Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 28, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com You were talking about protons. I can think of only two examples where the binding energy of a proton is negative. 1. Protium. 2. Helium. Bingo. But do not miss the forest for the trees. The bottom line is that we are only interested in the strong force interaction of two protons in 2-space. They cannot fuse. Surprisingly many vorticians apparently do not realize that this reaction is strongly endothermic. This is false. Consider: H + H -- D + e+ + v + 0.42 MeV This is followed by: e- + e+ -- 2 gamma + 1.02 MeV This is not different in result from: H + H -- D + v + 2 gamma + 1.44 MeV The key to understanding the overcoming of the Coulomb barrier is the realization that absorbed hydrogen is neither molecular or atomic. Electrons can pass close to to the protons, and thus form strong momentary magnetic bonds via spin coupling. Of course the above reactions have a low probability of occurrence. There are many reactions far more likely to occur if lattice elements are involved. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RptH These result in most cases with follow-on weak reactions that further increase the net energy. With the other elements involved in Ni-H (nickel and/or a dielectric) there is almost zero probability of a proton getting close enough to react with any Ni nuclei (or other high Z nuclei). This is wrong if you include the possibility that a proton and electron jointly tunnel to the nucleus. In short, the only thing we should be concerned with, in trying to explaining Rossi/DGT thermal gain - is how do protons in dense accumulations interact with each other, This is mistaken. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf in order to produce excess energy without much gamma radiation (some but not much) and without much transmutation (some but not much). If an electron is in the nucleus to begin with the EM field disruption ejects the electron instead of radiating. The electron then radiates the energy in smaller packets, because it is energetically trapped. Fusion is completely ruled out since the reactants are far too cold. This is false. This is a denial of LENR in general. There is experimental evidence of heavy element transmutations in protium experiments. This could not happen if reactants being cold were a valid reason for denial. It is a mistake to think that gammas can be shielded by low density elements. This would be too easy to demonstrate, if it were true. This I agree with. This kind of shielding was the only claim permitted by the examiner in the WL patent. It was accepted without experimental evidence. That is the point that my proposed dynamic interaction: strong force plus negative binding energy between protons, strives to explain. There is excess energy in a way that convention nuclear physics cannot describe because there is minimal mass-energy conversion per nuclei per reaction. Let me reiterate that it is not precisely a nuclear reaction, in that the energy comes from non-quark nuclear mass. I call it subnuclear, since protium has substantial excess mass which is non-quantized. Only the quark mass is quantized, and that is but a fraction of total nuclear mass, even in protium. Jones I must have missed this. I only read a portion of the posts now. When the content no longer matches the thread name, or is preceded by technical content free discussion, I am likely to miss it. Did you calculate the energy of your proposed reactions? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
And perhaps it is the translation from normal 2d to Casimir type 3d by change in conductivity and spacing of the mirror layers that is at work, where locally the gas atoms perceive the spatial distance between the boundaries varying rapidly while from our perspective it is only the mirror conductivity or slight change in orientation to each other that is in play. Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi? -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.commailto:mix...@bigpond.com As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have been noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because close is much smaller than atomic dimensions, which means that there is no (Lawandy) surface to speak of. You are making a false assumption there. The assumption is three dimensions. Lawandy and Holmlid are 2D. Things are very different in 2D. That's the problem. The real world is 3D. There is no problem here. 2D is inclusive in 3D, so the real world is also 2D. There are no ideal surfaces. So what? There are no ideal gases either but the applicable Laws (generalizations) are usually correct. And on even the most even real surface the smallest features are still individual atoms separated by Angstrom distances. Yes, and that is why - by convention - one atom of thickness is treated as 2D. Were you not aware of that? In the abstract, an atom thickness may not be true 2D, but it always works out that way with high precision, both in the math and in experiment, to be an acceptable approximation of how 3-space and 2-space are connected in the real world. Jones
