No skeptic whining will be strong enough to change the tide. All big-funded laboratories in world will try and replicate the results in the following few days (all relevant data for replication will be in the Internet). MFMP is doing everything right, and they are using the weapons of today - immediate socialization of information. If they are successful in a experiment as I have suggested, i.e. a live experiment with a clear null hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis ), they will make history. To my knowledge, no one in history have yet presented an experiment showing significant excess heat side by side with its null hypothesis. Either the experimenters try to show excess heat with calorimetry (too hard) or they do the experimental test and the null hyposthesis in different moments and not taking proper care with the control variables. Alberto. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: hidden wire, RF supply, solar cell, can explain an apparent self-sustain. David have a good idea, that skeptic do the experiment themselves. some have done in their time and now they are here ;-) accused of fraud an delusion. moreover most skeptic refuse to experiment, and when experimenting have a tendency to reject any success and not to try long. It have to be easy. easy, with a theory, with a practical interest. I'm shocked today by the fact that most people instead of saying it is unreal, say me show me the reactor in home depot... either a theory or an application. there is no room in Science for unexplained phenomenon that are not on the market. 2015-03-20 16:50 GMT+01:00 Daniel Rocha : Alain, all of these difficulties can be overcome by a self sustained system. 3.2x system can vaporize, condense at certain hight, and use the fall of water to generate power. Links: --  mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com  mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com  mailto:janap...@gmail.com  mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_and_parallel_circuits  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_and_parallel_circuits#cite_note-R.26H321-1  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_and_parallel_circuits#cite_note-R.26H324-3  mailto:janap...@gmail.com
The formation of C12* is completely different but then they must be the same. The isomer energy may differ but must be enough to split the nucleus. In the hot fusion case there becomes a small part C12* how fails to get enough energy and instead emits weak gamma with a half-life about 15 min. On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:35:39 -0700, Jones Beene wrote: No … that's a completely different reaction to get to carbon - no bosons at all in the starting reactants - and it is very, very hot. FROM: torulf.gr...@bredband.net The reaction is known in hot p/B fusion. p+B11=C12* C12*=He4+Be8 Be8=2He4 Its another way to form C*. Jones Beene wrote: Ø It is pretty much that simple, and it explains cold fusion not as fusion of deuterons but as fusion of Li-6 in the electrolyte. Side note. There is a semantic issue here since the end product - the helium nucleus is of lower mass than the reactant, Li-6 so this cannot be fusion. Technically LENR could be cold fission, instead of cold fusion. J BTW - in case you were wondering, there is such a known phenomenon - called cold fission but it involves very heavy nuclei. This would be an entirely different version of it, if it were real. To be more exact, however, what we are surmising is cold-fusion-fission - where lithium goes to carbon and then back to helium.
Inductive heating may disturb the thermocouple if its in the magnetic field. Its may be good to test before. On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:07:05 -0400, Alberto De Souza wrote: To eliminate doubts about the current used on each of the two reactors, one just needs to put the two heater coils in series; the current will be exactly the same (at DC or, to a very good approximation, 60Hz). If the coils are made with the same type of wire and the wires have the same size, we have the same resistance. If the reactors are in the same room and close together, about the same heat dissipation. I would make one completely empty and the other with LENR fuel; so, we will have only one variable under test (the heat or excess heat - the dependent variable), only one independent variable (the fuel), and all remaining variables (control variables) under control. With COP 3 the difference in temperature will be huge and the experiment a great success (proof of excess heat). Alberto. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Induction Heater Circuit ~ FULL explanation schematic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVYMLnXW9uo  The problem with inductive heating is the lack of control over temperature that this method of heating gives. It will also produce overkill if the design is not well designed. The Russian has shown that it takes 12 hours of gradually increasing heat to control the LENR effect. It will take an inductive heater with a very small output to heat a gram of fuel over 12 hours; maybe just a few milliwatts of power. To calculate the COP, we must convert or calibrate the RF power delivered to the fuel into heat output. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:10 PM, David Roberson wrote: Jones, eventually you can adjust the shape and type of the fuel until it becomes conductive enough and has sufficient area to capture the time changing field and absorb power. The Russian team that uses an inductive heating technique described by MFMP pressed their fuel into pellets that have the right area and resistivity to work with their RF generator. In that case the normal heating resistor coil is not needed. I have not studied the standard cooking drivers but would be surprised to find that they would work efficiently into a object with a small surface area. You would be wise to construct a drive coil that has an inner area that comes closer to matching the fuel pellet. That way much of the magnetic flux inside the main coil is linked to the pellet. A tighter coupling would allow the reflected resistive component due to the fuel losses to appear larger in the main drive loop. RF current flowing within the main loop would induce power into the reflected resistance from the pellet and if the unloaded 'Q' of the main loop inductor is large enough, most of the input power ends up in the pellet and not as losses within the drive system. You can use resonating capacitors to cancel the input inductive component if you are skilled in the RF field. With careful matching of this type, you can come up with an overall system that efficiently converts the DC input power into pellet heating. But, it takes very careful and skillful design to make it happen. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Fri, Mar 20, 2015 12:20 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Am I the only one.. Dave Ø Jones, even at 40 kHz it is going to be extremely difficult to get enough current to flow inside a coil of wire. Remember, they normally drive the expansive sheet of resistive metal that has an effective resistance that is much less than an ohm. The coils that we are using is in the vicinity of 10 ohms. Yes, that is true but don't forget that the tube fill mix can be made conductive as well. This is the reason I suggested to Jack to use Fe3O4 instead of Fe2O3 as the bulk fill (or support material) with an inductor setup. The former is 6 orders of magnitude more electrically conductive than the later. So, you have a magnetic field that enters a much larger area of resistive metal when a pan is placed upon the unit than with the small coil. Then, the length of wire used in the coil has a large series resistance whereas the pan is more of a parallel resistance and much less in total value. Both of these effects are working against you. I agree but Fe3O4 is highly conductive - although we do not know what happens at elevated temperature in the presence of reducing compounds, but as long as it is not further oxidized, Fe3O4 should be in the few Ohm range, no? Not to mention acting as a transformer coil, to an extent. Jones Links: --  mailto:janap...@gmail.com  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVYMLnXW9uo  mailto:dlrober...@aol.com  mailto:jone...@pacbell.net  mailto:email@example.com
If there are some air in the reactor the oxygen will oxidise Ni an possible other compounds then the temperature becomes high enough. This binds the oxygen and it will lower the pressure. It will also make some heat, but only until the oxygen are consumed. Torulf On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:44:40 -0400, ChemE Stewart wrote: That's awesome! On Thursday, March 19, 2015, Jack Cole wrote: It is impressive even without calorimetry. He would have to make a severe mistake on input power measurement to be off that far. To be more specific, he would have to make a mistake on input power measurement on the run with fuel that he did not make on the run without the fuel (very unlikely). On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Jack, This morning - 8 hours ago, the reactor was still working. Nothing was announced till now. I am sure Alexander will work out a proper calorimetry system, not easy - if no sufficient cooling (as in his older system) risk of overheating and burnout. I have searched for the new sort of nickel he is using- it is Ni-carbonyl powder according to GOST 9722-97 (Like ASTM, DIN) type PNK-O2 See please here- with Google Translate http://meganorm.ru/Data2/1/4294820/4294820717.pdf  Please tell me if it does not work so. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Jack Cole wrote: Great work Peter. The fact that he has repeated the results using a method alternative to his calorimetry is very encouraging. In addition, the fact that he was able to run for such a long time easily rules out chemical effects. Hopefully, it will keep on running for more days to weeks. I was concerned about the fact that he ran out of his initial supply of nickel, but fortunately, the concern appears unfounded. There is another important detail disclosed - he only obtained 5 bar of pressure at max. This may well indicate that relatively low pressures are fine for initiating the reaction. That's good news from a safety perspective. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: The evolution of pressure is a lesson of realism, we have calculaled hundreds of bars from inside and have 1/2 bars from outside. Best wishes, Peter Dear Friends, I wanted that you should receive these news as fast as possible http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/03/fast-issue-lenr-parkhomov-news-from.html  We will discuss detais and connections later. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com  -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com  Links: --  mailto:jcol...@gmail.com  http://meganorm.ru/Data2/1/4294820/4294820717.pdf  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/03/fast-issue-lenr-parkhomov-news-from.html  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
I played with termite and stuff like that then I was young. I ignited termite with gunpowder and it melted steel. On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 21:08:17 -0500, Jack Cole wrote: If it actually got hot enough to ignite the thermite, that might melt the alumina. I was thinking Bob said some time ago that it takes temps somewhere above 2000C to ignite thermite. I haven't done the calculations for that yet. On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:16 PM, wrote: Aluminium powder and Fe2O3 may give lots of heat in short time a termite reaction. Have you any calculations about how much energy this reaction may release? On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 18:26:24 -0400, Axil Axil wrote: Steady accumulation of energy followed by its rapid release can result in the delivery of a larger amount of instantaneous power over a shorter period of time (although the total energy is the same). Energy is typically stored within a circuit of the device. What happens is based on the circuit of the dimmer. By releasing the stored energy over a very short interval (a process that is called energy compression), a huge amount of peak power can be delivered to a load. For example, if one joule of energy is stored within a capacitor and then evenly released to a load over one second, the peak power delivered to the load would only be 1 watt. However, if all of the stored energy were released within one microsecond, the peak power would be one megawatt, a million times greater. If the current rise is fast enough, the wire does not have enough time to heat up, but the magnetic flux during the rise might be huge. On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:09 PM, David L. Babcock wrote: Very sharp -just means that the power is applied nearly instantaneously. Not any more power, just whatever equals E2 /R. However the temperature gradient would indeed be higher, so the wire would expand sooner than the matrix around. If the matrix temperature rises and falls a lot during a small part of a line cycle, stress might get pretty high. But isn't the wire a near-zero expansion/temperature material? Ol' Bab -who was an engineer... On 3/17/2015 4:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: In these triac light dimmers, the rise/fall times are very sharp maybe in the nanoseconds. That means that a lot of instantaneous power is being feed into the heater wire as the power pulse starts when the leading edge waveform is used. On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Axil Axil wrote: According to Jack, the reaction did not happen in the fuel, but in the insolating layer. The fuel composition does not matter. IMHP, what matters is the exact nature of the heater current. On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Robert Ellefson wrote: Jack, Fantastic! I'm really stoked to hear of your progress. I think your powder recipe sounds very interesting, and I would love to know more about the details of the reactants. It sounds like you've come up with a mixture which may contain one or more key ingredients not yet identified as being of primary significance to the high-gain modes of these systems. If I may fire away: What size Fe2O3 and TiH2 grains were present? Is this mixture generally not hygroscopic, and therefore is curing the reactor's sealant a simple matter as compared to LAH? Are you tumbling or milling these reactants, or performing any other notable processing steps, prior to putting them into the reactors? Thanks for sharing, and keep up the great work! -Bob FROM: Jack Cole [mailto:jcol...@gmail.com ] SENT: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:08 PM TO: firstname.lastname@example.org  SUBJECT: Re: [Vo]:melted alumina tube Bob, The input power was ~260W. I don't know what the R value of the insulation is. I had the cell surrounded by high purity alumina powder and covered with a thin sheet of ceramic insulation. I used standard 120V AC 60hz with a triac type dimmer switch (chops the waves starting at V=0). I'll have to check with the manufacturer to see what the remaining 5% of the tube is. The heating element was Kanthal A1. It's strange that the heating element was able to completely melt at points. In the past, it has always failed before melting. I was using INCO type 255 nickel, TiH2, LiOh, KOH, aluminum powder, and Fe2O3. Good idea on the small amount of fuel which should cause some localized melting. The fact that the fuel was a small diameter cylinder seems to suggest that it was fully expanded in the tube and shrunk down. Jack On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Jack-- It looks like you had a pretty good reaction. What was the input power? What is the R value of the insulation on the outside of the electric coils? What was the nature of the electrical input--frequency etc? And what is the electrical heating element material? If you have an acetylene torch, see if you can melt a piece of the tube that melted. The tube may have had glass fibers incorporated in order to improve strength. You indicated it was 95% pure. What was the other 5%?
