Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: The grounded thick stainless steel container, mu metal, and outer metal insulated box should act as a cage for the Defkalion demo. I expect there was EMI from their HV supply Dr. Cravens, are you saying that you can confirm that mu-metal was used in the construction of the Defkalion reactor?
Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
Axil, where did you see reference to the DGT device magnetic fields causing disruptions to nearby equipment? That would be extremely important if true. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 1:25 am Subject: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) Brad Lowe: It was reported that the nickel isotopes all react, except that Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) The LENR story is turning out to be a puzzle with many parts. The most obscure piece of this puzzle is the shape and character of the EMF that forms in the “Hot Spot” when nanoantennas concentrate photons through “dark mode” resonance formation. This resonance formation process packs huge vortex currents together in a nano-scopic volume. One possible formation that this ball of charged light can assume is the anapole ring which resembles the plasmoid. Today, Defkalion stated that the reactor packs huge magnetic fields capable of disrupting all electronic equipment in the general vicinity of the reactor core. The core had to be shielded by a double ply faraday cage. That huge field is produced by nano-particles in a bath of infrared radiation. This type and strength of magnetism is important in the nucleus of an atom. These nuclei also pack huge magnetic fields. These fields are greatly effected by Parity non conservation (PNC) effects. For the nuclei with an unpaired neutron the Parity non conservation (PNC) effects may be strongly suppressed! This is true for odd numbered nucleons. The nuclear magnetic field is not symmetrical; it is unbalanced like a top with a weight glued to its outer edge. What is PCN? Here is some background info http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHp-ocXIs1U Parity Non-Conservation in the Weak Interaction Defkalion states as follows: “We realized also that Ni58, Ni60, Ni62 and Ni64 stable isotopes where “willing” to participate in a LENR reaction, while Ni61 was not.” In general, we know that the isotopes with an odd number of nucleons do not react under LENR; only the ones with even number of nucleons do. This means that there is a nuclear configuration component that is important in the LENR process. How the quarks are paired makes a difference in LENR. Parity non conservation (PCN) may be a determining factor in the LENR reaction involving anapole magnetic effects. If it were simply a matter of shear EMF disruptive power, the configuration of the nucleons in the nucleus would not be important. If it were simply a matter of charge concentration, PCN would not be important. This charge concentration is what Dr, Kim and Defkalion think is at the center of the even isotope mystery. But it is a strong anapole single polled magnetic field that could change the handedness of some subatomic particles resulting in a disruptive nuclear reaction. Higgs superconductivity is not easy to disrupt but when it is disrupted, the quarks are all rearranged because of it. By the way, when nickel get to 137C, its magnetic field breaks into spin ice of rotating vortex magnetic fields. Every bit of anapole magnetic power helps disrupt that even nucleus.
Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
Inquiring minds want to hear more! Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 1:34 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 10:25:40 PM Today, Defkalion stated that the reactor packs huge magnetic fields capable of disrupting all electronic equipment in the general vicinity of the reactor core. The core had to be shielded by a double ply faraday cage. That huge field is produced by nano-particles in a bath of infrared radiation. I wonder if that's related to Rossi's hints of direct electric generation?
Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
Good point Eric. But keep in mind that a Faraday shield would not stop a magnetic field. They can eliminate electrostatic fields, but not magnetic ones unless the field is at a very high frequency. This is an important piece of the puzzle if true. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 1:45 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Today, Defkalion stated that the reactor packs huge magnetic fields capable of disrupting all electronic equipment in the general vicinity of the reactor core. The core had to be shielded by a double ply faraday cage. That huge field is produced by nano-particles in a bath of infrared radiation. This makes it sound like there is a current of some kind. If so, that is a point in favor of energetic particles (coherent groups, perhaps) and a point against slow deuterium/helium formation, which, presumably, would not produce currents (unless I'm misunderstanding an implication). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
The magnetic fields may be very high frequent which will cause eddy
currents in the shielding plates, creating counter magnetic fields,
resulting in strongly reduced magnetic interference. In that sence
shielding will work.
Op woensdag 24 juli 2013 schreef David Roberson (dlrober...@aol.com) het
volgende:
Good point Eric. But keep in mind that a Faraday shield would not stop a
magnetic field. They can eliminate electrostatic fields, but not magnetic
ones unless the field is at a very high frequency. This is an important
piece of the puzzle if true.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'eric.wal...@gmail.com');
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
Sent: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 1:45 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Axil Axil
janap...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'janap...@gmail.com');
wrote:
Today, Defkalion stated that the reactor packs huge magnetic fields
capable of disrupting all electronic equipment in the general vicinity of
the reactor core. The core had to be shielded by a double ply faraday cage.
