Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
I am simply asking ***There is nothing simple about your asking. You led with this statement: As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. you how you came to arrive at your opinion. ***I would ask the same of you, but you can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. You demand explanation within LENR when everyone involved with LENR knows that the phenomena cannot be explained at this time. How did you arrive at your opinion that someone could generate such an opinion, and that they could do so to your satisfaction when you've demonstrated such obtuse reasoning? If such a request offends you ***The request does not offend me. Your original approach offends me and should offend anyone. Consider this to be me as often as I instruct you. then forget this attempt at further communication. ***You call this communication? Your stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am simply asking you how you came to arrive at your opinion. If such a request offends you then forget this attempt at further communication. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Once again, you're confused. Just because someone can't explain a phenomena (like cold fusion branching) doesn't mean the phenomena doesn't exist. Rocks fell from the sky for centuries before the explanation was ever figured out. Please try to come up to speed on the process of science, especially before you get so touchy in your ignorance. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi's reactor reaches a burn up temperature of 2000C before the refectory outer shell of the reactor melts down. Please explain how this very high white hot temperature can be reached if the heat from LENR is generated from inside the nickel powder. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Yes. Perhaps you should come up to speed before going into @$$#0/e mode. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Any references available? On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.comwrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.comwrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Once again, you're confused. Just because someone can't explain a phenomena (like cold fusion branching) doesn't mean the phenomena doesn't exist. Rocks fell from the sky for centuries before the explanation was ever figured out. Please try to come up to speed on the process of science, especially before you get so touchy in your ignorance. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi's reactor reaches a burn up temperature of 2000C before the refectory outer shell of the reactor melts down. Please explain how this very high white hot temperature can be reached if the heat from LENR is generated from inside the nickel powder. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Yes. Perhaps you should come up to speed before going into @$$#0/e mode. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Any references available? On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
I am simply asking you how you came to arrive at your opinion. If such a request offends you then forget this attempt at further communication. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Once again, you're confused. Just because someone can't explain a phenomena (like cold fusion branching) doesn't mean the phenomena doesn't exist. Rocks fell from the sky for centuries before the explanation was ever figured out. Please try to come up to speed on the process of science, especially before you get so touchy in your ignorance. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi's reactor reaches a burn up temperature of 2000C before the refectory outer shell of the reactor melts down. Please explain how this very high white hot temperature can be reached if the heat from LENR is generated from inside the nickel powder. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Yes. Perhaps you should come up to speed before going into @$$#0/e mode. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Any references available? On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.comwrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
near the surface yes, maybe not at the surface. the bulk seems to matter, but maybe only as surprising substrate. 2014-05-10 6:05 GMT+02:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. I have heard from someone who has done business with Brillouin in the past that one should be wary of the claims they make. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
I wrote: I have heard from someone who has done business with Brillouin in the past that one should be wary of the claims they make. I should add that I do not know the person well and cannot vouch for the accuracy of the claim of having done business with Brillouin, so take this detail for what it is worth. Eric
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Any references available? On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Yes. Perhaps you should come up to speed before going into @$$#0/e mode. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Any references available? On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Rossi's reactor reaches a burn up temperature of 2000C before the refectory outer shell of the reactor melts down. Please explain how this very high white hot temperature can be reached if the heat from LENR is generated from inside the nickel powder. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Yes. Perhaps you should come up to speed before going into @$$#0/e mode. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Any references available? On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: You're the one falling for your own bs. You can look at a volcano and call it an impact crater. And it's not only this set of data that points to an under-surface phenomenon. Hagelstein in his recent IAP lectures said that there is not evidence to support the contention that it's a surface phenomenon. You're the one who's lagging in understanding on this issue, no matter how often I instruct you. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I remember this picture of the volcano. It was found and misrepresented in the Brillouin energy theory document http://www.academia.edu/4206209/Brillouin_Energy_Corp._THE_QUANTUM_REACTION_HYPOTHESIS This photo is based on a piece of core from one of Roger Stringham’s sono-fusion devices. You are failing for this propaganda that Brillouin energy is using to support their theory. This is BS. The crater was created by a cavitation bubble which projects a plasma jet that penetrates the surface of the metal to excavate a pit into the metal as seen in the picture you reference.. Yes, the mechanism of cavitation is different from SPP in Ni/H because the SPP is produced on the walls of the collapsing cavitation bubble exterior to the metal and projected onto the nearest surface of metal that is adjacent to the bubble. As often as I instruct your, you never learn. This stubbornness is a problem that will keep you from true understanding. On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Right here, Axil: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91559.html On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 8 May 2014 19:50:52 -0400: Hi, [snip] Thank you for proving my point that the cathode is an engine. ;) mix...