RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[bobcook39923]

I say that what happens in stars reflects the environment in stars.  All bets 
are off IMHO when it comes to engineered resonant force fields, for example 
magnetic force fields, that can facilitate nuclear transformations in coherent 
engineered systems unlike what occur in a star.

Bob Cook

From: H LV
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 7:51 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

This conjecture also gives new meaning to the phrase 'cold fusion', if the 
adjective 'cold' qualifies the output rather than the input.  ;-)

Harry

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:46 AM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:

​CoE would still be true, but there would be no mass into energy conversion. 
Instead the iron would be slightly more massive than iron produced by stellar 
fusion.​

This suggestion has the benefit of being falsifiable.  If you activate the 
Coimbatore heavy iron with neutrons, the de-excitation gammas would be in the 
neighborhood of but measurably distinct from those known for iron isotopes.

If the masses of iron and not-iron were identical, and no energy were released 
from the reaction, there would presumably be a not-iron <=> iron equilibrium.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[H LV]

What I am proposing is that the force of repulsion below the pico scale
decreases with decreasing velocity. However, if fusion does occur at very
low velocities then the associated binding energy required to keep nuclei
together will be smaller resulting in a delicate nucleus. Given the history
of the universe most of the nuclear matter we encounter around us was
forged in stars so most of it will have very high binding energies. Also
delicate nuclei with very low binding energies would not be durable enough
to give rise the geological, mineralogical and biological diversity we see
today.

Harry

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 10:51 AM, H LV  wrote:

> This conjecture also gives new meaning to the phrase 'cold fusion', if the
> adjective 'cold' qualifies the output rather than the input.  ;-)
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:46 AM, H LV  wrote:
>>
>> ​CoE would still be true, but there would be no mass into energy
>>> conversion. Instead the iron would be slightly more massive than iron
>>> produced by stellar fusion.​
>>>
>>
>> This suggestion has the benefit of being falsifiable.  If you activate
>> the Coimbatore heavy iron with neutrons, the de-excitation gammas would be
>> in the neighborhood of but measurably distinct from those known for iron
>> isotopes.
>>
>> If the masses of iron and not-iron were identical, and no energy were
>> released from the reaction, there would presumably be a not-iron <=> iron
>> equilibrium.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[H LV]

This conjecture also gives new meaning to the phrase 'cold fusion', if the
adjective 'cold' qualifies the output rather than the input.  ;-)

Harry


On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:46 AM, H LV  wrote:
>
> ​CoE would still be true, but there would be no mass into energy
>> conversion. Instead the iron would be slightly more massive than iron
>> produced by stellar fusion.​
>>
>
> This suggestion has the benefit of being falsifiable.  If you activate the
> Coimbatore heavy iron with neutrons, the de-excitation gammas would be in
> the neighborhood of but measurably distinct from those known for iron
> isotopes.
>
> If the masses of iron and not-iron were identical, and no energy were
> released from the reaction, there would presumably be a not-iron <=> iron
> equilibrium.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 8:56 PM, H LV  wrote:

You mentioned "not-iron" before but can you clarify what you mean by this
> term? Thanks.
>

This is just a placeholder for whatever is converted to iron, e.g., 28Si +
28Si, since Narayanaswamy reports there being something creating iron
(which implies a nuclear process).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[H LV]

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:46 AM, H LV  wrote:
>
> ​CoE would still be true, but there would be no mass into energy
>> conversion. Instead the iron would be slightly more massive than iron
>> produced by stellar fusion.​
>>
>
> This suggestion has the benefit of being falsifiable.  If you activate the
> Coimbatore heavy iron with neutrons, the de-excitation gammas would be in
> the neighborhood of but measurably distinct from those known for iron
> isotopes.
>
>
​The difference should be detectable as long as all the iron on the Earth
was made in the stars. If some of the Earth's iron was made terrestrially
in a similar but naturally occurring process the difference will be less
detectable.





> If the masses of iron and not-iron were identical, and no energy were
> released from the reaction, there would presumably be a not-iron <=> iron
> equilibrium.
>
> Eric
>


You mentioned "not-iron" before but can you clarify what you mean by this
term? Thanks.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[H LV]

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 5:13 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  H LV's message of Sun, 19 Mar 2017 12:35:21 -0400:
> Hi Harry,
>
> In a fission reactor, the neutrons are normally slowed down to thermal
> temperatures before they react. This increases the reaction cross section,
> and
> allows the reactor to work. AFAIK the energy produced is as expected from a
> conservative force.
>
>
​If the nucleosynthesis process that produced the fuel involved
conservative forces than the energy produced from fissioning the fuel would
be as expected from a conservative force.

Harry



> [snip]
> >On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:11 AM, H LV  wrote:
> >>
> >> ?What is the "bond" energy of a nut and bolt? Does the amount of energy
> >>> that is required to literally slam together a bolt and a nut
> correspond to
> >>> the energy required to screw them together? Equations are poor guides
> if
> >>> the situation is modeled in inaccurately.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ok.  Can identify concretely the analogous inaccuracy in modeling that
> >> occurs in applying the equation E = mc^2 to the production of 1.3 metric
> >> tons of excess iron in the
> >> ??
> >> Coimbatore smelting facility?
> >>
> >> Eric
> >>
> >>
> >As pointed out by Robin my analogy uses the concept of a non-conservative
> >force. Traditional nuclear science models nuclear forces as purely
> >conservative forces, but this assumption may only be accurate at high
> >energies. If non-conservative forces are at play in smelting facility then
> >there would be little if any conversion of mass into energy. I guess that
> >would mean the iron at the facility would be slightly more massive than
> >iron born from stellar fusion.
> >
> >Harry
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[mixent]

In reply to  Frank Znidarsic's message of Sun, 19 Mar 2017 14:00:30 -0400:
Hi Frank,
[snip]
>Magnetic fields are not conservative.  This includes the gravitomagnetic, 
>electro-magnetic, and nuclear spin orbit magnetic.  You are on the right track.

If magnetic fields are not conservative, then you should be able to design a
"magic magnet motor", no?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[mixent]

In reply to  H LV's message of Sun, 19 Mar 2017 12:35:21 -0400:
Hi Harry,

In a fission reactor, the neutrons are normally slowed down to thermal
temperatures before they react. This increases the reaction cross section, and
allows the reactor to work. AFAIK the energy produced is as expected from a
conservative force.

[snip]
>On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:11 AM, H LV  wrote:
>>
>> ?What is the "bond" energy of a nut and bolt? Does the amount of energy
>>> that is required to literally slam together a bolt and a nut correspond to
>>> the energy required to screw them together? Equations are poor guides if
>>> the situation is modeled in inaccurately.
>>>
>>
>> Ok.  Can identify concretely the analogous inaccuracy in modeling that
>> occurs in applying the equation E = mc^2 to the production of 1.3 metric
>> tons of excess iron in the
>> ??
>> Coimbatore smelting facility?
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>As pointed out by Robin my analogy uses the concept of a non-conservative
>force. Traditional nuclear science models nuclear forces as purely
>conservative forces, but this assumption may only be accurate at high
>energies. If non-conservative forces are at play in smelting facility then
>there would be little if any conversion of mass into energy. I guess that
>would mean the iron at the facility would be slightly more massive than
>iron born from stellar fusion.
>
>Harry
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Frank Znidarsic]

Magnetic fields are not conservative.  This includes the gravitomagnetic, 
electro-magnetic, and nuclear spin orbit magnetic.  You are on the right track.




