Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
This one looks interesting: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/116853-mits-photonic-crystals-lead-towards-a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-gadget Ron --On Friday, February 03, 2012 9:02 AM -0800 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It is possible that somewhere down the road, a cross-over technology from a completely different field (like information technology) may be needed to take Ni-H to the required level of true on demand repeatability - over many months. To wit, something like this: http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri cation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/ Imagine a nickel alloy film which is etched into perfectly sized excitons (or Casimir Cavities, or a combination or the two as pictured) ... They are down to below 30 nm now and 15 nm is mentioned. Getting below 10 nm will be optimum (the Forster radius and FRET defines the required range) but the space between the excitons as shown in this image is already there (for Casimir pits). This story is emblematic of the kind of engineering effort that should be going into Ni-H now. We need to expend - not simply millions for RD for this technology - but billions annually. It is that important. In the end the amount spent will be 'chump change' compared to the trillions saved - most of it now ending up in the coffers of OPEC. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
-Original Message- From: Ron Wormus This one looks interesting: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/116853-mits-photonic-crystals-lead-toward s-a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-gadget And it is extremely thin ... 3M notwithstanding How does this sound E-Cat on a chip ?
Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: How does this sound E-Cat on a chip ? About as bad as eCat on a Hot, Thin Proof. T
Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
I have been wondering about this as well. Experiments using such films with different dimensions of etched squares would be a good way of quantifying the way that the process depends on dimensions, which would in turn help us understand what exatcly is going on. Trying to get repeatable data from powders was always going to be difficult. Nigel On 03/02/2012 17:02, Jones Beene wrote: It is possible that somewhere down the road, a cross-over technology from a completely different field (like information technology) may be needed to take Ni-H to the required level of true on demand repeatability - over many months. To wit, something like this: http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri cation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/ Imagine a nickel alloy film which is etched into perfectly sized excitons (or Casimir Cavities, or a combination or the two as pictured) ... They are down to below 30 nm now and 15 nm is mentioned. Getting below 10 nm will be optimum (the Forster radius and FRET defines the required range) but the space between the excitons as shown in this image is already there (for Casimir pits). This story is emblematic of the kind of engineering effort that should be going into Ni-H now. We need to expend - not simply millions for RD for this technology - but billions annually. It is that important. In the end the amount spent will be 'chump change' compared to the trillions saved - most of it now ending up in the coffers of OPEC. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
The fervor with which W-L adherence advocate that theory is appropriate for a theory that has been strongly inferred experimentally against the array of competing theories. However, I see no such strong inference in evidence. Assuming nanotech can fabricate structures at the 15nm feature size, what sort of experiment would falsify the competing theories while producing results predicted by W-L? On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It is possible that somewhere down the road, a cross-over technology from a completely different field (like information technology) may be needed to take Ni-H to the required level of true on demand repeatability - over many months. To wit, something like this: http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri cation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/ Imagine a nickel alloy film which is etched into perfectly sized excitons (or Casimir Cavities, or a combination or the two as pictured) ... They are down to below 30 nm now and 15 nm is mentioned. Getting below 10 nm will be optimum (the Forster radius and FRET defines the required range) but the space between the excitons as shown in this image is already there (for Casimir pits). This story is emblematic of the kind of engineering effort that should be going into Ni-H now. We need to expend - not simply millions for RD for this technology - but billions annually. It is that important. In the end the amount spent will be 'chump change' compared to the trillions saved - most of it now ending up in the coffers of OPEC. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
W-L theory is already dead in the water for Ni-H for two reasons: 1)There is no neutron activation, which could not be avoided if the theory was valid 2)The technology of ultra low temperature neutrons is well know and bears no resemblance to the invented species: ultra low momentum neutrons Note: SPAWAR claimed to see neutrons with deuterium - therefore W-L may apply to deuterium- not to Ni-H since no neutron is seen. They relatively are easy to detect when present. From: James Bowery The fervor with which W-L adherence advocate that theory is appropriate for a theory that has been strongly inferred experimentally against the array of competing theories. However, I see no such strong inference in evidence. Assuming nanotech can fabricate structures at the 15nm feature size, what sort of experiment would falsify the competing theories while producing results predicted by W-L? Jones Beene wrote: It is possible that somewhere down the road, a cross-over technology from a completely different field (like information technology) may be needed to take Ni-H to the required level of true on demand repeatability - over many