That huge field is produced by nano-particles in a bath of infrared
radiation.
This makes it sound like there is a current of some kind. If so, that
is a point in favor of energetic particles (coherent groups, perhaps) and a
point against slow deuterium/helium formation, which, presumably, would not
produce currents (unless I'm misunderstanding an implication).
Eric
Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
John H stated that these DGT device magnetic fields will cause disruptions to nearby equipment in the demo introduction on Tuesday. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:16 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, where did you see reference to the DGT device magnetic fields causing disruptions to nearby equipment? That would be extremely important if true. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 1:25 am Subject: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) Brad Lowe: It was reported that the nickel isotopes all react, except that Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) The LENR story is turning out to be a puzzle with many parts. The most obscure piece of this puzzle is the shape and character of the EMF that forms in the “Hot Spot” when nanoantennas concentrate photons through “dark mode” resonance formation. This resonance formation process packs huge vortex currents together in a nano-scopic volume. One possible formation that this ball of charged light can assume is the anapole ring which resembles the plasmoid. Today, Defkalion stated that the reactor packs huge magnetic fields capable of disrupting all electronic equipment in the general vicinity of the reactor core. The core had to be shielded by a double ply faraday cage. That huge field is produced by nano-particles in a bath of infrared radiation. This type and strength of magnetism is important in the nucleus of an atom. These nuclei also pack huge magnetic fields. These fields are greatly effected by Parity non conservation (PNC) effects. For the nuclei with an unpaired neutron the Parity non conservation (PNC) effects may be strongly suppressed! This is true for odd numbered nucleons. The nuclear magnetic field is not symmetrical; it is unbalanced like a top with a weight glued to its outer edge. What is PCN? Here is some background info http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHp-ocXIs1U Parity Non-Conservation in the Weak Interaction Defkalion states as follows: “We realized also that Ni58, Ni60, Ni62 and Ni64 stable isotopes where “willing” to participate in a LENR reaction, while Ni61 was not.” In general, we know that the isotopes with an odd number of nucleons do not react under LENR; only the ones with even number of nucleons do. This means that there is a nuclear configuration component that is important in the LENR process. How the quarks are paired makes a difference in LENR. Parity non conservation (PCN) may be a determining factor in the LENR reaction involving anapole magnetic effects. If it were simply a matter of shear EMF disruptive power, the configuration of the nucleons in the nucleus would not be important. If it were simply a matter of charge concentration, PCN would not be important. This charge concentration is what Dr, Kim and Defkalion think is at the center of the even isotope mystery. But it is a strong anapole single polled magnetic field that could change the handedness of some subatomic particles resulting in a disruptive nuclear reaction. Higgs superconductivity is not easy to disrupt but when it is disrupted, the quarks are all rearranged because of it. By the way, when nickel get to 137C, its magnetic field breaks into spin ice of rotating vortex magnetic fields. Every bit of anapole magnetic power helps disrupt that even nucleus.
Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
It doesn't make sense to call them magnetic rather than electromagnetic fields if the variation in the magnetic field is rapid. Moreover, a mere magnetic field is not going to disrupt electronics in general -- its EM fields that do that. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: The magnetic fields may be very high frequent which will cause eddy currents in the shielding plates, creating counter magnetic fields, resulting in strongly reduced magnetic interference. In that sence shielding will work. Op woensdag 24 juli 2013 schreef David Roberson (dlrober...@aol.com) het volgende: Good point Eric. But keep in mind that a Faraday shield would not stop a magnetic field. They can eliminate electrostatic fields, but not magnetic ones unless the field is at a very high frequency. This is an important piece of the puzzle if true. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 1:45 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Today, Defkalion stated that the reactor packs huge magnetic fields capable of disrupting all electronic equipment in the general vicinity of the reactor core. The core had to be shielded by a double ply faraday cage. That huge field is produced by nano-particles in a bath of infrared radiation. This makes it sound like there is a current of some kind. If so, that is a point in favor of energetic particles (coherent groups, perhaps) and a point against slow deuterium/helium formation, which, presumably, would not produce currents (unless I'm misunderstanding an implication). Eric
RE: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Brad Lowe: It was reported that the nickel isotopes all react, except that Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) 61Ni is the only naturally occurring NI isotope with odd spin (and hence a nuclear magnetic moment). The more logical explanation is that that DGT is trying to distance themselves from the Claims of Rossi patent application, in the event it will be granted. If you accept the validity of the DGT demo, and it looks damn good to me despite a few problems, then Rossi's demo should be accepted also, and the Patent Law under section 713.98 permits the demonstration of a working device. So we pretty much have to assume that the Rossi IP will be granted eventually - since he can actually demonstrate the effect. We know that he has claimed that Ni-62 is the active isotope and if true, it would keep DGT out of the game. Anyway - it is extremely doubtful, given the expense of pure isotopes and Defkalion's lack of capital, that they have done the correct testing to back such a self-serving statement. Rossi has been much better funded. Therefore DGT has every incentive, in seeking investors - to insert that kind of comment about not having the same technology as Rossi, even if untrue. They cannot afford to be seen as having copied Rossi's technology - when his patent is eventually granted; but everyone on this forum knows the history going back a few years; and that DGT actually admitted to copying the formula at the University of Sienna. IOW - If they - DGT are to attract sufficient outside funding, and they badly need it - then they essentially have to invent something like this story to overcome due diligence objections. In spite of the successful demo, the statement about isotope activity from DGT is almost certainly self-serving and bogus. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
Near fields behave quite a bit differently than far fields. You can have a near field with a magnetic component that is far higher than that of a standard electromagnetic radiation condition. This seemed strange when I first encountered it, but made a lot of sense after looking into the issue. The same is true of electrical fields that resemble static conditions. I believe that the situation is treated as a field impedance behavior. Far fields all have the proper relationship of E and H vector ratios, but not near ones. I have worked on devices that intentionally generated large time changing magnetic fields for their operation and likewise others that used large electric fields. Each has its own special characteristics which can be used when required. I vividly recall instances when new engineers who studied fields in college had a hard time accepting the fact that the ratios of the two vectors can vary in near field conditions. Since it is possible to enhance the near field magnetic component while suppressing the electric field, I sometimes refer to such a source as being a magnetic field even though it is time changing to emphasize the difference between it and a far field wave. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 11:59 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) It doesn't make sense to call them magnetic rather than electromagnetic fields if the variation in the magnetic field is rapid. Moreover, a mere magnetic field is not going to disrupt electronics in general -- its EM fields that do that. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com wrote: The magnetic fields may be very high frequent which will cause eddy currents in the shielding plates, creating counter magnetic fields, resulting in strongly reduced magnetic interference. In that sence shielding will work. Op woensdag 24 juli 2013 schreef David Roberson (dlrober...@aol.com) het volgende: Good point Eric. But keep in mind that a Faraday shield would not stop a magnetic field. They can eliminate electrostatic fields, but not magnetic ones unless the field is at a very high frequency. This is an important piece of the puzzle if true. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 1:45 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Today, Defkalion stated that the reactor packs huge magnetic fields capable of disrupting all electronic equipment in the general vicinity of the reactor core. The core had to be shielded by a double ply faraday cage. That huge field is produced by nano-particles in a bath of infrared radiation. This makes it sound like there is a current of some kind. If so, that is a point in favor of energetic particles (coherent groups, perhaps) and a point against slow deuterium/helium formation, which, presumably, would not produce currents (unless I'm misunderstanding an implication). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