Another type of non-conservative force is a time dependent force which is 
exhibited by visco-elastic materials. This another and perhaps easier way to 
conceptually introduce non-conservative forces into the nuclear domain. 

Harry




-Original Message-
From: H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, Mar 19, 2017 12:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20



Hi Robin and Eric,


If the evidence about transmutation at the Indian refinery is reliable then one 
way to explain it is to imagine nuclear forces as being fundamentally 
non-conservative and viewing their apparent conservative nature as an accurate 
approximation in the high energy domain. 

Another type of non-conservative force is a time dependent force which is 
exhibited by visco-elastic materials. This another and perhaps easier way to 
conceptually introduce non-conservative forces into the nuclear domain. 

Harry





On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 5:03 PM,  <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:

In reply to  H LV's message of Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:11:20 -0400:
Hi Harry,

AFAIK the forces involved are all conservative. That means that the change in
energy is the same, irrespective of the path taken between endpoints. In short
the energy difference is the same whether the "nut and bolt" are screwed
together or hammered together.
Obviously this is not the case for a real nut and bolt, i.e. the amount of
friction involved changes depending on the path taken.

[snip]
>?What is the "bond" energy of a nut and bolt? Does the amount of energy
>that is required to literally slam together a bolt and a nut correspond to
>the energy required to screw them together? Equations are poor guides if
>the situation is modeled in inaccurately.
>
>Harry
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:46 AM, H LV  wrote:

​CoE would still be true, but there would be no mass into energy
> conversion. Instead the iron would be slightly more massive than iron
> produced by stellar fusion.​
>

This suggestion has the benefit of being falsifiable.  If you activate the
Coimbatore heavy iron with neutrons, the de-excitation gammas would be in
the neighborhood of but measurably distinct from those known for iron
isotopes.

If the masses of iron and not-iron were identical, and no energy were
released from the reaction, there would presumably be a not-iron <=> iron
equilibrium.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[H LV]

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> Hi Harry,
>
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:09 AM, H LV  wrote:
>
> If the evidence about transmutation at the Indian refinery is reliable
>> then one way to explain it is to imagine nuclear forces as being
>> fundamentally non-conservative and viewing their apparent conservative
>> nature as an accurate approximation in the high energy domain.
>>
>> Another type of non-conservative force is a time dependent force which is
>> exhibited by visco-elastic materials. This another and perhaps easier way
>> to conceptually introduce non-conservative forces into the nuclear domain.
>>
>
> I gather with this suggestion that you are arguing against CoE in the case
> of the Coimbatore smelting facility, i.e., that many nuclear bombs' worth
> of energy disappeared into thin air every 24 hours.  Please correct me if I
> have misunderstood.
>
> Eric
>
>

​CoE would still be true, but there would be no mass into energy
conversion. Instead the iron would be slightly more massive than iron
produced by stellar fusion.​

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

Hi Harry,

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:09 AM, H LV  wrote:

If the evidence about transmutation at the Indian refinery is reliable then
> one way to explain it is to imagine nuclear forces as being fundamentally
> non-conservative and viewing their apparent conservative nature as an
> accurate approximation in the high energy domain.
>
> Another type of non-conservative force is a time dependent force which is
> exhibited by visco-elastic materials. This another and perhaps easier way
> to conceptually introduce non-conservative forces into the nuclear domain.
>

I gather with this suggestion that you are arguing against CoE in the case
of the Coimbatore smelting facility, i.e., that many nuclear bombs' worth
of energy disappeared into thin air every 24 hours.  Please correct me if I
have misunderstood.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[H LV]

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:11 AM, H LV  wrote:
>
> ​What is the "bond" energy of a nut and bolt? Does the amount of energy
>> that is required to literally slam together a bolt and a nut correspond to
>> the energy required to screw them together? Equations are poor guides if
>> the situation is modeled in inaccurately.
>>
>
> Ok.  Can identify concretely the analogous inaccuracy in modeling that
> occurs in applying the equation E = mc^2 to the production of 1.3 metric
> tons of excess iron in the
> ​​
> Coimbatore smelting facility?
>
> Eric
>
>
As pointed out by Robin my analogy uses the concept of a non-conservative
force. Traditional nuclear science models nuclear forces as purely
conservative forces, but this assumption may only be accurate at high
energies. If non-conservative forces are at play in smelting facility then
there would be little if any conversion of mass into energy. I guess that
would mean the iron at the facility would be slightly more massive than
iron born from stellar fusion.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[H LV]

Hi Robin and Eric,

If the evidence about transmutation at the Indian refinery is reliable then
one way to explain it is to imagine nuclear forces as being fundamentally
non-conservative and viewing their apparent conservative nature as an
accurate approximation in the high energy domain.

Another type of non-conservative force is a time dependent force which is
exhibited by visco-elastic materials. This another and perhaps easier way
to conceptually introduce non-conservative forces into the nuclear domain.

Harry



On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 5:03 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  H LV's message of Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:11:20 -0400:
> Hi Harry,
>
> AFAIK the forces involved are all conservative. That means that the change
> in
> energy is the same, irrespective of the path taken between endpoints. In
> short
> the energy difference is the same whether the "nut and bolt" are screwed
> together or hammered together.
> Obviously this is not the case for a real nut and bolt, i.e. the amount of
> friction involved changes depending on the path taken.
>
> [snip]
> >?What is the "bond" energy of a nut and bolt? Does the amount of energy
> >that is required to literally slam together a bolt and a nut correspond to
> >the energy required to screw them together? Equations are poor guides if
> >the situation is modeled in inaccurately.
> >
> >Harry
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[mixent]

In reply to  H LV's message of Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:11:20 -0400:
Hi Harry,

AFAIK the forces involved are all conservative. That means that the change in
energy is the same, irrespective of the path taken between endpoints. In short
the energy difference is the same whether the "nut and bolt" are screwed
together or hammered together.
Obviously this is not the case for a real nut and bolt, i.e. the amount of
friction involved changes depending on the path taken.

[snip]
>?What is the "bond" energy of a nut and bolt? Does the amount of energy
>that is required to literally slam together a bolt and a nut correspond to
>the energy required to screw them together? Equations are poor guides if
>the situation is modeled in inaccurately.
>
>Harry
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 9:11 AM, H LV  wrote:

​What is the "bond" energy of a nut and bolt? Does the amount of energy
> that is required to literally slam together a bolt and a nut correspond to
> the energy required to screw them together? Equations are poor guides if
> the situation is modeled in inaccurately.
>

