Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory

[Frank Znidarsic]

I just viewed Rossi's demo.  He is the first to come to market with a 
commercial cold fusion product.  That is something.  I has to work.


-Original Message-
From: Mats Lewan 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Jan 24, 2019 7:04 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Rossi's theory

Here’s the first publication of Rossi’s theory for the process in the 
E-Cat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
Kind Regards,Mats

Mats Lewan, Speaker, Moderator, Author, Journalist – technology and 
future.www.matslewan.setel. +46-70-5907252, twitter @matslew, facebook, 
youtube, linkedin.Author of An Impossible Invention.Member of National Speakers 
Association of Sweden. 

[Vo]:Rossi's theory

[Mats Lewan]

Here’s the first publication of Rossi’s theory for the process in the E-Cat:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions

Kind Regards,
Mats

Mats Lewan, Speaker, Moderator, Author, Journalist – technology and future.
www.matslewan.se 
tel. +46-70-5907252, twitter @matslew , facebook 
, youtube 
, linkedin 
.
Author of An Impossible Invention .
Member of National Speakers Association of Sweden . 

[Vo]:Rossi's theory

[Axil Axil]

Rossi's theory

The paper presented by Carl-Oscar Gullstrom has now been published on the
Journal of Nuclear Physics here:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Working%
20with%20theory%20about%20the%20Rossi%20Effect.pdf

The presentation of Carl-Oscar Gullstrom at the November 24 E-Cat QX
presentation, which was omitted from the official early videos released on
the official Ecat YouTube channel has now been published as a separate
video.

The link is here: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ud6-KRbvKqE


Axil's theory


In a nutshell, I believe that the thrust of Rossi’s theory is going in the
right direction. But the details are not correct. At the bottom of the
cause of LENR is a Quark transformation reaction produced by magnetic field
lines that increase the energy/mass of the quark causing them to change
flavors. Monopole magnetism causes quarks to increase in energy/mass by
adding to the spin of the quark. The quarks in the protons and neutrons are
transformed into strange and charm quarks that produce mesons (Kaons) that
then decay into pions and muons and eventually electrons. The mechanism of
monopole magnetic field line production is produced by entangled
nanoparticles that condense from metal vapor produced by the plasma in
Rossi’s QX and metalized hydrogen in Holmlid’s reaction

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf

[Roarty, Francis X]

IMHO hydrno moleules with Li must remain a gas or plasma  where the  shrunken 
hydrogen only exists as a function of the  surrounding geometry therefore the 
molecule is free to drift  thru the  geometry and also provides a 
disassociating force when the geometry lessens and the contracted hydrogen 
tries to expand back to normal. I think these molecules can transition between 
atomic and molecular state repeatedly in an endless reaction when random motion 
returns some of them to regions where they again shrink.. I think the molecular 
bond acts as a lynch pin to carry potential energy to different regions where 
the normal symmetry of an atom transitioning transparently between geometries 
can become an asymmetry if the atoms form a molecule  by discounting  the 
molecular disassociation threshold when the atoms try to expand in opposition 
the bond. If the reactor temp is already close to that threshold I could see a 
runaway endless reaction where it takes less energy to disassociate the 
molecule than energy released upon reforming.
Fran
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 11:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf

In reply to  mix...@bigpond.com's message of Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:58:59 +1000:
Hi,
[snip]
In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Sat, 18 Jul 2015 19:57:12 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
There is very little Li7 in the ash, so the high masses based on Li7 might be
below the detection threshold.
The values for Li + 3 hydrinos can indeed be ruled out as you suggest.
That leaves Li6 + 1 or Li6 + 2 with masses 7  8 respectively.
The mass 7 would be masked by Li7 therefore be undetectable.
That leaves the mass 8, which might show up, though in order to catalyze the
neutron transfer reaction a fairly high p value molecule would be needed, and
these tend to have binding energies in the keV for the third Hydrinohydride, so
it's possible that it might be too tightly bound for the ion beam to dislodge
with a sufficient frequency for Li6Hy2 to show up.
[snip]

I just realized that this explanation is nonsense, as if it were true, then Li6
itself wouldn't show up either.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf

[Axil Axil]

The arrangement of the atoms in the ultra dense hydogen produces
superconductivity. From the experts here on hydrinos, I ask how hydrinos
produce superconductivity.

A test can be carried out where a magneric field is applied to the ultra
dense hyfrogen to see if the superconductivity is produced by a BEC or is
caused by topology. If the ultra dense hydrogen is produced by a nanowire
structure, the superconductivity will not be distroyed by a magnetic field,
otherwise the magnetic field will distroy the superconductivity.

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Roarty, Francis X 
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:

 IMHO hydrno moleules with Li must remain a gas or plasma  where the
 shrunken hydrogen only exists as a function of the  surrounding geometry
 therefore the molecule is free to drift  thru the  geometry and also
 provides a disassociating force when the geometry lessens and the
 contracted hydrogen tries to expand back to normal. I think these molecules
 can transition between atomic and molecular state repeatedly in an endless
 reaction when random motion returns some of them to regions where they
 again shrink.. I think the molecular bond acts as a lynch pin to carry
 potential energy to different regions where the normal symmetry of an atom
 transitioning transparently between geometries can become an asymmetry if
 the atoms form a molecule  by discounting  the molecular disassociation
 threshold when the atoms try to expand in opposition the bond. If the
 reactor temp is already close to that threshold I could see a runaway
 endless reaction where it takes less energy to disassociate the molecule
 than energy released upon reforming.
 Fran
 -Original Message-
 From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
 Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 11:24 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction -
 LiHy4-.pdf