The plasma control technique used by DGT appears to be quite a bit different than what Rossi is doing with his device. We should all be excited to find that there are several different techniques that yield excess heat. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 12:39 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Brad Lowe: It was reported that the nickel isotopes all react, except that Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) 61Ni is the only naturally occurring NI isotope with odd spin (and hence a nuclear magnetic moment). The more logical explanation is that that DGT is trying to distance themselves from the Claims of Rossi patent application, in the event it will be granted. If you accept the validity of the DGT demo, and it looks damn good to me despite a few problems, then Rossi's demo should be accepted also, and the Patent Law under section 713.98 permits the demonstration of a working device. So we pretty much have to assume that the Rossi IP will be granted eventually - since he can actually demonstrate the effect. We know that he has claimed that Ni-62 is the active isotope and if true, it would keep DGT out of the game. Anyway - it is extremely doubtful, given the expense of pure isotopes and Defkalion's lack of capital, that they have done the correct testing to back such a self-serving statement. Rossi has been much better funded. Therefore DGT has every incentive, in seeking investors - to insert that kind of comment about not having the same technology as Rossi, even if untrue. They cannot afford to be seen as having copied Rossi's technology - when his patent is eventually granted; but everyone on this forum knows the history going back a few years; and that DGT actually admitted to copying the formula at the University of Sienna. IOW - If they - DGT are to attract sufficient outside funding, and they badly need it - then they essentially have to invent something like this story to overcome due diligence objections. In spite of the successful demo, the statement about isotope activity from DGT is almost certainly self-serving and bogus. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
There might well be a LENR reaction strength component to this even isotope issue. The DGT reactor might well produce a stronger reaction intensity that can crack upon open the Ni58 and Ni60 isotopes that the weaker Rossi reaction cannot do. If a reactor with a stronger reaction is invented, the isotope question may not be relevant because a strong LENR reaction may affect all matter equally. If the LENR reaction is variable based on strength level, basing a patent on isotope activity may not be smart. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Brad Lowe: It was reported that the nickel isotopes all react, except that Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) 61Ni is the only naturally occurring NI isotope with odd spin (and hence a nuclear magnetic moment). The more logical explanation is that that DGT is trying to distance themselves from the Claims of Rossi patent application, in the event it will be granted. If you accept the validity of the DGT demo, and it looks damn good to me despite a few problems, then Rossi's demo should be accepted also, and the Patent Law under section 713.98 permits the demonstration of a working device. So we pretty much have to assume that the Rossi IP will be granted eventually - since he can actually demonstrate the effect. We know that he has claimed that Ni-62 is the active isotope and if true, it would keep DGT out of the game. Anyway - it is extremely doubtful, given the expense of pure isotopes and Defkalion's lack of capital, that they have done the correct testing to back such a self-serving statement. Rossi has been much better funded. Therefore DGT has every incentive, in seeking investors - to insert that kind of comment about not having the same technology as Rossi, even if untrue. They cannot afford to be seen as having copied Rossi's technology - when his patent is eventually granted; but everyone on this forum knows the history going back a few years; and that DGT actually admitted to copying the formula at the University of Sienna. IOW - If they - DGT are to attract sufficient outside funding, and they badly need it - then they essentially have to invent something like this story to overcome due diligence objections. In spite of the successful demo, the statement about isotope activity from DGT is almost certainly self-serving and bogus. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
You can bet your eye teeth that Rossi et al are trying to duplicate the spark control mechanism that DGT is currently demonstrating. In this LENR activation area, DGT is ahead in the LENR technology race and Rossi wants it badly. It reminds me of what the competition was like between Jobs and Gates in the PC race, when Gates saw windows on a MAC. Gates said, “I WANT IT!!!” Rossi must now be saying... I want that spark. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There might well be a LENR reaction strength component to this even isotope issue. The DGT reactor might well produce a stronger reaction intensity that can crack upon open the Ni58 and Ni60 isotopes that the weaker Rossi reaction cannot do. If a reactor with a stronger reaction is invented, the isotope question may not be relevant because a strong LENR reaction may affect all matter equally. If the LENR reaction is variable based on strength level, basing a patent on isotope activity may not be smart. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Brad Lowe: It was reported that the nickel isotopes all react, except that Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) 61Ni is the only naturally occurring NI isotope with odd spin (and hence a nuclear magnetic moment). The more logical explanation is that that DGT is trying to distance themselves from the Claims of Rossi patent application, in the event it will be granted. If you accept the validity of the DGT demo, and it looks damn good to me despite a few problems, then Rossi's demo should be accepted also, and the Patent Law under section 713.98 permits the demonstration of a working device. So we pretty much have to assume that the Rossi IP will be granted eventually - since he can actually demonstrate the effect. We know that he has claimed that Ni-62 is the active isotope and if true, it would keep DGT out of the game. Anyway - it is extremely doubtful, given the expense of pure isotopes and Defkalion's lack of capital, that they have done the correct testing to back such a self-serving statement. Rossi has been much better funded. Therefore DGT has every incentive, in seeking investors - to insert that kind of comment about not having the same technology as Rossi, even if untrue. They cannot afford to be seen as having copied Rossi's technology - when his patent is eventually granted; but everyone on this forum knows the history going back a few years; and that DGT actually admitted to copying the formula at the University of Sienna. IOW - If they - DGT are to attract sufficient outside funding, and they badly need it - then they essentially have to invent something like this story to overcome due diligence objections. In spite of the successful demo, the statement about isotope activity from DGT is almost certainly self-serving and bogus. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
And HP Dell ended up selling the most PC's... I predict this quantum rabbit is just beginning to multiply Stewart On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You can bet your eye teeth that Rossi et al are trying to duplicate the spark control mechanism that DGT is currently demonstrating. In this LENR activation area, DGT is ahead in the LENR technology race and Rossi wants it badly. It reminds me of what the competition was like between Jobs and Gates in the PC race, when Gates saw windows on a MAC. Gates said, “I WANT IT!!!” Rossi must now be saying... I want that spark. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There might well be a LENR reaction strength component to this even isotope issue. The DGT reactor might well produce a stronger reaction intensity that can crack upon open the Ni58 and Ni60 isotopes that the weaker Rossi reaction cannot do. If a reactor with a stronger reaction is invented, the isotope question may not be relevant because a strong LENR reaction may affect all matter equally. If the LENR reaction is variable based on strength level, basing a patent on isotope activity may not be smart. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netwrote: -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Brad Lowe: It was reported that the nickel isotopes all react, except that Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) 61Ni is the only naturally occurring NI isotope with odd spin (and hence a nuclear magnetic moment). The more logical explanation is that that DGT is trying to distance themselves from the Claims of Rossi patent application, in the event it will be granted. If you accept the validity of the DGT demo, and it looks damn good to me despite a few problems, then Rossi's demo should be accepted also, and the Patent Law under section 713.98 permits the demonstration of a working device. So we pretty much have to assume that the Rossi IP will be granted eventually - since he can actually demonstrate the effect. We know that he has claimed that Ni-62 is the active isotope and if true, it would keep DGT out of the game. Anyway - it is extremely doubtful, given the expense of pure isotopes and Defkalion's lack of capital, that they have done the correct testing to back such a self-serving statement. Rossi has been much better funded. Therefore DGT has every incentive, in seeking investors - to insert that kind of comment about not having the same technology as Rossi, even if untrue. They cannot afford to be seen as having copied Rossi's technology - when his patent is eventually granted; but everyone on this forum knows the history going back a few years; and that DGT actually admitted to copying the formula at the University of Sienna. IOW - If they - DGT are to attract sufficient outside funding, and they badly need it - then they essentially have to invent something like this story to overcome due diligence objections. In spite of the successful demo, the statement about isotope activity from DGT is almost certainly self-serving and bogus. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
From: David Roberson The plasma control technique used by DGT appears to be quite a bit different than what Rossi is doing with his device. We should all be excited to find that there are several different techniques that yield excess heat. There are several techniques covering different aspects and some are novel - but that creates another problem, does it not? since this DGT technique appear to be almost identical to the plasma device disclosed in WIPO Patent Application WO/2011/123338: Claim 1. A method comprising: amplifying an energy release from a dispersion of nanoparticles containing a concentration of hydrogen/deuterium nuclei, the nanoparticles suspended in a dielectric medium in a presence of hydrogen/deuterium gas, wherein an energy input is provided by high voltage pulses between two electrodes embedded in the dispersion of nanoparticles. http://www.google.com/patents/WO2011123338A1?cl=endq=WO/2011/123338hl=ens a=Xei=pxjwUaqlMMSBiwKn44GABAved=0CDQQ6AEwAA attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
Point taken about the Faraday cage (I have not heard the original reference, so I am going on hearsay). After I thought about it, I suspect any shielding would be for low-level x-ray and gamma radiation rather than to protect electronics. Eric On Jul 24, 2013, at 7:19, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Good point Eric. But keep in mind that a Faraday shield would not stop a magnetic field. They can eliminate electrostatic fields, but not magnetic ones unless the field is at a very high frequency. This is an important piece of the puzzle if true. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 1:45 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Today, Defkalion stated that the reactor packs huge magnetic fields capable of disrupting all electronic equipment in the general vicinity of the reactor core. The core had to be shielded by a double ply faraday cage. That huge field is produced by nano-particles in a bath of infrared radiation. This makes it sound like there is a current of some kind. If so, that is a point in favor of energetic particles (coherent groups, perhaps) and a point against slow deuterium/helium formation, which, presumably, would not produce currents (unless I'm misunderstanding an implication). Eric