Ok.  Can identify concretely the analogous inaccuracy in modeling that
occurs in applying the equation E = mc^2 to the production of 1.3 metric
tons of excess iron in the Coimbatore smelting facility?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[H LV]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:06 PM, H LV  wrote:
>
> Does it necessarily require a violation of CoE?
>> It could be we don't know enough about nuclear matter to know how to
>> build or take apart nuclei with much less energy.
>>
>
> It's not necessarily a matter of COE; e.g., perhaps most of the energy was
> quietly dissipated via neutrinos, following Robin's suggestion.  But if
> there is a nuclear transformation from not-iron to iron, and neutrinos were
> not a big factor, then the physics is straightforward:
>
>   E = mc^2 = [ (mass of not-iron) - (mass of excess iron) ] c^2 = [delta
> mass] c^2
>
> If for some reason this situation does not hold, then it seems to me that
> the CoE discussion comes up again.
>
> Eric
>
>
​What is the "bond" energy of a nut and bolt? Does the amount of energy
that is required to literally slam together a bolt and a nut correspond to
the energy required to screw them together? Equations are poor guides if
the situation is modeled in inaccurately.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Tue, 14 Mar 2017 22:23:24 -0500:
Hi,

This is why I used "enhanced/altered" in my previous post. The weak force
reactions would need to happen at the same time as the initial fusion reaction
so that the neutrinos could also carry away the fusion energy as well. As I
said, "not very likely". :)

>On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>
>If we assume 1.3 tons excess iron following Narayanaswamy, then the amount
>> of energy released into the environment for this first reaction would be:
>>
>> 1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe
>> 23241.288159 mols (28Si + 28Si) = 46482.576318 mols 28Si =
>> 1300.4396227 kg 28Si
>> 1300.4396227 kg - 1300 kg = 0.4396227 kg => 3.9e16 J
>>
>> That is to say, (3.9e16 J / 84 TJ = 464 "Fat Man" nuclear bombs per 24
>> hours).
>>
>
>I didn't quite do that right.  I should have gone from 28Si to 56Ni:
>
>  1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe => 23241.288159 mols 56Ni =
>1300.167211 kg 56Ni
>  (1300.4396227 kg - 1300.167211 kg = 0.2724117 kg => 2.4e16 J)
>
>So that would be (2.4e16 J / 84 TJ = 285) "Fat Man" nuclear bombs per 24
>hours.
>
>Eric
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:17 AM,  wrote:

Thinking outside the box is not a sin.
>

It's fine to think out of the box, if rigor is still applied and
hand-waving is not resorted to.  In this case either we apply E = mc^2, or
we don't.  Do you accept that this law applies in the case of the "excess
iron" in the Coimbatore smelter?  Or do you argue for violation of CoE?

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[bobcook39923]

Eric—

I would agree that Ni-56 could be a transition result, except it was not 
reported by the Indians.  

Furthermore other transitions may occur without electric force fields ejecting 
charged entities from the coherent system.   3 virtual muons  may fuse to a 
proton or a neutron during the transition to reach a lower potential energy 
with the excess kinetic energy changing to vibrational (phonic) energy of the 
coherent system’s lattice electrons. 

  It has long been my conclusion that the ejection of charged particles is not 
a major feature of LENR; however a change of potential energy to spin energy 
is, assuming angular momentum is conserved within the coherent system.

Thinking outside the box is not a sin.

Bob Cook





From: Eric Walker
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 8:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

If we assume 1.3 tons excess iron following Narayanaswamy, then the amount of 
energy released into the environment for this first reaction would be:

    1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe
    23241.288159 mols (28Si + 28Si) = 46482.576318 mols 28Si = 1300.4396227 kg 
28Si
    1300.4396227 kg - 1300 kg = 0.4396227 kg => 3.9e16 J

That is to say, (3.9e16 J / 84 TJ = 464 "Fat Man" nuclear bombs per 24 hours).

I didn't quite do that right.  I should have gone from 28Si to 56Ni:

  1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe => 23241.288159 mols 56Ni = 1300.167211 
kg 56Ni
  (1300.4396227 kg - 1300.167211 kg = 0.2724117 kg => 2.4e16 J)

So that would be (2.4e16 J / 84 TJ = 285) "Fat Man" nuclear bombs per 24 hours.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Holmlid is not dead yet; why not? Why is no radiation detected by Holmlid
> even when he has detected muons by the ton?
>

You make an excellent argument that Holmlid is NOT seeing muons! :)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid is not dead yet; why not? Why is no radiation detected by Holmlid
even when he has detected muons by the ton?

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:48 PM,  wrote:
>
> Fusion of 2 Si-28 to Fe 56 produces about 18 Mev excess mass energy, or
>> about 1 muon mass for for 18 fusion transitions.  Muons that were to carry
>> away mass may not be noticed.
>>
>
> If muons were to carry away that mass, they would quickly decay to more
> basic matter, e.g., electrons, positrons, neutrinos and annihilation
> photons, after exiting the smelter, presenting a lethal radiation field
> within the facility and depositing a good portion of the energy into the
> surroundings.
>
> Eric
>

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

If we assume 1.3 tons excess iron following Narayanaswamy, then the amount
> of energy released into the environment for this first reaction would be:
>
> 1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe
> 23241.288159 mols (28Si + 28Si) = 46482.576318 mols 28Si =
> 1300.4396227 kg 28Si
> 1300.4396227 kg - 1300 kg = 0.4396227 kg => 3.9e16 J
>
> That is to say, (3.9e16 J / 84 TJ = 464 "Fat Man" nuclear bombs per 24
> hours).
>

I didn't quite do that right.  I should have gone from 28Si to 56Ni:

  1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe => 23241.288159 mols 56Ni =
1300.167211 kg 56Ni
  (1300.4396227 kg - 1300.167211 kg = 0.2724117 kg => 2.4e16 J)

So that would be (2.4e16 J / 84 TJ = 285) "Fat Man" nuclear bombs per 24
hours.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:48 PM,  wrote:

Fusion of 2 Si-28 to Fe 56 produces about 18 Mev excess mass energy, or
> about 1 muon mass for for 18 fusion transitions.  Muons that were to carry
> away mass may not be noticed.
>

If muons were to carry away that mass, they would quickly decay to more
basic matter, e.g., electrons, positrons, neutrinos and annihilation
photons, after exiting the smelter, presenting a lethal radiation field
within the facility and depositing a good portion of the energy into the
surroundings.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:34 PM,  wrote:

Two Si atoms gives a Ni atom, not an Fe atom. However if the formation of
> Ni56
> involved enhanced/altered electron capture to Fe56:-
>
> Ni56 => Co56 (2 MeV; half life 6 days)
>
> Co56 => Fe56 (4.6 MeV; half life 77 days)
>
> ...and ALL the energy were carried away by the neutrinos, then there might
> be
> something to it, but I don't think it's very likely. (Enhanced/altered,
> because
> the normal decay process would kill all the workers with gamma radiation).
>

The first of the three reactions in this series is:

28Si + 28Si => 56Ni + gamma + 10.9 MeV

Whether or not that gamma is thermalized efficiently, e.g., via internal
conversion, the heat will be released into the environment, in contrast to
the energy that is lost in the subsequent reactions from neutrino
emission.  If we assume 1.3 tons excess iron following Narayanaswamy, then
the amount of energy released into the environment for this first reaction
would be:

1300 kg 56Fe = 23241.288159 mols 56Fe
23241.288159 mols (28Si + 28Si) = 46482.576318 mols 28Si = 1300.4396227
kg 28Si
1300.4396227 kg - 1300 kg = 0.4396227 kg => 3.9e16 J

That is to say, (3.9e16 J / 84 TJ = 464 "Fat Man" nuclear bombs per 24
hours).