@bigpond.com wrote: You do not calculate the energy density of engines. You calculate the energy density of fuels. (Unless as Jed mentioned, you are stuck with the Hydrogen in the cathode, and it is not replaceable - in which case the outlook for CF is far more restricted.) I do not think that would be a major problem. It is easy to work around it. First, a well-established fact: The reaction produces helium. Roughly half of that comes out of metal, and the other half goes deeper in, and McKubre points out. That tells us that some gas does get trapped in the metal, and even the dynamic flux of an active cold fusion cell does not drive it out automatically. Of course, helium is not hydrogen, but still, it does indicate there is trapped gas. Now for some speculation. Suppose that gas loading, electrolysis and other methods all depend on a trapped supply of hydrogen in the metal, as I suggested. We still know how to drive the hydrogen and helium out, by various methods. We may have to turn off the reaction while doing that, and then reload the metal and start it up again. That would be a problem if entire machine ran with a single metal cathode, or one single discrete batch of gas loaded powder. But there is not need to make it that way. If the load/deload duty cycles were about equal, that means you need 10 cathodes to do the work that 5 cathodes could do full time. That is of no importance, except that it makes the machine a little less compact than it would be otherwise. You would not grouse about it any more than you would complain that a 6-cylinder automobile ICE fires only one cylinder at a time, so it operates at 1/6 of total capacity. (Actually some early ICEs and Diesel engines had only one cylinder, but I expect they vibrated like the dickens and made a lot of noise.) Controlling and keeping track of the load/deload cycles would call for sophisticated computer controls, but any kind of cold fusion engine will need this. It will call for multiple independently sealed cell, rather than a single discrete cell. That will make manufacturing a little more complicated, but with robotic assembly lines it will hardly affect the cost. Nowadays, increased complexity does not increase the cost of machinery much, and it does not reduce reliability. That is why hybrid automobiles work so well. It is worth the trade-off in complexity, even though you end up with a machine that can only be assembled by robots, and that can only be operated with computer controls. - Jed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
In reply to Bob Cook's message of Thu, 8 May 2014 15:54:23 -0700: Hi, [snip] Rossi's low temperature E-Cat I believe has a fixed H supply and a fixed Ni supply. They are loaded together in the sealed reactor tube at the beginning of the heating to start the reaction. Rossi's Hot Cat reactor may have a continuous supply of H. Bob True, but I think the low temperature E-cat is really just a prototype, not really production ready. Furthermore, I think it is as yet far from proven that the Ni actually takes part in the reaction. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Robin, My point was that this anomaly is NOT in accordance with the present definition of COE and the change in geometry [DCE]of powder or skeletal catalyst is needed to form an HUP trap fueled by the gas motion which never diminishes regardless of quanity - the same gas could be used endlessly needing only enough pressure and circulation to maintain loading as the process heats and cools the gas similar to wind patterns where acute hydrinos are formed in the geometry of highest confinement and become less acute as they are randomly directed to less confined areas - not that this alone would create energy but at this point you would append your favorite theory to create the asymmetry needed to produce heat, you know my favorite is that hydrino molecules are relativistic and their phase opposes movement to a different inertial frame while hydrino atoms can change inertial frames unopposed which has the effect of discounting the heat needed to disassociate the molecule to over unity using the normally unexploitable energy source of random motion. IMHO it is a self assembling form of a Maxwellian demon but I am open to many of the other theorys - I just think using DCE and HUP as your underlying starting point is at least a better start that gives the plasmons, ion charges, hydrotrons and all the others an initial leg to stand on - I also like the commonality in this perspective because you can easily envision this same sort of changing confinement in the collapsing bubbles of sonoluminescence. Of course my initial theory that virtual particle density equates to relativistic values of consequence is a tall order for the mainstream that sees near C velocities as the entry fee to these types of effects but I remain convinced that suppressing density is much easier than compressing it like the difference between accelerating a car thru a rainstorm to compress the pressure as opposed to opening a beach umbrella to reduce it. Albeit a very small nano beach umbrella where the rest of the macro world remains in the rainstorm we call the isotropy. I think this system allows us to pit the square law of isotropy against the emerging dynamic inverse cube law of DCE while still being powered by the local random motion of gas law in these tiny inertial frames the gas is encountering. Getting back to topic I think you need cathode DCE geometry AND gas loading to create energy making the DCE geometry a better metric since it is the only area this type of energy can be harnessed into the macro world. Fran -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 6:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Thu, 8 May 2014 11:27:09 +: Hi, [snip] I disagree with this portion of your reply [snip] Since the actual source of energy is likely to be the Hydrogen in the water, not the actual cathode metal, the volume of the cathode is pretty much irrelevant [/snip] Yes the energy may come from the gas but it is the lattice confinement and change in level of confinement at the defects that provide the environment that liberates this normally inaccessible source of energy from hydrogen - We don't have to accept ZPE, hydrino or hydrotron to all agree that defects in lattice geometry, their population density and their topologies allow this energy to be produced such that you have to consider the hydrogen and the containment together as the actual energy source so Jeds' focus on the cathode geometry as a crude metric seems viable. This would only be true if the NAE was destroyed when the reaction happened, and were incapable of reforming. If either of these two are not true, then the cathode (for want of a more general term) has to be considered to be an engine and the Hydrogen has to be considered the fuel. You do not calculate the energy density of engines. You calculate the energy density of fuels. (Unless as Jed mentioned, you are stuck with the Hydrogen in the cathode, and it is not replaceable - in which case the outlook for CF is far more restricted.) Note however that both Rossi Defkalion appear to use a regular supply of external Hydrogen. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Another thought regarding fuel vs engine when I said [snip] Of course my initial theory that virtual particle density equates to relativistic values of consequence is a tall order for the mainstream that sees near C velocities as the entry fee to these types of effects but I remain convinced that suppressing density is much easier than compressing it like the difference between accelerating a car thru a rainstorm to compress the pressure as opposed to opening a beach umbrella to reduce it.