RE: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
The grounded thick stainless steel container, mu metal, and outer metal insulated box should act as a cage for the Defkalion demo. I expect there was EMI from their HV supply D2 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) From: eric.wal...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:54:32 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Point taken about the Faraday cage (I have not heard the original reference, so I am going on hearsay). After I thought about it, I suspect any shielding would be for low-level x-ray and gamma radiation rather than to protect electronics. Eric On Jul 24, 2013, at 7:19, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Good point Eric. But keep in mind that a Faraday shield would not stop a magnetic field. They can eliminate electrostatic fields, but not magnetic ones unless the field is at a very high frequency. This is an important piece of the puzzle if true. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 1:45 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Today, Defkalion stated that the reactor packs huge magnetic fields capable of disrupting all electronic equipment in the general vicinity of the reactor core. The core had to be shielded by a double ply faraday cage. That huge field is produced by nano-particles in a bath of infrared radiation. This makes it sound like there is a current of some kind. If so, that is a point in favor of energetic particles (coherent groups, perhaps) and a point against slow deuterium/helium formation, which, presumably, would not produce currents (unless I'm misunderstanding an implication). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:39:38 -0700: Hi, -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Brad Lowe: It was reported that the nickel isotopes all react, except that Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) 61Ni is the only naturally occurring NI isotope with odd spin (and hence a nuclear magnetic moment). The more logical explanation is that that DGT is trying to distance themselves from the Claims of Rossi patent application, in the event it will be granted. If you accept the validity of the DGT demo, and it looks damn good to me despite a few problems, then Rossi's demo should be accepted also, and the Patent Law under section 713.98 permits the demonstration of a working device. So we pretty much have to assume that the Rossi IP will be granted eventually - since he can actually demonstrate the effect. We know that he has claimed that Ni-62 is the active isotope and if true, it would keep DGT out of the game. Anyway - it is extremely doubtful, given the expense of pure isotopes and Defkalion's lack of capital, that they have done the correct testing to back such a self-serving statement. That is indeed something I wondered about. 61Ni is only 1.19% of natural Nickel, so obtaining a pure sample of it would be almost impossible. Should we then assume that they looked for transmutation products, and worked backwards from the results to deduce what must have reacted to create them? (If so, then the problem arises that one needs to make certain assumptions about the reactions in order to do this.) Rossi has been much better funded. Therefore DGT has every incentive, in seeking investors - to insert that kind of comment about not having the same technology as Rossi, even if untrue. as I understand it, they claimed that 61Ni is the only isotope that *doesn't* work. That doesn't make them different to Rossi, it makes them the same (since Rossi claims 62Ni which is even). IOW pointing out that 61Ni doesn't work, doesn't help their case when it comes to patenting their IP. They cannot afford to be seen as having copied Rossi's technology - when his patent is eventually granted; but everyone on this forum knows the history going back a few years; and that DGT actually admitted to copying the formula at the University of Sienna. IOW - If they - DGT are to attract sufficient outside funding, and they badly need it - then they essentially have to invent something like this story to overcome due diligence objections. In spite of the successful demo, the statement about isotope activity from DGT is almost certainly self-serving and bogus. Jones Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 10:25:40 PM Today, Defkalion stated that the reactor packs huge magnetic fields capable of disrupting all electronic equipment in the general vicinity of the reactor core. The core had to be shielded by a double ply faraday cage. That huge field is produced by nano-particles in a bath of infrared radiation. I wonder if that's related to Rossi's hints of direct electric generation?
Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 24 Jul 2013 01:25:40 -0400: Hi, [snip] Brad Lowe: It was reported that the nickel isotopes all react, except that Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?) 61Ni is the only naturally occurring NI isotope with odd spin (and hence a nuclear magnetic moment). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Ni 61 does not react. (Ideas why this would be?)
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Today, Defkalion stated that the reactor packs huge magnetic fields capable of disrupting all electronic equipment in the general vicinity of the reactor core. The core had to be shielded by a double ply faraday cage. That huge field is produced by nano-particles in a bath of infrared radiation. This makes it sound like there is a current of some kind. If so, that is a point in favor of energetic particles (coherent groups, perhaps) and a point against slow deuterium/helium formation, which, presumably, would not produce currents (unless I'm misunderstanding an implication). Eric