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[bobcook39923]

Fusion of 2 Si-28 to Fe 56 produces about 18 Mev excess mass energy, or about 1 
muon mass for for 18 fusion transitions.  Muons that were to carry away mass 
may not be noticed.  

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: H LV
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 4:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Does it necessarily require a violation of CoE?
It could be we don't know enough about nuclear matter to know how to build or 
take apart nuclei with much less energy. 

With a sledge hammer and a great deal of force a structure can be assembled or 
broken down without knowing much about the nature of the structural 
connections. However, if one knows the structural connections are screws rather 
than nails much less energy is required.

 
Harry


On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

If transmutation is always accompanied by meson production, then the area 
around the electric furnace might have an elevated background radiation 
profile. Four tone of transmutation would imply a huge number of muons produced 
on a daily basis.

If you go this route, you will have to address Narayanaswamy's own admission 
that [1]:

A simple calculation shows (see Appendix A) that corresponding to 4.27 tons of 
metal transmutation [comprising the production of both silicon and iron], the 
power generated should have been the equivalent of the total thermal power 
generated by a couple of thousand 1 GWe nuclear power stations in one 24 hr 
day! This may truly be termed as an astronomical number!  Thus if indeed the 
Silcal transmutation claims are confirmed it would clearly point to the 
operation of new Science which is even more bizarre than claimed by most other 
LENR experiments!

2000 GWe * 24 hours = 1.7e17 J.  By comparison, the bomb that fell on Nagasaki 
in 1945 had about (84 TJ = 8.4e13 J) [2].  That means that if Narayanaswamy's 
calculation in Appendix A is correct, the energy output in a 24-hour period 
would have been equivalent to (1.7e17 J / 8.4e13 J = 2023 "Fat Man" bombs), or 
1.4 nuclear bombs per minute.  All in a smelting facility in Coimbatore, India, 
that was very successful and made a decent profit.

This possibility takes us into the hoary but cute Vortex violation-of-COE 
discussions.

Eric


[1] 
https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/951-narayanaswamy-corrected-extended-abstract-17th-sept-2016-pdf/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:06 PM, H LV  wrote:

Does it necessarily require a violation of CoE?
> It could be we don't know enough about nuclear matter to know how to build
> or take apart nuclei with much less energy.
>

It's not necessarily a matter of COE; e.g., perhaps most of the energy was
quietly dissipated via neutrinos, following Robin's suggestion.  But if
there is a nuclear transformation from not-iron to iron, and neutrinos were
not a big factor, then the physics is straightforward:

  E = mc^2 = [ (mass of not-iron) - (mass of excess iron) ] c^2 = [delta
mass] c^2

If for some reason this situation does not hold, then it seems to me that
the CoE discussion comes up again.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[bobcook39923]

The issue of the Coulomb barrier being a concern in transitions of a coherent 
system makes no sense IMHO.  Two-body interactions yes,  but for a many bodied 
entangled systems no.  

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mix...@bigpond.com
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 8:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sun, 12 Mar 2017 20:32:30 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Yes - that's correct... the impossibility of fusing the starting 
>elements into iron in a smelting operation comes from overcoming the 
>Coulomb barrier, not from the final energy balance.

Correct.
>
>There is no calcium at the start, but if there were - long before carbon 
>and calcium could fuse (if this were happening on a dying star) - the 
>carbon would fuse with another carbon or other light element. There is 
>no "clean" pathway to get iron alone as a desired goal, especially 
>without deadly radioactivity.

The Ca was just an example, for the energy calculation.
>
>It's kind of absurd really. Bottom line - no mechanism exists to get 
>excess iron via transmutation of silica and carbon. 

There might in theory be something that involves a weak force reaction, with the
neutrino(s) carrying away the reaction energy, but I grant that it's far
fetched.
Another option might be a mix of exothermic & endothermic reactions where the
net change in energy is either very small, &/or carried by neutrinos.

>Even if there were, 
>it would not add mass magically. 

Did he really claim that mass was added magically, or only that iron was added
magically? IOW was there an (unmeasured?) loss of something else to compensate
for the increase in iron?

>Thus, it is likely that gross 
>measurement error is the likely explanation. Otherwise, this kind of 
>thing does not go unnoticed in a poor country. India is not exactly a 
>major iron producer but would be if this were not some kind of silly 
>anecdote. (It's a bit early for April 1).
[snip]
I suspect the most likely explanation is that they weigh the iron without
determining the actual chemical composition, and that other elements are
dissolved (alloyed) in the metal.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Jones Beene]

Pluto has an x-ray source - which is a surprise and it is in the range 
of Rydberg energies from Millsean transitions from nickel and iron 
200-300 eV.


Pluto is mostly ice, not dense - but could have iron/nickel debris from 
meteorite impacts over the past few billion years.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305713927_The_Puzzling_Detection_of_X-rays_From_Pluto_by_Chandra


Axil Axil wrote:

Does anybody want to talk about where the internal heat  inside Ceres 
and Pluto comes from.


http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/pluto-alive-where-heat-coming

Pluto is alive—but where is the heat coming from?

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:04:14 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>Which brings us back to another source of heat for Earth's core. 
>According to "America's Genius" the corona of our sun is in effect a 
>giant factory for hydrinos, which get carried to earth via the solar 
>wind, where they are deposited in the oceans of earth, and being dense 
>and small, will eventually work their way into the mantle layers - which 
>is composed of two molten catalysts - iron and nickel.

Judging by the lava from volcanoes, I think the mantle is mostly molten rock. 
However water does get transported into the bowels of the Earth at subduction
zones, and at the temperatures prevalent in the mantel should readily undergo
thermolysis, which in turn could provide some free Hydrogen capable of being
shrunk.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Axil Axil]

Does anybody want to talk about where the internal heat  inside Ceres and
Pluto comes from.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/pluto-alive-where-heat-coming

Pluto is alive—but where is the heat coming from?

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> Which brings us back to another source of heat for Earth's core. According
> to "America's Genius" the corona of our sun is in effect a giant factory
> for hydrinos, which get carried to earth via the solar wind, where they are
> deposited in the oceans of earth, and being dense and small, will
> eventually work their way into the mantle layers - which is composed of two
> molten catalysts - iron and nickel.
>
> Thus, further densification occurs in the core, giving up more heat -
> following which, after millions of years, the ultra-dense hydrogen ends up
> all the way to the solid core, where it is the densest component of the
> core. This may offer a better explanation for why the core is solid but the
> mantle is liquid.
>
>
>
> mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
>> Bob Higgins wrote:
>>
>>> It is interesting to consider the implications were some
 nucleosynthesis taking place in this report.  The steel mills are a
 place on the surface of the Earth that most resembles the core of the
 Earth.  For a long time, there has been speculations regarding the
 source of the heat in the core of planets, Earth included.  Could the
 Earth actually be growing the mass of iron in its core via
 nucleosynthesis from lighter elements?

>>> Not to mention the massive electrical current flowing through the molten
>>> iron in earth's core (so-called dynamo theory) is mimicked by the
>>> electrical current of the steel mill...
>>>
>> .. and Mills is also using massive electrical current in his latest
>> endeavor.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Jones Beene]

Which brings us back to another source of heat for Earth's core. 
According to "America's Genius" the corona of our sun is in effect a 
giant factory for hydrinos, which get carried to earth via the solar 
wind, where they are deposited in the oceans of earth, and being dense 
and small, will eventually work their way into the mantle layers - which 
is composed of two molten catalysts - iron and nickel.