 In reply to  mix...@bigpond.com's message of Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:58:59
 +1000:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Sat, 18 Jul 2015 19:57:12 -0600:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 There is very little Li7 in the ash, so the high masses based on Li7
 might be
 below the detection threshold.
 The values for Li + 3 hydrinos can indeed be ruled out as you suggest.
 That leaves Li6 + 1 or Li6 + 2 with masses 7  8 respectively.
 The mass 7 would be masked by Li7 therefore be undetectable.
 That leaves the mass 8, which might show up, though in order to catalyze
 the
 neutron transfer reaction a fairly high p value molecule would be needed,
 and
 these tend to have binding energies in the keV for the third
 Hydrinohydride, so
 it's possible that it might be too tightly bound for the ion beam to
 dislodge
 with a sufficient frequency for Li6Hy2 to show up.
 [snip]

 I just realized that this explanation is nonsense, as if it were true,
 then Li6
 itself wouldn't show up either.
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Bob Higgins]

The problem I have with this analysis is that in the Lugano reaction, whose
fuel/ash analyses are the basis of the hypothesis, the Ni seemed to have
been largely converted to 62Ni and the Li converted almost completely to
6Li; yet in the experiment, the excess heat showed no signs of abatement.
The reaction gave no indication of running low on fuel.  It appeared that
the reaction heat continued even though the fuel had been converted to 6Li
and 62Ni.  How is this explained in your theory?

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:05 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 01:17:15 -0400:
 Hi,
 How does your wonder particle stop at neutron formation just at Ni62?
 [snip]

 I previously posted the following to Vortex on Oct. 9 2014, but can't get
 the
 archive to show me posts for 2014.

 _

 In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 8 Oct 2014 09:22:13 -0700:
 Hi,
 [snip]

 Li7 + Ni58 = Ni59 + Li6 + 1.75 MeV
 Li7 + Ni59 = Ni60 + Li6 + 4.14 MeV
 Li7 + Ni60 = Ni61 + Li6 + 0.57 MeV
 Li7 + Ni61 = Ni62 + Li6 + 3.34 MeV
 Li7 + Ni62 = Ni63 + Li6 - 0.41 MeV (Endothermic!)

 This series stops at Ni62, hence all isotopes of Ni less than 62 are
 depleted
 and Ni62 is strongly enriched.

 I have only briefly skimmed the report, but the basic reaction appears to
 be a
 neutron transfer reaction where a neutron tunnels from Li7 to a Nickel
 isotope.
 The excess energy of the reaction appears as kinetic energy of the two
 resultant
 nuclei (i.e. Li6  the new Ni isotope), rather than as gamma rays. Because
 there
 are two daughter nuclei, momentum can be conserved while dumping the
 energy as
 kinetic energy in a reaction that is much faster then gamma ray emission.
 Because both nuclei are heavy and slow moving, very little to no
 bremsstrahlung is produced. There is effectively no secondary gamma from
 Li6
 because the first excited state is too high. (I haven't checked Li7).
 There is
 unlikely to be anything significant from Ni because the high charge on the
 nucleus combined with the 3 from Lithium tend to keep them apart (minimum
 distance 31 fm).

 It would be nice to know if the total amounts of each of Li  Ni in the
 sample
 were conserved (I'll have to study the report more closely).
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

It appeared that the reaction heat continued even though the fuel had been
 converted to 6Li and 62Ni.  How is this explained in your theory?


Some thoughts here:

   - It's an open question as to whether and how much excess heat the
   Lugano authors were really seeing.  (It might have been a lot, it might
   have been a little, or it might have been pure Joule heating.)

   - If there's neutron stripping along the lines of 7Li → 6Li, giving rise
   to 58Ni → ... → 62Ni, this process might not be the only neutron stripping
   one going on, and perhaps not even the primary one.  That would allow the
   excess heat, if there was excess heat, to continue after that part of the
   fuel was spent.  (If this particular process was an important one, I would
   expect some kind of rate change to show up in the data once the 7Li was
   spent.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:39:48 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]


In that detection method, Lithium ions cannot remain without electrons
through an acid bath. 

Take another look at the binding energy of the new particle. (See the last
column in the table at the bottom of the pdf document attached to previous
post.) The binding energy for some of them is so high that they would be
chemically more stable than any normal substance. Even 100 eV would make then
resistant to temperatures up to half a million degrees Kelvin. An acid bath is
just going to wash them nice and clean, if there are any left. ;)


The lithium ions will have been completly
neutralized. The detection method will detect lithium as the results of the
method have proven. 

The detection method only detected the remnant normal Lithium that was still
left. That's why the percentage is so low.

Your assertion does not make sense. 

It makes perfect sense when you don't make unwarranted assumptions.

The analysts would
not use a detection method that did not detect lithium because they
provided results that showed lithium.

The analysts don't know any better. This concept is not even in their
vocabulary.


Once lithium got inside the nickel particle why would lithium ever leave
nickel. 

Thermal agitation would result in transport. The outer housing may not contain
the particles either so presumably they would eventually escape the experiment
entirely. The real question is, how many Ni nuclei can they convert before they
do.

If lithium was an a complete ion, it would be capured by the
electrons from nickel and share them. A nickel lithium alloy would have
formed.

LiHy3 is neutral and doesn't get captured by anything (more like a neutron in
that regard). LiHy4- is negatively charged, so electrons avoid it like the
plague. OTOH it readily displaces an electron from the Ni and because of it's
negative charge and large mass, immediately makes a beeline for the nucleus.
As it gets closer, the chance of neutron tunneling from the Li7 to the Ni
increases dramatically. (See also here below).


There are so many free electrons on and inside nickel, the is not
possiblity that a triply ionized lithium atom could get inside and then
leave nickel metal. You just can't assert that such an ion process is
possible.

You are correct, I can't assert that. But then again, that's not what I'm
asserting. We are not talking about a naked Lithium ion, but rather one that is
surrounded and thus shielded by Hydrinohydride ions, that has already lost it's
electrons, and has no interest in acquiring more. A good analogy is the
sulfate anion :- SO4-- (Where Sulfur carries a charge of 6+). Note however the
huge difference in size. SO4-- is vastly larger than LiHy4- because the Hy-
anions are already much smaller than a Hydrogen atom, and Li+++ has for
practical purposes, no size, so that the size of the particle is completely
determined by the size of Hydrinohydride ions (also true for LiHy3 of course).
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Sat, 18 Jul 2015 08:34:52 -0600:
Hi,
The problem I have with this analysis is that in the Lugano reaction, whose
fuel/ash analyses are the basis of the hypothesis, the Ni seemed to have
been largely converted to 62Ni and the Li converted almost completely to
6Li; yet in the experiment, the excess heat showed no signs of abatement.
The reaction gave no indication of running low on fuel.  It appeared that
the reaction heat continued even though the fuel had been converted to 6Li
and 62Ni.  How is this explained in your theory?