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On 12/28 Jones Beene said [snip] Fusion is completely ruled out since the reactants are far too cold. It is a mistake to think that gammas can be shielded by low density elements. This would be too easy to demonstrate, if it were true.[/snip] Jones, although I don't think this is fusion either I can't entirely rule it out like you appear to be doing. You know of my conviction regarding Naudt's relativistic interpretation and I have to consider a reaction that only occurs in extreme relativistic warp induced by suppression of larger virtual particles - the resulting radiation would have to likewise translate from this extreme warp back to normal space before we could detect it and therefore be downshifted. Fran -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:45 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi? -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com You were talking about protons. I can think of only two examples where the binding energy of a proton is negative. 1. Protium. 2. Helium. Bingo. But do not miss the forest for the trees. The bottom line is that we are only interested in the strong force interaction of two protons in 2-space. They cannot fuse. Surprisingly many vorticians apparently do not realize that this reaction is strongly endothermic. With the other elements involved in Ni-H (nickel and/or a dielectric) there is almost zero probability of a proton getting close enough to react with any Ni nuclei (or other high Z nuclei). In short, the only thing we should be concerned with, in trying to explaining Rossi/DGT thermal gain - is how do protons in dense accumulations interact with each other, in order to produce excess energy without much gamma radiation (some but not much) and without much transmutation (some but not much). Fusion is completely ruled out since the reactants are far too cold. It is a mistake to think that gammas can be shielded by low density elements. This would be too easy to demonstrate, if it were true. That is the point that my proposed dynamic interaction: strong force plus negative binding energy between protons, strives to explain. There is excess energy in a way that convention nuclear physics cannot describe because there is minimal mass-energy conversion per nuclei per reaction. Let me reiterate that it is not precisely a nuclear reaction, in that the energy comes from non-quark nuclear mass. I call it subnuclear, since protium has substantial excess mass which is non-quantized. Only the quark mass is quantized, and that is but a fraction of total nuclear mass, even in protium. Jones
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:16:32 -0800: Hi Jones, [snip] Yes, and that is why - by convention - one atom of thickness is treated as 2D. Were you not aware of that? In the abstract, an atom thickness may not be true 2D, but it always works out that way with high precision, both in the math and in experiment, to be an acceptable approximation of how 3-space and 2-space are connected in the real world. Jones My point is that an Angstrom = 10 fm. Angstrom distances also exist within a monatomic layer, between the atoms of the layer. Nuclear distances are on the order of a few fm, i.e. tens of thousands of times less than the distance between atoms. That's why there is no surface to speak of at nuclear distances, and one of the major problems of the Lawandy approach. His contention is that mirror charges can hold protons(deuterons) in place at distances close enough to enable fusion, which implies distance much less than normal inter atomic distances, yet the concept of a charge mirroring that he relies on depends upon the existence of a surface, and as just explained, at the short distances required, there is no surface, because one is between atoms. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com There are secondary nuclear reactions but most of the energy gain is from accelerated protons. Robin: This implies close proximity between proton and target nucleus. Yes. That is essentially the gist of combining Miley/Holmlid with Lawandy. However, one does not need to subscribe to the full extent of either model. One can combine the two with adjustments. However if such a proximity exists, then there is no reason a conventional fusion reaction would not take place. You are overlooking one huge reason. When there is negative binding energy between the two particles, fusion cannot take place. What happens next, in that case is open to interpretation, but there is a known example to go on - neutrons. Besides which, you posit Coulomb force repulsion *after* strong force attraction, but this makes no sense, because the strong force goes as the sixth power of distance whereas the Coulomb force goes as the second power, so once the strong force gains the upper hand, it retains control. Well, it makes perfect sense because the strong force is known to operate only in one vector. It is the same thing when two neutrons come together. There is negative binding energy, and fusion cannot take place - yet the strong force brings them together and they immediately separate - EVEN WITHOUT COLOUMB repulsion (other than near-field). In short, my model combines the high energy of proton acceleration, following a strong force attraction scenario - in situations where there is negative binding energy and Coulomb repulsion. It is based on the neutron model. Jones