Thus, further densification occurs in the core, giving up more heat - 
following which, after millions of years, the ultra-dense hydrogen ends 
up all the way to the solid core, where it is the densest component of 
the core. This may offer a better explanation for why the core is solid 
but the mantle is liquid.



mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

Bob Higgins wrote:

It is interesting to consider the implications were some
nucleosynthesis taking place in this report.  The steel mills are a
place on the surface of the Earth that most resembles the core of the
Earth.  For a long time, there has been speculations regarding the
source of the heat in the core of planets, Earth included.  Could the
Earth actually be growing the mass of iron in its core via
nucleosynthesis from lighter elements?

Not to mention the massive electrical current flowing through the molten
iron in earth's core (so-called dynamo theory) is mimicked by the
electrical current of the steel mill...

.. and Mills is also using massive electrical current in his latest endeavor.

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:20:26 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>Bob Higgins wrote:
>> It is interesting to consider the implications were some 
>> nucleosynthesis taking place in this report.  The steel mills are a 
>> place on the surface of the Earth that most resembles the core of the 
>> Earth.  For a long time, there has been speculations regarding the 
>> source of the heat in the core of planets, Earth included.  Could the 
>> Earth actually be growing the mass of iron in its core via 
>> nucleosynthesis from lighter elements?
>
>Not to mention the massive electrical current flowing through the molten 
>iron in earth's core (so-called dynamo theory) is mimicked by the 
>electrical current of the steel mill...

... and Mills is also using massive electrical current in his latest endeavor.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Jones Beene]

Bob Higgins wrote:
It is interesting to consider the implications were some 
nucleosynthesis taking place in this report.  The steel mills are a 
place on the surface of the Earth that most resembles the core of the 
Earth.  For a long time, there has been speculations regarding the 
source of the heat in the core of planets, Earth included.  Could the 
Earth actually be growing the mass of iron in its core via 
nucleosynthesis from lighter elements?


Not to mention the massive electrical current flowing through the molten 
iron in earth's core (so-called dynamo theory) is mimicked by the 
electrical current of the steel mill...

[Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Bob Higgins]

It is interesting to consider the implications were some nucleosynthesis
taking place in this report.  The steel mills are a place on the surface of
the Earth that most resembles the core of the Earth.  For a long time,
there has been speculations regarding the source of the heat in the core of
planets, Earth included.  Could the Earth actually be growing the mass of
iron in its core via nucleosynthesis from lighter elements?  Could excess
heat from this nucleosynthesis be the source of the core heat of the
Earth?  Fun to think about.

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 5:06 PM, H LV  wrote:

> Does it necessarily require a violation of CoE?
> It could be we don't know enough about nuclear matter to know how to build
> or take apart nuclei with much less energy.
>
> With a sledge hammer and a great deal of force a structure can be
> assembled or broken down without knowing much about the nature of the
> structural connections. However, if one knows the structural connections
> are screws rather than nails much less energy is required.
>
> Harry
>

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[H LV]

Does it necessarily require a violation of CoE?
It could be we don't know enough about nuclear matter to know how to build
or take apart nuclei with much less energy.

With a sledge hammer and a great deal of force a structure can be assembled
or broken down without knowing much about the nature of the structural
connections. However, if one knows the structural connections are screws
rather than nails much less energy is required.


Harry



On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> If transmutation is always accompanied by meson production, then the area
>> around the electric furnace might have an elevated background radiation
>> profile. Four tone of transmutation would imply a huge number of muons
>> produced on a daily basis.
>>
>
> If you go this route, you will have to address Narayanaswamy's own
> admission that [1]:
>
> A simple calculation shows (see Appendix A) that corresponding to 4.27
>> tons of metal transmutation [comprising the production of both silicon and
>> iron], the power generated should have been the equivalent of the total
>> thermal power generated by a couple of thousand 1 GWe nuclear power
>> stations in one 24 hr day! This may truly be termed as an astronomical
>> number!  Thus if indeed the Silcal transmutation claims are confirmed it
>> would clearly point to the operation of new Science which is even more
>> bizarre than claimed by most other LENR experiments!
>
>
> 2000 GWe * 24 hours = 1.7e17 J.  By comparison, the bomb that fell on
> Nagasaki in 1945 had about (84 TJ = 8.4e13 J) [2].  That means that if
> Narayanaswamy's calculation in Appendix A is correct, the energy output in
> a 24-hour period would have been equivalent to (1.7e17 J / 8.4e13 J = 2023
> "Fat Man" bombs), or 1.4 nuclear bombs per minute.  All in a smelting
> facility in Coimbatore, India, that was very successful and made a decent
> profit.
>
> This possibility takes us into the hoary but cute Vortex violation-of-COE
> discussions.
>
> Eric
>
>
> [1] https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/951-narayanaswamy-corrected-
> extended-abstract-17th-sept-2016-pdf/
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent
>

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:34 PM,  wrote:

Two Si atoms gives a Ni atom, not an Fe atom. However if the formation of
> Ni56
> involved enhanced/altered electron capture to Fe56:-
>
> Ni56 => Co56 (2 MeV; half life 6 days)
>
> Co56 => Fe56 (4.6 MeV; half life 77 days)
>
> ...and ALL the energy were carried away by the neutrinos, then there might
> be
> something to it, but I don't think it's very likely. (Enhanced/altered,
> because
> the normal decay process would kill all the workers with gamma radiation).
>

It's an interesting thought.  I walk back my earlier comment about the
amount of energy that would be released into the smelting facility a little
bit.  If we're contemplating unrealistic scenarios, it doesn't hurt to
consider the more interesting ones.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[mixent]

In reply to  's message of Mon, 13 Mar 2017 10:56:07
-0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>The mass differential between 2 Si-28 (27.9769) and Fe-56 at a.m. of 55.93494 
>is not very much.   It may be that Si fusion is involved in the Indian steel 
>plant.
>
>Bob Cook
Two Si atoms gives a Ni atom, not an Fe atom. However if the formation of Ni56
involved enhanced/altered electron capture to Fe56:-

Ni56 => Co56 (2 MeV; half life 6 days)

Co56 => Fe56 (4.6 MeV; half life 77 days)

...and ALL the energy were carried away by the neutrinos, then there might be
something to it, but I don't think it's very likely. (Enhanced/altered, because
the normal decay process would kill all the workers with gamma radiation).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sun, 12 Mar 2017 20:32:30 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Yes - that's correct... the impossibility of fusing the starting 
>elements into iron in a smelting operation comes from overcoming the 
>Coulomb barrier, not from the final energy balance.

Correct.
>
>There is no calcium at the start, but if there were - long before carbon 
>and calcium could fuse (if this were happening on a dying star) - the 
>carbon would fuse with another carbon or other light element. There is 
>no "clean" pathway to get iron alone as a desired goal, especially 
>without deadly radioactivity.

The Ca was just an example, for the energy calculation.
>
>It's kind of absurd really. Bottom line - no mechanism exists to get 
>excess iron via transmutation of silica and carbon. 