Only a tiny sample of the ash was analyzed, and it may not have been
representative. IOW we got lucky (our esteemed professors chose their particle
well ;). At least some other particles probably still contained some unreacted
nickel.
As for the Li6, I have also previously postulated that the Li6 might also take
part in reactions where it acquired a neutron (e.g. from O17), thus reforming
Li7. The ratio of Li6 to Li7 would be determined by the balance between the
rates of formation and destruction. Much like a chemical shift reaction, except
that in this case we are talking about a nuclear shift reaction.

IOW as long as there was a source of neutrons available (e.g. O17), the reaction
could continue with a more or less constant ratio of Li6 to Li7.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

 If there's neutron stripping along the lines of 7Li → 6Li, giving rise to 
 58Ni → ... → 62Ni, this process might not be the only neutron stripping one 
 going on, and perhaps not even the primary one.

There is a further problem with explaining the excess heat in the Lugano test 
as being based entirely on 7Li neutron stripping.  I recall calculations that 
have shown that the amount of 7Li needed to explain the reported excess heat 
was too low by an order of magnitude.  It does not help our understanding, 
unfortunately, that the heat balance has huge error bars.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf

[mixent]

In reply to  mix...@bigpond.com's message of Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:58:59 +1000:
Hi,
[snip]
In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Sat, 18 Jul 2015 19:57:12 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
There is very little Li7 in the ash, so the high masses based on Li7 might be
below the detection threshold.
The values for Li + 3 hydrinos can indeed be ruled out as you suggest.
That leaves Li6 + 1 or Li6 + 2 with masses 7  8 respectively.
The mass 7 would be masked by Li7 therefore be undetectable.
That leaves the mass 8, which might show up, though in order to catalyze the
neutron transfer reaction a fairly high p value molecule would be needed, and
these tend to have binding energies in the keV for the third Hydrinohydride, so
it's possible that it might be too tightly bound for the ion beam to dislodge
with a sufficient frequency for Li6Hy2 to show up.
[snip]

I just realized that this explanation is nonsense, as if it were true, then Li6
itself wouldn't show up either.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jul 2015 20:15:31 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
What Is not clear in common sense terms... if the fuel has more lithium than 
the ash, why does the fuel need to wait to be loaded into the reactor for the 
reaction to take hold. placing some nickel powder into lithium should get te 
reaction going if reaction is all up to hydrinos. 

The Hydrinos first have to be created. This involves individual Li atoms 
individual H atoms being close to one another in space, but not bound in a
molecule. That only happens once the LiAlH4 has been heated sufficiently to
decompose completely.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf

[mixent]

In reply to  mix...@bigpond.com's message of Sun, 19 Jul 2015 08:25:08 +1000:
Hi,
[snip]
resistant to temperatures up to half a million degrees Kelvin. An acid bath is
just going to wash them nice and clean, if there are any left. ;)

Actually I may be wrong about this. It may be possible for the protons from the
acid to combine with the Hydrinohydride and form a Hydrino molecule, thus
releasing the Li+++ and allowing it to reacquire it electrons.

[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf

[Bob Higgins]

If a lithium atom were to replace 1-3 electrons with hydrinohydrides as a
stable molecule, this surely would show up in the SIMS of the fuel in the
Lugano report.  SIMS measures mass and you would see a spectrum of
6Li+(1,2,3) and 7Li+(1,2,3), or m/z=8,9,10 should show up and they don't.
A possible counter argument would be that the fully populated Lithium
tri-hydrinohydride would not be ionizable and hence not detectable in
SIMS.  However, a Lithium + 1 or 2 hydrinohydrides should be ionizable and
should populate m/z = 8,9 and these are not seen.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:13 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:21:04 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 But how did the lithium get inside and at the center of the nickel
 particle. A few post ago you invented a new type of neutral particle do do
 that.

 The neutral particle is a triangle of Hydrinohydride ions (each with a
 charge of
 -1), with a Lithium nucleus (+3) at the center of the triangle.

 The negative particle is a tetrahedron of Hydrinohydride ions with Li+++
 at the
 core, IOW = the neutral triangle with an extra Hydrinohydride added.

 Both particles are created through one by one addition of Hydrinohydride
 to a
 Lithium atom. Each time a Hydrinohydride ion is added it displaces an
 existing
 electron from the atom, until there are no electrons left. Because
 electrons are
 displaced, the particle is neutral overall until the fourth Hydrinohydride
 is
 added.
 The calculation of energy released as the particle is built up is in the
 attached pdf document.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf

[Axil Axil]

What Is not clear in common sense terms... if the fuel has more lithium
than the ash, why does the fuel need to wait to be loaded into the reactor
for the reaction to take hold. placing some nickel powder into lithium
should get te reaction going if reaction is all up to hydrinos.

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 8:07 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  mix...@bigpond.com's message of Sun, 19 Jul 2015 08:25:08
 +1000:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 resistant to temperatures up to half a million degrees Kelvin. An acid
 bath is
 just going to wash them nice and clean, if there are any left. ;)

 Actually I may be wrong about this. It may be possible for the protons
 from the
 acid to combine with the Hydrinohydride and form a Hydrino molecule, thus
 releasing the Li+++ and allowing it to reacquire it electrons.