Aluminium powder and Fe2O3 may give lots of heat in short time a termite reaction. Have you any calculations about how much energy this reaction may release? On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 18:26:24 -0400, Axil Axil wrote: Steady accumulation of energy followed by its rapid release can result in the delivery of a larger amount of instantaneous power over a shorter period of time (although the total energy is the same). Energy is typically stored within a circuit of the device. What happens is based on the circuit of the dimmer. By releasing the stored energy over a very short interval (a process that is called energy compression), a huge amount of peak power can be delivered to a load. For example, if one joule of energy is stored within a capacitor and then evenly released to a load over one second, the peak power delivered to the load would only be 1 watt. However, if all of the stored energy were released within one microsecond, the peak power would be one megawatt, a million times greater. If the current rise is fast enough, the wire does not have enough time to heat up, but the magnetic flux during the rise might be huge. On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:09 PM, David L. Babcock wrote: Very sharp -just means that the power is applied nearly instantaneously. Not any more power, just whatever equals E2 /R. However the temperature gradient would indeed be higher, so the wire would expand sooner than the matrix around. If the matrix temperature rises and falls a lot during a small part of a line cycle, stress might get pretty high. But isn't the wire a near-zero expansion/temperature material? Ol' Bab -who was an engineer... On 3/17/2015 4:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: In these triac light dimmers, the rise/fall times are very sharp maybe in the nanoseconds. That means that a lot of instantaneous power is being feed into the heater wire as the power pulse starts when the leading edge waveform is used. On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Axil Axil wrote: According to Jack, the reaction did not happen in the fuel, but in the insolating layer. The fuel composition does not matter. IMHP, what matters is the exact nature of the heater current. On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Robert Ellefson wrote: Jack, Fantastic! I'm really stoked to hear of your progress. I think your powder recipe sounds very interesting, and I would love to know more about the details of the reactants. It sounds like you've come up with a mixture which may contain one or more key ingredients not yet identified as being of primary significance to the high-gain modes of these systems. If I may fire away: What size Fe2O3 and TiH2 grains were present? Is this mixture generally not hygroscopic, and therefore is curing the reactor's sealant a simple matter as compared to LAH? Are you tumbling or milling these reactants, or performing any other notable processing steps, prior to putting them into the reactors? Thanks for sharing, and keep up the great work! -Bob FROM: Jack Cole [mailto:jcol...@gmail.com ] SENT: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:08 PM TO: email@example.com  SUBJECT: Re: [Vo]:melted alumina tube Bob, The input power was ~260W. I don't know what the R value of the insulation is. I had the cell surrounded by high purity alumina powder and covered with a thin sheet of ceramic insulation. I used standard 120V AC 60hz with a triac type dimmer switch (chops the waves starting at V=0). I'll have to check with the manufacturer to see what the remaining 5% of the tube is. The heating element was Kanthal A1. It's strange that the heating element was able to completely melt at points. In the past, it has always failed before melting. I was using INCO type 255 nickel, TiH2, LiOh, KOH, aluminum powder, and Fe2O3. Good idea on the small amount of fuel which should cause some localized melting. The fact that the fuel was a small diameter cylinder seems to suggest that it was fully expanded in the tube and shrunk down. Jack On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Jack-- It looks like you had a pretty good reaction. What was the input power? What is the R value of the insulation on the outside of the electric coils? What was the nature of the electrical input--frequency etc? And what is the electrical heating element material? If you have an acetylene torch, see if you can melt a piece of the tube that melted. The tube may have had glass fibers incorporated in order to improve strength. You indicated it was 95% pure. What was the other 5%? What was you fuel mixture? You may want to try a small fuel loading and see if the same intense reaction happens--all else the same. Try the test with a iron core instead of a fuel load and determine if there is an apparent magnetic field which would hold the iron core in position when direct current is applied to the heating coil. An alternating current would of course change the magnetic field and may make for null reaction
I'm to incompetent but it is no hinder for speculations. And be patient with my bad English. If there are a hydroton or other MEGA-ATOM it may form a mega nuclear structure before it brake downs to stabile nucleus. Nuclear structures like that have been proposed stabile and possible to use for building femtotech and controlled nuclear matter. There was some news about it on Next Big Future. For example a possible proton- neutron linear whisker is proposed. Maybe a PEPEPE.. chain first forms a PNPNPN.. chain and then brake apart. Here are a citation from one of the news. _All of Bolonkin's proposed femtostructures seem unstable to me. His femto rods or whiskers are like streams of water which are _ _subject to instabilities that cause them to break into a _ _sequence of droplets. Imagine one of his rods periodically squeezing inward and outward keeping the volume fixed. If the surface area is _ _decreased the perturbation will be increased and eventually break the rod into droplets._ Links http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/07/beyond-molecular-nanotechnology-is.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/10/femtotechnology-ab-needles-fantastic.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/ben-goertzel-and-hugo-de-garis-have-new.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/05/speculation-on-possible-path-to-passive.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/03/some-links-to-my-work-and-interesting.html http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/01/10/searching-phenomena-physics-may-serve-bases-femtometer-scale-technology/ Torulf On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:36:21 +0100, Alain Sepeda wrote: Hi all, following different theory discussion, edmund storms theory, and my modest understanding I am proposing a speculation about LENR. first of all I am working in the framework of ed storms theory, not as hydroton, but about the reason that led him to propose hydroton. I don't care what is the animal. His key observation is about Iwamura transmutations, and I match it with many other strange observations : LENr produce few radioactive products, few energetic gamma, few neutrons... Iwamura observed that in his experiments the fusion of target elements like Cs was involving an even number of deuterium. Even number of hydrogen is important for symmetry, but the big surpsied is that between 2-4-6 deuterium , it seems the non radioactive outcome are prefered this make me think that this is not an accident but the natural target of the phenomenon called LENR. Ed storms key idea is that all happen in an insulated quantum object, of huge size, which dissipate the energy of fusion or transmutation, BEFORE the transmutation happen... I'm basically incompetent but I propose my (mis)understanding for review, in the standard model framework (please no hydrino, supergravitation... this is a game to stay in SM, like playing chess) my story is the following. for some reason (self building from gibbs energy) a big quantum object appears in hydrure material. all particles inside are intricated, and insulated from outside for some time. I propose that you consider that as a MEGA-ATOM... it is not a planetary system like an atom, but a similarly insulated quantum object, build from thousands of nucleus and electrons, a galaxy. it have energy level, states, and thus can radiate and absorb energy like an atom. (this is my understanding of ed storms theory, I invent nothing, at worst I deform) my idea is that (this is questionable) that MEGA-ATOM when created is not at it's bottom level because it is created from hot atoms, or from random geometry. it start radiating energy, by the smallest transition possible... I propose it is by quanta much below 100keV level, as it is observed. It may also eject some energetic particles like by evaporation cooling the MEGA-ATOM goes to energy level like -24MeV for deuterium, -6MeV for hydrogen, or other values for system containing impurity as iwamura observe... at one moment as a MEGA ATOM, because of the geometry change induced by cooling the state a quantum superposition including some fusion. when the quantum superposition disintricate it is possible that a fusion became reality, and this correct the loss of energy of the mega-atom. in fact I suspect that this kind of transition, because the mega-atom is in debt, is required. when losing intrication, the megaatom have to propose a new unintricated state that is of lower energy, this mean fused, or fissioned. It can also be among the allowed low energy transition. for the megaatom transition from a state where the geometry is compact low energy to a geometry more as usual with one fusion, may be a small transition. of course, this fusion will produce the least possible energy results. if it is helium, it won't be excited as with hot fusion, because the megaatom will have transitioned to a desexcitated helium before energy of excitation is added to an excittated helium ready to became tritium and neutron. I see many
There are still a possible fraud in isotopes in purpose to mislead competitors. On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 21:46:45 +0100, Alain Sepeda wrote: this does not change the fact that Industrial Heat gave a reactor with freedom to test anything on it. This happened also in Ferrara. this alone rule out fraud. once you rule out fraud on the calorimetry, you know that at least IH think it's reactor works. The hypothesis og isotope manipulation is not credible, both because it was too much to look real (really challenging), and because it is not important compared to the calorimetry now that the physicist made mistake or that the reactor was not hot enough or was broken is another story... clearly possible. what give me hope is that the calibration at 450C matched the model, ruling out the 0.90 emissivity theory... 2015-03-07 19:43 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene : FROM: alain.coetm...@gmail.com  Ø the statement I refer to were not in the report, but were specific answer given later. Yes that is a major problem - a recollection coming months later from the memory of an embarrassed scientist who had already been caught napping on the job - is essentially not worth very much, comparatively. Ø Ø in fact the statement in the report was ambiguous. Sorry, but there is nothing ambiguous in Levi stating that Rossi intervened remove the powder charge. How much clearer can one get? … and this is the official report - not an exculpatory memory coming months later. Jones Links: --  mailto:jone...@pacbell.net  mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com
Having titanium hydride as hydrogen carrier may not be so good because the H2 will come to an equilibrium between Ti and Ni. And the H lading will be lesser. Better is to pre load the Ni. On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:42:01 +, Bob Cook wrote: Dave, Jack, etal-- I concur with Dave's comment. You want negative temperature feedback, at least in the range of temperatures you want to operate. The same idea is used in the dynamics and control of slow neutron, water cooled fission reactors. The objective in this reactor is to keep the flux of slow neutrons constant with power requirements. More neutron flux provides more power and higher coolant temperatures. As temperatures increase more power can be withdrawn from the coolant leading to a larger differential temperature across the reactor. The cooler portion of the reactor produce more power than the warmer portions because a lower energy neutron has a better chance of causing fission in U-235 than the higher energy ones (hotter ones). However one objective for the neutron flux (which is a spectrum of slow and fast neutrons) is to assure the fast neutrons do not get the upper hand on power generation and cause a prompt criticality and a runaway reaction. Fast neutrons have a very short time constant for their multiplication and are not able to be effectively controlled once prompt criticality occurs. This analogous situation may occur in the MFMP reactor. The controlling parameter resonant responses of the NAR to temperature or some other variable, for example, wave nature of the Li g Cookas and/or the hydrogen gas needs to be determined and then controlled. That is the development objective for any viable reactor that I think Rossi has achieved.. Bob Cook Sent from Windows Mail FROM: Jones Beene  SENT: Monday, February 9, 2015 11:03 AM TO: firstname.lastname@example.org  Couple of more details of interest: the hydrogen release of TiH2 starts at 350 C but the compound is a poor storage material for hydrogen, as a general rule, since the last hydrogen will not be removed easily. However… hydrogen transport could be less important than participation in the reaction … Here is an old paper which indicates that titanium itself is very active for LENR, so it would be the ideal carrier for hydrogen which also participates in the gain. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DashJexcessheat.pdf  Simply use more of it. It is inexpensive. The magnitude of excess heat is said in the paper above to be greater for titanium than for palladium ! FROM: David Roberson That is good Jack. Perhaps it is less intuitive but it captures the behavior of these types of devices very well. If the slope enters a negative region then the positive thermal feedback wins the battle and the device heats up rapidly. The curve also will indicate whether or not a second high temperature region of stable operation is present. Your present design would be classified as a type 1 system in my analysis since the slope of that curve never enters into a negative region. Once you push it into a type 2 or 3 system the fireworks will begin. That is where Dr. Parkhomov is operating with his latest version that is somewhat insulated. It is going to take a lot of effort and good design for him to keep these stable. I modeled this curve according to the behavior of a tunnel diode. Since the voltage is analogous to the temperature and the power input analogous to the current it makes perfect sense. You can determine how to design tunnel diode oscillators or switches from that basic curve. I see the same thing happening with these LENR devices. I also realize excellent correlation to my previous computer models. Dave Links: --  mailto:jone...@pacbell.net  mailto:email@example.com  http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DashJexcessheat.pdf