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have been noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because close is much smaller than atomic dimensions, which means that there is no (Lawandy) surface to speak of. You are making a false assumption there. The assumption is three dimensions. Lawandy and Holmlid are 2D. Things are very different in 2D. Jones
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On 12/27/2011 05:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beenejone...@pacbell.net wrote: A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance against LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD. * I assume you mean as long as there is a DoE. I agree. No, I mean DoD - DoD has far more political clout. There is no inter-connection between the two - except via top politicians and the Cabinet - who hear from both. I do not follow, but that's okay. * I doubt that. The only people I know of who suspected there may be direct weapons applications Martin Fleischmann and Edward Teller. Granted, they know a lot about cold fusion and weapons, respectively. Yes, they do. Case closed. The case does not seem closed to me. Many other people who know a lot about cold fusion and weapons, such as Ed Storms, say there appears to be no likelihood of a weapon. I do not think that the opinions of Fleischmann and Teller automatically outweigh these other people's opinions. Cold fusion does not appear to be a chain reaction, so I do not see how it could be used in a weapon. By not being the direct cause of a chain reaction? I think LENR can be weaponized, and that's probably related, in part, to all the denial surrounding it. It makes sense. Moreover: I'm afraid it already has. I will not talk about it. If I continue gaining insight, I suppose I'll write a book one day. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: Cold fusion does not appear to be a chain reaction, so I do not see how it could be used in a weapon. By not being the direct cause of a chain reaction? Yup. I think only a chain reaction would be fast enough to evolve into a major explosion before the lattice evaporates. There is no doubt you can make a small explosion with cold fusion. People have already done that, by accident. Mizuno nearly killed himself doing that. See: http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#PhotosAccidents - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On 11-12-28 05:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: There is no doubt you can make a small explosion with cold fusion. People have already done that, by accident. Mizuno nearly killed himself doing that. See: http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#PhotosAccidents Thanks for the link, Jed! I recalled the early speculation that the explosion was caused by recombination, and I'd been wondering why you had more recently attributed it to a CF excursion. The paper referenced in the caption of the photo you linked clarified it; thanks again. It still leaves a question, though, which is what happened between T-10 seconds and T-5 seconds which caused the electrolyte temperature to *drop* by about 8 degrees. That seems very peculiar; it would be nice to know the cause. (I suppose there's not much chance of ever finding it, though, since this was necessarily a one-off event!)
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:10:20 -0800: Hi, [snip] -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com There are secondary nuclear reactions but most of the energy gain is from accelerated protons. Robin: This implies close proximity between proton and target nucleus. Yes. That is essentially the gist of combining Miley/Holmlid with Lawandy. However, one does not need to subscribe to the full extent of either model. One can combine the two with adjustments. However if such a proximity exists, then there is no reason a conventional fusion reaction would not take place. You are overlooking one huge reason. When there is negative binding energy between the two particles, fusion cannot take place. What happens next, in that case is open to interpretation, but there is a known example to go on - neutrons. You were talking about protons. I can think of only two examples where the binding energy of a proton is negative. 1. Protium. 2. Helium. (There may be a few more, e.g. very neutron poor isotopes, which are radioactive to either positron decay or electron capture, with a very short half life.) Besides which, you posit Coulomb force repulsion *after* strong force attraction, but this makes no sense, because the strong force goes as the sixth power of distance whereas the Coulomb force goes as the second power, so once the strong force gains the upper hand, it retains control. Well, it makes perfect sense because the strong force is known to operate only in one vector. Really? That's news to me. Perhaps you could provide a reference? It is the same thing when two neutrons come together. There is negative binding energy, and fusion cannot take place - yet the strong force brings them together and they immediately separate - EVEN WITHOUT COLOUMB repulsion (other than near-field). IMO there is no strong force between neutrons, nor between protons. This neatly explains why neither the dineutron not Helium2 are stable. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:10:20 -0800: Hi, [snip] -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have been noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because close is much smaller than atomic dimensions, which means that there is no (Lawandy) surface to speak of. You are making a false assumption there. The assumption is three dimensions. Lawandy and Holmlid are 2D. Things are very different in 2D. That's the problem. The real world is 3D. There are no ideal surfaces. And on even the most even real surface the smallest features are still individual atoms separated by Angstrom distances. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have been noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because close is much smaller than atomic dimensions, which means that there is no (Lawandy) surface to speak of. You are making a false assumption there. The assumption is three dimensions. Lawandy and Holmlid are 2D. Things are very different in 2D. That's the problem. The real world is 3D. There is no problem here. 2D is inclusive in 3D, so the real world is also 2D. There are no ideal surfaces. So what? There are no ideal gases either but the applicable Laws (generalizations) are usually correct. And on even the most even real surface the smallest features are still individual atoms separated by Angstrom distances. Yes, and that is why - by convention - one atom of thickness is treated as 2D. Were you not aware of that? In the abstract, an atom thickness may not be true 2D, but it always works out that way with high precision, both in the math and in experiment, to be an acceptable approximation of how 3-space and 2-space are connected in the real world. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com You were talking about protons. I can think of only two examples where the binding energy of a proton is negative. 1. Protium. 2. Helium. Bingo. But do not miss the forest for the trees. The bottom line is that we are only interested in the strong force interaction of two protons in 2-space. They cannot fuse. Surprisingly many vorticians apparently do not realize that this reaction is strongly endothermic. With the other elements involved in Ni-H (nickel and/or a dielectric) there is almost zero probability of a proton getting close enough to react with any Ni nuclei (or other high Z nuclei). In short, the only thing we should be concerned with, in trying to explaining Rossi/DGT thermal gain - is how do protons in dense accumulations interact with each other, in order to produce excess energy without much gamma radiation (some but not much) and without much transmutation (some but not much). Fusion is completely ruled out since the reactants are far too cold. It is a mistake to think that gammas can be shielded by low density elements. This would be too easy to demonstrate, if it were true. That is the point that my proposed dynamic interaction: strong force plus negative binding energy between protons, strives to explain. There is excess energy in a way that convention nuclear physics cannot describe because there is minimal mass-energy conversion per nuclei per reaction. Let me reiterate that it is not precisely a nuclear reaction, in that the energy comes from non-quark nuclear mass. I call it subnuclear, since protium has substantial excess mass which is non-quantized. Only the quark mass is quantized, and that is but a fraction of total nuclear mass, even in protium. Jones
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
It seems to me that LENR cannot be weaponized. The stuff that permits chain reactions accumulates slowly, if it even exists at all. This permits cosmic rays to limit the accumulation. Cosmic ray secondary muons might trigger conventional fusion in super high density pockets of hydrogen, but such pockets are rare, and cause fracturing if they get too big. Even if large accumulations of potential energy were possible, say deep in a mine where cosmic rays are rare, this would be impractical, because a single cosmic ray could trigger it. Cosmic rays would also continue to rapidly erode stored material by generating small chains. Even short term storage would be infeasible. Creation of mass/energy from the vacuum, where the real power lies, strikes me as useful for on demand use, such as providing impulse for a space craft. On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote: A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance against LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD. Never, never, never. This is essentially why SPAWARS is being closed. They were only supposed to be a token effort anyway - but instead they got too close to exposing the shocking truth - with all of its neglected implications. In short, there is an offshoot of LENR that can be weaponized. At least that is the only scenario that makes sense in the big picture. Going back many years