[/snip] I should also have made the proposition that supplying energy to accelerate a spacecraft to near luminal velocity relative to a stationary observer is equivalent to a stationary observer relative to gas atoms occupying regions where vacuum density is suppressed / regions where the isotropy is breached - but instead of real world propellants as fuel to ADD energy we can now use geometrical confinement to SUBTRACT the energy that is all around us - slowing the intersection rate of vp thru these regions to create regions that breach the isotropy on a scale that physical matter can actually interact with instead of the wormholes below the Plank scale that are said to be part of the chaotic foam. I don't think we get something for nothing and ascribe to the notion that the suppressed regions are balanced by compressed regions in the surrounding wall geometry making these cavities more a reservoir of segregation and concentration but just so.. most gas migration will naturally have more affinity for the open cavities then permeating thru the walls forming the cavities. Maybe some gases do have an affinity for permeating thru the walls rather than residing in cavities which would explain the half-life anomalies where life is extended instead of reduced. In any case most radioactive measurements of half life are averages of the bulk gas and these anomalies could all have proportions of both type of anomalous decay but we only see the average. Fran -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 7:50 AM To: 'vortex-l@eskimo.com' Subject: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed Robin, My point was that this anomaly is NOT in accordance with the present definition of COE and the change in geometry [DCE]of powder or skeletal catalyst is needed to form an HUP trap fueled by the gas motion which never diminishes regardless of quanity - the same gas could be used endlessly needing only enough pressure and circulation to maintain loading as the process heats and cools the gas similar to wind patterns where acute hydrinos are formed in the geometry of highest confinement and become less acute as they are randomly directed to less confined areas - not that this alone would create energy but at this point you would append your favorite theory to create the asymmetry needed to produce heat, you know my favorite is that hydrino molecules are relativistic and their phase opposes movement to a different inertial frame while hydrino atoms can change inertial frames unopposed which has the effect of discounting the heat needed to disassociate the molecule to over unity using the normally unexploitable energy source of random motion. IMHO it is a self assembling form of a Maxwellian demon but I am open to many of the other theorys - I just think using DCE and HUP as your underlying starting point is at least a better start that gives the plasmons, ion charges, hydrotrons and all the others an initial leg to stand on - I also like the commonality in this perspective because you can easily envision this same sort of changing confinement in the collapsing bubbles of sonoluminescence. Of course my initial theory that virtual particle density equates to relativistic values of consequence is a tall order for the mainstream that sees near C velocities as the entry fee to these types of effects but I remain convinced that suppressing density is much easier than compressing it like the difference between accelerating a car thru a rainstorm to compress the pressure as opposed to opening a beach umbrella to reduce it. Albeit a very small nano beach umbrella where the rest of the macro world remains in the rainstorm we call the isotropy. I think this system allows us to pit the square law of isotropy against the emerging dynamic inverse cube law of DCE while still being powered by the local random motion of gas law in these tiny inertial frames the gas is encountering. Getting back to topic I think you need cathode DCE geometry AND gas loading to create energy making the DCE geometry a better metric since it is the only area this type of energy can be harnessed into the macro world. Fran -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 6:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Thu, 8 May 2014 11:27:09 +: Hi, [snip] I
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Of course, helium is not hydrogen, but still, it does indicate there is trapped gas. For palladium and deuterium, where we know 4He is produced, 4He is immobile in bulk palladium, while deuterium will escape over time. The 4He gets stuck in a way that H or D does not, as I remember. Yeah. It is well established that He gets stuck more easily. But I do not think the difference is so dramatic that H or D will all come out but the He will remain completely stuck. The methods they use to unstick it before taking an inventory are the same as the methods used to drive the H or D out. I have read various papers about this and discussed it but I do not recall which papers. An implication is that to measure the full amount of 4He that has been produced in a PdD system, it is advisable to melt down a cathode to get at the 4He trapped in the bulk. That is the extreme method! The point I am trying to make is that for a short experiment with bulk metal, that produces heat for a few weeks, probably most of the D that reacts was in the cathode to start with. Probably not much more comes from the electrolyte. So it is a reasonable approximation to the used the moles of metal and assume there are that many moles of D. Okay, for all I know it could be off by a factor of 5 or 10 but that still isn't many moles. They say that loading is never uniform, and bulk metal never loads 100%, so 1 mol gas per 1 mol metal is an exaggeration. (So they say.) Even when loading is measured at 100% that is because the 4 probes are hitting loaded areas between them, I think. Probably the lost gas method would show less than 100%. I would not know about nanoparticles. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Fri, 9 May 2014 11:50:16 +: Hi Francis, [snip] Robin, My point was that this anomaly is NOT in accordance with the present definition of COE and the change in geometry [DCE]of powder or skeletal catalyst is needed to form an HUP trap fueled by the gas motion which never diminishes regardless of quanity - the same gas could be used endlessly needing only enough pressure and circulation to maintain loading as the process heats and cools the gas similar to wind patterns where acute hydrinos are formed in the geometry of highest confinement and become less acute as they are randomly directed to less confined areas - not that this alone would create energy but at this point you would append your favorite theory to create the asymmetry needed to produce heat, you know my favorite is that hydrino molecules are relativistic and their phase opposes movement to a different inertial frame while hydrino atoms can change inertial frames unopposed which has the effect of discounting the heat needed to disassociate the molecule to over unity using the normally unexploitable energy source of random motion. IMHO it is a self assembling form of a Maxwellian demon but I am open to many of the other theorys - I just think using DCE and HUP as your underlying starting point is at least a better start that gives the plasmons, ion charges, hydrotrons and all the others an initial leg to stand on - I also like the commonality in this perspective because you can easily envision this same sort of changing confinement in the collapsing bubbles of sonoluminescence. Of course my initial theory that virtual particle density equates to relativistic values of consequence is a tall order for the mainstream that sees near C velocities as the entry fee to these types of effects but I remain convinced that suppressing density is much easier than compressing it like the difference between accelerating a car thru a rainstorm to compress the pressure as opposed to opening a beach umbrella to reduce it. Albeit a very small nano beach umbrella where the rest of the macro world remains in the rainstorm we call the isotropy. I think this system allows us to pit the square law of isotropy against the emerging dynamic inverse cube law of DCE while still being powered by the local random motion of gas law in these tiny inertial frames the gas is encountering. Getting back to topic I think you need cathode DCE geometry AND gas loading to create energy making the DCE geometry a better metric since it is the only area this type of energy can be harnessed into the macro world. Fran All you have said here is that both the Hydrogen and cathode constitute an engine and that the fuel is effectively the ZPE. You might be right. Time will tell. However I suspect that Hydrogen is more likely the fuel. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Agree it is relevant to power density and less so for energy density since it is only certain metal lattices that possess this property and the property is far more dependent of the broken geometries of the lattice.. This property is the ability of the metal to reflect near infrared light. how often and to what extent defects occur seems more important than the volume even to the point where researches have to track manufacturers and lot numbers of the metal lattice to be certain they get the same materials capable of exhibiting these anomalous properties. Dipole energy (electrons) and infrared light are localized and concentrated and combined into polaritons by the sharp points and/or small cavities in the metal infrared reflecting metal I disagree with this portion of your reply [snip] Since the actual source of energy is likely to be the Hydrogen in the water, not the actual cathode metal, the volume of the cathode is pretty much irrelevant [/snip] The metal is the catalyzer of the reaction that involves production of magnetic fields from polariton vortex flow. Yes the energy may come from the gas but it is the lattice confinement and change in level of confinement at the defects that provide the environment that liberates this normally inaccessible source of energy from hydrogen - The uncertainty principle amplifies the polariton energy to shorten its wavelength into the EUV spectrum range. We don't have to accept ZPE, hydrino or hydrotron to all agree that defects in lattice geometry, their population density and their topologies allow this energy to be produced such that you have to consider the hydrogen and the containment together as the actual energy source so Jeds' focus on the cathode geometry as a crude metric seems viable. The key to the LENR process is the unique properties of the polariton and the metal that produces those polariton properties. These metals are not consumed in general. It is the hydrogen and other light elements that are the fuel.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Who's arguing to the contrary? A certain % of Helium can't be trapped in the surface layer why? On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR always occurs on the surface of the metal. show me experimental results that contradict this fact. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Hi all Have not read the whole thread yet; might it be that the forces involved cause the Hydrogen to get sucked/pushed away from the surface into the bulk of the hydrate in preference to starting the reaction and that in the case of bulk materials the reaction only takes place when the bulk of material is full to over flowing on to the surface or in to the cracks or whiskers that form the NAE? Kind Regards walker On 8 May 2014 05:13, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: If Ed is right and the reaction occurs only at the surface, then there would be rapid exchange with hydrogen in the water. What I do not understand about that hypothesis is: Why is high loading important, in that case? Another possibility about the role of high loading -- it's useful in PdD cold fusion because it results in a prolonged release of hydrogen to the surface. Palladium interacts with hydrogen/deuterium differently than nickel does with hydrogen. In particular, hydrogen and deuterium are more soluble in palladium than nickel, if I remember correctly. Eric
Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Hi all This would explain the apparent success of the high fractal surface powders. Kind Regards walker On 8 May 2014 10:40, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all Have not read the whole thread yet; might it be that the forces involved cause the Hydrogen to get sucked/pushed away from the surface into the bulk of the hydrate in preference to starting the reaction and that in the case of bulk materials the reaction only takes place when the bulk of material is full to over flowing on to the surface or in to the cracks or whiskers that form the NAE? Kind Regards walker On 8 May 2014 05:13, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: If Ed is right and the reaction occurs only at the surface, then there would be rapid exchange with hydrogen in the water. What I do not understand about that hypothesis is: Why is high loading important, in that case? Another possibility about the role of high loading -- it's useful in PdD cold fusion because it results in a prolonged release of hydrogen to the surface. Palladium interacts with hydrogen/deuterium differently than nickel does with hydrogen. In particular, hydrogen and deuterium are more soluble in palladium than nickel, if I remember correctly. Eric
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Agree it is relevant to power density and less so for energy density since it is only certain metal lattices that possess this property and the property is far more dependent of the broken geometries of the lattice..how often and to what extent defects occur seems more important than the volume even to the point where researches have to track manufacturers and lot numbers of the metal lattice to be certain they get the same materials capable of exhibiting these anomalous properties. I disagree with this portion of your reply [snip] Since the actual source of energy is likely to be the Hydrogen in the water, not the actual cathode metal, the volume of the cathode is pretty much irrelevant [/snip] Yes the energy may come from the gas but it is the lattice confinement and change in level of confinement at the defects that provide the environment that liberates this normally inaccessible source of energy from hydrogen - We don't have to accept ZPE, hydrino or hydrotron to all agree that defects in lattice geometry, their population density and their topologies allow this energy to be produced such that you have to consider the hydrogen and the containment together as the actual energy source so Jeds' focus on the cathode geometry as a crude metric seems viable. Fran -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:05 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed In reply to fznidar...@aol.com's message of Wed, 7 May 2014 20:09:04 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 One thing I take issue with (more with standard practice in the CF community than with Jed in particular) is the use of the volume of the cathode in calculating energy density. Since the actual source of energy is likely to be the Hydrogen in the water, not the actual cathode metal, the volume of the cathode is pretty much irrelevant. (It is probably relevant for power density, but not energy density). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