There have been much talk about reactions involving Li. So why not use melted lithium? Mix Ni powder, LiAl- hydride or LiB hydride. Maybe mix it with a suitable oxide. And a Li pellet. Then heating its melt and enclose the powder. The container must endure liquid Li and being close for hydrogen. Its may have a protecting atmosphere. Not CO2 or H2 how reacts with Li. This to can be a dangerous experiment. Even if it not works, On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 20:09:24 +0200, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Friends, This : http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/02/lenr-in-molten-tin-statements-and-news.html  is written based on my desire to help LENR+ Or the Hot Cat is LENR++? Who knows? Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com  Links: --  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/02/lenr-in-molten-tin-statements-and-news.html  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
So its may be possible the main energy source is pepD and associated reactions. This may also gives D for neutron striping reactions. Torulf. On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 08:42:26 -0700, Eric Walker wrote: On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Sorry - but this reactor is made of alumina - which is a proton conductor. Beta alumina is among the best proton conducting ceramics but you would never use any form of alumina if you wanted to retain a supply of hydrogen after startup. Please see the section Diffusion Barrier to Oxygen and Hydrogen from this link, shared earlier on Vortex (sorry, I forget who shared it): http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560  From the article: The alpha-Al2O3 oxide structure, once formed, serves as a nearly perfect diffusion barrier for oxygen and hydrogen. I'm guessing the fact that alumina can be made a near perfect barrier to the diffusion of hydrogen is one of the reasons it was chosen (another is that it appears to be refractory). It would seem to be premature to assume that hydrogen quickly escapes. Eric Links: --  mailto:jone...@pacbell.net  http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560
Is sounds unbelievable because the Ni58 and annihilation radiaton. but maybe something like that may work. At the start up D is formed from p threw Storms process PePD And then D reacts with Ni in a Oppenheimer-Phillips process. The new protons then recycle back to D. This may provide D even if much of it is lost threw the wals. Torulf. On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 00:26:25 -0700, Eric Walker wrote: I wrote: In recent months my bet has been on transmutation from one isotope of nickel to another, but I will need to read the report to see how I continue to feel about that. I just read over the report, and I feel greatly confirmed in the hypothesis that neutron stripping of deuterium is occurring via the Oppenheimer-Phillips process. I'm also guessing that a 7Li(p,4He)4He reaction is happening, as offered as one possibility by the authors. This means there could be measurable helium, something I hadn't expected. The ratios of isotopes of nickel in the fuel prior to operation were the natural ones. After operation, the amounts of 58Ni, 60Ni and 61Ni pretty much went to zero. This indicates to me that those isotopes were consumed. By contrast, 62Ni went up dramatically. This indicates to me that 62Ni was the final point in the process, at least as far as nickel is concerned. The way I would expect the process to unfold would be something like this: * 58Ni → 59Ni → 60Ni → 61Ni → 62Ni * 59Ni → 60Ni → 61Ni → 62Ni * 60Ni → 61Ni → 62Ni * 61Ni → 62Ni The reaction would be Ni(d,p)Ni in all cases, and these four chains would occur in parallel. Clearly they're different stages of the same chain, but it's helpful to see the starting points. As you consider this list, keep in mind the natural abundances of 68 percent 58Ni, 26 percent 60Ni, 1 percent 61Ni and 3.6 percent 62Ni. Given enough time, and perhaps relatively quickly, you'll progressively burn through 58Ni through 61Ni to 62Ni, which presumably is neutron-rich enough to have a small enough neutron stripping cross section at the energies involved to prevent the chain from going on to 64Ni. There was a remark in the report to the effect that no deuterium was seen in the SIMS results, apparently in connection with the fuel and not the ash, although this is not made clear. Unless there was a specific effort on Rossi's part to use a fuel enriched in 1H, there will have been at least 1 part in 6000 D per H, which I assume would be sufficient to generate energy on the order described in the report from neutron stripping reactions. It is plausible that Rossi will have provided fuel that is not his best in order to avoid giving away too much information; one wonders whether a fuel with a larger amount of deuterium is used in other contexts. I'm going to guess that the lithium plays two roles. First, in the form of LiAlH4 it provides a hydride that can be used to release hydrogen (deuterium) over time. Second, it provides a booster of sorts when the fast protons ejected from the Ni(d,p)Ni reactions collide with the 7Li. Note that the isotope analysis shows that nearly all of the 7Li was consumed. I find it unlikely that there is any direct reaction between 7Li and nickel. There was a significant amount of iron in the fuel, prior to the experimental run. Note that Elinvar is an iron-nickel alloy that does not expand or contract with temperature . To my mind, the preceding analysis is consistent with what Yoshino, Igari and Mizuno's slides show, and it's interesting to note that they include slides at the end that give neutron capture cross sections for 58Ni and 60Ni (slides 56 and 57) . In this regard they seem to be obliquely hinting at a deuterium stripping reaction. One question that is somewhat of a mystery to me is why no radiation is observed. As far as 58Ni is concerned, there will be a miniscule beta plus decay after the transition to 59Ni that has a half-life of thousands of years, but I would assume this would be seen in the ash assay, had there been enough 59Ni. Beta plus decay leads to electron-positron annihilation photons, which will be detected by the devices used by David Bianchini. Presumably what 59Ni is produced is then consumed sufficiently that there is not enough at any given point in time to detect radiation above the normal noise in the background. But note that even if 59Ni lingered around, I suspect there would be few enough annihilation photons that it might be hard to detect them as something separate from background in any event. Eric  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinvar   http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/YoshinoHreplicable.pdf  Links: --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinvar  http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/YoshinoHreplicable.pdf
Thanks this looks fine. Rossi have to declare watt material he used. On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:41:33 -0600, Bob Higgins wrote: Jones, I think you have far insufficient data to jump to the conclusion that this is no longer a Ni-H reaction. Earlier, the hotCat used stainless, and it worked just fine. Before that, it was just added H2 gas. Just because alumina is used now does not mean it is beta alumina or even uncoated alumina and that all of the H2 leaked out. Here is an example of an alpha alumina coating that can be added to prevent diffusion of hydrogen: http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560  . I believe the process to still be a Ni-H reaction. That having been said, the 1g of active fuel powder + hydride would not be enough hydride to provide much H2 pressure in the large alumina tube (of course, we don't have a good idea what the internal volume looks like). Apparently when the powder was added, the device was shaken vigorously to disperse the small amount of powder inside the cylinder. Storms has noted before that there appears to be an unusual radiation coming from some of his tests that activated the window in his GM tube. It appears that transmutation could be caused at a distance; probably with a 1/r^2 sort of density of transmutation. Of course, there is sparse evidence for this too. Bob Higgins On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Sorry - but this reactor is made of alumina - which is a proton conductor. Beta alumina is among the best proton conducting ceramics but you would never use any form of alumina if you wanted to retain a supply of hydrogen after startup. All of the initial hydrogen is gone within an hour due to hydrogen diffusion. This looks like a lithium-nickel reactor. Links: --  http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3560  mailto:jone...@pacbell.net
To disprove it you must be more specific. Watt is the reactions between Ni 62 and Li 6? I am not a physicists to but have already proposed this cyclic reactions. And it may be easy to disprove. At the start up D is formed from p threw Storms process PePD And then D reacts with Ni in a Oppenheimer-Phillips process. The new protons then recycle back to D. But it says nothing about Li. On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 10:31:07 -0700, Robert Dorr wrote: First off let me get this out of the way, I am not a physicists so this is probably completely impossible, but I'll throw it out here anyway. What if the conversion of Ni 58 and Li 7 happen relatively quickly so that very soon after the reaction is commenced there is almost a complete conversion of Ni 58 to Ni 62 and an almost complete conversion of Li 7 to Li 6 and what sustains the reaction from that point on is primarily a cyclic reaction between Ni 62 and Li 6. Just throwing this out there. Go ahead and start telling me that this couldn't happen, I know it's a crazy idea. Robert Dorr On 10/9/2014 8:12 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: the powder change seems quite simple... no complex procedure... surprising. 2014-10-09 15:53 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher : At 04:23 AM 10/9/2014, Teslaalset wrote: I find it quite a coincident that after 32 days approximately all Ni and Li were transmuted to Ni62 and Li6. I would have guessed that running out of the original isotopes would create a reduced performance which would be the reason for shutdown. Why has this not been mentioned? Although none of the tests show it, I still believe that the ECAT will run, as advertised, for at least 6 months on one charge. The time for this test was set by the experimental team (and most likely by their host, which was paying for the power). I'm beginning to think that this transmutation was a burn-in secondary effect, particularly for the Lithium, which was there only to provide the hydrogen. If you ignore the bump when they changed the input power levels (files 4 to 6) the COP increased almost linearly over the whole test. So maybe the long term COP depends on these transmutations -- ie the availability of (most likely) Ni62, and coincidentally Li6 -- and would have stabilized just a few days later when the transmutation was complete. I wonder if Rossi knew this would happen. However, he usually runs his Ecats at higher power, so the burn-in might be much quicker -- and he's never analyzed the ash that early. He's also hinted that the 1MW baby at the customer has also needed constant attention and adjustment (including being called out in the middle of the night). Maybe it too is undergoing a settling-in period --- it's also been running for less than a month. But we won't get those results for at least a year, and they will be purely internal documents. In short, I think it IS coincidental that the Ni and Li transmutation was nearly complete at the end of the run, but that some other reaction continues beyond that point. And even if the 1g charge DID have to be replaced monthly it would probably still be economical. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com  Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8355 - Release Date: 10/09/14 Links: --  mailto:a...@well.com  http://www.avg.com
Levi, Essen, and company have made the chalorimetry, look down in the paper, there are more reports made by other people. On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 09:34:19 -0400, Foks0904 . wrote: Also wasn't this supposed to have been carried out by others beside Levi, Essen, and company? I don't see any new names here. Not that it matters to me, but won't we just hear the same bullshit objections that it's a inside job? On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: It's here! And it's positive! I suppose not too shocking to any of us here. COP looks very healthy and somewhere in between French's magic numbers and Jones'/Brian Ahern's speculations. Also looks like the ash changed significantly indicating some kind of novel nuclear reaction, as indicated by Miles, McKubre, and many others from past PdD work. But I haven't looked it over thoroughly enough yet. Fun days ahead folks! On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Craig Haynie wrote: A very positive test. Craig On 10/08/2014 08:24 AM, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex-L, Just saw thishave not evaluated it: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/  Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiralex Doylestown PA Links: --  mailto:foks0...@gmail.com  mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com  http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/
Who took the fuel-ash samples, and there? I can not find a account for this. On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 17:57:13 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: Pomp, pomp, pomp: http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/the-cat-is-dead.html  He apparently believes that calorimetry does not work, Prof. Stephan Boltzman are frauds, and the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed. Incorrigible is the word that comes to mind. I am not a bit surprised. I had no doubt the skeptics would respond this way. - Jed Links: --  http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/the-cat-is-dead.html
Its have been lots of unsubscribing in the last time. Can it have something to do with a increasing level of crackpottery at this site? On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:05:13 -0700, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Interesting argument that I had not seen before. And it starts with life being present at the beginning, whereas the earliest life postulated by abiogenesis proponents is about 5 Billion years ago. That makes it a very conservative theory. Working backwards, we should see the kind of change you postulate once every 2 days, not 6 days. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds) Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform. Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and single cell lifeform.) This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days (504576/1) for it to evolve into Man. This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why that is the case. Jojo - Original Message - FROM: Jed Rothwell  TO: firstname.lastname@example.org  SENT: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM SUBJECT: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed Links: --  mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com  mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com  mailto:email@example.com  mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com
As you say the new thing here are D in Ni instead of the old D in Pd. Maybe He stay inside Ni but diffuse more easy from Pd. New result are always more uncertainly, wait for replication.