 [snip]
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Sat, 18 Jul 2015 19:57:12 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
There is very little Li7 in the ash, so the high masses based on Li7 might be
below the detection threshold.
The values for Li + 3 hydrinos can indeed be ruled out as you suggest.
That leaves Li6 + 1 or Li6 + 2 with masses 7  8 respectively.
The mass 7 would be masked by Li7 therefore be undetectable.
That leaves the mass 8, which might show up, though in order to catalyze the
neutron transfer reaction a fairly high p value molecule would be needed, and
these tend to have binding energies in the keV for the third Hydrinohydride, so
it's possible that it might be too tightly bound for the ion beam to dislodge
with a sufficient frequency for Li6Hy2 to show up.

If a lithium atom were to replace 1-3 electrons with hydrinohydrides as a
stable molecule, this surely would show up in the SIMS of the fuel in the
Lugano report.  SIMS measures mass and you would see a spectrum of
6Li+(1,2,3) and 7Li+(1,2,3), or m/z=8,9,10 should show up and they don't.
A possible counter argument would be that the fully populated Lithium
tri-hydrinohydride would not be ionizable and hence not detectable in
SIMS.  However, a Lithium + 1 or 2 hydrinohydrides should be ionizable and
should populate m/z = 8,9 and these are not seen.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:13 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:21:04 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 But how did the lithium get inside and at the center of the nickel
 particle. A few post ago you invented a new type of neutral particle do do
 that.

 The neutral particle is a triangle of Hydrinohydride ions (each with a
 charge of
 -1), with a Lithium nucleus (+3) at the center of the triangle.

 The negative particle is a tetrahedron of Hydrinohydride ions with Li+++
 at the
 core, IOW = the neutral triangle with an extra Hydrinohydride added.

 Both particles are created through one by one addition of Hydrinohydride
 to a
 Lithium atom. Each time a Hydrinohydride ion is added it displaces an
 existing
 electron from the atom, until there are no electrons left. Because
 electrons are
 displaced, the particle is neutral overall until the fourth Hydrinohydride
 is
 added.
 The calculation of energy released as the particle is built up is in the
 attached pdf document.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf

[Axil Axil]

In that detection method, Lithium ions cannot remain without electrons
through an acid bath. The lithium ions will have been completly
neutralized. The detection method will detect lithium as the results of the
method have proven. Your assertion does not make sense. The analysts would
not use a detection method that did not detect lithium because they
provided results that showed lithium.

Once lithium got inside the nickel particle why would lithium ever leave
nickel. If lithium was an a complete ion, it would be capured by the
electrons from nickel and share them. A nickel lithium alloy would have
formed.

There are so many free electrons on and inside nickel, the is not
possiblity that a triply ionized lithium atom could get inside and then
leave nickel metal. You just can't assert that such an ion process is
possible.



On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:37 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 21:12:56 -0400:
 Hi,

 1) Lithium could get out the same way it got in.
 2) ICP-AES relies on electron spectra, but the particles I'm talking about
 have
no more electrons in normal orbitals, so the Li will not show up in the
analysis. If anything the report actually lends support to my
 hypothesis.

 If the Ni62 reaction is based on Li, and the nickel is completely
 converted
 to Ni62, then the particle should be complettely saturated with lithium on
 an atom for atom basis.
 
 But the percentage of lithium was reduced from 1.17% as fuel, to 0.03% as
 shown on the last page of the Lugano report. This indicates that Lithium
 was not involved in the Ni52 conversion.
 
 [snip]
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf

[Axil Axil]

If the Ni62 reaction is based on Li, and the nickel is completely converted
to Ni62, then the particle should be complettely saturated with lithium on
an atom for atom basis.

But the percentage of lithium was reduced from 1.17% as fuel, to 0.03% as
shown on the last page of the Lugano report. This indicates that Lithium
was not involved in the Ni52 conversion.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:13 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:21:04 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 But how did the lithium get inside and at the center of the nickel
 particle. A few post ago you invented a new type of neutral particle do do
 that.

 The neutral particle is a triangle of Hydrinohydride ions (each with a
 charge of
 -1), with a Lithium nucleus (+3) at the center of the triangle.

 The negative particle is a tetrahedron of Hydrinohydride ions with Li+++
 at the
 core, IOW = the neutral triangle with an extra Hydrinohydride added.

 Both particles are created through one by one addition of Hydrinohydride
 to a
 Lithium atom. Each time a Hydrinohydride ion is added it displaces an
 existing
 electron from the atom, until there are no electrons left. Because
 electrons are
 displaced, the particle is neutral overall until the fourth Hydrinohydride
 is
 added.
 The calculation of energy released as the particle is built up is in the
 attached pdf document.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:21:04 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
But how did the lithium get inside and at the center of the nickel
particle. A few post ago you invented a new type of neutral particle do do
that.

The neutral particle is a triangle of Hydrinohydride ions (each with a charge of
-1), with a Lithium nucleus (+3) at the center of the triangle.

The negative particle is a tetrahedron of Hydrinohydride ions with Li+++ at the
core, IOW = the neutral triangle with an extra Hydrinohydride added.

Both particles are created through one by one addition of Hydrinohydride to a
Lithium atom. Each time a Hydrinohydride ion is added it displaces an existing
electron from the atom, until there are no electrons left. Because electrons are
displaced, the particle is neutral overall until the fourth Hydrinohydride is
added.
The calculation of energy released as the particle is built up is in the
attached pdf document.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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


LiHy4-.pdf
Description: Binary data

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction - LiHy4-.pdf

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 21:12:56 -0400:
Hi,

1) Lithium could get out the same way it got in.
2) ICP-AES relies on electron spectra, but the particles I'm talking about have
   no more electrons in normal orbitals, so the Li will not show up in the
   analysis. If anything the report actually lends support to my hypothesis.

If the Ni62 reaction is based on Li, and the nickel is completely converted
to Ni62, then the particle should be complettely saturated with lithium on
an atom for atom basis.

But the percentage of lithium was reduced from 1.17% as fuel, to 0.03% as
shown on the last page of the Lugano report. This indicates that Lithium
was not involved in the Ni52 conversion.

