RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

>From my perspective Rossi’s E-Cat has always demonstrated s positive feed back 
>in the form of a positive temperature coefficient  (PTC) similar to the PCT 
>that is the heavy baggage of fast fission reactors cooled with liquid metal.

I think the Ni-H resonances (maybe Ni alloy -H resonances) that allow LENR 
energy releases are found in the upper tail of Boltzmann spectrum.  Thus, as 
temperature increases in a nano Ni lattice so does the intensity of the 
critical resonant E and/or M fields.

The same thing happens in Pd-D systems, except the resonant conditions are 
different IMHO.

Rossi’s control system acts to quash the necessary resonant field intensity and 
thereby the intensity of the LENR reaction.  The nano particles cool at the 
surface sufficiently to shut the LENR reaction down completely unless there is 
further resonant stimulation supplied from time to time by the control system.  
LENR surface reaction may be a key feature allowing the control suggested above.

As in Axil’s style, there you have the secret to the E-Cat.

Bob Cook







From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 8:06:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

Russ—

As you point the baggage of negative feedback is great.  It also carries a 
signature on hopelessness, I would say.

Bob Cook


From: Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 2:16:34 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

At least Jed make the lines of credibility clear, either Rossi is a fraud or 
Jed is. The jury is still out. If the E-Cat roars then I propose that Jed do 
the honourable Japanese thing and commit internet seppuku and STFU.

From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:53 PM
To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

In fact, his E-Cat system demands it.

The E-Cat does not work. It is a fraud.


Anyone who accepts  the positive feedback modality should realize that it  
comes with a lot of baggage.

The data shows positive feedback. Anyone who rejects data is not doing science. 
You have to accept what the experiments show.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Axil Axil]

In the E-Cat reactor design, Rossi was using heat to pump the LENR
reaction. When he did this, heat produces unsolvable control problems in
that meltdowns would happen snore or later. In the Qx design, he uses light
to pump the LENR reaction. Now, light goes in and heat comes out. There is
no connection between the heat input and the heat output. Stop the light
and the LENR reaction stops. Now in the QX, control is easy, The Qx is a
high intensity light. The QX is basically a HID (high intensity discharge)
light where RF drives the production of light. That HID light pumps the
LENR reaction. Stop the RF and the light pumping and LENR also stops; no
more meltdowns.

If anybody wants to produce a commercial LENR product, they must stop using
heat pumping and start using light pumping.

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 12:54 PM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:

> By Rossi's own standard he hasn't proven anything. ("The market will
> decide")
> Why do his defender's require a lower standard of proof than Rossi himself
> ?
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:06 AM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
> bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Russ—
>>
>>
>>
>> As you point the baggage of negative feedback is great.  It also carries
>> a signature on hopelessness, I would say.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>>
>> ------
>> *From:* Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 18, 2018 2:16:34 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:LENR fission
>>
>>
>> At least Jed make the lines of credibility clear, either Rossi is a fraud
>> or Jed is. The jury is still out. If the E-Cat roars then I propose that
>> Jed do the honourable Japanese thing and commit internet seppuku and STFU.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:53 PM
>> *To:* Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:LENR fission
>>
>>
>>
>> JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> In fact, his E-Cat system demands it.
>>
>>
>>
>> The E-Cat does not work. It is a fraud.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone who accepts  the positive feedback modality should realize that it
>>  comes with a lot of baggage.
>>
>>
>>
>> The data shows positive feedback. Anyone who rejects data is not doing
>> science. You have to accept what the experiments show.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Axil Axil]

 spin wastes magnetic energy by producing RF radiation.
Parahydrogen hydrogen has zero spin. This is good for Ni/H LENR because
this type of hydrogen is magnetically inactive.

This is a way to increase parahydrogen hydrogen by using a noble metal
catalyst.