I have made this at my home lab. There was no magnetic particles in the graphite at first. After the microwave heating I got magnetic particles. I tested it for iron in a simple wet chemical test and it show it contain iron. But then I extracted the untreated graphite in HCl and made same test. This show the natural graphite was contain iron from the start. The heat must have making the carbon reduce the iron from an unmagnetic state to a ferromagnetic sate. I have tested additional two different samples of natural graphite sold as pure and in both I find iron. On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 20:29:40 -0700, Eric Walker wrote: On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Brad Lowe wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms411WCBEZk  Is he creating magnetic carbon, or is it fusion? http://www.materialstoday.com/carbon/news/magnetic-carbon/  The article talks about how proton irradiation can make carbon magnetic. Even if there was proton irradiation and it did not result in fusion (proton capture), is still interesting that there would be a energetic protons. Eric Links: --  mailto:ecatbuil...@gmail.com  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms411WCBEZk  http://www.materialstoday.com/carbon/news/magnetic-carbon/
I have not yet read the book. But some of the critique here seams odd. To exaggerate it, The exes heat in the most researched systeme Pd\D are mainly caused by chemical effect and errors. If so I think there are a lesser far-reaching assumption that the results from the lesser known Ni- P/D systems also are caused by chemical effect and errors. Then the best conclusion should be that all cf phenomena are a result by chemical effect and errors.
I played around with my geiger counter an find it making beeps near my plasma bulb. It also making beep on a electric train then there are sparks at the connecting on the roof. I have heard that the geiger tubes is sensitive for electrical fields. But if the voltage is high enough a discharge can make X-rays. On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:13:28 -0700, Kevin O'Malley wrote: What I would do is investigate whether this alpha discharge happens when the arc reaches across a vaccuum. http://www.quantum-potential.com/ACT%20NASA.pdf  On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote: I have built myself a marx generator which produces an output voltage of the order of 20kV and which can produce a very nice fat spark if the output electrodes are close enough. I have a conventional geiger counter and I find it beeps if it is within 5cm of the high voltage output. The distance suggests alpha particles, but a peice of card makes no difference so I assume that this is an artefact picked up by the large and abrupt change in the voltage gradient. Oddly I could not find any reference to this artefact on the internet. Is this just something that everyone knows but no-one writes down? Nigel Links: --  http://www.quantum-potential.com/ACT%20NASA.pdf  mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk
Have someone read this book? It is good? http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Fusion-Unabridged-Rose-Doris/dp/1486197817/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8qid=1404158676sr=8-1keywords=Doris+Rose+fusion
or to red mercury? On Sat, 24 May 2014 10:27:48 +1000, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 21 May 2014 07:19:30 -0700: Hi, [snip] Mercury is one of a few metals or eutectics which remain a liquid down to fairly low temperature, and notable for Hg alone is the gas-phase. Mercury is a singularity in the periodic table in that it can exist as a monatomic gas, usually denoted as Hg(g). This lack of bonding is due to electron contraction by relativistic effects - which explains why the bonding for Hg-Hg is weak enough to allow for Hg to be a liquid at room temperature. Perhaps also of interest is that the sum of the first four ionization energies is 108.99 eV, which is quite a good match for a Mills catalyst of m=4, representing an energy hole of 108.78 eV. Given that Mercury is atomic in the gas state, this should make the gas a good Mills catalyst. A pair of Hydrinos combined in a Hydrino molecule might be even be able to supply sufficient energy to cause Mercury to fission, giving rise to the tales of mercury powered Vimana. (Such a fission reaction would yield roughly 140 MeV.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Sounds good. But to fit observed tritium production you also must have an halo nucleus for tritium. And if the neutrons spiral down (quantified) emitting EUV in the beginning the size are shrinking and there would be x-rays and at gamma at the end.
If the energy levels between isomers are small enough there may be a more soft radiation. It may exist a sett of un known isomers of He4, He3, T and maybe D and Li6. If hydrogen nucleus come together (p+D, D+D, p+T, D+T, T+T) through a mechanisms like those proposed by Hagelstein or by Storms it may first form this new type of isomer of high energy. For this isomers there must exist a huge number of lower energy stage and a relative small difference in energy between them. If the energy is given as photons or internal conversion the radiation may be as soft x-rays or lower energy. D+DHe4*1He4*2He4*3...He4*nHe4 ground state + lots of photons. Torulf On Wed, 14 May 2014 09:04:35 -0700, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Hi Bob, I agree that spin coupling is possible, even likely. However, what is missing from the discussion is the issue of exclusivity. How does spin coupling suddenly become the only route to shed energy, especially when it never was more than a minor route in standard physics? In short, just like with the Hagelstein hypothesis, we are not dealing just with merely an alternative route to shed high energy - but instead - to an exclusive alternative. Since nature prefers the simplest way - which is via radiation, any mention of exclusivity presents an almost insurmountable problem, especially if there is no model in standard nuclear physics. 10 watts of heat is trivial, but decidedly not trivial if that heat starts out as 10 watts of x-rays - which would be the case if there was nuclear gain which materialized as hot electrons and bremsstrahlung. It would seem that even if one part in a thousand escapes the hypothetical spin coupling channel, then the consequences are so severe as to void the entire hypothesis. The risk is highly skewed. -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Jones-- As I have suggested in the past, spin coupling of nucleons with electrons or other nucleons may not involve the gammas and x-rays you fear must occur in nuclear transitions. High isomeric spin states can involve high energies above a ground energy state of a nucleus. Transitions to lower energy states should not involve gammas or x-rays only distribution/conservation of angular momentum. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene Fran, The good-news bad-news problem with down-conversion of x-rays, as well as the other hypotheses for the absence of high energy gamma radiation, including that of Hagelstein, is that yes, they could possibly operate some of the time, or even most of the time. The mechanism may sound logical, on paper and at first glance. But nature prefers radiation, as a general rule. The bad-news problem with any such naïve suggestion, is that the would need to operate all of time without exception. We are talking about deadly radiation requiring thick plates of lead to shield normally, and we know that nature already favors the preferred pathway - radiation. Think about a dental x-ray and the elaborate precautions taken there. That radiation is puny by comparison, both in its low power (15 keV) and in miniscule intensity (duration) which is a few nanoseconds. LENR, such as the recent Mizuno experiment, at many watts for many days, would be trillions of times more intense, and no shielding except from the reactor. A lapse of a millisecond and we have radiation burns and cancer, or worse. In short - instead of the single miracle of the nuclear reaction itself, you would also need the larger miracle of a brand new way to hide the high energy radiation, plus the further miracle that the new mechanism operates without fail. The theorist would seem to be better off to propose an underlying reaction which can be shielded by the reactor (few keV range or less). In fact, it is arguable that any hypothetical radiation shielding mechanism, if it existed, would be as valuable or more valuable than LENR itself, since it would permit the use of subcritical fission with desktop accelerators - say in automobiles. From: Roarty, Francis X Could a relativistic component as suggested by Naudts possibly disguise/dilate/down convert Bremsstahlung? _ From: Jones Beene This is somewhat similar to the lochon explanation: Lochon Catalyzed D-D Fusion in Deuterated Palladium in the Solid State by Sinha and Meulenberg Lochons are hypothesized to be electron pairs which can form on a deuteron to give D- (which is a bosonic ion) in Palladium Deuteride. Supposedly, lochons which are close - similar to a DDL, so that they then catalyze D-D fusion, resulting in a type of internal conversion leading to the formation of He plus production of lots of energy which is carried by the alpha and the ejected electron-pair. Problem is - the alpha is slow and the electrons are very fast - so that with this and other forms of IC, the ejected
Storms theory may get into this? On Wed, 14 May 2014 13:45:26 -0700, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: torulf.gr...@bredband.net If the energy levels between isomers are small enough there may be a more soft radiation. It may exist a set of unknown isomers of He4, He3 ...For this isomers there must exist a huge number of lower energy stage and a relative small difference in energy between them. Well - that's the rub isn't it? The actual numbers do not work out very well. The fusion reaction of deuterium to helium provides about 24 MeV gain, and yet anything over about 10 KeV would have been measured by now; therefore to support a helium fusion hypothesis - we would need at least 2,400 isomers or intermediate stages of helium, all fairly evenly spaced. Plus, the lifetime of each isomer state, at least in those elements with known isomers, is long. If helium has thousands of isomers, it would typically take centuries to decay. Thus to prop up the required details for fusion of D to He at low energy, which is one miracle, one needs another miracle which is finding isomers in helium, which has no known isomers, then another miracle to suggest that there are actually ~3000 isomers in relatively equal steps, and finally another miracle that all the isomers decay very rapidly. Not to mention the fifth miracle, which is that decay via nuclear isomers is the exclusive method of energy release, happening all the time ... with no other channels.
I'm not longer think Rosi is a fraud. But there are still possibility for serious mistakes. If he have his instruments wrong calibrated as in the Uppsala test there may be no exes energy at all or at least not much of it. On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 15:15:46 -0400, Axil Axil wrote: Boyne portrays them well. Like the guy who claimed he had a flying machine in his briefcase. They remind me of Certain Unnamed People in this field. Say it Jed, you are referring to Defkalion, aren't you? This is nothing that you haven't said before. On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Lewan's book describes several tests conducted by Rossi which ended in failure, and some that ended in fiascos. An example was the test for Hydrofusion: The instruments Rossi was using to measure how much electrical energy was consumed to heat the device showed lower values than the instruments that the researcher from SP [Technical Research Institute of Sweden,] had brought. The difference was not trivial--Rossi's readings were between half and a third of the researcher's measurements. If the researcher's instruments were credible, the device was consuming two to three times more electrical energy than expected. It wasn't producing three times more energy than the input but was delivering no net energy. It did not work. I believed the researcher's instruments because I had immediately understood the source of the problem. . . . There was a test in Uppsala when the equipment came unglued because Rossi glued it the night before and did not give it enough time to set. Then there was the visit by Jim Dunn and NASA, when Rossi came unglued. Lewan describes it diplomatically. I knew about these tests, plus I know of two other failed tests not described in the book. This may sound paradoxical, but in a strange way these failures bolster my belief that Rossi cannot be a hoax, so his claims are probably true. As I have said before, if he is a confidence man, he is the most incompetent one on earth. He inspires no confidence in anyone, especially when he does tests that fail drastically for obvious reasons. Why would a con man go around doing these things? It is not difficult to arrange a fake energy device that seems to work perfectly. At least until someone examines it closely with proper instruments. So why would you set up a fake energy device that looks like it is not working? Why would you spend vast sums of money and years of effort making a pretend 1 MW reactor with 51 complicated boxes in it? It seems to me it is far more likely he is what he appears to be: a brilliant but headstrong inventor who often does sloppy work. He often cuts corners because he assumes he is right. He has no regard for conventional scientific standards. He does not understand why other people do not believe his claims. He refused to do properly designed, careful tests with good instruments, because he said such tests will not convince anyone and will do no good. He had no reason to say that! He did not even try doing careful tests. So how did he know they would fail to convince people? I found that infuriating. Many lone inventors share some or all of these characteristics. Inventors are not all alike of course but they all have great self-confidence which breeds these kinds of attitudes. If they did not have confidence, they would not continue working for years despite opposition, lack of money, lack of support and even danger. The Wright brothers were the opposite of sloppy. They were very careful and methodical. But, for a long time they put off doing definitive public flight tests partly because they thought a test would do no good. They sounded a lot like Rossi in that respect. They felt contempt for the public and for skeptical scientists and engineers. This was unwarranted. When they finally got around to doing a public flight test in August 1908, the situation changed overnight. The world was their oyster. Newspaper celebrated them, millions of dollars fell into their hands, the top industrialists clamored to cut a deal with them, and the Congress gave them gold medals. I think it is likely something similar would happen to Rossi if he would only let it happen. Perhaps he is finally on track to doing that with Cherokee Investment Partners. Lewan's book reminds me of some of the personal histories of the Wrights, such as First Flight by Heppenheimer, and the fictionalized Dawn over Kitty Hawk by Boyne. There was a cast of characters associated with aviation from 1890 to 1908, including many stupid people, many cranks, and some out-and-out frauds along for the ride. Boyne portrays them well. Like the guy who claimed he had a flying machine in his briefcase. They remind me of Certain Unnamed People in this field. The Wrights were not what you would call stable, sane, ordinary people. Read The Bishop's Boys for details on their dysfunctional family, lack of sociability, and their peculiar Victorian psycho-sexuality.