[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Axil Axil]

But how did the lithium get inside and at the center of the nickel
particle. A few post ago you invented a new type of neutral particle do do
that.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:05 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 01:17:15 -0400:
 Hi,
 How does your wonder particle stop at neutron formation just at Ni62?
 [snip]

 I previously posted the following to Vortex on Oct. 9 2014, but can't get
 the
 archive to show me posts for 2014.

 _

 In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 8 Oct 2014 09:22:13 -0700:
 Hi,
 [snip]

 Li7 + Ni58 = Ni59 + Li6 + 1.75 MeV
 Li7 + Ni59 = Ni60 + Li6 + 4.14 MeV
 Li7 + Ni60 = Ni61 + Li6 + 0.57 MeV
 Li7 + Ni61 = Ni62 + Li6 + 3.34 MeV
 Li7 + Ni62 = Ni63 + Li6 - 0.41 MeV (Endothermic!)

 This series stops at Ni62, hence all isotopes of Ni less than 62 are
 depleted
 and Ni62 is strongly enriched.

 I have only briefly skimmed the report, but the basic reaction appears to
 be a
 neutron transfer reaction where a neutron tunnels from Li7 to a Nickel
 isotope.
 The excess energy of the reaction appears as kinetic energy of the two
 resultant
 nuclei (i.e. Li6  the new Ni isotope), rather than as gamma rays. Because
 there
 are two daughter nuclei, momentum can be conserved while dumping the
 energy as
 kinetic energy in a reaction that is much faster then gamma ray emission.
 Because both nuclei are heavy and slow moving, very little to no
 bremsstrahlung is produced. There is effectively no secondary gamma from
 Li6
 because the first excited state is too high. (I haven't checked Li7).
 There is
 unlikely to be anything significant from Ni because the high charge on the
 nucleus combined with the 3 from Lithium tend to keep them apart (minimum
 distance 31 fm).

 It would be nice to know if the total amounts of each of Li  Ni in the
 sample
 were conserved (I'll have to study the report more closely).
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 17 Jul 2015 01:17:15 -0400:
Hi,
How does your wonder particle stop at neutron formation just at Ni62?
[snip]

I previously posted the following to Vortex on Oct. 9 2014, but can't get the
archive to show me posts for 2014.
_

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 8 Oct 2014 09:22:13 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

Li7 + Ni58 = Ni59 + Li6 + 1.75 MeV
Li7 + Ni59 = Ni60 + Li6 + 4.14 MeV
Li7 + Ni60 = Ni61 + Li6 + 0.57 MeV
Li7 + Ni61 = Ni62 + Li6 + 3.34 MeV
Li7 + Ni62 = Ni63 + Li6 - 0.41 MeV (Endothermic!)

This series stops at Ni62, hence all isotopes of Ni less than 62 are depleted
and Ni62 is strongly enriched.

I have only briefly skimmed the report, but the basic reaction appears to be a
neutron transfer reaction where a neutron tunnels from Li7 to a Nickel isotope.
The excess energy of the reaction appears as kinetic energy of the two resultant
nuclei (i.e. Li6  the new Ni isotope), rather than as gamma rays. Because there
are two daughter nuclei, momentum can be conserved while dumping the energy as
kinetic energy in a reaction that is much faster then gamma ray emission.
Because both nuclei are heavy and slow moving, very little to no
bremsstrahlung is produced. There is effectively no secondary gamma from Li6
because the first excited state is too high. (I haven't checked Li7). There is
unlikely to be anything significant from Ni because the high charge on the
nucleus combined with the 3 from Lithium tend to keep them apart (minimum
distance 31 fm).

It would be nice to know if the total amounts of each of Li  Ni in the sample
were conserved (I'll have to study the report more closely).
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

Your point is if the experimental result does not fit the theory, then
 ignore or discount the experimental result. This sounds just like the
 process that the naysayes use to ignore LENR.


My point is that the experiment was not done well; for example, there was
no proper calibration.  This complaint is about method and not theory.  If
one does not have good data to work with, it's a guessing game as to
whether there was excess heat.

Whether or not there was excess heat, the isotopic analysis was
interesting, however.  Where in the Lugano report does it say that the
nickel particle you've been drawing attention to is homogenous 64Ni?  I
believe it would be something of a stretch to get at this conclusion
indirectly on the basis of the isotopic analyses that were provided.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Axil Axil]

How does your wonder particle stop at neutron formation just at Ni62?

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 5:59 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jul 2015 01:20:56 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 What keeps this particle from interacting with the atoms on the outer
 region of the nickel particle more than the inner section of the nickel
 particle? More Ni64 should have been found on the outside of the particle
 and more Ni58 should have been fount at the center of the particle.
 
 Not if it had all been converted.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jul 2015 01:20:56 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
What keeps this particle from interacting with the atoms on the outer
region of the nickel particle more than the inner section of the nickel
particle? More Ni64 should have been found on the outside of the particle
and more Ni58 should have been fount at the center of the particle.

Not if it had all been converted.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Axil Axil]

Where do the neutrons come from?

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:01 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:27:49 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 How do these theories explain a 100 micro nickel particle that is almost
 pure Ni62? The key to the correct LENR theory is through an explanation of
 that particle.

 I already provided a possible explanation of that with the neutron transfer
 reactions I posted some time ago. Those reactions also disposed of the
 reaction
 energy in the form of slow moving heavy nuclei (hence little or no
 secondary
 radiation).
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

How does the center of the nickel particle get their share of neutrons that
 hardly move, that is neutrons with no energy,


IIRC, we don't know enough to say the nickel particle was 7Li throughout.
I'm also open to the possibility that this particle was not a result of a
LENR process.  (Also, the method of the Lugano report has been badly
discredited, so its findings are shaky.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Axil Axil]

What keeps this particle from interacting with the atoms on the outer
region of the nickel particle more than the inner section of the nickel
particle? More Ni64 should have been found on the outside of the particle
and more Ni58 should have been fount at the center of the particle.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:19 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:19:35 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 So the neutrons reside on the surface of the Nickel particle. How do they
 get into the middle of the nickel particle?

