Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 27, 2013, at 12:17 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little energy available to carry away. This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon that CF has revealed. Ed, Typically we associate quantization with attractive forces as is the case with an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom, but your system involves quantization with repulsive forces. Like charges repel and unlike charges attract. Quantization is always a balance between attraction and repulsion. Consequently, I do not understand your point. In a hydrogen atom quantisation is present but there is only the attraction between unlike charges, i.e. a electron and a proton. So as a general rule quantisation does not require a balance between attraction and repulsion. Resonance occurs when an object can alternate between between attraction and repulsion. This combination results in forces that can move an object between these two extremes as long as energy is supplied. Yes, but the attractive forces are the bonds between the Pd or Ni atoms and the repulsive forces between the hydrogen nuclei and the Pd or Ni nuclei. The bonds between the atoms allow the big nuclei to coral hydrogen nuclei by mutual repulsion. The presence of an electron inside the coral acts a site of least repulsion where hydrogen nuclei are most likely to converge as they are gradually brought together through emission of a photon and resonance with the surrounding web of big nuclei. If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through the absorption of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons. Your description is not correct. Photon emission only occurs when the electron RETURNS to its original energy level. I said If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through the *absorption* of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons. I'm not suggesting the electron has an role in emitting a photon. I'm proposing that a photon is emitted FROM THE NUCLEUS when two nuclei get too close to each other. Nuclei can not normally get this close. Consequently, the process is not normally possible. The conditions in the NAE make this possible. I think the electron does play a role. It serves to discharge a build of a quantum of electrostatic energy that exists between the nuclei. Since the state of repulsion is quantized the nuclei stay at that distance until the next vibration from the matrix pushes them closer together. However, in the former situation the pushing apart is the effect but the absorption of the photons is the cause, whereas in the latter situation the pushing together is the cause, and the emission of photons is effector is it? ;-) The protons try to get close, but this is not possible because of the Coulomb barrier.
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little energy available to carry away. This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon that CF has revealed. Ed, Typically we associate quantization with attractive forces as is the case with an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom, but your system involves quantization with repulsive forces. If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through the absorption of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons. However, in the former situation the pushing apart is the effect but the absorption of the photons is the cause, whereas in the latter situation the pushing together is the cause, and the emission of photons is effector is it? ;-) If it is the cause, then the emission of photons serves to pull the protons together. Harry PS. Wikipedia says the fractional quantum hall effect also involves quantized states of repulsion although they are between electrons rather than protons and deuterons.
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Quantum mechanics governs both attraction and repulsion between charges. Ax far as the maths is concerned, it's just a sign change. If you come at this as an interaction characterised by exchange of quanta, then (via a momentum model) only repulsion makes intuitive sense. But that's OK - QM is nothing if not unintuitive. Andrew - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little energy available to carry away. This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon that CF has revealed. Ed, Typically we associate quantization with attractive forces as is the case with an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom, but your system involves quantization with repulsive forces. If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through the absorption of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons. However, in the former situation the pushing apart is the effect but the absorption of the photons is the cause, whereas in the latter situation the pushing together is the cause, and the emission of photons is effector is it? ;-) If it is the cause, then the emission of photons serves to pull the protons together. Harry PS. Wikipedia says the fractional quantum hall effect also involves quantized states of repulsion although they are between electrons rather than protons and deuterons.
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
I experience momentum exchange as a push, but also don't think the cause of everything must be explained in terms that are consistent with momentum exchange. However, I am well aware that this has been a dogma of physics for hundreds of years. Harry On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:24 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** Quantum mechanics governs both attraction and repulsion between charges. Ax far as the maths is concerned, it's just a sign change. If you come at this as an interaction characterised by exchange of quanta, then (via a momentum model) only repulsion makes intuitive sense. But that's OK - QM is nothing if not unintuitive. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, May 26, 2013 11:17 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little energy available to carry away. This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon that CF has revealed. Ed, Typically we associate quantization with attractive forces as is the case with an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom, but your system involves quantization with repulsive forces. If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through the absorption of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons. However, in the former situation the pushing apart is the effect but the absorption of the photons is the cause, whereas in the latter situation the pushing together is the cause, and the emission of photons is effector is it? ;-) If it is the cause, then the emission of photons serves to pull the protons together. Harry PS. Wikipedia says the fractional quantum hall effect also involves quantized states of repulsion although they are between electrons rather than protons and deuterons.