How about wrong kinds of instruments, how much of Rosis results are mad with tis error? On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 16:53:19 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: wrote: If he have his instruments wrong calibrated as in the Uppsala test there may be no exes energy at all or at least not much of it. The Uppsala test failed because the glue was not set. Rossi agreed that it failed. The test I quoted from above was performed on September 6, 2012 in Bologna. This test failed to produce excess heat. Rossi thought it was working because he was using the wrong kinds of instruments to measure input power. Not because of a calibration problem, although a calibration would have helped. The test was observed by independent observers from the Technical Research Institute of Sweden and other organizations. After the test, Rossi continued to assert that it had succeeded, but the observers all agreed it had failed. Rossi had a control reactor in this test, but it was quite unlike a real reactor, so the observers did not consider it a valid control. Lewan describes what happened next. The Swedish experts and investors lost interest in the test. Lewan says the investors seemed to believe that Rossi was a rascal or at least incompetent. (I say, who can blame them?) Later: Hydrofusion wrote a short Press statement that ended: 'Hydrofusion cannot at this stage support any claims made, written or other, about the amount of excess heat generated by the new high temperature ECAT prototype.' Another lost opportunity. Links: --  mailto:torulf.gr...@bredband.net
If he use a alkali metal he got a non metallic hydride, not useful for this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_hydride On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:57:50 -0400, Axil Axil wrote: Axil, I like your theory as far as linkage between the nano and micro scale using SPP but am not convinced the SPP is the power source. The power source is dipole motion in the micro-particle. This particle is sized to be resonant with the operating temperature of the reactor. The dipole vibrations caused by the ambient temperature of the reactor produces maximum electron oscillation. This electron motion is an alternating current that flows back and forth across the micro-particle. The nanowire provides a 1 dimensional superconducting path for the dipole current to accumulate at the tip of the nanowire. this super current accumulates electrons at the nanowire tips in the fractional mega amp range. Nanowire coating on the surface of the micro-particle is a critical power concentration mechanism. This nanowire power concentration is what makes LENR+ go. Why does SPP have the potential for over unity? The extreme curvature at the tips of nanowire produces a vortex of SPPs to develop where the boson nature of the SPP makes possible extreme concentration of a EMF soliton. This soliton produces a anapole magnetic field that gets strong enough to produce pions through vacuum breakdown. Hydrogen rydberg matter is attracted to these nanowire tips that further increase the EMF power application because of the extreme curvature related to the very small size of these nanoparticles. Larger nanoparticles also amplify the EMF concentration of the vortex formed at and around the tips of the wire in a zero loss dark mode energy transfer mechanism. Wouldn't it be far likelier that you are setting the stage for a self assembled Maxwellian demon to exploit the known HUP energies at the end of these hairs? The geometrical confinement being one side of the vice and this SPP linkage to the moving ions being the other side it accepts and accumulates energy from the gas motion in contradiction to COE which claims this energy of gas motion can not be exploited..and admittedly a single gas atom in our macro isotropy can not but I am convinced this isotropy breaking geometry and your linkage demonstrates the potential for a real world demon that self assembles and is the root bootstrap energy that initiates these anomalies. Fran There is a positive feedback mechanism that takes the gamma energy from the nuclear fusion of hydrogen present in the Rydberg crystals and adds that to the energy content of the vortex based soliton at the tips of the nanowire. This optical nano-cavity down shifts this gamma energy into the extreme ultraviolet range and through power reincorporation makes the amplitude of the SPP soliton and the associated magnetic field produced by the soliton even stronger over time. FROM: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com ] SENT: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 3:08 PM TO: vortex-l SUBJECT: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:The Video: Dr, Ahern does not yet understand. Ahern is correct in stating that the magic particle size is very small; 3 to 15 nanometers in diameter. This type of particle is the business end of the reaction in the same way the sharp tip of an electrode is where the energy of a spark is concentrated and amplified. But other size particles are required to get magnetic field strength up. The particle size produce by low melting point metals also must be supplied in the size particle mix. This is what Rossi is producing with his secret sauce addition. Yes, he adds a low melting point alkali metal to his reaction as a power amplifier. This type particle acts as a step up transformer coil where power is concentrated into a high voltage capacitive discharge. But the most important particle size is the 5 micron particle covered with nano hair. This particle is the power house of the reaction. This particle provides the receiving antenna for the SPP pumping generated from the mouse component of the reactor. You can think of this large particle as the Cat. The Mouse produces dipole oscillations in the large body of this jumbo particle where the SPP are born. The power produced by this huge particle is feed down the nano-hair covering to their sharp tips at tremendous power amplification. This dipole power produced in this micro particle feeds the step up power amplification process that occurs in the smaller diameter particle assemblages down the particle size chain to those magic 2 nanometer particles. Ahern does not understand this power concentration system and has only seen limited magnetic power produce by his particles because of this lack of this understanding. Links: --  mailto:janap...@gmail.com
You only have to compare the mass difference before and after the reaction. No QM can change it. The reaction D to 2p is endothermic! There must be better ideas of watt happened in the experiment. The He4 from CF of Deuterium was find in Pd systems. Maybe the use of Ni changes something. I do not like the transmutations theories but they can at least allow a exothermic reaction. Something like D+Xz Xz+1 +H. X can be a Ni isotope or some contamination as O,C or Si. Or are there He4 trapped in the Ni matrix? The odd result can also be from contamination with ordinary water. For be sure we most wait for replications and better measurements. On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:06:21 +0100, Alain Sepeda wrote: what about the electrons in that stripping, and the neutrino... does it stay positives? what is the equation? naively I imagine np+np - 4p + 2e +2!v is it still positive? electrons cost 511kev to create, about the gain... I don't master enough to be sure of anything 2014-03-27 18:58 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene : Attention water-heads (Mizuno literally means 'From Water') Here is another weird and wonderful implication of the recent Mizuno paper which would explain how two deuterons react in such a way as to provide more energy than chemical but with few gamma rays and few neutrons - and with lots of hydrogen as the ash. Imagine that: hydrogen is the ash ! To explain this we must think outside the box, which is the same as inside the cavity. This could be called a QM bi-stripping reaction. It can only happen with two deuterons, and probably with the added requirement of nanocavity confinement. Heisenberg is involved. When a neutron decays to a proton, about 1.3 MeV would be released. But the extended half-life of free neutrons means this energy is not normally available instantaneously. This is where QM enters the picture. The mass of the deuteron is 1875.613 MeV. The mass of a free neutron plus a free proton is 1877.8374 - thus about 2.2 MeV would be required (to be supplied via kinetic energy) in order to split the deuteron - without QM being involved. The net deficit of this reaction is thus ~900 keV. This is why no one ever imagined Oppenheimer Philips as being relevant before now. It looks endothermic, without Heisenberg. However, one can surmise that with time alteration or compression - if two deuterons approach each other so that both undergo the OP splitting reaction instantaneously as a result of the single impact, then it is possible that the same 2.2 MeV of kinetic energy results in a net energy release of 2.6 MeV (from two neutron decays) but the two neutrons have decayed to protons instantly, instead of with an extended half-life. This could indeed be an expected result of Heisenberg uncertainty and other QM principles. Thus the net reaction gain is 400 keV. The big stretch of the imagination is that the same kinetic energy can split both atoms at the same time using what can only be called a quantum time alteration and borrowed energy from the net reaction. Admittedly, this is a stretch, but isn't everything in QM? Adding QM into the mix, we can surmise that most of the 2.2 kinetic energy deficit is supplied from the net energy of the two neutron decay reactions, not a single decay - and also that the normal half life of neutrons is greatly compressed to supply this net energy of 2.6 MeV (2 x 1.3 MeV) as part of the borrowed input. Only then is the net reaction gainful and the beauty of it is that 4 resultant protons carry off the 400 keV net gain - with approximately 100 keV in kinetic energy each, which is at a level which is low enough and consistent with low or no gamma… and bremsstrahlung would not be high energy either. That there would appear to be few gamma rays (occasional) is a given. However, the ash of the reaction is that there would appear to be a lot of hydrogen which replaces the deuterium - which was there at the start. If you don't buy this explanation (that kinetic energy can be shared in such a way that two approaching deuterons are stripped at exactly the same time, and instantly decay) then there are alternatives. They will come up in a later post. In fact, to place this in context - there could be many gainful reactions happening at the same time. This bi-stripping hypothesis is all of a few minutes old, so it needs to be vetted… but hey, in QM terms - a few minutes is a virtual eternity J The free neutron mass is slightly larger than that of a proton. The lifetime is about 15 minutes. 939.565378 MeV compared to 938.272046 MeV would be the standard values. This is why the Oppenheimer Philips (stripping) reaction could be extremely important to LENR and it has been almost neglected in the past. It should be noted that in the parallel thread on vortex today (Magnetic permeability and LENR) that energy depletion of the deuteron, in the nickel cavity due to spin coupling, could lower the binding energy
I se you was quicker with neutron capture. But the should look for He4 in the Ni metall. On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 20:06:03 -0700, Eric Walker wrote: On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 8:55 AM, H Veeder wrote: Going from D to H should be endothermic. Exciting slides. I do not have the wherewithal to assess their calorimetry, so I will assume it is accurate. Here are some exothermic reactions involving generation of H from D: * d + 60Ni → 61Ni + p + Q (6.1 MeV) * d + 61Ni → 62Ni + p + Q (8.9 MeV) * d + 62Ni → 63Ni + p + Q (5.1 MeV) * d + 64Ni → 65Ni + p + Q (7.9 MeV) Note that in the authors' back-of-the-envelope calculations using two d+d branches, yielding 4.03 MeV and 3.27 MeV respectively, they came to an expected energy output that was lower than the one they think they observed. So the higher Qs of the above reactions fit that picture nicely. Their slides on the neutron capture cross sections of nickel suggest that they are also looking at thinking about the d+Ni reactions. Regarding the radiation measurements they have not yet reported on -- I will call out a guess that they will report evidence of beta+ and beta- decay. The treated nickel is interesting looking. I assume this is what the nickel looks like prior to a reaction. Note that there is greater occasion for electrically insulated grains after the treatment than before the treatment. Note that the NiD system is quite different than the oft-studied PdD system. I vaguely recall sometime back that proton and deuteron capture are not favorable in palladium, whereas proton capture is favorable in nickel. What is interesting in the above scenario is that we are looking at the possibility not of proton capture but of neutron capture. Eric Links: --  mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com
I think this will be relevant for Storms theory and radiation. The reactions H+e+H or D+e+D in hydrons will take long time for a nuclear reaction. The energy is released as a sequence of many photons. And the reaction is greatly dependent on the environment. There may be some events in the metal how may destroy the NAE and interrupt ongoing nuclear reactions. If the hydrogen pair already have released some energy the reaction may it not go back. Instead it will realise the remaining energy in one high energy photon or as particles, but not so high energy as in a hot fusion reaction. Torulf On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 09:01:20 -0700, Edmund Storms wrote: On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that his early systems produced gammas. The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the production of gammas. First of all Axil, we apparently agree that one BASIC mechanism is causing all behavior called LENR. We disagree about what this mechanism is. Nevertheless, we need to be very clear about the words used to describe this behavior because several kinds of nuclear reactions take place at the same time, each of which produce radiation. Fusion makes the main heat and radiation, transmutation makes a little heat and a little radiation, and fractofusion makes occasional energetic radiation. Only a little of the radiation is energetic, none of which is produced by cold fusion. That feature makes LENR unique. Second, the Rossi claim for transmutation producing energy is simply WRONG. This is not correct, is not possible, and is not needed to explain the energy. We should leave Rossi out of the discussion and focus on published information from many competent sources. Third, the process can be explained using only a few plausible assumptions. Unfortunately, Vortex does not allow attachments, which prevents me from giving everyone the latest papers. I will send them to your personal address. Ed On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene wrote: FROM: Eric Walker Jed Rothwell wrote: These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around since the beginning of cold fusion. It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place. That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at that demo. Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi's own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni - Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash. Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind. Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton reaction) only came into play as a last resort - and it was chosen as the one and only well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it only happens on the sun; and QCD, which would describe the level of exotherm (it is a strong force reaction) is not my field of expertise. I have been attempting to partner with an expert in QCD on this theory, but of course, most of them are negative on LENR to begin with and do not want to have their name associated with Rossi. That will change very soon. Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. The problem with any suggestion including Ed's, which does not exclude gamma radiation from the start (ab initio) which is to say - by the nature of the reaction itself - can be called leakage. In all reactions in physics where gammas can witnessed, they will be witnessed. There are no exceptions. Gammas are highly penetrating, and even1% leakage stands out like a sore thumb. Actually even one part per billion would stand out like a sore thumb. I do not mind belaboring the main point - that to adequately explain Rossi's