 The Lithium is combined with Hydrinos to make either a small neutral
 particle,
 or as a negative ion that is actually attracted to Ni nuclei. The whole
 construct is smaller and denser than a Hydrogen atom, so it can easily
 migrate
 through the interstitial gaps in a metal lattice.
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:27:49 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
How do these theories explain a 100 micro nickel particle that is almost
pure Ni62? The key to the correct LENR theory is through an explanation of
that particle.

I already provided a possible explanation of that with the neutron transfer
reactions I posted some time ago. Those reactions also disposed of the reaction
energy in the form of slow moving heavy nuclei (hence little or no secondary
radiation).
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:04:10 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Where do the neutrons come from?

Li7.


On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:01 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:27:49 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 How do these theories explain a 100 micro nickel particle that is almost
 pure Ni62? The key to the correct LENR theory is through an explanation of
 that particle.

 I already provided a possible explanation of that with the neutron transfer
 reactions I posted some time ago. Those reactions also disposed of the
 reaction
 energy in the form of slow moving heavy nuclei (hence little or no
 secondary
 radiation).
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Axil Axil]

Your point is if the experimental result does not fit the theory, then
ignore or discount the experimental result. This sounds just like the
process that the naysayes use to ignore LENR.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 How does the center of the nickel particle get their share of neutrons
 that hardly move, that is neutrons with no energy,


 IIRC, we don't know enough to say the nickel particle was 7Li throughout.
 I'm also open to the possibility that this particle was not a result of a
 LENR process.  (Also, the method of the Lugano report has been badly
 discredited, so its findings are shaky.)

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:19:35 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
So the neutrons reside on the surface of the Nickel particle. How do they
get into the middle of the nickel particle?

The Lithium is combined with Hydrinos to make either a small neutral particle,
or as a negative ion that is actually attracted to Ni nuclei. The whole
construct is smaller and denser than a Hydrogen atom, so it can easily migrate
through the interstitial gaps in a metal lattice.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Axil Axil]

How does the center of the nickel particle get their share of neutrons that
hardly move, that is neutrons with no energy,

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 How do these theories explain a 100 micro nickel particle that is almost
 pure Ni62? The key to the correct LENR theory is through an explanation of
 that particle.


 I personally like Robin's 7Li neutron transfer explanation in this
 particular case.  Rather than a hydrino hydride, I like to think that the
 neutron stripping is a result of the Oppenheimer-Philiips process, where an
 accelerated 7Li orients in such a way that a neutron faces the target
 nickel nucleus in order to get any protons as far away from the positively
 charged target nucleus as possible.  My hunch is that the acceleration
 comes from sporadic electric arcing.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Axil Axil]

So the neutrons reside on the surface of the Nickel particle. How do they
get into the middle of the nickel particle?

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:15 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:04:10 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 Where do the neutrons come from?

 Li7.

 
 On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:01 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
 
  In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:27:49 -0400:
  Hi,
  [snip]
  How do these theories explain a 100 micro nickel particle that is
 almost
  pure Ni62? The key to the correct LENR theory is through an
 explanation of
  that particle.
 
  I already provided a possible explanation of that with the neutron
 transfer
  reactions I posted some time ago. Those reactions also disposed of the
  reaction
  energy in the form of slow moving heavy nuclei (hence little or no
  secondary
  radiation).
  Regards,
 
  Robin van Spaandonk
 
  http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
 
 
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

How do these theories explain a 100 micro nickel particle that is almost
 pure Ni62? The key to the correct LENR theory is through an explanation of
 that particle.


I personally like Robin's 7Li neutron transfer explanation in this
particular case.  Rather than a hydrino hydride, I like to think that the
neutron stripping is a result of the Oppenheimer-Philiips process, where an
accelerated 7Li orients in such a way that a neutron faces the target
nickel nucleus in order to get any protons as far away from the positively
charged target nucleus as possible.  My hunch is that the acceleration
comes from sporadic electric arcing.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Wed, 15 Jul 2015 08:25:50 -0500:
Hi Eric,

I realize what you meant, but during normal decay reactions, the energy is not
shared with an ensemble of electrons, so why would this case be special?

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:40 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

If the ensemble is large,
 even a reaction with 20+ MeV can be quickly and quietly dissipated in the
 production of x-rays.  If this happened, the daughter alpha itself might
 have little to no kinetic energy.
 [snip]
 I see no reason why this should be the case when it is clearly not the
 case for
 normal decay reactions.


The idea was that if the momentum is imparted to the ensemble of electrons,
since the electrons are so light, their share of the energy of the reaction
would be the overwhelming majority, with little energy left over for the
kinetic energy of the alpha particle.

Eric
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:24 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

I realize what you meant, but during normal decay reactions, the energy is
 not shared with an ensemble of electrons, so why would this case be special?


I'm not really sure.  There's just enough of doubt on my part about the
applicability of known behavior to this specific situation that I don't
write off the possibility.

Here are some potential explanations:

   - In the case of a short-lived nuclear transition yielding a gamma that
   occurs from the rearranging of nucleons, the nucleons reside in a field of
   strong positive charge, despite the presence of an electron cloud (I
   suspect).  Perhaps the charge density has to be negative or strongly
   negative for a gamma-yielding transition to short-circuit to nearby
   electrons.

   - Maybe when it comes to gamma-yielding transitions, there is more
   natural activity than we think there is, and a lot of the transitions are
   short-circuited in the proposed manner, leading to heat rather than
   gammas.  As observers outside of the system, we see only those gammas that
   escape for some reason.

   - Maybe there is a qualitative a difference between metastable
   transitions, which take a while to occur, and that of an extremely
   short-lived resonance like a [dd]* pair.  The faster the transition, the
   more likely it is to short-circuit.  Because we generally study dd fusions
   in a plasma system, this skews the data we have to work with, because there
   are few electrons nearby.  (In cases where a dd fusion occurs during
   thin-foil ion bombardment, there is an anomalous screening effect.)