On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:01 AM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Axil—
>
>
>
> What does the lack of magnetic moment have to due with the isotopic mass
> spec data likelihood?
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
> --
> *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 17, 2018 1:51:30 PM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:LENR fission
>
>
>-
>   -
>
>   IF SAFIRE looked into the titanium isotopes that was generated by
>   transmutation, they would see that it is mostly Ti47 and Ti49 because 
> those
>   isotopes have a large magnetic moment.
>
>
>
>   Table. Stables isotopes of titanium
>   <https://www.webelements.com/periodicity/isotopes/>.
>   Isotope Mass
>
>   /Da Natural
>
>   abund.
>
>   (atom %) Nuclear
>
>   spin (I) Nuclear
>
>   magnetic
>
>   moment (μ/μN)
>   46Ti 45.9526294 (14) 8.25 (3) 0
>   47Ti 46.9517640 (11) 7.44 (2) 5/2 -0.78848
>   48Ti 47.9479473 (11) 73.72 (3) 0
>   49Ti 48.9478711 (11) 5.41 (2) 7/2 -1.10417
>   50Ti 49.9447921 (12) 5.18 (2) 0
>   -  Edit
>  
> <https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5558-lenr-is-occurring-in-safire/?postID=82269#>
>  -
>  
> <https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5558-lenr-is-occurring-in-safire/?postID=82269#>
>  -
>  
> <https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5558-lenr-is-occurring-in-safire/?postID=82269#>
>   -
>  -
>  
> <https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5558-lenr-is-occurring-in-safire/?pageNo=1>
>  -
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> One of the key features of a sucessful LENR reactor design is the high
>> efficiency conversion of LENR energy into heat. Most of the energy that is
>> produced by the LENR reaction is formatted as subatomic particle creation.
>> It is important in a successful LENR reaction design to capture those
>> particles and convert them to heat energy. One method that might do this
>> conversion is a magnetic bottle using a quadruple or another  charged
>> particle confining magnetic field. The muons that come out of the LENR
>> reaction must be confined inside the reactor for up to 10 microseconds to
>> give them enough time to decay. This decay will convert most of the mass of
>> the muon ( 105.6583745(24) MeV/c2 )into heat energy and electrons.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The COP of the Brillouin reactor is now been verified to be under 1.5...
>>> nearly useless. If I remember correctly, MFMP produced over unity heat in
>>> some of their experiments but not very much. The same low COP issue arose
>>> in the Lugano demo. Low COP is a big problem for LENR. Most of the energy
>>> produced by LENR comes in the form of sub atomic particle generation which
>>> includes huge numbers of neutrinos. In the LENR reaction, the heat is
>>> provided by a minor energy channel involving hawking radiation. The
>>> Brillouin reactor is most likely pumping out a ton of sub atomic particles
>>> as seen in the experiments of Holmlid. Those particles need to be converted
>>> to heat. Therefore, the heat rich LENR reactor should be surrounded by a
>>> blanket of molten lead or thorium salt to capture muons that will catalyze
>>> muon fission. But this type of fission will produce a ton of neutrons
>>> similar to a hot fusion reactor. The dream of a LENR reactor in your
>>> basement might well be impossible unless Rossi has found a way to increase
>>> the proportion of the reaction energy to be radiated in the form of heat.
>>>
>>> To verify if this opinion is well founded, a LENR reactor should be
>>> surrounded in lead blocks up to a foot thick. We should see a large flux of
>>> neutrons produced by the lead.
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[H LV]

By Rossi's own standard he hasn't proven anything. ("The market will
decide")
Why do his defender's require a lower standard of proof than Rossi himself
?

Harry


On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 11:06 AM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Russ—
>
>
>
> As you point the baggage of negative feedback is great.  It also carries a
> signature on hopelessness, I would say.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
> --
> *From:* Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 18, 2018 2:16:34 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:LENR fission
>
>
> At least Jed make the lines of credibility clear, either Rossi is a fraud
> or Jed is. The jury is still out. If the E-Cat roars then I propose that
> Jed do the honourable Japanese thing and commit internet seppuku and STFU.
>
>
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:53 PM
> *To:* Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:LENR fission
>
>
>
> JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> In fact, his E-Cat system demands it.
>
>
>
> The E-Cat does not work. It is a fraud.
>
>
>
>
>
> Anyone who accepts  the positive feedback modality should realize that it
>  comes with a lot of baggage.
>
>
>
> The data shows positive feedback. Anyone who rejects data is not doing
> science. You have to accept what the experiments show.
>
>
>
> - Jed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Russ—

As you point the baggage of negative feedback is great.  It also carries a 
signature on hopelessness, I would say.

Bob Cook


From: Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 2:16:34 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

At least Jed make the lines of credibility clear, either Rossi is a fraud or 
Jed is. The jury is still out. If the E-Cat roars then I propose that Jed do 
the honourable Japanese thing and commit internet seppuku and STFU.

From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:53 PM
To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

In fact, his E-Cat system demands it.

The E-Cat does not work. It is a fraud.


Anyone who accepts  the positive feedback modality should realize that it  
comes with a lot of baggage.

The data shows positive feedback. Anyone who rejects data is not doing science. 
You have to accept what the experiments show.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Axil—

What does the lack of magnetic moment have to due with the isotopic mass spec 
data likelihood?

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10


From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 1:51:30 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission


  *
 *

IF SAFIRE looked into the titanium isotopes that was generated by 
transmutation, they would see that it is mostly Ti47 and Ti49 because those 
isotopes have a large magnetic moment.



Table. Stables isotopes of 
titanium<https://www.webelements.com/periodicity/isotopes/>.

Isotope Mass

/Da Natural

abund.

(atom %)Nuclear

spin (I)Nuclear

magnetic

moment (μ/μN)
46Ti45.9526294 (14) 8.25 (3)0
47Ti46.9517640 (11) 7.44 (2)5/2 -0.78848
48Ti47.9479473 (11) 73.72 (3)   0
49Ti48.9478711 (11) 5.41 (2)7/2 -1.10417
50Ti49.9447921 (12) 5.18 (2)0
*
Edit<https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5558-lenr-is-occurring-in-safire/?postID=82269#>
*   
<https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5558-lenr-is-occurring-in-safire/?postID=82269#>
*   
<https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5558-lenr-is-occurring-in-safire/?postID=82269#>
 *
*   
<https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5558-lenr-is-occurring-in-safire/?pageNo=1>
*



On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Axil Axil 
<janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
One of the key features of a sucessful LENR reactor design is the high 
efficiency conversion of LENR energy into heat. Most of the energy that is 
produced by the LENR reaction is formatted as subatomic particle creation. It 
is important in a successful LENR reaction design to capture those particles 
and convert them to heat energy. One method that might do this conversion is a 
magnetic bottle using a quadruple or another  charged particle confining 
magnetic field. The muons that come out of the LENR reaction must be confined 
inside the reactor for up to 10 microseconds to give them enough time to decay. 
This decay will convert most of the mass of the muon ( 105.6583745(24) MeV/c2 
)into heat energy and electrons.