This ability of nano particles to make steam with lesser energy input may also make it possible to get false positive result in LENR. If nano particles is used and laser or maybe some other simulation is used and the steam or evaporation is used for calorimetry. Torulf On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 18:28:22 -0500, Axil Axil wrote: Here is some believe your own eyes type data: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1oPB_iniQ4https  At 2:00 Papp disconnect the batteries and the engine still runs. This was demonstrated to the patent office and Papp got the best patent of the year award back in the 70s.. When Mills can do that, Mills will only be 50 years behind Papp. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:05 PM, David Roberson wrote: It could be a Papp like process as you suspect Axil. I do not know what is fact or fiction with the Papp engine and much of what Mills is stating. We need good data if we are to make much headway in understand these systems. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. In the Papp engine, that one of the mysteries of that process is that it produces little heat. The energy density in the Mills cell indicates the production of little heat. I think this lack of heat condition is all connected under the nano-particle causation principle. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:16 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil, I realize that there may be some interesting behavior associated with this material. The exact mechanism responsible for the generation of water vapor may be difficult to discern. When ice sublimes, or water evaporates, a similar process may be taking place. Heat is extracted from the water remaining during vaporization so that a net cooling of the remaining water takes place. If I recall, wind blowing over a wet leaky bag is used for cooling in some locals. Vapor sprays can be used in a similar fashion. The real question is how does the boiled water generated within the nano particles make its way to the surface of the container without heating much of the surrounding water. If we find that the distance traveled is tiny, then there is no big mystery here. On the other hand, if the vapor travels a significant distance through cool water without depositing heat in that water, then that should get our attention. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 4:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. One characterization of the process that you have not considered is localization. The water boils around the nanoparticle but the average temperature of the waterdoes not rise. Another enhancement of the effect is the development of Bose-Einstein condensation. When all the localize nanoparticle hot spots are connected superfulidically and share the incoming energy, enhance energy concentration might result. Using water as the reaction substrate precludes the development of BEC formation due to its cooling effect. Using hydrogen does not stop BEC formation. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM, David Roberson wrote: Normally, I assume that all of the incoming energy, in this case light photons, that is not reflected away ends up heating the water. Anything that concentrates the energy into a small region, such as appears to be happening with this device, will boil a tiny quantity of water. This is not unusual except that the nano particles appear to be able to do a fine job of concentrating the energy; better than most techniques. And, some of the local energy used to boil the water might be extracted from the remaining water resulting in its cooling. Add everything up and you likely have no above unity gain. There is no indication of LENR activity that I am aware of. Perhaps Axil has seen some reference to this effect to discuss. At any rate, the total energy contained in the boiled water system can not be greater than the input energy from the light source unless some mysterious means is present. I do not see any need to assume LENR is omnipresent in every experiment. Some results are simple physics and the one being discussed here most likely is just that. Where does anyone suggest that excess heat is being generated by this process? You can observe sublimation just by looking at the ice being converted directly into vapor. How is that much different? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 2:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. In order to understand if over unity power production is occurring, the energy content of the incoming solar photons shall be determined and compared to the output energy content of the steam produced. Experimenters must use this procedure or its like to determine the COP of solar cells. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:09 PM, David Roberson
If I remember it right. There was relatively newly at PES, much about an Papp-engine called noble gas engine. The PES people appears to believe in all weird things but they exposed this as a simple fraud. Torulf On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:43:05 -0500 (EST), David Roberson wrote: I sure hope not! If Mills really has a device that performs as he indicates, then I will be super pleased. There is great pleasure in seeing something you helped design go into production and be used by thousands of happy clients. Nothing feels better than seeing your design out in public performing a task that is needed and I can not imagine someone willing to forgo that pride just to cheat others out of their investment funds. I say cheat because the guys that supported Papp, in the case you mention, had a right to make a profit on their money. Papp should have been ashamed to take the money that these investors entrusted to him with that type of attitude. I know many people who have accepted funds to start companies and they typically worry more about the people who trust them that they worry about their own situation. If Papp had the attitude you attribute to him, then he appears more like a fraud than otherwise. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 8:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nanoparticles make steam without bring water to a boil. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson wrote: The other problem I find difficult to accept is that the Papp engine did not find its way into production if it actually performed as described. Even an idiot would instantly realize that the Papp engine would be a great investment and money maker. The videos mentioned that it was demonstrated to at least one automaker and they are not stupid. Why on earth would they let such an opportunity get away? It just doesn't add up. Bob Rohner asked Papp about this. Jo why don't you put your engine into production:. Papp said that production is a lot of work and worry. Why go through it when I can get all the money I need from investors when I need it. Look around, I have all I can ever want...cars, boat, house...etc. why go through all the trouble that comes with production. Maybe Mills thinks in like ways. Links: --  mailto:dlrober...@aol.com
Some similarity to Hagelsteins theory. No photons but a nuclear state, phonons and a nuclear dump state. On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:41:28 -0500, ChemE Stewart wrote: Does that nullify my aliens farting through a wormhole induced by coherent EMF theory of cold fusion? On Sunday, January 19, 2014, Jones Beene wrote: Thanks Frank … and BTW - for those not familiar with Frank's observations … it should be mentioned, even though he did not, that this parameter space seems to be consistent (or within a close range) with megahertz-meter … no? FROM: fznidar...@aol.com Brilliant work Jones. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene About 7 years ago here on Vortex - before the plasmon/polariton technology was being spread around cyberspace as being particularly relevant to some types of LENR (by NASA no less)- and long before the Rossi HotCat, we raised a relevant issue called triple coherency. Basically, the question was posed: What would happens if one can engineer a constant and coherent flux of three different forms of mass/energy within a closed reactor: 1) photons 2) electrons (local AC) 3) phonons And moreover would a new kind of condensate emerge? A 'new kind of condensate' means a macro-state in which we are not restricted by bosons or by near zero Kelvin temperatures, but are considering the next larger plateau of interlocking geometries, which are conjoined by abnormal but coherent energy dynamics at a higher level. It is misleading to refer to this as a BEC. Forcing all three parameters into some kind of mutual coherency (or superradiance) would be limited by several factors, mostly by the geometric excursion possibilities of the heaviest (densest) component: phonons. Links: --  mailto:jone...@pacbell.net
Boosting intelligence? Its dos not helps for decrease the unemployment rate. We have mainly a equilibrium labour market. Most countries have also have made there central bank independent to fight inflation and this automatically stops the employment rate to get to high. There are always some how are less smart and become unemployed, so long you have this politic. On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:43:59 -0500 (EST), pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Controversial - Perhaps of interest to some -- Discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons corroborates controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/271350.php Boosting intelligence through embryo screening with sequencing analysis for intelligence genes would also increase economic output, reduce crime, unemployment and poverty in the next generation http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/01/boosting-intelligence-through.html Why Are Some People So Smart? The Answer Could Spawn a Generation of Superbabies http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/07/genetics-of-iq/
If hydrinos exist, the use of hydrino power may produce a surplus in hydrino gas. Its probable that this substance is no toxic and not a greenhouse gas. But I'm not so sure that will happened then it reach the ozone layer. Ozone is highly oxidative and may be destroyed by hyrinos. Are there any study about this? On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:17:05 -0500, Mike Carrell wrote: I'm a long-standing observer/participant in Vortex, CMN S and the former Hydrino Study Group, and now the Society for Classical Physics [moderated by Dr, Farrell with Dr. Mills as a participant.] For what it's worth, I have shaken hands with both Mills and Fleischmann. I think I can give some perspective on the current discussion. Mills' back-story includes study at MIT where he gained new insight into the physics of accelerated electrons which led to his Orbitsphere model and the possibility of sub-ground states induced by the *CLOSE PROXIMITY* of energy holes presented by catalysts. Mainstream physics teaches a ground state of *ISOLATED* hydrogen atoms. The Resonant Transfer reactions postulated and experimentally verified by Mills requires the **close proximity** of an energy hole receptor of specific magnitudes to effect a *NON-RADIATIVE ENERGY TRANSFER* from the H atom, destabilizing it, which then shrinks into the hydrino state. In that moment, the H atom is no longer *ISOLATED*. In Mills' current work, the favored hydrino state is H[1/4]; spectroscopic signatures of lower states have been seen. The energy release is measured at 200 times the energy required to produce an isolated H atom. Mills' task has been to find a means to utilize this energy on a commercial scale. The above are not speculations, but based on experiments done with instruments calibrated to national standards by a staff which includes six Ph.D.s and independent laboratories. Mills' experiments have included liquid, gas, and solid phases. The solid fuels include compounds of inexpensive materials when heated create the catalytic conditions for H atoms also in the molecule to transition to the hydrino state: hence CIHT- Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition. This is the invention of master chemist. Mills has been supported by $[tens of millions] from private investors over a period of some 20 years. He is under no obligation to publish, but his publication record is exemplary, with over 90 Journal papers, three books available as free downloads from the BLP website. He has an obligation to protect his investors with a strong patent position. A irony is that his major discovery is world-changing but is a natural phenomenon which cannot be patented as such. This is typical of 'chemical' patents. His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Mills has shown reduction to practice by frequent posting on his website technical papers at each stage of his progress. One might see these as 'field notes' which with refinement wind up in juried technical journals listed on the website. Summary and tutorial information makes its way into the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, available as a free download form the website. As of the preset writing, the BLP website is in a very fluid state, which has led to misunderstandings by participants of Vo and CMNS to jump to conclusions, but others to dig in and do homework. The Home Page is current and contains links to relevant papers and the patent disclosure. The rest covers an earlier embodiment of CIHT with excellent validation reports. BLP is revising he website and has promised a demonstration of the new device on Jan. 28 to a restricted audience. Even that is not the whole system, for it will not include the magnetohydrodynamic cryogenic output module. Mills chooses his words carefully, and even apparently radical statements have an observational base. He must present a positive outlook to keep his investors happy without compromising the growing patent position. The current device is a compact machine to feed a series of fuel pills to a reaction chamber and to recharge the pills with ordinary water and reuse them. The reaction chamber zaps the pills with a arc discharge which excites them into a reaction state which includes transition of H to H[1/4]. The time scale of this reaction is extremely short. Expressed in watts, the pulse is easily in the megawatt range as stated in the press release. Capturing this energy with a MHD module and converting it to 60 Hz AC will be another remarkable exercise, but such is within the state of the art of electric power technology. There are two paths ahead for BKLP CIHT technology: domestic appliance and industrial and motive resource. Both create electrical output from any water source, utilize cheap materials, and create zero pollution. Patents expire; eventually this technology can be utilized by any industrialized
US may catch up China in the LENR race but then outscore the production to China and after some time sell of the technology to them. Torulf On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 23:14:13 -0500, Axil Axil wrote: _THAT WILL BE THEIR PROBLEM. IT WILL NOT STOP THE PEOPLE WHO BUILD FACTORIES._ Spoken like an insensitive plutocrat that these words reveal you to be. But this is how it is all over the world today and the advent of LENR will unfortunately not affect this attitude in the least. Like you, a great princess once said LET THEM EAT CAKE. Many of her class who shared this same attitude eventually lost their heads as a consequence; but now again in this modern age; LENR may be a new force, a catalyst, and an amplifier for great social change.