months. To wit, something like this: http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabr i%0d%0acation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/ cation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/ Imagine a nickel alloy film which is etched into perfectly sized excitons (or Casimir Cavities, or a combination or the two as pictured) ... They are down to below 30 nm now and 15 nm is mentioned. Getting below 10 nm will be optimum (the Forster radius and FRET defines the required range) but the space between the excitons as shown in this image is already there (for Casimir pits). This story is emblematic of the kind of engineering effort that should be going into Ni-H now. We need to expend - not simply millions for RD for this technology - but billions annually. It is that important. In the end the amount spent will be 'chump change' compared to the trillions saved - most of it now ending up in the coffers of OPEC. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
It might well be that there are multiple reactions possible in the very broad concept of cold fusion. It is my current humble opinion that it is a mistake to try to cover all the instances of cold fusion with only one theory. One theory that might explain what is causing transmutation of elements in an electric arc of a Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann reactor or in an exploding metal foil experiment might not fit what is happening inside a Rossi reactor or the ovaries of a chicken. The W-L theory might well apply to reactions involving high energy electrons; but I can’t see its application in a system involving the NiH reaction. On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: W-L theory is already dead in the water for Ni-H for two reasons: ** ** **1)**There is no neutron activation, which could not be avoided if the theory was valid **2)**The technology of “ultra low temperature” neutrons is well know and bears no resemblance to the invented species: “ultra low momentum” neutrons ** ** Note: SPAWAR claimed to see neutrons with deuterium - therefore W-L may apply to deuterium– not to Ni-H since no neutron is seen. They relatively are easy to detect when present. ** ** ** ** *From:* James Bowery ** ** The fervor with which W-L adherence advocate that theory is appropriate for a theory that has been strongly inferred experimentally against the array of competing theories. ** ** However, I see no such strong inference in evidence. ** ** Assuming nanotech can fabricate structures at the 15nm feature size, what sort of experiment would falsify the competing theories while producing results predicted by W-L? ** ** Jones Beene wrote: ** ** It is possible that somewhere down the road, a cross-over technology from a completely different field (like information technology) may be needed to take Ni-H to the required level of true on demand repeatability - over many months. To wit, something like this: http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri cation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri%0d%0acation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/ Imagine a nickel alloy film which is etched into perfectly sized excitons (or Casimir Cavities, or a combination or the two as pictured) ... They are down to below 30 nm now and 15 nm is mentioned. Getting below 10 nm will be optimum (the Forster radius and FRET defines the required range) but the space between the excitons as shown in this image is already there (for Casimir pits). This story is emblematic of the kind of engineering effort that should be going into Ni-H now. We need to expend - not simply millions for RD for this technology - but billions annually. It is that important. In the end the amount spent will be 'chump change' compared to the trillions saved - most of it now ending up in the coffers of OPEC. Jones ** **
Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: One theory that might explain what is causing transmutation of elements in an electric arc of a Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann reactor There is no electric arc in this reactor. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
In reply to James Bowery's message of Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:47:43 -0600: Hi, [snip] The fervor with which W-L adherence advocate that theory is appropriate for a theory that has been strongly inferred experimentally against the array of competing theories. However, I see no such strong inference in evidence. Assuming nanotech can fabricate structures at the 15nm feature size, what sort of experiment would falsify the competing theories while producing results predicted by W-L? [snip] Not sure about W-L, but Mills' Hydrinos would be pretty much confirmed if heat output peaked around a quantized set of dimensions, namely:- 45.589 nm divided by a whole number, thus 45.589nm, 22.795nm, 15.196nm etc. 45.589 is the wavelength of a photon with an energy of 27.2 eV, and the others are harmonics thereof. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
...what is happening inside ...the ovaries of a chicken. http://www.rexresearch.com/goldfein/goldfein.htm ?? - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology It might well be that there are multiple reactions possible in the very broad concept of cold fusion. It is my current humble opinion that it is a mistake to try to cover all the instances of cold fusion with only one theory. One theory that might explain what is causing transmutation of elements in an electric arc of a Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann reactor or in an exploding metal foil experiment might not fit what is happening inside a Rossi reactor or the ovaries of a chicken. The W-L theory might well apply to reactions involving high energy electrons; but I can’t see its application in a system involving the NiH reaction. On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: W-L theory is already dead in the water for Ni-H for two reasons: 1)There is no neutron activation, which could not be avoided if the theory was valid 2)The technology of “ultra low temperature” neutrons is well know and bears no resemblance to the invented species: “ultra low momentum” neutrons Note: SPAWAR claimed to see neutrons