in the history of LENR, a few have voiced this minority opinion about ulterior motives. Big oil in not the intended beneficiary of official neglect. The silent factor at the highest- level (in decision making relative to LENR) is explainable solely in terms of National Defense. This goes well beyond the problem of nuclear proliferation - and it is not necessarily 'nuclear' per se, but instead relates to extremely high energy explosives of any varieties. Even though the PF 'meltdown' in Utah was under-publicized, it certainly was not un-noticed by those who look for these things. Never mind that the so-called 'red mercury' scare turned out to be an obsession of one researcher - Samuel Cohen. At least that is what we are supposed to believe. Even if 'red mercury' is now a generic code name for any ballotechnic, I think that there is more hysteria than ever before in top military circles about the repercussions of a tactical substitute, since detection is more difficult. Rossi has awakened these old nightmares from the early nineties. In short, the biggest threat to the West, in the eyes of a few at the Pentagon is not a nuclear weaponized Iran, nor even a nuke purchased by others who do not share our values: Syria/Libya/Yemen/Somalia/etc. Almost any sovereign country will have too much to lose to play that game. The biggest threat to the West, in the eyes of the Pentagon, is a non-nuclear or nuclear-optional (less detectable) but near kiloton capable weapon in the hands of the Taliban (or next radical terrorist group with access to plenty of cash or a substitute like Afghani heroin)... and by extension, a weapon which is deliverable in the trunk of compact vehicle by a surrogate group in our backyard- like the Zetas, for instance. Scary indeed. Jones -Original Message- From: Jones Beene ... not to mention a few hints (re: supra-chemistry) coming direct from National Labs ... years before nano-thermite made an impact, so to speak. http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/437696-qcD7AM/webviewable/ 437696.pd f Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium. You appear to have ignored the possibility of super-chemistry, a la Mills or IRH. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance against LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD. I assume you mean as long as there is a DoE. I agree. Never, never, never. This is essentially why SPAWARS is being closed. SPAWAR is run by the U.S. Navy. The DoE has no authority over it. A few months ago, someone here describe how NASA might make an evaluation of cold fusion and decide that it should be banned or regulated by the NRC. NASA has absolutely no authority to make such decisions. In short, there is an offshoot of LENR that can be weaponized. At least that is the only scenario that makes sense in the big picture. I doubt that. The only people I know of who suspected there may be direct weapons applications Martin Fleischmann and Edward Teller. Granted, they know a lot about cold fusion and weapons, respectively. I predict that cold fusion will have a tremendous impact on every kind of military hardware, but it will be similar to the impact of the internal combustion engine or electricity, rather than a direct method of causing an explosion. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
From Jones: ... The biggest threat to the West, in the eyes of the Pentagon, is a non-nuclear or nuclear-optional (less detectable) but near kiloton capable weapon in the hands of the Taliban (or next radical terrorist group with access to plenty of cash or a substitute like Afghani heroin)... and by extension, a weapon which is deliverable in the trunk of compact vehicle by a surrogate group in our backyard- like the Zetas, for instance. Regarding the profitability of illegal businesses, like Afghani heroin, I'm going to suggest something outrageous. We should seriously consider growing our own poppy fields and the manufacture of our own illegal drugs. In a sense, this is already done in certain Scandinavian countries, like Denmark. I realize this might seem to be a repugnant suggestion; however it would also seem that the staunchest critics do not necessarily come from Europe where these liberal drug policies are followed, but from our own back yard. See: http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/09so.htm The point being: if we manufactured and sold our own illegal drugs we could then permanently undercut the competition's cash flow and help destroy terrorist funding. Again, I know it is repugnant to even suggest such a tactic, except for the fact that it's probably likely that significant portions of law enforcement have been in bed with the enemy aka: drug cartels for a very long time. I doubt that relationship will change anytime soon for the simple fact that there is too much money to be made on both sides of the fence. Occasional token arrests and drug raids paraded out in public do nothing more than help satisfy national morals that we are doing the right thing, while business-as-usual continues under the counter. So, why not just come out of the closet and accept what is obviously a highly profitable global business enterprise with a business strategy of our own: Permanently undercut the competition's profit margin with our own line of products. I think that would go a long way towards defunding a lot of terrorist activity. To make reparations for the terrible sin of selling illegal drugs to adults (not minors!) I would certainly advocate that a significant portion of the federal profits go towards funding rehabilitation and education explaining the evils of drug addiction. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