The hydrogen in metal hydrides is ATOMIC HYDROGEN (nascent hydrogen). In electron degenerate mater there are free protons. Your critique maybe constructive because it sorts outs some theories but not all theories about cold fusion. On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:29:01 +, John Franks wrote: Further furthermore if 90% of main sequence stars end up as white dwarves when they have fini shed hot fusion, according to their limits, why don't they go on burning in a CF manner so that the sky is full of UV,Xray or even gamma ray dwarves? As the temperature built up again thermal runaway would occur as radiation would be limited by the small size and SB law so that hot fusion would occur again and a supernova would result. In that case all main sequence stars would end up as neutron stars or black holes and the sky would be littered with them. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:03 AM, John Franks wrote: Furthermore, The density of white dwarves is some 10^6g/cm^3 compared to water at 1g/cm^3. This would mean that the inter-nuclei spacing was 1/100 of water. Now Muon catalyzed fusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion  which we know works brings the nuclei 1/207 of the distance with electrons. It happens at an appreciable rate. since white dwarves are not more luminous than a black body radiating away with the Stefan Boltzmann law, we can conclude that there are no nuclear reactions AND that is the limit of what can be done with ordinary matter. In short, if you can't even get in the ball park of white dwarf matter in the lab, what chance in hell have you of even approaching muon catalysed reaction rates? If CF is real, why doesn't it occur in white dwarves with their high temperature and pressure electron degenerate matter? After all, that is the belief system of CF in cramming these lattices with hydrogen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf  The material in a white dwarf no longer undergoes fusion reactions, so the star has no source of energy, nor is it supported by the heat generated by fusion against gravitational collapse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-degenerate_matter#Degenerate_gases  Under high densities the matter becomes a degenerate gas when the electrons are all stripped from their parent atoms. In the core of a star, once hydrogen burning in nuclear fusion  reactions stops, it becomes a collection of positively charged ions , largely helium and carbon nuclei, floating in a sea of electrons, which have been stripped from the nuclei. Degenerate gas is an almost perfect conductor of heat and does not obey the ordinary gas laws. White dwarfs  are luminous not because they are generating any energy but rather because they have trapped a large amount of heat. Links: --  https://www.bredbandsbolaget.se/webmail/?_task=mail_action=list  mailto:jf27...@gmail.com  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-degenerate_matter#Degenerate_gases  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarfs
White dwarfs have strong magnetic fields from BEC and supra conducting. Part of the WD may also have periodic crystal structure. The main deferens is the neutral atomic hydrogen in metal hydrides. This may point toward theories involving electrons as in Storms theory. Maybe you are right Mr Franks, but no one have come with a good explanation how multiple methods of calorimetrical could have failed so much. If you want to debunk CF you must do this thing. You can not flee the empirical imperative. On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:49:25 -0500, Foks0904 . wrote: David, You're wasting your breath. Look back at other threads this guy has posted in lately. Franks already said he was leaving this forum twice, but still won't leave. Until a mod decides to ban him for his B.S. we're all better off ignoring him. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, David Roberson wrote: Read the experimental results and you will understand. At the moment you are just parroting the usual physics rules that are not complete. Why not read first, then you can state no reliable experiments and someone might listen. You need to do some homework first and then start contributing. Do you wish to be one of the many that did not accept just about every phenomena known to physics until someone else held their hand? We can list many if you are not aware of them. Come up to the plate and become one of the team players unless you would prefer to complain and not contribute. We need all the help we can obtain and you seem to be somewhat knowledgeable. Dave -Original Message- From: John Franks To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 1:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: White Dwarves How? No data, no COP and reliable experiments. No rationale. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:03 PM, David Roberson wrote: Axil is a fairly knowledgeable guy, but he can not single handedly develop all the important laws of physics concerning LENR. Perhaps you might wish to contribute? Dave Links: --  mailto:dlrober...@aol.com  mailto:jf27...@gmail.com  mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org  mailto:dlrober...@aol.com
There is a claim that successive transmutations threw addition of protons or deuterons actually is an mass spectroscopy error made from formations of molecules. Some controls of the Japan result may have been made in US. I do not remember where I have read this. On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 11:49:53 -0800, Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Sunil Shah wrote: This would produce a number of more (or less) likely chains of reactions, that together yield the EXACT mass spectrum of the transmutation products. I like this idea, too. Keeping track of potential transmutations is relatively recent -- perhaps the last five or ten years I think? The results are inconclusive, because there are always questions about contamination (I wonder in this context how much is actually contamination, however). When I was doing an informal review of some of the papers that dealt with transmutations, I came to these tentative conclusions: * There are some real difficulties in measuring relative amounts of transmutations. * The transmutations seen are across the board in terms of isotopes on the lower end of atomic masses. * Some transmutations are up in atomic mass or number, and others are down; perhaps mostly up, but this is just an impression. * In some cases it looks like there might be fission of larger isotopes happening. * There is little in the way of the kind of activation you would see from adding neutrons, so this doesn't seem to be a significant activity. * My own impression is that transmutations are generally to stable isotopes and rarely to short-lived ones. * A lot of the potential transmutations look like what you would get with the successive addition of protons -- X + p, (X + p) + p, etc. * Some of the transmutations look like what you would get with the successive addition of deuterons -- X + d, (X + d) + d, etc. * There's a general conclusion that the amount of energy that would be generated by the transmutations that are seen is not of the right order of magnitude to account for the heat that is measured, suggesting that transmutations are a side process. It took a while for me to go along with (7) and (8). It was only after I convinced myself that there really is something unusual happening that does not look like normal fusion that I became open to them. If these two items are true, then pinning down the specific reactions that are going on might not be a simple matter of finding a signature or two in the transmutations and then using them to constrain the possibilities. I think you would have to come up with some sophisticated Monte Carlo simulations and make some important assumptions about the rates at which these processes occur, and even then while you could gain some insight into the overall process, it would not necessarily disclose it with any assurance. Whatever that process or processes are, in the context of PdD they appear to lead to the generation of 4He (although not in every case), and in the context of NiH, no one but Rossi and Defkalion really seems to know. (There are some downsides to this approach of course. Heat is measured now, transmutation products are measured later. For transmutation we need to subtract effects of external ionizing radiation (cosmic, for example), and natural isotope spread of the bulk material, and uncertainties due to impurities.) I'm going to guess that the variance in transmutation measurements from one trial to another is very high. For this reason it seems like a lot of trials are needed to obtain reliable numbers for any relative ratios of isotopes before and after. Eric Links: --  mailto:email@example.com
Turn an android to a radioactivity counter. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rdklein.radioactivity
I'm from Sweden and have read the report. Its bad written and extremely messy and confusing. I wonder why its have been in this way. Its seems to be professional people how have made good things before. On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:29:29 -0800, Kevin O'Malley wrote: This report is frustrating. It reads as if some PhD was told to write the report to prove she came up to speed on the current state of claims of LENR research, but she spent so much time saying but there are many criticism that it becomes worthless to read. A PhD should be able to denote those criticisms and explain which ones are valid and which ones are not, and why. This is a paper written by someone who is trying to cover his ass, and also by someone who knows that people do not know how to process hypothetical information. Otherwise it would have said: IF (and again I say IF) Oh, and for those of you in Rio Linda , IFF
I got an idea from this. Its said that some LENR emits UV. It may be visible from putting some UV- fluorescent dye in to an electrolytic LENER cell. Use fluorescein or calcoflour, rhodamine or someting like that. Torulf On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:24:15 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: Capture UV light during the day, release it at night as visible light. You gotta love things like this! See: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/10/britain-experimenting-glowing-seemingly-self-aware-bike-path/7413/  - Jed Links: --  http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/10/britain-experimenting-glowing-seemingly-self-aware-bike-path/7413/
I think this is inverted in the LENR community. TG On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:49:57 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Being one of the old people, I would like to share my impression of this issue. Most young people are ignorant, self-centered, and without much imagination. When they become old people, most remain ignorant, self-centered, and without imagination. . . . True. But the fact is, nearly all important innovation in science, math and technology is done by young people. Theoretical physics are mainly a young person's game. Most innovations in programming are by young people. There are exceptions of course. Niklaus Wirth published some of his famous contributions after age 40. But he contributed to theory. Programmers who made new programs or founded corporations, such as Bill Gates, Wozniak or Zuckerberg, were usually in their 20s when they did their best work. (People criticize Gates, but he wrote some excellent software back in the 1970s, when you consider the limitations of the early personal computers. So did I, if I do say say so myself.) In the case of cold fusion, I think Martin came up with some of the ideas when he was young, but he put off implementing them. Also, he was aware of work in the 1920s and 30s that pointed to cold fusion. Older people make important contributions to literature, music and graphic arts, especially painting. Monet painted some of his masterpieces a few years before he died, which were unlike anything in his youth, and unlike anything anyone painted before. Older people sometimes make important contributions to natural science, biology, other observational sciences, and archaeology. These things depend on a large base of knowledge and experience, rather than intuition or a new perspective unencumbered with older ideas. In physics, generally speaking, Planck's other constant holds. Progress occurs funeral by funeral. Regrettably, in cold fusion, the wrong gang of old coots are dying off. Also, we have a unfortunate generational role reversal, because of social and economic circumstances. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf  - Jed Links: --  mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com  http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf
Ooh! That was an anser to Jeds post. Not to Storms post. On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:27:04 +0200, torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: I think this is inverted in the LENR community. TG On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:49:57 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Being one of the old people, I would like to share my impression of this issue. Most young people are ignorant, self-centered, and without much imagination. When they become old people, most remain ignorant, self-centered, and without imagination. . . . True. But the fact is, nearly all important innovation in science, math and technology is done by young people. Theoretical physics are mainly a young person's game. Most innovations in programming are by young people. There are exceptions of course. Niklaus Wirth published some of his famous contributions after age 40. But he contributed to theory. Programmers who made new programs or founded corporations, such as Bill Gates, Wozniak or Zuckerberg, were usually in their 20s when they did their best work. (People criticize Gates, but he wrote some excellent software back in the 1970s, when you consider the limitations of the early personal computers. So did I, if I do say say so myself.) In the case of cold fusion, I think Martin came up with some of the ideas when he was young, but he put off implementing them. Also, he was aware of work in the 1920s and 30s that pointed to cold fusion. Older people make important contributions to literature, music and graphic arts, especially painting. Monet painted some of his masterpieces a few years before he died, which were unlike anything in his youth, and unlike anything anyone painted before. Older people sometimes make important contributions to natural science, biology, other observational sciences, and archaeology. These things depend on a large base of knowledge and experience, rather than intuition or a new perspective unencumbered with older ideas. In physics, generally speaking, Planck's other constant holds. Progress occurs funeral by funeral. Regrettably, in cold fusion, the wrong gang of old coots are dying off. Also, we have a unfortunate generational role reversal, because of social and economic circumstances. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf - Jed