There might in theory be something that involves a weak force reaction, with the
neutrino(s) carrying away the reaction energy, but I grant that it's far
fetched.
Another option might be a mix of exothermic & endothermic reactions where the
net change in energy is either very small, &/or carried by neutrinos.

>Even if there were, 
>it would not add mass magically. 

Did he really claim that mass was added magically, or only that iron was added
magically? IOW was there an (unmeasured?) loss of something else to compensate
for the increase in iron?

>Thus, it is likely that gross 
>measurement error is the likely explanation. Otherwise, this kind of 
>thing does not go unnoticed in a poor country. India is not exactly a 
>major iron producer but would be if this were not some kind of silly 
>anecdote. (It's a bit early for April 1).
[snip]
I suspect the most likely explanation is that they weigh the iron without
determining the actual chemical composition, and that other elements are
dissolved (alloyed) in the metal.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

My apologies, I quoted the wrong person.  I meant to respond to this
comment from Bob:

The mass differential between 2 Si-28 (27.9769) and Fe-56 at a.m. of
> 55.93494 is not very much.   It may be that Si fusion is involved in the
> Indian steel plant.
>

Eric



On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> If transmutation is always accompanied by meson production, then the area
>> around the electric furnace might have an elevated background radiation
>> profile. Four tone of transmutation would imply a huge number of muons
>> produced on a daily basis.
>>
>
> If you go this route, you will have to address Narayanaswamy's own
> admission that [1]:
>
> A simple calculation shows (see Appendix A) that corresponding to 4.27
>> tons of metal transmutation [comprising the production of both silicon and
>> iron], the power generated should have been the equivalent of the total
>> thermal power generated by a couple of thousand 1 GWe nuclear power
>> stations in one 24 hr day! This may truly be termed as an astronomical
>> number!  Thus if indeed the Silcal transmutation claims are confirmed it
>> would clearly point to the operation of new Science which is even more
>> bizarre than claimed by most other LENR experiments!
>
>
> 2000 GWe * 24 hours = 1.7e17 J.  By comparison, the bomb that fell on
> Nagasaki in 1945 had about (84 TJ = 8.4e13 J) [2].  That means that if
> Narayanaswamy's calculation in Appendix A is correct, the energy output in
> a 24-hour period would have been equivalent to (1.7e17 J / 8.4e13 J = 2023
> "Fat Man" bombs), or 1.4 nuclear bombs per minute.  All in a smelting
> facility in Coimbatore, India, that was very successful and made a decent
> profit.
>
> This possibility takes us into the hoary but cute Vortex violation-of-COE
> discussions.
>
> Eric
>
>
> [1] https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/951-narayanaswamy-corrected-
> extended-abstract-17th-sept-2016-pdf/
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent
>

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

If transmutation is always accompanied by meson production, then the area
> around the electric furnace might have an elevated background radiation
> profile. Four tone of transmutation would imply a huge number of muons
> produced on a daily basis.
>

If you go this route, you will have to address Narayanaswamy's own
admission that [1]:

A simple calculation shows (see Appendix A) that corresponding to 4.27 tons
> of metal transmutation [comprising the production of both silicon and
> iron], the power generated should have been the equivalent of the total
> thermal power generated by a couple of thousand 1 GWe nuclear power
> stations in one 24 hr day! This may truly be termed as an astronomical
> number!  Thus if indeed the Silcal transmutation claims are confirmed it
> would clearly point to the operation of new Science which is even more
> bizarre than claimed by most other LENR experiments!


2000 GWe * 24 hours = 1.7e17 J.  By comparison, the bomb that fell on
Nagasaki in 1945 had about (84 TJ = 8.4e13 J) [2].  That means that if
Narayanaswamy's calculation in Appendix A is correct, the energy output in
a 24-hour period would have been equivalent to (1.7e17 J / 8.4e13 J = 2023
"Fat Man" bombs), or 1.4 nuclear bombs per minute.  All in a smelting
facility in Coimbatore, India, that was very successful and made a decent
profit.

This possibility takes us into the hoary but cute Vortex violation-of-COE
discussions.

Eric


[1]
https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/951-narayanaswamy-corrected-extended-abstract-17th-sept-2016-pdf/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Jones Beene]

bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote:


The mass differential between 2 Si-28 (27.9769) and Fe-56 at a.m. of 
55.93494 is not very much. It may be that Si fusion is involved in the 
Indian steel plant.




Even though the mass is similar, the Coulomb barrier makes such a fusion 
reaction unrealistic -- even with an arc discharge.


On top of that - if silicon fusion somehow happened, there would be no 
net increase in mass, certainly not 4 tons per day. The gain in iron is 
more than offset by the loss of silicon. In fact, there would be a small 
net loss of mass.


Of course, to muddy the water -- there are folks who suggest that silica 
can fuse to hematite, at least on Mars.


http://www.everythingselectric.com/silicon-mars/

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Axil Axil]

If transmutation is always accompanied by meson production, then the area
around the electric furnace might have an elevated background radiation
profile. Four tone of transmutation would imply a huge number of muons
produced on a daily basis.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:56 PM, <bobcook39...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The mass differential between 2 Si-28 (27.9769) and Fe-56 at a.m. of
> 55.93494 is not very much.   It may be that Si fusion is involved in the
> Indian steel plant.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
> *Sent: *Sunday, March 12, 2017 8:35 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20
>
>
>
> Yes - that's correct... the impossibility of fusing the starting elements
> into iron in a smelting operation comes from overcoming the Coulomb
> barrier, not from the final energy balance.
>
> There is no calcium at the start, but if there were - long before carbon
> and calcium could fuse (if this were happening on a dying star) - the
> carbon would fuse with another carbon or other light element. There is no
> "clean" pathway to get iron alone as a desired goal, especially without
> deadly radioactivity.
>
> It's kind of absurd really. Bottom line - no mechanism exists to get
> excess iron via transmutation of silica and carbon. Even if there were, it
> would not add mass magically. Thus, it is likely that gross measurement
> error is the likely explanation. Otherwise, this kind of thing does not go
> unnoticed in a poor country. India is not exactly a major iron producer but
> would be if this were not some kind of silly anecdote. (It's a bit early
> for April 1).
>
> mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
> No, quite the reverse. Changing almost anything into Iron is exothermic,
> because
> the Iron is near the top of the binding energy curve .e.g. 44Ca+12C =>
> 56Fe + 19.137 MeV
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[bobcook39923]

The mass differential between 2 Si-28 (27.9769) and Fe-56 at a.m. of 55.93494 
is not very much.   It may be that Si fusion is involved in the Indian steel 
plant.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 8:35 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Yes - that's correct... the impossibility of fusing the starting elements into 
iron in a smelting operation comes from overcoming the Coulomb barrier, not 
from the final energy balance. 

There is no calcium at the start, but if there were - long before carbon and 
calcium could fuse (if this were happening on a dying star) - the carbon would 
fuse with another carbon or other light element. There is no "clean" pathway to 
get iron alone as a desired goal, especially without deadly radioactivity.