From: Jed Rothwell A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance against LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD. * I assume you mean as long as there is a DoE. I agree. No, I mean DoD - DoD has far more political clout. There is no inter-connection between the two - except via top politicians and the Cabinet - who hear from both. In the case of LENR, DoD's objection puts DoE on the sidelines, regardless - so even if the DoE did try to convert its prior objections, it would be impossible * * SPAWAR is run by the U.S. Navy. The DoE has no authority over it. Correct, that is DoD. That is the whole point I am making. * I doubt that. The only people I know of who suspected there may be direct weapons applications Martin Fleischmann and Edward Teller. Granted, they know a lot about cold fusion and weapons, respectively. Yes, they do. Case closed. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance against LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD. * I assume you mean as long as there is a DoE. I agree. No, I mean DoD - DoD has far more political clout. There is no inter-connection between the two - except via top politicians and the Cabinet - who hear from both. I do not follow, but that's okay. * I doubt that. The only people I know of who suspected there may be direct weapons applications Martin Fleischmann and Edward Teller. Granted, they know a lot about cold fusion and weapons, respectively. Yes, they do. Case closed. The case does not seem closed to me. Many other people who know a lot about cold fusion and weapons, such as Ed Storms, say there appears to be no likelihood of a weapon. I do not think that the opinions of Fleischmann and Teller automatically outweigh these other people's opinions. Cold fusion does not appear to be a chain reaction, so I do not see how it could be used in a weapon. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
Horace, I considered this point (no neutron chain reaction nor obvious substitute) but am convinced that there is no need for the kind of chain reaction we are familiar with in fission. If you understand subcritical neutron multiplication, you will see that massive gain is possible without true chain reaction dynamics. Obviously, my theory for gain is not the same as yours, although there is some similarity. In this hypothesis, which borrows from Mills but is very different, and also from Robin's version of Mills - there is dense hydrogen accumulation via Mills' catalysis - not unlike the Holmlid/Miley model, and protons reside on a dielectric surface, ala Lawandy. Even with maximum pitting (Casimir pits) the IRH is too transitory, without cryogenics. Cryogenics is one major limitation for weaponization (thankfully). Precision is another. Without cryogenics to quench during the IRH accumulation stage, and the occasional cosmic ray - you would likely have a Rossi-type of reaction that cannot go far beyond the meltdowns he claims to have seen. Mirror electrons in the dielectric keep the protons close to each other. They can be degenerate or deflated. There is no primary fusion nor fission. Gain comes from non-quark nuclear boson depletion, is instigated by strong force attraction, followed by Coulomb repulsion - and depends on quark statistics. Gain is in the range of tens to hundreds of keV per proton. There are secondary nuclear reactions but most of the energy gain is from accelerated protons. The leap of faith is that net proton mass is an average, not quantized like quark mass, and can vary a fractional percent. Of course, some of the mass variation is convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion. The suggested P-e-P reaction is absurd except under solar conditions - and is discarded in place of strong force attraction, followed by energetic repulsion when the two cannot bind. In a weapon, a surrounding ballotechnic (nano-thermite??) would be needed to implode a target with great spherical precision, so that a uniform statistical first wave is instigated. This would be followed by the functional equivalent of (slowly decreasing waves) of neutron multiplication in a subcritical reactor This result depends on rapid timing and high initial energy density in the surround. The required level of precision would be another limitation for terrorist groups, since none of them would likely put up the millions needed for tooling - not to mention many years of development. Rossi or DGT may change that situation. Jones -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner It seems to me that LENR cannot be weaponized. The stuff that permits chain reactions accumulates slowly, if it even exists at all. This permits cosmic rays to limit the accumulation.