Its hard to relate this to LENR in D/Pd systems. If you ad a D or H to a palladium and the created instable nucleus (Ag*) emit an alpha, it will create some mostly unstable nuclides of rhodium. Rh103 is the only stabile rhodium. H+Pd106 will give the stabile Rh103 and there are no stabile Pd for making Rh103 from D. If more alphas is ejected the problem with instability becomes lager Tc or instable Nb. If the H or D are ejected at the same time as Palladium gives of an alpha, you may have a ruthenium. The can the fusing hydrogen be ejected in this way? Probably not. On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 15:02:01 -0400, Axil Axil wrote: The tendency for Helium production in LENR transmutation could well be the result of the inherent nature of the nucleus to be constructed out of alpha particle clusters. The alpha particle cluster model is one of the enduring concepts that run through all the various theories of nuclear structure. As background, one of the original motivations behind the alpha-particle model of the nucleus in the 1930s was the fact that, among the naturally radioactive nuclei, the alpha particle was known to be one of the principal emissions. Since such radioactivity is conceptualized as the evaporation of alpha-particles from the nuclear surface, the high rate of alpha particle production suggested that alphas might exist, at least transiently, as bound systems on the nuclear surface. Quasi-fission and multi-fragmentation experiment conducted in the early 1970s inspired interest in nuclear clustering in light of experimental findings that when medium and large nuclei are bombarded with relatively high-energy particles - not merely enough to strip the nucleus of one or a few nucleons, but enough to shatter it into small fragments, there is an unexpectedly large number of alpha particles and multiples of alpha particles among the break-up fragments. Such results are strong indication that there is alpha clustering throughout the interior of all nuclei - small, medium and large (MacGregor,1976). Furthermore, experimental elements transmutation results released by DGT in their ICCF-17 paper that document a large accumulation of lithium, boron and beryllium transmutation products support the alpha cluster model of the nucleus. These light elements are just bigger chunks of nuclear alpha particle modulo fragments blasted off the nuclei of heavy elements as a result of a fission based transmutation process. The ash assay from the Rossi reactor has shown that 10% of the nickel was transmuted into iron. The Iron nucleus is just one alpha particle lighter than the nickel nucleus. Most F-P advocates deny this experimental result as damaging to the deuterium fusion genesis of helium. Low energy LENR experiments as typified by the Fleischmann and Pons experiments might be only strong enough to chip of a piece of the nuclear structure in a fission reaction thereby releasing some nuclear binding energy. It is an unsubstantiated assumption the D+D-He4 in PdD systems even exists let alone if that reaction correlates with power output in a LENR reaction. On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Friends, I have published now: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/08/for-future-of-lenr-by-abd-ul-rahman.html  This is actually the 3rd paper from the series: Ideas and modes of thinking for solving the LENR problem i.e making it to progress MY GRATITUDE TO THE AUTHOR! Abd and I know well it is not one single royal way to a successful LENR; we also are aware that if intelligence can be defined as the art of not confusing the points of view- wisdom includes the respect of other people's points of view. We both want to bring new proofs to the old saying promoted by Niels Bohr: CONTRADICTORIA COMPLEMENTA SUNT Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com  Links: --  mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/08/for-future-of-lenr-by-abd-ul-rahman.html  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
I can not download this PDF. How das I do? On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 20:10:31 -0400, Bob Higgins wrote: Greetings fellow Vorts, While at ICCF, I expressed my feelings that there would be no controlling patent on the material that makes LENR work. There has been so much open speculation that has now all become part of prior art. Additionally, without a theory, you will not be able to identify the workarounds and any claims are likely to be easily worked around in the end. I expect the valuable patents to be on the apparatus that follows - the devices that do the work and meet peoples needs. To help make that a self-fulfilling prophesy, I decided some time ago to openly share what I am doing in Ni-H materials. At ICCF I had the opportunity to show slides of my Ni-H LENR work to many people. A common request was for something written about my work. So while traveling home I put together a paper describing my work. It is not peer reviewed and I would be happy to get comments back. The paper is on my Google drive at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Qzl0WC1ldW1MMUU/edit?usp=sharing  Please let me know if this doesn't work. I learned a number of lessons in this phase and I am currently working on the next pass of improvements to my test system in particular. Regards, Bob Higgins Links: --  https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Qzl0WC1ldW1MMUU/edit?usp=sharing
I have read this. They appears to patented the entire periodic table. Hope they real have something and not are patent troll. On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 14:25:24 -0400, Axil Axil wrote: This is the finnish guy we did a id workup on in the thread: Finnish startup company Etiam OY filed a detailled LENR patent application, published on May 30 2013 On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Chuck Sites wrote: First a warning, , If your trying to build an cold fusion device for profit via patents you may want to skip this article. Otherwise you will have first hand knowledge of prior art. If you curious like me and just want to understand how things work, then this is probably an interesting read. I stumbled on this link from some chain of discussion that was occurring when the Defkalion demonstration was running, and someone mentioned that there was a patent already on the device. This is a international patent issued by WIPO to Pekka Soininen for a device described as a THERMAL-ENERGY PRODUCING SYSTEM AND METHOD. It looks exactly like the Defkalion reactor, down to the spark plugs, the metal hydrides and the Rydberg atoms. International Publication Number WO 2013/076378 A2. http://www.roxit.ax/FinsktLENRpatent.pdf  I would think that if Rosi and Defkalion are not currently holding patents on their technology, this could be very disruptive towards their business plans. Also, does any know who Pekka Soininen is. He seems to be a new name in the LENR field (at least to me). Best regards Links: --  mailto:cbsit...@gmail.com  http://www.roxit.ax/FinsktLENRpatent.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Hungarian inventor George Egely claim achieving more than 1 kw excess heat from cold fusion reactor and iron as by product..
I have made some runs of graphite in my microwave oven. First it looks as I got iron. But the graphite was already containing iron in non magnetic form. It become magnetic threw the microwave run. Probably It was as hematite and become reduced by carbon to metallic iron. I tested two different samples sold as pure natural graphite. Natural graphite may often be contaminated with iron and probably other substances. I tested to wash the graphite with hydrochloric acid and the microwave run gave no iron. But the wet chemical test I used is not special sensitive. And it would be better to make a test with synthetic graphite. I posted a report in this tread at talk polywell. http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3531hilit=torulf+graphite The idea to use a microwave trigger looks interesting. Better may be to use metallic powder (W or Zr) in hydrogen atmosphere. But this will possible blow up the microwave oven and start a fire. On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 13:36:00 -0400 (EDT), pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: He claims more than just magnetic dust. See transmutation claims in - Nano Dust Fusion (table 2) http://greentechinfo.eu/sites/default/files/Nano-dust-InfiniteEnergy-article1.pdf I believe that several other researchers claim similar results in plasmas. I do not know if they, or Egely, are correct, but an independent lab should be able to replicate his results. -- Lou Pagnucco David ledin wrote: blaze Lol you expose him in 10 minute as fraud .but after 2 year flowing e-cat story i still don't know what to think about e-cat. On 7/28/13, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Graphite subjected to electric arcing shows magnetic properties when exposed to neodymium magnet. [...]
Be careful, Ni powder is Dangerous Then Inhaled: On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:54:41 +0200, Teslaalset wrote: Just buying nickel micro powder, I assume this comes slightly oxidized. How would that be removed as a first step in preparing nickel powder for LENR experiments? Just heat in in a hydrogen environment at temperatures of a few hundred degrees C?
If there is carbonyl nickel inside the hot-cat, a leakage will be extremely dangerous. Tetra carbonyl nickel is known as liquid death. . On Wed, 29 May 2013 10:19:03 -0600, DJ Cravens wrote: He doesn't have to have constant stable sites. Perhaps instead it is a constant creation of sites. For example (there must be many), he could be creating and then creating sites with something like Nickel carbonyl that would could create sites and the CO then be allowed to react again. However, it would take the right kind of kinetics- I am not sure carbonyl would allow for the correct temp cycles. D2 - CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com From: stor...@ix.netcom.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [Vo]:Speculation about hotCat Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:42:32 -0600 Bob, this is a good analysis of a possible design. You are right, the powder must make good thermal contact with the wall for the nuclear reaction to be controlled by temperature. Just how Rossi makes this happen is unknown. Nevertheless, most of the active nickel must be attached to the inner wall of the stainless tube. In addition, at the temperatures used, the Ni powder would sinter and not be easily to remove. As for modifying the stainless using chemical etch, I doubt this would be effective. This texture would have to be active initially and remain unchanged at high temperature. Such textures are not stable and would not survive the high temperature. Rossi has done something to the Ni powder that is very stable and not affected by high temperature. This fact alone greatly reduces the possibilities to anyone familiar with the materials science of this material. Rossi is gradually letting the cat out of the bag, whether he wants to or not. Ed Storms
Is aluminium metal good for absorb hydrogen? I also wonder which metals how is bad to absorb hydrogen? Its not but to find good materials for hydrogen loading but also to avoid de-loading. For example a connecting cord to an anode can de-lode hydrogen from Ni or Pd in an electrolytic experiment. It may take H/D from the anode out to the air. Even Cu may absorb some hydrogen. A simple thing as make a bad connecting for an anode may ruin a potential good experiment. What is good to use as connecting metal and for solder? On Thu, 16 May 2013 12:11:41 -0600, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I studied Raney Ni and found no evidence for extra heat. The material is actually an Ni-Al alloy that contains a small fraction of Al. It is very reactive to oxygen, unreactive to water and unreactive to H2. It is dangerous to use without care. Ed Storms On May 16, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Andy Findlay wrote: Hi Jack, I had the same idea a couple of years ago. It gets even more interesting when you realize that the NiAl + NaOH reaction produces Raney Nickel (google it - it is a nano-porous material) which has very interesting properties. The reaction effectively pre-loads the Raney Nickel 'metallic foam' with Hydrogen. I wonder if anyone has looked for anomalous heat in this process. I suspect not. Andy. On 16/05/13 17:21, Jack Cole wrote: Since either potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide react with aluminum to produce hydrogen, I wonder if NiAl wire in electrolysis with KOH or NaOH might prove interesting. Any thoughts? Perhaps even simpler would be adding this wire to a solution of KOH or NaOH without electrolysis. I don't know if the hydrogen produced would load into the lattice. Best regards, Jack
Hi! Please excuse errors. English is not my native language. If we want to make better LENR and find a start for a theory so may it bee good to leave out the nuclear physics for a moment. If cracks is the site for NAE it would be good to see watt have been done about micro cracks in metals. It must be lots of studies and theory in that topic. As I understand it small cracks is probably the NAE site but large cracks is deloading the hydrogen from the metal. The hydrogen loading makes the metal expands and create cracks. Then there becomes to much large cracks the hydrogen goes out from the metal and the reaction stops. A metal how is loading hydrogen is not in equilibrium. There are rather active processes than stationary states that is important for LENR. Its may be of interest both the size /morphology of the cracks and the processes associated with the birth and development of the cracks. Cracks may be produced in a branching pattern. A fractal crack system may have many cracks in different scales. At the birth of cracks there may be strong mechanical stress, electrical fields and discharges. Some of this have been in the discussion on fracto fusion (a hot fusion process) but it would have significance for LENR to. There have been lots of efforts to stimulate the reactions threw laser, sound, super waves or stuff like that. Some of them seems to bee successful. This have been an argument for that oscillations as phonons are involved, but this can also be a thing that makes cracks. Which processes is associated with formation and growth of cracks? And witch processes may be important for the nuclear process?
Cooling is not against the second law. There exist endothermic chemical reactions how makes cooling. There also are endothermic nuclear reactions. This includes 7Li+n→ 4He+3T +n -2.466 MeV, observe the negative sign (-). And fission of light elements and fusion of heavy elements. On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 22:03:28 -0500, ChemE Stewart wrote: Cooling and going against the second law of thermodynamics Cooling only goes against the second law if the particle(s) never give the entropy back to their surroundings, which is not known Stewart darkmattersalot,com On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Maybe the wire is getting old after so much testing. To be sure, another one should be made. 2013/1/28 Jouni Valkonen Is this then yet another failure for cold fusion, or is it still too early to tell? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com  Links: --  mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com  mailto:jounivalko...@gmail.com  mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com
Excuse my grammar. English is not my native language. Can energy and momentum be transferred from the new He4 to another nucleus at some distains? Energy can be transferred from one molecule to another threw a quantum mechanical mechanism. This occurs in photo synthesis there excitations can jump between electrons in different molecules. From an older tread. http://email@example.com/msg75294.html Maybe a similar phenomenon can occur between nucleus? This means the excitation from a He4 and momentum can be transferred to one or more receiver nucleus. These receiver nucleus must be a special nuclide suitable for receive the energy and have a mechanism to get rid of it. If several nucleus can get energy from one He4 it may radiate it as UV. If this not is possible I suggest that the receiver nucleus is a C12 how decay to 3 He4 as an reversed triple alpha. In absence of receiver nucleus there will be no reactions. But this did not explain the overcome of the coulomb barrier and why its not works in absence of receiver nucleus. I have heard that the conservation of momentum in LENR is commonly explained to something how would be like the Mössbauer effect. But I understand this not so easily to explain more exactly. TG
A proposal from a nuclear amateur. If LENR is fusion this experiment may consume 11B and makes 4He. But if LENR involves free neutrons there would be a different reaction. 10B+n → 7Li+4He+gamma + 2.31 MeV The 10B isotope is good at capturing neutrons. It would be fine to looking for gamma radiation and Li isotope anomalies. And it would be interesting to make the experiment with borax or boric acid enriched in 10B and also with 11B. This is something how can give a clue to the nature of the LENR phenomenon. I'm sorrow for this idea may involve to advanced and expensive methods. TG