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
On May 27, 2013, at 12:17 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little energy available to carry away. This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon that CF has revealed. Ed, Typically we associate quantization with attractive forces as is the case with an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom, but your system involves quantization with repulsive forces. Like charges repel and unlike charges attract. Quantization is always a balance between attraction and repulsion. Consequently, I do not understand your point. Resonance occurs when an object can alternate between between attraction and repulsion. This combination results in forces that can move an object between these two extremes as long as energy is supplied. If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through the absorption of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons. Your description is not correct. Photon emission only occurs when the electron RETURNS to its original energy level. I'm not suggesting the electron has an role in emitting a photon. I'm proposing that a photon is emitted FROM THE NUCLEUS when two nuclei get too close to each other. Nuclei can not normally get this close. Consequently, the process is not normally possible. The conditions in the NAE make this possible. However, in the former situation the pushing apart is the effect but the absorption of the photons is the cause, whereas in the latter situation the pushing together is the cause, and the emission of photons is effector is it? ;-) The protons try to get close, but this is not possible because of the Coulomb barrier. Nevertheless, at a critical distance, they discover that if they gave off a little energy they could get closer. This is like an explosive suddenly discovering that if it rearranged the atoms, it could give off energy. In the case of the protons, the resonance process intervenes and stops the energy release before it can be complete. As a result, only a photon having low energy can be released. But then resonance again brings the two protons close and another photon is emitted from each proton. This process repeats until all energy is removed and the final nucleus is formed. Ed Storms If it is the cause, then the emission of photons serves to pull the protons together. Harry PS. Wikipedia says the fractional quantum hall effect also involves quantized states of repulsion although they are between electrons rather than protons and deuterons.
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Ed, do you consider the emission of photons as a result of interaction of the protons due to the coulomb force between them or the strong force? It seems that the initial distances are much to far apart to involve interaction by strong force. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 10:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved On May 27, 2013, at 12:17 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little energy available to carry away. This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon that CF has revealed. Ed, Typically we associate quantization with attractive forces as is the case with an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom, but your system involves quantization with repulsive forces. Like charges repel and unlike charges attract. Quantization is always a balance between attraction and repulsion. Consequently, I do not understand your point. Resonance occurs when an object can alternate between between attraction and repulsion. This combination results in forces that can move an object between these two extremes as long as energy is supplied. If pushing an electron and proton apart can happen in steps through the absorption of photons, I guess it follows that pushing together of protons can happen in steps through the emission of photons. Your description is not correct. Photon emission only occurs when the electron RETURNS to its original energy level. I'm not suggesting the electron has an role in emitting a photon. I'm proposing that a photon is emitted FROM THE NUCLEUS when two nuclei get too close to each other. Nuclei can not normally get this close. Consequently, the process is not normally possible. The conditions in the NAE make this possible. However, in the former situation the pushing apart is the effect but the absorption of the photons is the cause, whereas in the latter situation the pushing together is the cause, and the emission of photons is effector is it? ;-) The protons try to get close, but this is not possible because of the Coulomb barrier. Nevertheless, at a critical distance, they discover that if they gave off a little energy they could get closer. This is like an explosive suddenly discovering that if it rearranged the atoms, it could give off energy. In the case of the protons, the resonance process intervenes and stops the energy release before it can be complete. As a result, only a photon having low energy can be released. But then resonance again brings the two protons close and another photon is emitted from each proton. This process repeats until all energy is removed and the final nucleus is formed. Ed Storms If it is the cause, then the emission of photons serves to pull the protons together. Harry PS. Wikipedia says the fractional quantum hall effect also involves quantized states
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Dave, the interaction is unique and not related to the strong force as normally defined. Some additional kind of interaction is revealed by the phenomenon. Or perhaps the strong force is poorly understood. In any case, the two protons know that they have too much mass-energy for the distance. If the distance is reduced too quickly, as during hot fusion, all the energy either comes out as a single intense gamma or the resulting nucleus fragments. CF allows the process to occur slowly enough for the details to be seen. The structure creates a condition in which the proton can oscillate along the chain created by the linear molecule. This oscillation is fueled by the temperature in the NAE region, which is much greater than the bulk temperature, and by attraction when the protons are far apart and repulsion when they get too close. The only thing making this structure unique is the ability of the protons to get closer than any other way, but for only a brief time. In contrast, the muon allows this close distance, but once the distance is reduced, the loss of energy is immediately total, causing hot fusion. In this case, the process is not stopped and goes to completion as expected. In the case of the Hydroton, the resonance moves the proton close only for a brief time, which allows only a short burst of energy release. The resonance cycle then moves the proton too far away to cause energy release. The next cycle brings the two protons close again. I would attach a picture but Vortex does not like attachments. This process allows only a short time for the energy to be released as a proton (gamma), with a repeated release created by the resonance, thereby creating the observed behavior. Ed Storms On May 27, 2013, at 9:07 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, do you consider the emission of photons as a result of interaction of the protons due to the coulomb force between them or the strong force? It seems that the initial distances are much to far apart to involve interaction by strong force. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 10:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved On May 27, 2013, at 12:17 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass-energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little energy available to carry away. This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon that CF has revealed. Ed, Typically we associate quantization with attractive forces as is the case with an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom, but your system involves quantization with repulsive forces. Like charges repel and unlike charges attract. Quantization is always a balance between attraction and repulsion. Consequently, I do not understand your point. Resonance occurs when an object can alternate between between attraction and repulsion. This combination results in forces that can