[cid:ii_jevtb9tx0_162359acc47de1f3]


On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Axil Axil 
<janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:

The COP of the Brillouin reactor is now been verified to be under 1.5... nearly 
useless. If I remember correctly, MFMP produced over unity heat in some of 
their experiments but not very much. The same low COP issue arose in the Lugano 
demo. Low COP is a big problem for LENR. Most of the energy produced by LENR 
comes in the form of sub atomic particle generation which includes huge numbers 
of neutrinos. In the LENR reaction, the heat is provided by a minor energy 
channel involving hawking radiation. The Brillouin reactor is most likely 
pumping out a ton of sub atomic particles as seen in the experiments of 
Holmlid. Those particles need to be converted to heat. Therefore, the heat rich 
LENR reactor should be surrounded by a blanket of molten lead or thorium salt 
to capture muons that will catalyze muon fission. But this type of fission will 
produce a ton of neutrons similar to a hot fusion reactor. The dream of a LENR 
reactor in your basement might well be impossible unless Rossi has found a way 
to increase the proportion of the reaction energy to be radiated in the form of 
heat.

To verify if this opinion is well founded, a LENR reactor should be surrounded 
in lead blocks up to a foot thick. We should see a large flux of neutrons 
produced by the lead.

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Brian Ahern]

I have been calling Rossi a Fraud since January 2009. None of his 'demos' or 
pronouncements have had any value.


He is truly a master of manipulation.


The possibility that he is credible offers hope to the alternative energy 
followers. I hope LENR can be made to work, but It will not come from The 
Impresario.



From: Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 5:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR fission


At least Jed make the lines of credibility clear, either Rossi is a fraud or 
Jed is. The jury is still out. If the E-Cat roars then I propose that Jed do 
the honourable Japanese thing and commit internet seppuku and STFU.



From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:53 PM
To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission



JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:



In fact, his E-Cat system demands it.



The E-Cat does not work. It is a fraud.





Anyone who accepts  the positive feedback modality should realize that it  
comes with a lot of baggage.



The data shows positive feedback. Anyone who rejects data is not doing science. 
You have to accept what the experiments show.



- Jed

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Russ]

At least Jed make the lines of credibility clear, either Rossi is a fraud or 
Jed is. The jury is still out. If the E-Cat roars then I propose that Jed do 
the honourable Japanese thing and commit internet seppuku and STFU. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:53 PM
To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

 

JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

 

In fact, his E-Cat system demands it.

 

The E-Cat does not work. It is a fraud.

 

 

Anyone who accepts  the positive feedback modality should realize that it  
comes with a lot of baggage.

 

The data shows positive feedback. Anyone who rejects data is not doing science. 
You have to accept what the experiments show.

 

- Jed

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Axil Axil]

When a SPP Bose condensate breaks up protons and neutrons, it absorbs
energy, and subatomic particles are also produced.

For the absorbed energy portion, a SPP Bose Condensate has three energy
output channels: Light, muons and hawking radiation(heat). The decay of
protons and neutrons produces muons as a final decay product. Form this,
you can see that most of the energy content of protons and neutrons are
converted to muons because muons are so heavy and of course a ton of
neutrinos.

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 4:53 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Axil—
>
>
>
> You indicate that a muon decays into “heat energy” and electrons.
>
>
>
> How do you define “heat energy”?  Is it the result of an immediate (ultra
> fast} reaction producing a new coherent system evolved from the original
> coherent system of which the decaying muon was a constituent?  Is it EM
> radiation which subsequently reacts with the electrons of adjacent
> materials some time after the muon decay?
>
>
>
> In the LENR reaction you suggest are there other sub-atomic particles
> besides the muons and electrons and what are their masses or energies?
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
> --
> *From:* Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 17, 2018 1:20:32 PM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:LENR fission
>
> One of the key features of a sucessful LENR reactor design is the high
> efficiency conversion of LENR energy into heat. Most of the energy that is
> produced by the LENR reaction is formatted as subatomic particle creation.
> It is important in a successful LENR reaction design to capture those
> particles and convert them to heat energy. One method that might do this
> conversion is a magnetic bottle using a quadruple or another  charged
> particle confining magnetic field. The muons that come out of the LENR
> reaction must be confined inside the reactor for up to 10 microseconds to
> give them enough time to decay. This decay will convert most of the mass of
> the muon ( 105.6583745(24) MeV/c2 )into heat energy and electrons.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The COP of the Brillouin reactor is now been verified to be under 1.5...
>> nearly useless. If I remember correctly, MFMP produced over unity heat in
>> some of their experiments but not very much. The same low COP issue arose
>> in the Lugano demo. Low COP is a big problem for LENR. Most of the energy
>> produced by LENR comes in the form of sub atomic particle generation which
>> includes huge numbers of neutrinos. In the LENR reaction, the heat is
>> provided by a minor energy channel involving hawking radiation. The
>> Brillouin reactor is most likely pumping out a ton of sub atomic particles
>> as seen in the experiments of Holmlid. Those particles need to be converted
>> to heat. Therefore, the heat rich LENR reactor should be surrounded by a
>> blanket of molten lead or thorium salt to capture muons that will catalyze
>> muon fission. But this type of fission will produce a ton of neutrons
>> similar to a hot fusion reactor. The dream of a LENR reactor in your
>> basement might well be impossible unless Rossi has found a way to increase
>> the proportion of the reaction energy to be radiated in the form of heat.
>>
>> To verify if this opinion is well founded, a LENR reactor should be
>> surrounded in lead blocks up to a foot thick. We should see a large flux of
>> neutrons produced by the lead.
>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Axil—

You indicate that a muon decays into “heat energy” and electrons.