   - Perhaps the circumstances of the production of the alphas are a little
   different than simple fusion in the vicinity of lattice sites; for example,
   if there is electric arcing which is drawing the precursors near one
   another (which may or may not be d+d), the arc in conjunction with the
   electron cloud may provide a different environment than is witnessed in
   other contexts.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Axil Axil]

How do these theories explain a 100 micro nickel particle that is almost
pure Ni62? The key to the correct LENR theory is through an explanation of
that particle.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 3:24 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 I realize what you meant, but during normal decay reactions, the energy is
 not shared with an ensemble of electrons, so why would this case be special?


 I'm not really sure.  There's just enough of doubt on my part about the
 applicability of known behavior to this specific situation that I don't
 write off the possibility.

 Here are some potential explanations:

- In the case of a short-lived nuclear transition yielding a gamma
that occurs from the rearranging of nucleons, the nucleons reside in a
field of strong positive charge, despite the presence of an electron cloud
(I suspect).  Perhaps the charge density has to be negative or strongly
negative for a gamma-yielding transition to short-circuit to nearby
electrons.

- Maybe when it comes to gamma-yielding transitions, there is more
natural activity than we think there is, and a lot of the transitions are
short-circuited in the proposed manner, leading to heat rather than
gammas.  As observers outside of the system, we see only those gammas that
escape for some reason.

- Maybe there is a qualitative a difference between metastable
transitions, which take a while to occur, and that of an extremely
short-lived resonance like a [dd]* pair.  The faster the transition, the
more likely it is to short-circuit.  Because we generally study dd fusions
in a plasma system, this skews the data we have to work with, because there
are few electrons nearby.  (In cases where a dd fusion occurs during
thin-foil ion bombardment, there is an anomalous screening effect.)

- Perhaps the circumstances of the production of the alphas are a
little different than simple fusion in the vicinity of lattice sites; for
example, if there is electric arcing which is drawing the precursors near
one another (which may or may not be d+d), the arc in conjunction with the
electron cloud may provide a different environment than is witnessed in
other contexts.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:40 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

If the ensemble is large,
 even a reaction with 20+ MeV can be quickly and quietly dissipated in the
 production of x-rays.  If this happened, the daughter alpha itself might
 have little to no kinetic energy.
 [snip]
 I see no reason why this should be the case when it is clearly not the
 case for
 normal decay reactions.


The idea was that if the momentum is imparted to the ensemble of electrons,
since the electrons are so light, their share of the energy of the reaction
would be the overwhelming majority, with little energy left over for the
kinetic energy of the alpha particle.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:37:01 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Some reactions that produce alphas will also normally be accompanied by the
emission of a gamma (but not all reactions).  In the case of otherwise
gamma-emitting reactions, it's possible that the reaction energy is instead
transmitted to the ensemble of electrons, each electron dividing the total
share into smaller pieces and emitting a photon.  If the ensemble is large,
even a reaction with 20+ MeV can be quickly and quietly dissipated in the
production of x-rays.  If this happened, the daughter alpha itself might
have little to no kinetic energy.
[snip]
I see no reason why this should be the case when it is clearly not the case for
normal decay reactions.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Axil Axil]

From the Lugano report, the view of the nickel particle retrived as ash
after 32 days of reaction looks identical to the fuel particle which itself
looks like it came out of a old reactor run. The nanostructed surface looks
prestine. This particle surface would have shown alpha impact in the
micrograph. This indicates that there was alpha particles of any energy
impacting on the surface of the nickel particle   as a result of the LENR
reaction.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Regarding: ... the E-Cat is a massive source of alpha particles


 For context, can you provide the source of this statement?

 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.


 It would depend upon the nature of the reaction.  Alphas of sufficient
 energy will generate x-rays and inelastic collisions.  In the case of
 x-rays, inner shell lattice electrons will be excited and will emit photons
 with up to ~ 9 keV energy.  In case of inelastic collisions, there are
 isomeric transitions for nickel in the MeV range.  I am not sure what the
 relative cross sections for inelastic collisions from fast alphas are.

 Some reactions that produce alphas will also normally be accompanied by
 the emission of a gamma (but not all reactions).  In the case of otherwise
 gamma-emitting reactions, it's possible that the reaction energy is instead
 transmitted to the ensemble of electrons, each electron dividing the total
 share into smaller pieces and emitting a photon.  If the ensemble is large,
 even a reaction with 20+ MeV can be quickly and quietly dissipated in the
 production of x-rays.  If this happened, the daughter alpha itself might
 have little to no kinetic energy.

 The weak point in this line of investigation has to do with how to explain
 why the process would be so efficient that it would not result in stray
 gammas of the kind being short-circuited or in inelastic collisions with
 lattice sites.  Nonetheless I find screening of some kind from the electron
 cloud provided by the lattice sites, together with thermalization through
 the agitation of a large ensemble of electrons, a very interesting line of
 exploration.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Axil Axil]

Correction...

From the Lugano report, the view of the nickel particle retrived as ash
after 32 days of reaction looks identical to the fuel particle which itself
looks like it came out of a old reactor run. The nanostructed surface looks
prestine. This particle surface would have shown alpha particle impact in
the micrograph if any occured. This indicates that there was no alpha
particles of any energy level impacting on the surface of the nickel
particle as a result of the LENR reaction.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 From the Lugano report, the view of the nickel particle retrived as ash
 after 32 days of reaction looks identical to the fuel particle which itself
 looks like it came out of a old reactor run. The nanostructed surface looks
 prestine. This particle surface would have shown alpha impact in the
 micrograph. This indicates that there was alpha particles of any energy
 impacting on the surface of the nickel particle   as a result of the LENR
 reaction.

 On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Regarding: ... the E-Cat is a massive source of alpha particles


 For context, can you provide the source of this statement?

 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.