It's kind of absurd really. Bottom line - no mechanism exists to get excess 
iron via transmutation of silica and carbon. Even if there were, it would not 
add mass magically. Thus, it is likely that gross measurement error is the 
likely explanation. Otherwise, this kind of thing does not go unnoticed in a 
poor country. India is not exactly a major iron producer but would be if this 
were not some kind of silly anecdote. (It's a bit early for April 1).
mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
No, quite the reverse. Changing almost anything into Iron is exothermic, 
because 
the Iron is near the top of the binding energy curve .e.g. 44Ca+12C => 56Fe + 
19.137 MeV 

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Jones Beene]

Yes - that's correct... the impossibility of fusing the starting 
elements into iron in a smelting operation comes from overcoming the 
Coulomb barrier, not from the final energy balance.


There is no calcium at the start, but if there were - long before carbon 
and calcium could fuse (if this were happening on a dying star) - the 
carbon would fuse with another carbon or other light element. There is 
no "clean" pathway to get iron alone as a desired goal, especially 
without deadly radioactivity.


It's kind of absurd really. Bottom line - no mechanism exists to get 
excess iron via transmutation of silica and carbon. Even if there were, 
it would not add mass magically. Thus, it is likely that gross 
measurement error is the likely explanation. Otherwise, this kind of 
thing does not go unnoticed in a poor country. India is not exactly a 
major iron producer but would be if this were not some kind of silly 
anecdote. (It's a bit early for April 1).


mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
No, quite the reverse. Changing almost anything into Iron is 
exothermic, because
the Iron is near the top of the binding energy curve .e.g. 44Ca+12C => 
56Fe + 19.137 MeV

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[H LV]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM, H LV  wrote:
>
> ​It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain
>> must involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than an
>> energy in the chemical domain. However, based on my reading of nuclear
>> isomers there are few known instances where this truism does not hold.
>> Since there is also great deal that is not known about nuclear isomers,
>> chemical like energy changes might be even more common the nuclear domain.
>>
>
> In the context of the Narayanaswamy claim, nuclear isomers will not
> explain a nuclear transition such as X -> Fe.  Isomeric transitions involve
> a transition from an excited state of an element to a less excited state,
> or to the ground state, e.g., 180mTa -> 180Ta + gamma.  Narayanaswamy
> reports that he is seeing "excess" iron, i.e., iron that it is coming from
> something else.
>
> Eric
>

​
This is true, but isomer formation may play a role in the process. Also the
apparent self contained nature of nuclei may be a function of how nuclei
have been studied to date. It is presumed that a nucleus under bombardment
is the same sort of "creature" as the nucleus in a lattice.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 11 Mar 2017 20:13:11 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Eric,
>
>Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an 
>electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of 
>even a few ounces.

No, quite the reverse. Changing almost anything into Iron is exothermic, because
the Iron is near the top of the binding energy curve .e.g.

44Ca+12C => 56Fe + 19.137 MeV

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 6:01 PM,  wrote:

One must look at all the mass involved, not just the Fe.  Oxides and carbon
> mass may also be involved.
>

The iron in iron oxide would presumably not be included in the "excess
iron", because it's already iron.  And the carbon would be a wash, existing
in equal quantities before and after.  If we're assuming a change in
nucleus, as Narayanaswamy does, then there are the parent nuclides,
whatever they are, and the daughters, which in this case is the excess
iron.  The change in nucleus is what causes the mass deficit (or mass
excess) as a result of the putative nuclear reaction.  That change in mass
between parent and daughter nuclides is what implies an unrealistically
huge energy release or deficit.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[bobcook39923]

Eric—

One must look at all the mass involved, not just the Fe.  Oxides and carbon 
mass may also be involved.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Eric Walker
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 2:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20




Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 12, 2017, at 14:33, <bobcook39...@gmail.com> <bobcook39...@gmail.com> 
wrote:
The trueism suggested is based on two- bodied interactions where large energy 
releases are the norm.  

The main difficulty in this case is not in the manner of any hypothetical 
reaction pathway. It is in the amount of energy implied by going from not-iron 
to iron.  If we assume that the "excess" iron is ~ 4 tons, and we subtract this 
mass from the mass of the not-iron that produced it, the difference will 
necessarily be significant. Drop that change in mass into Einstein's equation 
for calculating the energy for a given mass, and the value will be an 
unrealistically large positive (or negative) value.

Eric 

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 12, 2017, at 14:33,   
> wrote:
> 
> The trueism suggested is based on two- bodied interactions where large energy 
> releases are the norm. 

The main difficulty in this case is not in the manner of any hypothetical 
reaction pathway. It is in the amount of energy implied by going from not-iron 
to iron.  If we assume that the "excess" iron is ~ 4 tons, and we subtract this 
mass from the mass of the not-iron that produced it, the difference will 
necessarily be significant. Drop that change in mass into Einstein's equation 
for calculating the energy for a given mass, and the value will be an 
unrealistically large positive (or negative) value.

Eric 

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[bobcook39923]

The trueism suggested is based on two- bodied interactions where large energy 
releases are the norm.  

It is obvious that6 that “trueidm” does not appl,y to LENR.

Small changes within a many-bodied coherent system are the LENR norm.  

Many different nuclear changes apparently become possible within the 
many-bodied system.  IIMHO this includes nuclear species changes that involve 
aonly small changes in total potential; energy of the coherent system.

Bob Cook
From: Eric Walker
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 12:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:

​It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain must 
involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than an energy in 
the chemical domain. However, based on my reading of nuclear isomers there are 
few known instances where this truism does not hold. Since there is also great 
deal that is not known about nuclear isomers, chemical like energy changes 
might be even more common the nuclear domain. 

In the context of the Narayanaswamy claim, nuclear isomers will not explain a 
nuclear transition such as X -> Fe.  Isomeric transitions involve a transition 
from an excited state of an element to a less excited state, or to the ground 
state, e.g., 180mTa -> 180Ta + gamma.  Narayanaswamy reports that he is seeing 
"excess" iron, i.e., iron that it is coming from something else.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:51 AM, H LV  wrote:

​It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain
> must involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than an
> energy in the chemical domain. However, based on my reading of nuclear
> isomers there are few known instances where this truism does not hold.
> Since there is also great deal that is not known about nuclear isomers,
> chemical like energy changes might be even more common the nuclear domain.
>

In the context of the Narayanaswamy claim, nuclear isomers will not explain
a nuclear transition such as X -> Fe.  Isomeric transitions involve a
transition from an excited state of an element to a less excited state, or
to the ground state, e.g., 180mTa -> 180Ta + gamma.  Narayanaswamy reports
that he is seeing "excess" iron, i.e., iron that it is coming from
something else.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[H LV]

​It seems to have become a truism that any change in the nuclear domain
must involve an energy change that is orders of magnitude greater than an
energy in the chemical domain. However, based on my reading of nuclear
isomers there are few known instances where this truism does not hold.
Since there is also great deal that is not known about nuclear isomers,
chemical like energy changes might be even more common the nuclear domain.