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:41:55 -0800: Hi, [snip] Mirror electrons in the dielectric keep the protons close to each other. As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have been noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because close is much smaller than atomic dimensions, which means that there is no (Lawandy) surface to speak of. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
In reply to OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:05:01 -0600: Hi, [snip] Regarding the profitability of illegal businesses, like Afghani heroin, I'm going to suggest something outrageous. We should seriously consider growing our own poppy fields and the manufacture of our own illegal drugs. In a sense, this is already done in certain Scandinavian countries, like Denmark. You already do...in Afghanistan. ;) What do you think was the real reason for fighting the Taliban (under whom Opium production nearly died out). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:41:55 -0800: Hi, [snip] Gain comes from non-quark nuclear boson depletion, is instigated by strong force attraction, followed by Coulomb repulsion - and depends on quark statistics. Gain is in the range of tens to hundreds of keV per proton. There are secondary nuclear reactions but most of the energy gain is from accelerated protons. This implies close proximity between proton and target nucleus. However if such a proximity exists, then there is no reason a conventional fusion reaction would not take place. Besides which, you posit Coulomb force repulsion *after* strong force attraction, but this makes no sense, because the strong force goes as the sixth power of distance whereas the Coulomb force goes as the second power, so once the strong force gains the upper hand, it retains control. There is no followed. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:07 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I You already do...in Afghanistan. ;) What do you think was the real reason for fighting the Taliban (under whom Opium production nearly died out). This isn't a good place for politics but I can't let something that stupid get by. Regardless of how you feel about the wisdom of the US fighting at all in Afghanistan, the real reason for fighting the Taliban is that they are a bunch of cruel Stone Age savages who suppress all human rights, especially those of the weak, minorities and women. They also destroy all art, dance and culture. They perpetuate beastiality, sexually abuse young boys systematically and with social approval, they rape and torture and murder women with impunity, and they actively prevent education, science, and any advancement of human progress. Other than that, they're fine-- let's leave them alone.
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace, I considered this point (no neutron chain reaction nor obvious substitute) but am convinced that there is no need for the kind of chain reaction we are familiar with in fission. If you understand subcritical neutron multiplication, you will see that massive gain is possible without true chain reaction dynamics. Subcritical neutron generation merely makes expanded use of each neutron supplied by an external source. If the neutrons themselves generate more than a neutron on average, then the reaction is a chain reaction. If not, the energy is limited in the extreme, by the input flux, which in the case under discussion is cosmic rays. A large explosion is not feasible without a chain reaction. Obviously, my theory for gain is not the same as yours, although there is some similarity. In this hypothesis, which borrows from Mills but is very different, and also from Robin's version of Mills - there is dense hydrogen accumulation via Mills' catalysis - not unlike the Holmlid/Miley model, and protons reside on a dielectric surface, ala Lawandy. Even with maximum pitting (Casimir pits) the IRH is too transitory, without cryogenics. Cryogenics is one major limitation for weaponization (thankfully). Precision is another. Planar configurations are not condusive to criticality. Without cryogenics to quench during the IRH accumulation stage, and the occasional cosmic ray - you would likely have a Rossi-type of reaction that cannot go far beyond the meltdowns he claims to have seen. Yes. Thermally driven slow (non-cahin) reactions necessarily die off when the lattice melts. Mirror electrons in the dielectric keep the protons close to each other. They can be degenerate or deflated. They can form ordinary atoms in that case, i.e. being on a surface with spare electrons. There is no primary fusion nor fission. Gain comes from non-quark nuclear boson depletion, is instigated by strong force attraction, followed by Coulomb repulsion - and depends on quark statistics. As Robin says, this make no sense. Gain is in the range of tens to hundreds of keV per proton. There are secondary nuclear reactions but most of the energy gain is from accelerated protons. The leap of faith is that net proton mass is an average, not quantized like quark mass, and can vary a fractional percent. Of course, some of the mass variation is convertible to energy when the strong force is pitted against Coulomb repulsion. The suggested P-e-P reaction is absurd except under solar conditions - and is discarded in place of strong force attraction, followed by energetic repulsion when the two cannot bind. I am not sure what you mean here. If you are referring to: I said A very very small rate of pep reactions may occur This I think is obviously true. Very very small is very very small. 