How do you define “heat energy”?  Is it the result of an immediate (ultra fast} 
reaction producing a new coherent system evolved from the original coherent 
system of which the decaying muon was a constituent?  Is it EM radiation which 
subsequently reacts with the electrons of adjacent materials some time after 
the muon decay?

In the LENR reaction you suggest are there other sub-atomic particles besides 
the muons and electrons and what are their masses or energies?

Bob Cook


From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 1:20:32 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

One of the key features of a sucessful LENR reactor design is the high 
efficiency conversion of LENR energy into heat. Most of the energy that is 
produced by the LENR reaction is formatted as subatomic particle creation. It 
is important in a successful LENR reaction design to capture those particles 
and convert them to heat energy. One method that might do this conversion is a 
magnetic bottle using a quadruple or another  charged particle confining 
magnetic field. The muons that come out of the LENR reaction must be confined 
inside the reactor for up to 10 microseconds to give them enough time to decay. 
This decay will convert most of the mass of the muon ( 105.6583745(24) MeV/c2 
)into heat energy and electrons.

[cid:ii_jevtb9tx0_162359acc47de1f3]


On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Axil Axil 
<janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:

The COP of the Brillouin reactor is now been verified to be under 1.5... nearly 
useless. If I remember correctly, MFMP produced over unity heat in some of 
their experiments but not very much. The same low COP issue arose in the Lugano 
demo. Low COP is a big problem for LENR. Most of the energy produced by LENR 
comes in the form of sub atomic particle generation which includes huge numbers 
of neutrinos. In the LENR reaction, the heat is provided by a minor energy 
channel involving hawking radiation. The Brillouin reactor is most likely 
pumping out a ton of sub atomic particles as seen in the experiments of 
Holmlid. Those particles need to be converted to heat. Therefore, the heat rich 
LENR reactor should be surrounded by a blanket of molten lead or thorium salt 
to capture muons that will catalyze muon fission. But this type of fission will 
produce a ton of neutrons similar to a hot fusion reactor. The dream of a LENR 
reactor in your basement might well be impossible unless Rossi has found a way 
to increase the proportion of the reaction energy to be radiated in the form of 
heat.

To verify if this opinion is well founded, a LENR reactor should be surrounded 
in lead blocks up to a foot thick. We should see a large flux of neutrons 
produced by the lead.

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Axil Axil]

   -
  -

  IF SAFIRE looked into the titanium isotopes that was generated by
  transmutation, they would see that it is mostly Ti47 and Ti49
because those
  isotopes have a large magnetic moment.



  Table. Stables isotopes of titanium
  .
  IsotopeMass

  /DaNatural

  abund.

  (atom %)Nuclear

  spin (I)Nuclear

  magnetic

  moment (μ/μN)
  46Ti 45.9526294 (14) 8.25 (3) 0
  47Ti 46.9517640 (11) 7.44 (2) 5/2 -0.78848
  48Ti 47.9479473 (11) 73.72 (3) 0
  49Ti 48.9478711 (11) 5.41 (2) 7/2 -1.10417
  50Ti 49.9447921 (12) 5.18 (2) 0
  -  Edit
 

 -
 

 -
 

  -
 -
 

 -




On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> One of the key features of a sucessful LENR reactor design is the high
> efficiency conversion of LENR energy into heat. Most of the energy that is
> produced by the LENR reaction is formatted as subatomic particle creation.
> It is important in a successful LENR reaction design to capture those
> particles and convert them to heat energy. One method that might do this
> conversion is a magnetic bottle using a quadruple or another  charged
> particle confining magnetic field. The muons that come out of the LENR
> reaction must be confined inside the reactor for up to 10 microseconds to
> give them enough time to decay. This decay will convert most of the mass of
> the muon ( 105.6583745(24) MeV/c2 )into heat energy and electrons.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The COP of the Brillouin reactor is now been verified to be under 1.5...
>> nearly useless. If I remember correctly, MFMP produced over unity heat in
>> some of their experiments but not very much. The same low COP issue arose
>> in the Lugano demo. Low COP is a big problem for LENR. Most of the energy
>> produced by LENR comes in the form of sub atomic particle generation which
>> includes huge numbers of neutrinos. In the LENR reaction, the heat is
>> provided by a minor energy channel involving hawking radiation. The
>> Brillouin reactor is most likely pumping out a ton of sub atomic particles
>> as seen in the experiments of Holmlid. Those particles need to be converted
>> to heat. Therefore, the heat rich LENR reactor should be surrounded by a
>> blanket of molten lead or thorium salt to capture muons that will catalyze
>> muon fission. But this type of fission will produce a ton of neutrons
>> similar to a hot fusion reactor. The dream of a LENR reactor in your
>> basement might well be impossible unless Rossi has found a way to increase
>> the proportion of the reaction energy to be radiated in the form of heat.
>>
>> To verify if this opinion is well founded, a LENR reactor should be
>> surrounded in lead blocks up to a foot thick. We should see a large flux of
>> neutrons produced by the lead.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Axil Axil]