with deuterium - therefore W-L may apply to deuterium– not to Ni-H since no neutron is seen. They relatively are easy to detect when present. From: James Bowery The fervor with which W-L adherence advocate that theory is appropriate for a theory that has been strongly inferred experimentally against the array of competing theories. However, I see no such strong inference in evidence. Assuming nanotech can fabricate structures at the 15nm feature size, what sort of experiment would falsify the competing theories while producing results predicted by W-L? Jones Beene wrote: It is possible that somewhere down the road, a cross-over technology from a completely different field (like information technology) may be needed to take Ni-H to the required level of true on demand repeatability - over many months. To wit, something like this: http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/02/Information-Tech-Computing-Materials-Fabri cation-method-pushes-recording-density-to-3-3-Tb-per-square-inch/ Imagine a nickel alloy film which is etched into perfectly sized excitons (or Casimir Cavities, or a combination or the two as pictured) ... They are down to below 30 nm now and 15 nm is mentioned. Getting below 10 nm will be optimum (the Forster radius and FRET defines the required range) but the space between the excitons as shown in this image is already there (for Casimir pits). This story is emblematic of the kind of engineering effort that should be going into Ni-H now. We need to expend - not simply millions for RD for this technology - but billions annually. It is that important. In the end the amount spent will be 'chump change' compared to the trillions saved - most of it now ending up in the coffers of OPEC. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
I am jumping the gun a bit by posting some older background information on the interplay between particle size and another variable ... one that can be called roughness, structure, or specifically fractal structure. The gentleman who brought this to my attention is not yet a vortex subscriber, but hopefully he will be soon. (if Bill has reopened the forum by now). Anyway, the background of why all of this could be important to Ni-H should be explained for those who missed prior postings relating to a DCE (dynamical Casimir effect) ... or to FRET (Forster Radiant Energy Transfer) which is turn could be the predecessor event(s) for secondary reactions, including nuclear or suprachemical. Just a few months ago, a proposed metamaterial structure (to test for a predicted large Casimir effect) - drew some interest. There is a paper on ArXiv - Huge Casimir effect at finite temperature in electromagnetic Rindler space. Here is the story on a blog: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/10/proposed-metamaterial-structure-to-test.htm l And before that Fractal antenna arrays proposed as energy source appeared a couple of years ago. If it ever went anywhere towards experimental proof, the news has not leaked out. http://pesn.com/2009/10/31/9501584_Fractal_antenna_arrays_as_energy_source/ Anyway - there are several novel connection between fractals, anomalous energy gain and active geometry, which keep coming up in the literature. The geometry somehow alters spacetime - and it is more than the actual spatial dimensions in nm, but also the layout. Fran Roarty has covered similar ideas on his blog. These have a common thread in that there is a known dynamic Casimir effect (DCE) which can supply tiny excess energy due to spatial constraints (i.e. altered spacetime). Consider also: 'Minkowski Space' is related to 'Rindler Space' and also to 'De Sitter Space.' It is possible that all three of these terms relate to a unique fractal of space-time (using 'fractal' in the original sense of a fractional dimension) which becomes accessible at the Forster radius of 2-12 nm. This is NOT normal 3-space, nor is it 2-space but somewhere in between. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_space Look at the image here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_spacetime in the context of this article http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.1919v1.pdf This all fits together in a way that is not easy to verbalize, but it seems to involve 1) Double vortex 2) Vortex flipping and self-oscillation 3) Spatial geometry that relates to the Forster radius 4) Exaggerated vibrational modes 5) Is not always a gain in temperature - sometimes a loss is evident. The problem is that this analysis is an early attempt to merge mathematical-space with real space. I am hoping that verbalize these issues is less of a problem for someone who understands all of this, especially fractal space and time - better than I do. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: in the context of this article http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.1919v1.pdf It's very annoying when they don't give the titles of their references. It helps determine why they pursue the idea they are writing. It sure looks like they are pursuing FE with a passion. T
RE: [Vo]:Cross-over technology
Jones: Just adding to the 'clues'... this from my posting Dec.17, 2011. Look for phi-ratios in the numbers... -Mark = Golden ratio hints at hidden atomic symmetry Jan. 7, 2010 Courtesy Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres and World Science By tuning the system the researchers found that the chain of atoms acts like a guitar string whose tension comes from interaction between the spins of the constituent particles. For these interactions we found a series, or scale, of resonant notes, said Radu Coldea of Oxford University, who led the research. The first two notes show a perfect relationship with each other, added Coldea, principle author of a paper on the findings to appear in the Jan. 8 issue of the research journal Science. The pitch of these notes, or their frequencies of vibration, are in a ratio of about 1.618, the same as the golden ratio famous from art and architecture, he continued. If two numbers are related by the golden ratio, their sum is also related to the larger of them by the golden ratio. In other words, if A divided by B is that special number, then A+B divided by A is the same number. = attachment: winmail.dat