 It would depend upon the nature of the reaction.  Alphas of sufficient
 energy will generate x-rays and inelastic collisions.  In the case of
 x-rays, inner shell lattice electrons will be excited and will emit photons
 with up to ~ 9 keV energy.  In case of inelastic collisions, there are
 isomeric transitions for nickel in the MeV range.  I am not sure what the
 relative cross sections for inelastic collisions from fast alphas are.

 Some reactions that produce alphas will also normally be accompanied by
 the emission of a gamma (but not all reactions).  In the case of otherwise
 gamma-emitting reactions, it's possible that the reaction energy is instead
 transmitted to the ensemble of electrons, each electron dividing the total
 share into smaller pieces and emitting a photon.  If the ensemble is large,
 even a reaction with 20+ MeV can be quickly and quietly dissipated in the
 production of x-rays.  If this happened, the daughter alpha itself might
 have little to no kinetic energy.

 The weak point in this line of investigation has to do with how to
 explain why the process would be so efficient that it would not result in
 stray gammas of the kind being short-circuited or in inelastic collisions
 with lattice sites.  Nonetheless I find screening of some kind from the
 electron cloud provided by the lattice sites, together with thermalization
 through the agitation of a large ensemble of electrons, a very interesting
 line of exploration.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Bob Cook]

The alphas do not have to be the recipient of the mass energy loss as kinetic 
energy.  The mass energy in a coherent system may end up with excess spin 
energy which is then distributed as phonic energy of the coherent system’s 
lattice.  

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 1:34 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

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.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

Regarding: ... the E-Cat is a massive source of alpha particles


For context, can you provide the source of this statement?

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.


It would depend upon the nature of the reaction.  Alphas of sufficient
energy will generate x-rays and inelastic collisions.  In the case of
x-rays, inner shell lattice electrons will be excited and will emit photons
with up to ~ 9 keV energy.  In case of inelastic collisions, there are
isomeric transitions for nickel in the MeV range.  I am not sure what the
relative cross sections for inelastic collisions from fast alphas are.

Some reactions that produce alphas will also normally be accompanied by the
emission of a gamma (but not all reactions).  In the case of otherwise
gamma-emitting reactions, it's possible that the reaction energy is instead
transmitted to the ensemble of electrons, each electron dividing the total
share into smaller pieces and emitting a photon.  If the ensemble is large,
even a reaction with 20+ MeV can be quickly and quietly dissipated in the
production of x-rays.  If this happened, the daughter alpha itself might
have little to no kinetic energy.

The weak point in this line of investigation has to do with how to explain
why the process would be so efficient that it would not result in stray
gammas of the kind being short-circuited or in inelastic collisions with
lattice sites.  Nonetheless I find screening of some kind from the electron
cloud provided by the lattice sites, together with thermalization through
the agitation of a large ensemble of electrons, a very interesting line of
exploration.

Eric

[Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Axil Axil]

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.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[torulf.greek]

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.  

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 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.


This is a surreal assertion. It makes no sense to say that basing a theory
on this is a bad thing!

The E-Cat is what it is. If the E-Cat does produce ionizing radiation, that
is an inescapable fact. It will surely be discovered long before the device
can be commercialized. Whatever institutions are now in charge of
regulating ionizing radiation will be in charge of the E-Cat in that case.
Perhaps these institutions can be changed, or the rules can be changed, but
the radiation itself cannot be.

You cannot avoid or negate radiation by changing the theory. A theory has
no influence over reality. It can only explain that reality, or fail to
explain it -- in which case it is useless.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Axil Axil]

The Rossi theory is useless and does not discrible the LENR reaction. To
promalgate a usless, invalid, and politically distrutive theory is
foolhardy.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 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.


 This is a surreal assertion. It makes no sense to say that basing a theory
 on this is a bad thing!

 The E-Cat is what it is. If the E-Cat does produce ionizing radiation,
 that is an inescapable fact. It will surely be discovered long before the
 device can be commercialized. Whatever institutions are now in charge of
 regulating ionizing radiation will be in charge of the E-Cat in that case.
 Perhaps these institutions can be changed, or the rules can be changed, but
 the radiation itself cannot be.

 You cannot avoid or negate radiation by changing the theory. A theory has
 no influence over reality. It can only explain that reality, or fail to
 explain it -- in which case it is useless.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Axil Axil]

The LENR reaction does not produce protons, alpha, beta, or gamma,
radiation when the reactor is well heated.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 The Rossi theory is useless and does not discrible the LENR reaction. To
 promalgate a usless, invalid, and politically distrutive theory is
 foolhardy.

 On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 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.


 This is a surreal assertion. It makes no sense to say that basing a
 theory on this is a bad thing!

 The E-Cat is what it is. If the E-Cat does produce ionizing radiation,
 that is an inescapable fact. It will surely be discovered long before the
 device can be commercialized. Whatever institutions are now in charge of
 regulating ionizing radiation will be in charge of the E-Cat in that case.
 Perhaps these institutions can be changed, or the rules can be changed, but
 the radiation itself cannot be.

 You cannot avoid or negate radiation by changing the theory. A theory has
 no influence over reality. It can only explain that reality, or fail to
 explain it -- in which case it is useless.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's theory of the LENR reaction

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

The Rossi theory is useless and does not discrible the LENR reaction. To
 promalgate a usless, invalid, and politically distrutive theory is
 foolhardy.


That is an entirely different issue. The first assertion you made was that
it is it is bad to base a theory of E-Cat reaction on . . . ionizing
radiation because such radiation will be regulated. That is
surrealistic. It is irrational. If there is radiation, it will be
regulated. If there is no radiation the device may not be regulated by
agencies that deal with radiation.

There is no doubt the E-Cat will be regulated. Every single machine and
device is regulated, including spoons, scissors, pins and needles. They
always have been regulated, in Medieval times by guilds, and today by
government agencies and industry groups. There is nothing you can buy or
consume in any first world country that is not covered by regulations.
There is no chance anyone will ever buy or sell E-Cats that have not been
tested and approved by some government agency. The only questions are which
agency, and which set of rules.

- Jed