High loading would lend itself well to a ZPE underpinning of the anomaly because COE says that you cannot exploit HUP derived gas motion – that is you can’t build a Maxwellian demon that sorts hot from cold atoms or separates atomic from molecular to build opposing reservoirs as an energy sources since the motion is totally random and so slight that a singular device per atom is impossible and larger containments simply cancel out in our 3D macro world before they can be contained, but the saturated layer of gas in contact with a lattice topology full of defects approaches a 1D limit where that random motion is confined onto a single axis where said cancellation takes longer to occur and forces the layer to move back and forth across a region of space where the virtual particle density is changing at a rate that violates the isotropy of square law[forming a grater]. IMHO this operates like a saw that discounts the energy needed to disassociate gas molecules in violation of the caveat COE requires of gas law – A one Dimensional exception to COE that I believe is the bootstrap for these anomalies based on a self assembled type of Maxwell demon that uses HUP to discount molecular disassociation by opposing molecular motion vs atomic motion at a different ratio than it does in the unbroken isotropy of our 3D macro world. I suspect similar math would be apparent for relativistic hydrogen but there COE works out fine because we are supplying energy to accelerate the hydrogen thru the isotropy to force relativistic effects while inside bulk powders or skeletal cats no one is treating these defects with the same respect because we have all been told catalytic action like gas motion can not provide power….I disagree and propose the caveat should be amended to say can’t be exploited in 3D which leaves the door open for exploitation thru confinement. Fran From: Ian Walker [mailto:walker...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 5:46 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed Hi all This would explain the apparent success of the high fractal surface powders. Kind Regards walker On 8 May 2014 10:40, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.commailto:walker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all Have not read the whole thread yet; might it be that the forces involved cause the Hydrogen to get sucked/pushed away from the surface into the bulk of the hydrate in preference to starting the reaction and that in the case of bulk materials the reaction only takes place when the bulk of material is full to over flowing on to the surface or in to the cracks or whiskers that form the NAE? Kind Regards walker On 8 May 2014 05:13, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.commailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.commailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If Ed is right and the reaction occurs only at the surface, then there would be rapid exchange with hydrogen in the water. What I do not understand about that hypothesis is: Why is high loading important, in that case? Another possibility about the role of high loading -- it's useful in PdD cold fusion because it results in a prolonged release of hydrogen to the surface. Palladium interacts with hydrogen/deuterium differently than nickel does with hydrogen. In particular, hydrogen and deuterium are more soluble in palladium than nickel, if I remember correctly. Eric
RE: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
One further detail to put under the microscope, since the devil is in the details… As a general rule – therefore it can be said that there is no correlation between loading ratio and heat unless it is related to isotopes, meaning that this detail about the lack of any correlation can be limited to hydrogen (protium) and does not necessarily apply to deuterium. In tests done for EPRI, Ahern tested an alloy of nickel and palladium which stored 4 times more hydrogen than did palladium. When nano Palladium was used as a pure metal, the hydrogen ratio was close to 1:1. With this NiPd alloy, the hydrogen storage ratio was almost 4:1 yet the much higher loading alloy was NOT the best performer for thermal gain with hydrogen. Notably Ahern did not test any alloys with deuterium. There is plenty of evidence with deuterium - that loading ratio is well-correlated to excess heat. Moreover, all of Ahern’s loaded nano nickel alloys showed some thermal gain when the temperature was raised near the Curie point of nickel, in contrast to nano-titanium for instance, which showed no thermal gain at the same temperature. Since this parameter (raising the temperature this high) was never done in the prior 5 decades of research - in the mainstream quest to maximize hydrogen storage in metals, then taking everything together, we can make several conclusions based on what is in the record. These are conclusion about what factors are active for thermal gain with hydrogen and not deuterium in testing which has be replicated by other groups. Loading is not important with hydrogen, based on this testing - since the alloy which performed the best (copper-nickel) loaded poorly, and the alloy which loaded highest was gainful, but not the best. The second is that to see any thermal gain with hydrogen, the matrix alloy needs to be raised to near the Curie point. With deuterium, Cravens has shown that gain can be seen at a low temperature. Since these conclusions with hydrogen are very different from the case with deuterium loading, the message stands out unequivocally for me at least - that we are dealing with TWO DIFFERENT routes to thermal gain. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Jones wrote-- As a general rule – therefore it can be said that there is no correlation between loading ratio and heat unless it is related to isotopes, meaning that this detail about the lack of any correlation can be limited to hydrogen (protium) and does not necessarily apply to deuterium I do not agree. If the loading causes micro cracking in the Pd matrix, it very well may correlate with heat. Micro cracking would apply equally to H and D and thus would suggest that D is necessary for the NAE reaction to occur in Pd. Since the loading near the surface is significantly greater than away from the surface, the cracking near the surface could be expected to be more frequent with higher NAE density. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 7:02 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:nice essay Jed Eric Walker wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: If Ed is right and the reaction occurs only at the surface, then there would be rapid exchange with hydrogen in the water. What I do not understand about that hypothesis is: Why is high loading important, in that case? Another possibility about the role of high loading -- it's useful in PdD cold fusion because it results in a prolonged release of hydrogen to the surface. Palladium interacts with hydrogen/deuterium differently than nickel does with hydrogen. In particular, hydrogen and deuterium are more soluble in palladium than nickel, if I remember correctly. It should be clear that “Palladium interacts with hydrogen/deuterium differently than nickel does with hydrogen,” as Eric says, but somehow that message gets lost in the effort to simplify (that which cannot be simplified). Ed Storms consistently overlooks this fact, in a tireless but failing effort to promote his theory - and yet it is fact. This goes back to mainstream science and hydrogen storage materials. It there was any kind of basic connection between high loading with hydrogen, and excess heat - it would have turned up long ago in the quest for better hydrogen storage materials. In terms of laboratory expenditure, a factor of perhaps 10-100 times more effort, man-hours and money has been spent by mainstream science in an effort to maximize hydrogen storage in metals than for LENR. This effort goes all the way back to the 1950s for storing rocket propellants for thrusters. Many of the metals were nickel-based. In all of that work no evidence of excess heat has turned up – and it was a huge coordinated effort to maximize hydrogen storage, in which researchers were very careful about measuring for heat – since adding heat is the precise way that hydrogen is released from storage in a metal matrix. As a general rule – therefore it can be said that there is no correlation between loading ratio and heat unless it is related to isotopes, meaning that this detail about the lack of any correlation can be limited to hydrogen (protium) and does not necessarily apply to deuterium. Jones
Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
If the Pd-Ni alloy is face centered cubic matrix, it would have 3.75 Pd and/or Ni nuclei per cell (1/2 nucleus on each cell face and 1/8 nucleus at each corner of the cell) . With 4:1 loading it means that there are more than 2 or more nuclei of D or H, as the case may, in some cells. This could surely crowd the D or H closely together, particularly if there is a magnetic field that causes a degenerative set of possible positions in the cell. All this increases the chance for D fusion with distribution of the excess energy to the other spin receptive particles in the matrix. No kinetic energy is needed to fractionate the energy, only angular momentum (spin) energy. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 7:56 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:nice essay Jed One further detail to put under the microscope, since the devil is in the details… As a general rule – therefore it can be said that there is no correlation between loading ratio and heat unless it is related to isotopes, meaning that this detail about the lack of any correlation can be limited to hydrogen (protium) and does not necessarily apply to deuterium. In tests done for EPRI, Ahern tested an alloy of nickel and palladium which stored 4 times more hydrogen than did palladium. When nano Palladium was used as a pure metal, the hydrogen ratio was close to 1:1. With this NiPd alloy, the hydrogen storage ratio was almost 4:1 yet the much higher loading alloy was NOT the best performer for thermal gain with hydrogen. Notably Ahern did not test any alloys with deuterium. There is plenty of evidence with deuterium - that loading ratio is well-correlated to excess heat. Moreover, all of Ahern’s loaded nano nickel alloys showed some thermal gain when the temperature was raised near the Curie point of nickel, in contrast to nano-titanium for instance, which showed no thermal gain at the same temperature. Since this parameter (raising the temperature this high) was never done in the prior 5 decades of research - in the mainstream quest to maximize hydrogen storage in metals, then taking everything together, we can make several conclusions based on what is in the record. These are conclusion about what factors are active for thermal gain with hydrogen and not deuterium in testing which has be replicated by other groups. Loading is not important with hydrogen, based on this testing - since the alloy which performed the best (copper-nickel) loaded poorly, and the alloy which loaded highest was gainful, but not the best. The second is that to see any thermal gain with hydrogen, the matrix alloy needs to be raised to near the Curie point. With deuterium, Cravens has shown that gain can be seen at a low temperature. Since these conclusions with hydrogen are very different from the case with deuterium loading, the message stands out unequivocally for me at least - that we are dealing with TWO DIFFERENT routes to thermal gain. Jones
RE: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook As a general rule – therefore it can be said that there is no correlation between loading ratio and heat unless it is related to isotopes, meaning that this detail about the lack of any correlation can be limited to hydrogen (protium) and does not necessarily apply to deuterium I do not agree. If the loading causes micro cracking in the Pd matrix, it very well may correlate with heat. Micro cracking would apply equally to H and D and thus would suggest that D is necessary for the NAE reaction to occur in Pd. Since the loading near the surface is significantly greater than away from the surface, the cracking near the surface could be expected to be more frequent with higher NAE density. Bob, Yes, micro cracking would apply equally. But your logical error is in assuming that cracking is necessary for gain. It isn't, depending of course on how it is defined. Cracking is one of many possible routes to gain and NOT the only route by far. At the nanoscale, it would be irrelevant anyway. In the Pd matrix for instance, cracking correlates to excess heat with deuterium, and NOT with hydrogen. In fact some of the SEM images of the Arata-type particles which give excess heat with nickel have no cracking per se, since they are essentially too small to crack. This material is active for hydrogen and has no cracking. I believe Brad Lowe may be sending some of his supply to Quantum Heat. http://www.quantumheat.org/images/NanoPowders/Quantum_Sphere_Nano_Nickel_SEM.jpg
Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Bob Cook As a general rule – therefore it can be said that there is no correlation between loading ratio and heat unless it is related to isotopes, meaning that this detail about the lack of any correlation can be limited to hydrogen (protium) and does not necessarily apply to deuterium I do not agree. If the loading causes micro cracking in the Pd matrix, it very well may correlate with heat. Micro cracking would apply equally to H and D and thus would suggest that D is necessary for the NAE reaction to occur in Pd. Since the loading near the surface is significantly greater than away from the surface, the cracking near the surface could be expected to be more frequent with higher NAE density. Bob, Yes, micro cracking would apply equally. But your logical error is in assuming that cracking is necessary for gain. It isn't, depending of course on how it is defined. Cracking is one of many possible routes to gain and NOT the only route by far. At the nanoscale, it would be irrelevant anyway. In the Pd matrix for instance, cracking correlates to excess heat with deuterium, and NOT with hydrogen. In fact some of the SEM images of the Arata-type particles which give excess heat with nickel have no cracking per se, since they are essentially too small to crack. This material is active for hydrogen and has no cracking. I believe Brad Lowe may be sending some of his supply to Quantum Heat. http://www.quantumheat.org/images/NanoPowders/Quantum_Sphere_Nano_Nickel_SEM.jpg I think that this discussion will end without an unanimously accepted conclusion; this happens in the 26th year of Cold Fusion history- isn't this disturbing? Add to this the fact that excess heat happens only in a few cases of many for all the parameters described here, so we have a problem. A wicked problem. Taking in account this essential problem solving rule: NOT what we know, but what we don‟t know is more important for solving the problem. it is very plausible that we still do NOT KNOW something vital for excess heat to happen and io be useful and controllable. It seems there are unknown, hidden parameters- and these are even more relevant than those discussed here.One of these could be the presence of gases (any gas that is not hydrogen, all the components of air) on the active surfaces. JUst to mention that today is the 17th anniversary of my first formulation of this poisoning hypothesis that was never taken seriously by my colleagues working with Pd D. On the NiH line, Piantelli and Defkalion claim deep degassing i.e. aliengas-free surfaces area sine qua non condition of excess heat. This discussion has started from Jed's FQXI essay. An essay with a very significant title (not content) for CF is You cannot live in the Cradle forever However if you do not want to grow and mature, the Cradle is just fine. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Peter, Just for the record I do take poisoning seriously and think the catalysts should be manufactured and maintained in vacuum except for the active gas under test. IMHO the nano powder geometry would become smaller and more robust in suppressing vacuum density if milled in a vacuum where ambient gases are not able to interact with the surfaces. Even chemically inert gas atoms might act like sand blasters at this scale if allowed to load into the bulk. Presently we need to saturate the lattice to strong arm this anomaly into existence but I suspect a very slight pressure would out perform this method if used with a vacuum maintained super catalyst or powder – the heat sinking would need to be engaged and robust before any gas enters the lattice because Pattersons beads and Naudins MAHG tube support my theory that the most active geometry immediately self destructs or reshapes thru plasticity to reduce the stiction forces –my point is that stiction may only be the little brother to a much larger force at a smaller geometry. Fran Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 2:41 PM To: VORTEX Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netmailto:jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Bob Cook As a general rule – therefore it can be said that there is no correlation between loading ratio and heat unless it is related to isotopes, meaning that this detail about the lack of any correlation can be limited to hydrogen (protium) and does not necessarily apply to deuterium I do not agree. If the loading causes micro cracking in the Pd matrix, it very well may correlate with heat. Micro cracking would apply equally to H and D and thus would suggest that D is necessary for the NAE reaction to occur in Pd. Since the loading near the surface is significantly greater than away from the surface, the cracking near the surface could be expected to be more frequent with higher NAE density. Bob, Yes, micro cracking would apply equally. But your logical error is in assuming that cracking is necessary for gain. It isn't, depending of course on how it is defined. Cracking is one of many possible routes to gain and NOT the only route by far. At the nanoscale, it would be irrelevant anyway. In the Pd matrix for instance, cracking correlates to excess heat with deuterium, and NOT with hydrogen. In fact some of the SEM images of the Arata-type particles which give excess heat with nickel have no cracking per se, since they are essentially too small to crack. This material is active for hydrogen and has no cracking. I believe Brad Lowe may be sending some of his supply to Quantum Heat. http://www.quantumheat.org/images/NanoPowders/Quantum_Sphere_Nano_Nickel_SEM.jpg I think that this discussion will end without an unanimously accepted conclusion; this happens in the 26th year of Cold Fusion history- isn't this disturbing? Add to this the fact that excess heat happens only in a few cases of many for all the parameters described here, so we have a problem. A wicked problem. Taking in account this essential problem solving rule: NOT what we know, but what we don‟t know is more important for solving the problem. it is very plausible that we still do NOT KNOW something vital for excess heat to happen and io be useful and controllable. It seems there are unknown, hidden parameters- and these are even more relevant than those discussed here.One of these could be the presence of gases (any gas that is not hydrogen, all the components of air) on the active surfaces. JUst to mention that today is the 17th anniversary of my first formulation of this poisoning hypothesis that was never taken seriously by my colleagues working with Pd D. On the NiH line, Piantelli and Defkalion claim deep degassing i.e. aliengas-free surfaces area sine qua non condition of excess heat. This discussion has started from Jed's FQXI essay. An essay with a very significant title (not content) for CF is You cannot live in the Cradle forever However if you do not want to grow and mature, the Cradle is just fine. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 7 May 2014 23:18:00 -0400: Hi, [snip] mix...@bigpond.com wrote: One thing I take issue with (more with standard practice in the CF community than with Jed in particular) is the use of the volume of the cathode in calculating energy density. Since the actual source of energy is likely to be the Hydrogen in the water, not the actual cathode metal . . . Some people say the hydrogen is not very mobile once the reaction starts up. What you have in the cathode is what there is. If this were true, then the current could be turned off as soon as the reaction starts, and it wouldn't make any difference, since the suggestion is that the reaction is not dependent upon a feed of Hydrogen. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Thu, 8 May 2014 11:27:09 +: Hi, [snip] I disagree with this portion of your reply [snip] Since the actual source of energy is likely to be the Hydrogen in the water, not the actual cathode metal, the volume of the cathode is pretty much irrelevant [/snip] Yes the energy may come from the gas but it is the lattice confinement and change in level of confinement at the defects that provide the environment that liberates this normally inaccessible source of energy from hydrogen - We don't have to accept ZPE, hydrino or hydrotron to all agree that defects in lattice geometry, their population density and their topologies allow this energy to be produced such that you have to consider the hydrogen and the containment together as the actual energy source so Jeds' focus on the cathode geometry as a crude metric seems viable. This would only be true if the NAE was destroyed when the reaction happened, and were incapable of reforming. If either of these two are not true, then the cathode (for want of a more general term) has to be considered to be an engine and the Hydrogen has to be considered the fuel. You do not calculate the energy density of engines. You calculate the energy density of fuels. (Unless as Jed mentioned, you are stuck with the Hydrogen in the cathode, and it is not replaceable - in which case the outlook for CF is far more restricted.) Note however that both Rossi Defkalion appear to use a regular supply of external Hydrogen. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: You do not calculate the energy density of engines. You calculate the energy density of fuels. (Unless as Jed mentioned, you are stuck with the Hydrogen in the cathode, and it is not replaceable - in which case the outlook for CF is far more restricted.) I do not think that would be a major problem. It is easy to work around it. First, a well-established fact: The reaction produces helium. Roughly half of that comes out of metal, and the other half goes deeper in, and McKubre points out. That tells us that some gas does get trapped in the metal, and even the dynamic flux of an active cold fusion cell does not drive it out automatically. Of course, helium is not hydrogen, but still, it does indicate there is trapped gas. Now for some speculation. Suppose that gas loading, electrolysis and other methods all depend on a trapped supply of hydrogen in the metal, as I suggested. We still know how to drive the hydrogen and helium out, by various methods. We may have to turn off the reaction while doing that, and then reload the metal and start it up again. That would be a problem if entire machine ran with a single metal cathode, or one single discrete batch of gas loaded powder. But there is not need to make it that way. If the load/deload duty cycles were about equal, that means you need 10 cathodes to do the work that 5 cathodes could do full time. That is of no importance, except that it makes the machine a little less compact than it would be otherwise. You would not grouse about it any more than you would complain that a 6-cylinder automobile ICE fires only one cylinder at a time, so it operates at 1/6 of total capacity. (Actually some early ICEs and Diesel engines had only one cylinder, but I expect they vibrated like the dickens and made a lot of noise.) Controlling and keeping track of the load/deload cycles would call for sophisticated computer controls, but any kind of cold fusion engine will need this. It will call for multiple independently sealed cell, rather than a single discrete cell. That will make manufacturing a little more complicated, but with robotic assembly lines it will hardly affect the cost. Nowadays, increased complexity does not increase the cost of machinery much, and it does not reduce reliability. That is why hybrid automobiles work so well. It is worth the trade-off in complexity, even though you end up with a machine that can only be assembled by robots, and that can only be operated with computer controls. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! 2014-05-08 20:50 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: First, a well-established fact: The reaction produces helium. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's for deuterium! No one knows what happens with H! Well, I suppose it produces some other gas, probably deuterium. But the point I was trying to make is that only half of the helium emerges. The rest is trapped. So there is no process going on that quickly and forcefully empties out the lattice and replaces all the gas in it. I do not think it is likely that the deuterium is be forced out and replaced, but the helium remains trapped. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Of course, helium is not hydrogen, but still, it does indicate there is trapped gas. For palladium and deuterium, where we know 4He is produced, 4He is immobile in bulk palladium, while deuterium will escape over time. The 4He gets stuck in a way that H or D does not, as I remember. An implication is that to measure the full amount of 4He that has been produced in a PdD system, it is advisable to melt down a cathode to get at the 4He trapped in the bulk. One reason people have suspected that PdD cold fusion is due to a surface or near surface reaction is that 4He is found near the surface and with decreasing probability further into the used cathode, where a clean sample does not show such a pattern (I think). But I believe the deuterium itself will gradually escape from palladium over time, like air leaking from a balloon. The dynamic with hydrogen and nickel is probably different with regard to this detail at least, as nickel, unalloyed, does not appear to readily absorb hydrogen in the way that unalloyed palladium does. I assume that loading is something that is only indirectly related to PdD cold fusion, and the actual mechanism simply depends upon a ready supply of deuterium, something that is accomplished in NiH system by having an additional source of hydrogen that releases it over time, e.g., when it is heated. But this is just speculation on my part. Eric
Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
In reply to fznidar...@aol.com's message of Wed, 7 May 2014 20:09:04 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2000 One thing I take issue with (more with standard practice in the CF community than with Jed in particular) is the use of the volume of the cathode in calculating energy density. Since the actual source of energy is likely to be the Hydrogen in the water, not the actual cathode metal, the volume of the cathode is pretty much irrelevant. (It is probably relevant for power density, but not energy density). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
mix...@bigpond.com wrote: One thing I take issue with (more with standard practice in the CF community than with Jed in particular) is the use of the volume of the cathode in calculating energy density. Since the actual source of energy is likely to be the Hydrogen in the water, not the actual cathode metal . . . Some people say the hydrogen is not very mobile once the reaction starts up. What you have in the cathode is what there is. The hydrogen at the surface comes off, but most of the hydrogen in the bulk stays put. Obviously that is true in heat after death or with gas loading. Then again, McKubre says flux is important, so who knows. If Ed is right and the reaction occurs only at the surface, then there would be rapid exchange with hydrogen in the water. What I do not understand about that hypothesis is: Why is high loading important, in that case? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
High loading produces cracks - NAE On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: mix...@bigpond.com wrote: One thing I take issue with (more with standard practice in the CF community than with Jed in particular) is the use of the volume of the cathode in calculating energy density. Since the actual source of energy is likely to be the Hydrogen in the water, not the actual cathode metal . . . Some people say the hydrogen is not very mobile once the reaction starts up. What you have in the cathode is what there is. The hydrogen at the surface comes off, but most of the hydrogen in the bulk stays put. Obviously that is true in heat after death or with gas loading. Then again, McKubre says flux is important, so who knows. If Ed is right and the reaction occurs only at the surface, then there would be rapid exchange with hydrogen in the water. What I do not understand about that hypothesis is: Why is high loading important, in that case? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
I think the high H loading in the Pd changes the phase of the Pd and significantly increases the distance between Pd nuclei in addition to the cracking. The volume change is about 10% I think at 85% loading. The local internal stresses are also significant. I think it would be interesting to listen to the electrode with ultrasound to pick up any acoustic emissions associated with the cracking. The intensity of the emissions may be related to the reaction rate in the electrode or on its surface. If so, the location of the reaction--i.e., the fresh cracking which is associated with activity, could be located with good high temperature transducers and a program which calculates where the cracking is taking place. A big electrode would be easier to accomplish UT instrumentation than a small one. I wonder if McKubre has tried anything like what I've described? Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 8:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed High loading produces cracks - NAE On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: mix...@bigpond.com wrote: One thing I take issue with (more with standard practice in the CF community than with Jed in particular) is the use of the volume of the cathode in calculating energy density. Since the actual source of energy is likely to be the Hydrogen in the water, not the actual cathode metal . . . Some people say the hydrogen is not very mobile once the reaction starts up. What you have in the cathode is what there is. The hydrogen at the surface comes off, but most of the hydrogen in the bulk stays put. Obviously that is true in heat after death or with gas loading. Then again, McKubre says flux is important, so who knows. If Ed is right and the reaction occurs only at the surface, then there would be rapid exchange with hydrogen in the water. What I do not understand about that hypothesis is: Why is high loading important, in that case? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:nice essay Jed
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If Ed is right and the reaction occurs only at the surface, then there would be rapid exchange with hydrogen in the water. What I do not understand about that hypothesis is: Why is high loading important, in that case? Another possibility about the role of high loading -- it's useful in PdD cold fusion because it results in a prolonged release of hydrogen to the surface. Palladium interacts with hydrogen/deuterium differently than nickel does with hydrogen. In particular, hydrogen and deuterium are more soluble in palladium than nickel, if I remember correctly. Eric