One of the key features of a sucessful LENR reactor design is the high
efficiency conversion of LENR energy into heat. Most of the energy that is
produced by the LENR reaction is formatted as subatomic particle creation.
It is important in a successful LENR reaction design to capture those
particles and convert them to heat energy. One method that might do this
conversion is a magnetic bottle using a quadruple or another  charged
particle confining magnetic field. The muons that come out of the LENR
reaction must be confined inside the reactor for up to 10 microseconds to
give them enough time to decay. This decay will convert most of the mass of
the muon ( 105.6583745(24) MeV/c2 )into heat energy and electrons.




On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The COP of the Brillouin reactor is now been verified to be under 1.5...
> nearly useless. If I remember correctly, MFMP produced over unity heat in
> some of their experiments but not very much. The same low COP issue arose
> in the Lugano demo. Low COP is a big problem for LENR. Most of the energy
> produced by LENR comes in the form of sub atomic particle generation which
> includes huge numbers of neutrinos. In the LENR reaction, the heat is
> provided by a minor energy channel involving hawking radiation. The
> Brillouin reactor is most likely pumping out a ton of sub atomic particles
> as seen in the experiments of Holmlid. Those particles need to be converted
> to heat. Therefore, the heat rich LENR reactor should be surrounded by a
> blanket of molten lead or thorium salt to capture muons that will catalyze
> muon fission. But this type of fission will produce a ton of neutrons
> similar to a hot fusion reactor. The dream of a LENR reactor in your
> basement might well be impossible unless Rossi has found a way to increase
> the proportion of the reaction energy to be radiated in the form of heat.
>
> To verify if this opinion is well founded, a LENR reactor should be
> surrounded in lead blocks up to a foot thick. We should see a large flux of
> neutrons produced by the lead.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Brian—

Did the EPRI 2012 experiments include resonant stimulation of any kind once a 
low level heating was observed?  I am thinking about dipole and or quadrupole 
electric and /or magnetic field stimulation over a range of frequencies that 
could resonate with the reactants present.

  I particularly consider  resonant magnetic field coupling of nuclear species 
and  Ni lattice electronic orbital spin energy states of the nano Ni particles 
may be important.  A Ni alloy may offer more varied energy states and enhance  
the coupling and exchange of nuclear potential  for increased lattice thermal 
energy associated with the entire nano particle lattice.  (This would be a 
many-body reaction of a QM coherent system IMHO.)

The following link addresses ultra fast reactions in certain solid state 
systems of many particles, including reactions within and among molecules.

https://aca.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.4936290

Bob Cook


From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 10:24:06 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission


In My 2012 EPRI on gas loading Nickel nanopowders I always saw continuing 
heating, but at levels below 200 milliwatts.  I did not find any accelerant 
property. My attempts at dielectric discharges was terminated when I burned out 
the power  supply and was introduced to Arthur Manelas



From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 11:12 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:


FAIL



Apparently this is too an issue which is either not important or too technical 
for you. I looked at the few of these references and none of them mention COP 
wrt thermal feedback.

As I said, that is because the COP is meaningless in cold fusion. However, as I 
also said, a thermal pulse often produces heat after death, with a COP of 
infinity. You can't ask for more enhancement than that!



A lack of comprehension of the value of COP as an intuitive and accurate metric 
in LENR and the silly attempt to change its meaning  is apparently guiding an 
uncharacteristic flood of disinformation…

I do not see what is intuitive or accurate about a parameter that does not even 
exist in many experiments. Input power with electrolysis affects the formation 
of material, but it has nothing to do with the performance of the reaction 
itself. The reaction works with no input power during heat after death or with 
gas loading, so how can the ratio of input to output (the COP) be a critical 
parameter? I suggest you address that question rather than insulting top 
experts in this field such as Fleischmann, Storms and Miles. (They are the ones 
who say this, not me. Or not just me.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Jed Rothwell]

JonesBeene  wrote:


> In fact, his E-Cat system demands it.
>

The E-Cat does not work. It is a fraud.


Anyone who accepts  the positive feedback modality should realize that it
>  comes with a lot of baggage.
>

The data shows positive feedback. Anyone who rejects data is not doing
science. You have to accept what the experiments show.

- Jed





>

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[JonesBeene]

Here is one general relationship which may enter into this discussion. When 
metals -  or any electrical conductors - are heated they become more resistive, 
not less. As they are cooled they become more conductive. If any experiment 
depends on electrical input, as do all electrolysis experiments, then the 
unavoidable result is that nascent positive thermal feedback to the overall 
system reduces conductivity which reduces current delivered. The early stage of 
positive feedback is either squelched or proceeds to failure if it is strong 
enough. 