Harry

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>  Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an
>> electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of
>> even a few ounces.
>
>
> I agree entirely.  Technically speaking, I suppose you could have iron as
> an exothermic fission product, but there would be many other daughter
> elements besides, and the release of energy through fission needed to make
> the 4 tons of iron would be catastrophic, as implied by the nuclear bomb
> example.  And there would need to be tons of some heavy element to provide
> the fuel.  So the creation of iron (either from fusion or from fission)
> seems far-fetched.
>
> But taken at face value, that seems to be an implication of the
> Narayanaswamy claim that iron comes from something other than iron; you'd
> need a nuclear process for that: i.e., fission, fusion, or some kind of
> alpha or beta decay (for neither of which I could find any exothermic
> pathway).  So I conclude that Narayanaswamy is mistaken about the
> production of iron, and that perhaps there's an accounting error that is
> leading to the conclusion about excess iron, perhaps along the lines you
> suggest.
>
> Eric
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[bobcook39923]

4 tons of carbon electrodes would be a production problem.  Plus the resulting 
steel would have strange specifications—welding may be impossible—
Bob cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 11:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

Eric,
Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an electric 
arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of even a few 
ounces.
What they may overlooked is a monoclinic iron carbide which is 40% carbon ... 
and which is a good and even an expected candidate for the so-called 
"excess"... since they do not specify how much of the carbon electrode has been 
lost.

Eric Walker wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
"The daily input of Si and Fe was 20.479 tons at his smelting plant, and the 
output was 24.75 tons. There was a daily excess of 4.27 tons of iron and 
silica."

A process that would produce 4 tons of iron from another element in one day 
would probably imply the release (or consumption) of an astounding amount of 
energy.  When a nuclear bomb explodes, only a relatively small amount of the 
fissile material is converted to other elements.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[H LV]

The amount that comes from electrode consumption might be too small to
account for the weight gain.

<<*Relationship Between Graphite Electrode Demand and EAF Steel
Production.* The
improved efficiency of electric arc furnaces has resulted in a decrease in
the average rate of consumption of graphite electrodes per metric ton of
steel produced in electric arc furnaces (called “*specific consumption*”).
We estimate that specific consumption declined from about 2.5 kilograms of
graphite electrodes per metric ton of steel produced in 2000 to about 2.1
kilograms per metric ton in 2006.>> ​

from
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/GrafTech_International_(GTI)/Graphite_Electrodes_Electric_Arc_Furnaces

Harry

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:13 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Eric,
>
> Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an
> electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of
> even a few ounces.
>
> What they may overlooked is a monoclinic iron carbide which is 40% carbon
> ... and which is a good and even an expected candidate for the so-called
> "excess"... since they do not specify how much of the carbon electrode has
> been lost.
>
> Eric Walker wrote:
>
> Jones Beene wrote:
>
> "The daily input of Si and Fe was 20.479 tons at his smelting plant, and
>> the output was 24.75 tons. There was a daily excess of 4.27 tons of iron
>> and silica."
>
>
> A process that would produce 4 tons of iron from another element in one
> day would probably imply the release (or consumption) of an astounding
> amount of energy.  When a nuclear bomb explodes, only a relatively small
> amount of the fissile material is converted to other elements.
>
> Eric
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

 Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an
> electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of
> even a few ounces.


I agree entirely.  Technically speaking, I suppose you could have iron as
an exothermic fission product, but there would be many other daughter
elements besides, and the release of energy through fission needed to make
the 4 tons of iron would be catastrophic, as implied by the nuclear bomb
example.  And there would need to be tons of some heavy element to provide
the fuel.  So the creation of iron (either from fusion or from fission)
seems far-fetched.

But taken at face value, that seems to be an implication of the
Narayanaswamy claim that iron comes from something other than iron; you'd
need a nuclear process for that: i.e., fission, fusion, or some kind of
alpha or beta decay (for neither of which I could find any exothermic
pathway).  So I conclude that Narayanaswamy is mistaken about the
production of iron, and that perhaps there's an accounting error that is
leading to the conclusion about excess iron, perhaps along the lines you
suggest.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Jones Beene]

Eric,

Converting anything into iron would be endothermic, and there is an 
electric arc to supply power, but hardly enough for transmutation ... of 
even a few ounces.


What they may overlooked is a monoclinic iron carbide which is 40% 
carbon ... and which is a good and even an expected candidate for the 
so-called "excess"... since they do not specify how much of the carbon 
electrode has been lost.



Eric Walker wrote:

Jones Beene wrote:

"The daily input of Si and Fe was 20.479 tons at his smelting
plant, and the output was 24.75 tons. There was a daily excess of
4.27 tons of iron and silica."


A process that would produce 4 tons of iron from another element in 
one day would probably imply the release (or consumption) of an 
astounding amount of energy.  When a nuclear bomb explodes, only a 
relatively small amount of the fissile material is converted to other 
elements.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

"The daily input of Si and Fe was 20.479 tons at his smelting plant, and
> the output was 24.75 tons. There was a daily excess of 4.27 tons of iron
> and silica."


A process that would produce 4 tons of iron from another element in one day
would probably imply the release (or consumption) of an astounding amount
of energy.  When a nuclear bomb explodes, only a relatively small amount of
the fissile material is converted to other elements.

Eric

[Vo]:Sleeper from ICCF20

[Jones Beene]

From IE issue 131, now available online.

Good info on ICCF in this issue - most of which will be brought up in 
later posts on dense hydrogen and iron catalyst.


A star of this issue, hidden in plain view, could be plain old IRON - 
the metal.


Iron is a Mills catalyst and notably a part of the catalyst (Shell 105) 
used by Holmlid. Iron could be as active as nickel for making dense 
hydrogen and could explain several cosmological oddities when it 
converts hydrogen into the densest form.


Swartz and Nagel report two perspectives. But fist, as reported by 
George Egely (of dusty plasma fame) - here is a sleeper from C.R. 
Narayanaswamy of India, who was not there - and who is not a cold fusion 
researcher, but who claims to have stumbled onto an industrial-scale 
level transmutation of iron and other elements in an electric arc, 
according to the report.


This is easy to overlook, given the circumstances and potential lack of 
credibility (third hand) but here are the details. CRN is the manager of 
a smelting plant in Southern India. The plant uses electric carbon arc 
technology to melt iron. It is easy to measure the input of carbon, iron 
and Si, as well as the output. We are talking tons here, not milligrams.


"The daily input of Si and Fe was 20.479 tons at his smelting
plant, and the output was 24.75 tons. *There was a daily**
**excess of 4.27 tons of iron and silica."*

"The massive amount of 4.27 tons/day of transmutations ought to raise 
the curiosity of all cold fusion researchers. The family of fusion 
reactions are known as Oshawa reactions."


Egely has been promoting this kind of controversial transmutation for 
some time. He wants us to believe that carbon can be transmuted into 
iron. But details are absent which probably indicate other explanations.


It is hard to say much about the anecdote from India, other than "why 
isn't it more thoroughly investigated" -- but it is pretty clear from 
Egely's own dust plasma experiment, which he is still promoting, that he 
intentionally overlooks the well-know conversion of carbon into a 
magnetic version of carbon - not into iron.


Why chose "transmutation" for which there is zero real proof, when a 
simpler answer is known and being investigated ?


Were it not for that this overlooked detail in Egely's own work, the 
report from India would have a bit more credence, and one hopes that it 
will be further investigated. But the more obvious situation is that 
4.27 ton "excess" comes from a cheaply made carbon electrode, consumed 
in the process... and the report fails to mention various carbides and 
other relevant details of the output.


So this sleeper report is "out there" along with many other oddities 
from India ... but not anything to take seriously, as of now. There are 
also a number of suspicious papers from Universities in India on 
water-splitting using one 6% of the normal power but let's not confuse 
and multiply errors.