8^) I also noted that ... this gamma producing reaction was not observed above background in the Rossi E-cats. In a weapon, a surrounding ballotechnic (nano-thermite??) would be needed to implode a target with great spherical precision, so that a uniform statistical first wave is instigated. This would be followed by the functional equivalent of (slowly decreasing waves) of neutron multiplication in a subcritical reactor This result depends on rapid timing and high initial energy density in the surround. The required level of precision would be another limitation for terrorist groups, since none of them would likely put up the millions needed for tooling - not to mention many years of development. I don't see a neutron based chain reaction as feasible at all. For that fast neutron fissioning material is needed. LENR stuff would merely make that kind of thing even more difficult. Rossi or DGT may change that situation. Jones -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner It seems to me that LENR cannot be weaponized. The stuff that permits chain reactions accumulates slowly, if it even exists at all. This permits cosmic rays to limit the accumulation. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 27, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:07 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I You already do...in Afghanistan. ;) What do you think was the real reason for fighting the Taliban (under whom Opium production nearly died out). This isn't a good place for politics but I can't let something that stupid get by. Sure you can. Just try hard. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On 11-12-27 04:31 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:07 PM, mix...@bigpond.com mailto:mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I You already do...in Afghanistan. ;) What do you think was the real reason for fighting the Taliban (under whom Opium production nearly died out). This isn't a good place for politics but I can't let something that stupid get by. Regardless of how you feel about the wisdom of the US fighting at all in Afghanistan, the real reason for fighting the Taliban is that they are a bunch of cruel Stone Age savages who suppress all human rights, especially those of the weak, minorities and women. They also destroy all art, dance and culture. They perpetuate beastiality, sexually abuse young boys systematically and with social approval, they rape and torture and murder women with impunity, and they actively prevent education, science, and any advancement of human progress. Other than that, they're fine-- let's leave them alone. You folks seem to be postulating various reasons for why the U.S. went into Afghanistan. Did either of you ever hear, by any chance, of an event commonly referred to as 9/11? I still remember the little stickers which were being sold on the Internet for a (very brief) period just after 9/11, and before anybody in the government even admitted the United States was thinking about attacking anybody. They were shaped like Afghanistan, sticky on the back, made to be stuck to a common-sized world globe. They had just one change over the usual country image as it appears on a globe: The name on the country was Toast. Wasn't it amazing how the folks selling those stickers guessed the U.S. was about to invade, if the real reason really had nothing to do with 9/11?? What a coincidence! There may have been other justifications for going after the Taliban, either conspiracy-based or morality-based, but if the air force had been on the stick that day and had shot down all four planes before they hit their targets, I don't think we'd be wondering how we got into this mess today ... because we wouldn't be in it.
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Never, never, never. This is essentially why SPAWARS is being closed. SPAWAR is not being closed. Perhaps you refer to only the CF tests. SPAWAR is large: http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pages/default.aspx T
Re: [Vo]:LENR 'Proliferation' was: US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
In reply to Mary Yugo's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:31:21 -0800: Hi, The reasons you give have little to do with the reason for being there, as indicated by the fact that the current incumbents are not much better. Basically the problems you describe are part of the culture of the local people, and have little to do with who is actually running the country. Note also that these problems are typically used as an excuse for waging the war, because they go down well with the simplistic mindset of Joe Sixpack. You are however correct about the post not being appropriate to the list, so this will be my last on the matter. On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:07 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: I You already do...in Afghanistan. ;) What do you think was the real reason for fighting the Taliban (under whom Opium production nearly died out). This isn't a good place for politics but I can't let something that stupid get by. Regardless of how you feel about the wisdom of the US fighting at all in Afghanistan, the real reason for fighting the Taliban is that they are a bunch of cruel Stone Age savages who suppress all human rights, especially those of the weak, minorities and women. They also destroy all art, dance and culture. They perpetuate beastiality, sexually abuse young boys systematically and with social approval, they rape and torture and murder women with impunity, and they actively prevent education, science, and any advancement of human progress. Other than that, they're fine-- let's leave them alone. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