Of course, there is a unique claim for one LENR system which needs only thermal 
input – the original Rossi device, which is the only system which can truly 
benefit from positive feedback. In fact, his E-Cat system demands it. 
Electrical loss from higher resistivity is avoided. 

There is a preferred and well-known negative  temperature feedback mechanism in 
normal electrodynamics but there can be a blip in the curve having DIFFERENTIAL 
positive feedback, as in Miles case, where  things would be reversed from the 
normal state in a narrow range. It could lead to a runaway or meltdown if it 
was  more than a blip.  There are four or five examples of runaways over the 
last 28 years. Because of rarity, the runaway has not been harnessed to 
increase COP since it is rare, unpredictable and uncontrollable other than in 
Rossi’s claim. 

Thus - there is no evidence of positive feedback being useful except for the 
infamous wet steam device and its successors  which were claimed to run on 
thermal input. NO ONE ELSE has made this claim-  other than Rossi. Miles may 
see differential positive thermal feedback over a part of the curve but he 
could not capitalize on it for increased COP.

If feedback is not predictable or controllable then it clearly isn’t going to 
be integrated in a system in order to produce higher COP in the last stage 
which was Alain’s original presumption. Rossi provides the only evidence for 
positive thermal feedback leading to higher COP.

Anyone who accepts  the positive feedback modality should realize that it  
comes with a lot of baggage.

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Brian Ahern]

In My 2012 EPRI on gas loading Nickel nanopowders I always saw continuing 
heating, but at levels below 200 milliwatts.  I did not find any accelerant 
property. My attempts at dielectric discharges was terminated when I burned out 
the power  supply and was introduced to Arthur Manelas



From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 11:12 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:


FAIL



Apparently this is too an issue which is either not important or too technical 
for you. I looked at the few of these references and none of them mention COP 
wrt thermal feedback.

As I said, that is because the COP is meaningless in cold fusion. However, as I 
also said, a thermal pulse often produces heat after death, with a COP of 
infinity. You can't ask for more enhancement than that!



A lack of comprehension of the value of COP as an intuitive and accurate metric 
in LENR and the silly attempt to change its meaning  is apparently guiding an 
uncharacteristic flood of disinformation…

I do not see what is intuitive or accurate about a parameter that does not even 
exist in many experiments. Input power with electrolysis affects the formation 
of material, but it has nothing to do with the performance of the reaction 
itself. The reaction works with no input power during heat after death or with 
gas loading, so how can the ratio of input to output (the COP) be a critical 
parameter? I suggest you address that question rather than insulting top 
experts in this field such as Fleischmann, Storms and Miles. (They are the ones 
who say this, not me. Or not just me.)

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission --definition of COP-

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

As commonly used with respect to engineered systems for production of useful 
mechanical or EM energy such as the production of light or heat, COP  refers to 
the system output useful energy/ energy input.

The key is what is “useful energy” in above definition?

In most cases it is assumed that there is a conservation of energy in the 
system being considered—that stored potential energy may change to useful 
energy—generally mechanical or kinetic energy.   In this regard photons may be 
considered kinetic energy. if moving, or potential  energy, if trapped.

Thus a deeper understanding of the energy transitions which occur over time 
with respect to the engineered system being considered (transitions between 
potential and kinetic energy) is what is most instructive IMHO.

For engineered systems that couple to  the ZPE/ZPF energy source I would 
consider that source a potential energy,  much like  the potential energy of  a 
fuel in a LENR engineered system. with the added benefit of always being 
available.

Bob Cook






From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 8:12:32 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

FAIL

Apparently this is too an issue which is either not important or too technical 
for you. I looked at the few of these references and none of them mention COP 
wrt thermal feedback.

As I said, that is because the COP is meaningless in cold fusion. However, as I 
also said, a thermal pulse often produces heat after death, with a COP of 
infinity. You can't ask for more enhancement than that!


A lack of comprehension of the value of COP as an intuitive and accurate metric 
in LENR and the silly attempt to change its meaning  is apparently guiding an 
uncharacteristic flood of disinformation…

I do not see what is intuitive or accurate about a parameter that does not even 
exist in many experiments. Input power with electrolysis affects the formation 
of material, but it has nothing to do with the performance of the reaction 
itself. The reaction works with no input power during heat after death or with 
gas loading, so how can the ratio of input to output (the COP) be a critical 
parameter? I suggest you address that question rather than insulting top 
experts in this field such as Fleischmann, Storms and Miles. (They are the ones 
who say this, not me. Or not just me.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Jed Rothwell]

JonesBeene  wrote:

FAIL
>

>
> Apparently this is too an issue which is either not important or too
> technical for you. I looked at the few of these references and none of them
> mention COP wrt thermal feedback.
>

As I said, that is because the COP is meaningless in cold fusion. However,
as I also said, a thermal pulse often produces heat after death, with a COP
of infinity. You can't ask for more enhancement than that!



> A lack of comprehension of the value of COP as an intuitive and accurate
> metric in LENR and the silly attempt to change its meaning  is apparently
> guiding an uncharacteristic flood of disinformation…
>

I do not see what is intuitive or accurate about a parameter that does not
even exist in many experiments. Input power with electrolysis affects the
formation of material, but it has nothing to do with the performance of the
reaction itself. The reaction works with no input power during heat after
death or with gas loading, so how can the ratio of input to output (the
COP) be a critical parameter? I suggest you address that question rather
than insulting top experts in this field such as Fleischmann, Storms and
Miles. (They are the ones who say this, not me. Or not just me.)

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[JonesBeene]

FAIL

Apparently this is too an issue which is either not important or too technical 
for you. I looked at the few of these references and none of them mention COP 
wrt thermal feedback.

A lack of comprehension of the value of COP as an intuitive and accurate metric 
in LENR and the silly attempt to change its meaning  is apparently guiding an 
uncharacteristic flood of disinformation…

JB
Please cite any “widely replicated experimental evidence” for positive thermal 
feedback leading to increased COP

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Alenr-canr.org+positive+feedback

See especially:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMthermalbeh.pdf

The so-called "COP" in cold fusion is not actually a coefficient of production, 
and it can easily be changed. It is meaningless, in my opinion. Input power 
does not directly cause output power, and there is no fixed ratio between them. 
Input power sometimes produces the NAE and cold fusion follows. I do not know 
if a thermal pulse will improve the ratio. Except in the obvious case in which 
a thermal pulse produces heat after death, which is to say, a COP of infinity.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Jed Rothwell]

JonesBeene  wrote:

Please cite any “widely replicated experimental evidence” for positive
> thermal feedback leading to increased COP
>

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Alenr-canr.org+positive+feedback

See especially:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMthermalbeh.pdf

The so-called "COP" in cold fusion is not actually a coefficient of
production, and it can easily be changed. It is meaningless, in my
opinion. Input
power does not directly cause output power, and there is no fixed ratio
between them. Input power sometimes produces the NAE and cold fusion
follows. I do not know if a thermal pulse will improve the ratio. Except in
the obvious case in which a thermal pulse produces heat after death, which
is to say, a COP of infinity.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[JonesBeene]

Please cite any “widely replicated experimental evidence” for positive thermal 
feedback leading to increased COP

I contend that there is none but there is the possibility that you do not 
understand what positive thermal feedback means…


From: Jed Rothwell

JonesBeene  wrote:
In short the original statement “there is NO positive thermal feedback 
mechanism in LENR which can increase COP” stands…
No, widely replicated experimental evidence shows that is not the case.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Jed Rothwell]

JonesBeene  wrote:

Sorry but that uncorroborated exchange  in no way supports the possibility
> of “positive thermal feedback” which can lead to increased COP.
>

I do not know what "uncorroborated exchange" means. (I mean I do not
understand the English.)

Anyway, the fact that a positive thermal feedback exists in cold fusion has
been demonstrated repeatedly -- hundreds of times -- by Fleischmann and
Pons, Miles, McKubre, Storms and others. It is one of the few things we
know for sure about cold fusion, along with the fact that helium is
produced in a fixed ratio to Pd-D.



> It could be a relic of measurement but at best is unpredictable and cannot
> be controlled.
>

(I think you mean "artifact" rather than "relic.")

Nope. It cannot be an artifact of the system because it has been measured
with many different types of calorimeters. It is quite predictable.
Whenever there is anomalous heat in the first place, a heat pulse will
increase it. It was controlled in hundreds of boil-off experiments. Done 16
at a time, many times.



> In short the original statement “there is NO positive thermal feedback
> mechanism in LENR which can increase COP” stands…
>

No, widely replicated experimental evidence shows that is not the case.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[JonesBeene]

Sorry but that uncorroborated exchange  in no way supports the possibility of 
“positive thermal feedback” which can lead to increased COP.

It could be a relic of measurement but at best is unpredictable and cannot be 
controlled.

In short the original statement “there is NO positive thermal feedback 
mechanism in LENR which can increase COP” stands…

(slightly modified ;-}



From: Jed Rothwell

JonesBeene  wrote:
 
In short, there is NO positive thermal feedback mechanism in LENR.

That is incorrect. See Fleischmann or Miles, for example p. 16:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf

The boil off events were all triggered with a heat pulse.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Jed Rothwell]

JonesBeene  wrote:


> In short, there is NO positive thermal feedback mechanism in LENR.
>

That is incorrect. See Fleischmann or Miles, for example p. 16:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf

The boil off events were all triggered with a heat pulse.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

In fission reactors positive temperature feedback is a head ache.  Control is 
much harder to accomplish.  Negative temperature feedback is much safer and 
easier to achieve effective control.

That being said, some of the runaway LENR reactions reported IMHO indicate some 
systems have positive temperature feedback—i.e., a higher temperature causes 
increasing higher temperatures with greater kinetic energy releases to the 
reactants present before they are dispersed.

Bob Cook


From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 7:56:29 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

From: Alain Sepeda<mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com>

Jacques RUER have demonstrated using standard engineering that
- if you have a low COP LENr reactor proven
- if there is a positive temperature feedback then you can engineer a device 
with any desired COP.

https://www.iscmns.org/work12/RuerJpreventingtherm.pdf


True, but unfortunately for us … “if” is the longest word in the English 
language.

In short, there is NO positive thermal feedback mechanism in LENR.

We all wish that there was such a mechanism, and for a while it looked like 
there could be but it was a house of cards. The closest thing we have which is 
proved  is so-called “heat after death” but that is a short term phenomenon and 
cannot be demonstrated “on demand” so it cannot be stacked or looped. It goes 
without saying that when the gain of LENR is  converted to electricity first, 
and that COP (thermal to electric) exceeds unity then the inventor can loop the 
output and win the Nobel prize. No one has done that but obviously it would 
HUGE if and when someone can loop output and input.

As of now a COP of 1.5 is hopelessly low in the commercial sense but of great 
scientific interest. A thermal gain at modest temperatures requires at COP of 
about 4 – in order  to loop output with input. There is indeed strong evidence 
for COP of 1.5 at 50 watt output but no way to get the COP higher since 
positive thermal feedback is a myth that crashed with Rossigate.

To be fair, Mitchell Swartz consistently demonstrates high COP levels in 
subwatt experiments,  but there is no independent evidence that an array of 
subwatt devices can be stacked to bring the output up to the tens of watts 
level over an extended period and self-power. Ahern and myself keep telling 
Mitchell that the Nobel prize is his when he can hand over such a looped device 
to be tested independently. The same recognition would be true of Brillouin or 
anyone else.

You know all this, Alain, so please excuse the cut-and-past -  but unless all 
sides of the COP argument appear in the same thread, the message will be 
misinterpreted by those who want LENR to be something which it is not. Again, 
that situation can change overnight with independent proof of self-power.

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[JonesBeene]

From: Alain Sepeda

Jacques RUER have demonstrated using standard engineering that
- if you have a low COP LENr reactor proven
- if there is a positive temperature feedback then you can engineer a device 
with any desired COP.

https://www.iscmns.org/work12/RuerJpreventingtherm.pdf


True, but unfortunately for us … “if” is the longest word in the English 
language. 

In short, there is NO positive thermal feedback mechanism in LENR. 

We all wish that there was such a mechanism, and for a while it looked like 
there could be but it was a house of cards. The closest thing we have which is 
proved  is so-called “heat after death” but that is a short term phenomenon and 
cannot be demonstrated “on demand” so it cannot be stacked or looped. It goes 
without saying that when the gain of LENR is  converted to electricity first, 
and that COP (thermal to electric) exceeds unity then the inventor can loop the 
output and win the Nobel prize. No one has done that but obviously it would 
HUGE if and when someone can loop output and input. 

As of now a COP of 1.5 is hopelessly low in the commercial sense but of great 
scientific interest. A thermal gain at modest temperatures requires at COP of 
about 4 – in order  to loop output with input. There is indeed strong evidence 
for COP of 1.5 at 50 watt output but no way to get the COP higher since 
positive thermal feedback is a myth that crashed with Rossigate. 

To be fair, Mitchell Swartz consistently demonstrates high COP levels in 
subwatt experiments,  but there is no independent evidence that an array of 
subwatt devices can be stacked to bring the output up to the tens of watts 
level over an extended period and self-power. Ahern and myself keep telling 
Mitchell that the Nobel prize is his when he can hand over such a looped device 
to be tested independently. The same recognition would be true of Brillouin or 
anyone else.

You know all this, Alain, so please excuse the cut-and-past -  but unless all 
sides of the COP argument appear in the same thread, the message will be 
misinterpreted by those who want LENR to be something which it is not. Again, 
that situation can change overnight with independent proof of self-power.

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Alain Sepeda]

Jacques RUER have demonstrated using standard engineering that
- if you have a low COP LENr reactor proven
- if there is a positive temperature feedback
then you can engineer a device with any desired COP.

https://www.iscmns.org/work12/RuerJpreventingtherm.pdf

Brillouin system, becaus eif have ON/Off control can be engineered to be
not far from criticality by heat insulation, and triggered to pass over
criticality in ON state, and thus be controlled to be at critical state,
with a stable production of heat.

I'm more concerned by the fact that the metallurgical state is not clearly
mastered to optimise LENR...
Maybe we don't have all data.

Basically COP is not a useful factor.
It is abused in place of signal over noise by people imagining unknown
artifacts.
It is considered as a result, while it is just result of engineering done
for an experiment, not for a client.



2018-03-15 20:42 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil :

> The COP of the Brillouin reactor is now been verified to be under 1.5...
> nearly useless. If I remember correctly, MFMP produced over unity heat in
> some of their experiments but not very much. The same low COP issue arose
> in the Lugano demo. Low COP is a big problem for LENR. Most of the energy
> produced by LENR comes in the form of sub atomic particle generation which
> includes huge numbers of neutrinos. In the LENR reaction, the heat is
> provided by a minor energy channel involving hawking radiation. The
> Brillouin reactor is most likely pumping out a ton of sub atomic particles
> as seen in the experiments of Holmlid. Those particles need to be converted
> to heat. Therefore, the heat rich LENR reactor should be surrounded by a
> blanket of molten lead or thorium salt to capture muons that will catalyze
> muon fission. But this type of fission will produce a ton of neutrons
> similar to a hot fusion reactor. The dream of a LENR reactor in your
> basement might well be impossible unless Rossi has found a way to increase
> the proportion of the reaction energy to be radiated in the form of heat.
>
> To verify if this opinion is well founded, a LENR reactor should be
> surrounded in lead blocks up to a foot thick. We should see a large flux of
> neutrons produced by the lead.
>
>