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
On May 24, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On May 22, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, I think the structure of the coulomb barrier is open to intrinsic modification, but the variables governing this possibility cannot be uncovered by the tools and concepts of high energy physics. I agree. In fact, the insistence that high energy physics be used is the flaw in the skeptical arguments. In most situations the coulomb barrier behaves in a textbook fashion, but when bathed in the right vibrations the barrier can be tuned to soften. I think a different description is more useful. The two nuclei have first to get critically close together by intervention of an electron. This process is conventional. Once this happens and the bond can resonate, the periodic reduction in distance causes the nuclei to emit a photon (gamma). Each emitted photon allows hte distance to be reduced because the energy of the system has now been reduced, which reduces the Coulomb barrier. After enough photons have been emitted, the two nuclei collapse into one, which is the nuclear product. Of course, the intervening electron that is required to reduce the barrier is sucked into the final nucleus. The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. Yes Harry, this can be called a ratchet. All kinds of ratchets exist in Nature. The challenge is to find the cause. In this case, the nuclei have to communicate before they have fused into a single nuclei. The form of htat communication is unknown, but very important. Once discovered, this will get someone the Nobel prize. Imagine the following sequence. The nuclei are held apart by an electron bond, which is normally the case. Once formed, this structure starts to resonate so that the two nuclei get periodically closer together. As they approach each other, information is exchanged between the nuclei that tells them they have too much mass -energy for being this close. After all, if they were in contact, the excess mass- energy would be 24 MeV if the nuclei were deuterons. But they are not in contact yet, so that the excess mass-energy is less than the maximum. Nevertheless, this excess must be dissipated, which each nuclei does by emitting a photon having 1/2 of the excess energy for the distance achieved. After the photons are emitted, the resonance moves the two nuclei apart, but this time not as far as previously the case. The next resonance cycle again brings the nuclei close, but this time they come closer than before, again with emission of two photons. This cycle repeats until all energy has been dissipated and the two nuclei are in contact. The intervening electron, that was necessary to the process, is sucked into the final nucleus. Because very little energy is released by entry of the electron, the neutrino, if it is emitted at all, has very little energy available to carry away. This process, I suggest, is the unique and previously unknown phenomenon that CF has revealed. Ed Storms This model requires the nuclei to know that they must emit energy when they get close and that magnitude of the Coulomb barrier is sensitive to the excess mass-energy of the two nuclei. Ed Storms Is this another way of saying it is related to the nuclear force? If so then the ratchet is the nuclear force. harry
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On May 22, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, I think the structure of the coulomb barrier is open to intrinsic modification, but the variables governing this possibility cannot be uncovered by the tools and concepts of high energy physics. I agree. In fact, the insistence that high energy physics be used is the flaw in the skeptical arguments. In most situations the coulomb barrier behaves in a textbook fashion, but when bathed in the right vibrations the barrier can be tuned to soften. I think a different description is more useful. The two nuclei have first to get critically close together by intervention of an electron. This process is conventional. Once this happens and the bond can resonate, the periodic reduction in distance causes the nuclei to emit a photon (gamma). Each emitted photon allows hte distance to be reduced because the energy of the system has now been reduced, which reduces the Coulomb barrier. After enough photons have been emitted, the two nuclei collapse into one, which is the nuclear product. Of course, the intervening electron that is required to reduce the barrier is sucked into the final nucleus. The process you have described has the characteristics of a ratchet. Curiously, Jones used the ratchet metaphor in another post where he characterised the effect of modulating the input on the cell. This model requires the nuclei to know that they must emit energy when they get close and that magnitude of the Coulomb barrier is sensitive to the excess mass-energy of the two nuclei. Ed Storms Is this another way of saying it is related to the nuclear force? If so then the ratchet is the nuclear force. harry
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
On May 22, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, I think the structure of the coulomb barrier is open to intrinsic modification, but the variables governing this possibility cannot be uncovered by the tools and concepts of high energy physics. I agree. In fact, the insistence that high energy physics be used is the flaw in the skeptical arguments. In most situations the coulomb barrier behaves in a textbook fashion, but when bathed in the right vibrations the barrier can be tuned to soften. I think a different description is more useful. The two nuclei have first to get critically close together by intervention of an electron. This process is conventional. Once this happens and the bond can resonate, the periodic reduction in distance causes the nuclei to emit a photon (gamma). Each emitted photon allows hte distance to be reduced because the energy of the system has now been reduced, which reduces the Coulomb barrier. After enough photons have been emitted, the two nuclei collapse into one, which is the nuclear product. Of course, the intervening electron that is required to reduce the barrier is sucked into the final nucleus. This model requires the nuclei to know that they must emit energy when they get close and that magnitude of the Coulomb barrier is sensitive to the excess mass-energy of the two nuclei. Ed Storms This softening reduces the height of the barrier so that much less energy is required for fusion, but it will also enable the gradual dissipation of fusion energy you have postulated. Harry On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Harry, calculations are useless in this case because the mechanism is unknown to which the calculations can be applied. We know that the mechanism for fusion and transmutation must be the same, which means they both must occur in the same NAE. I can describe a process that fits this requirement, but not here. As a basic fact, the barrier can be either lowered by intervention of negative charge or overcome by sufficient energy. Regardless of which method is used, the energy resulting from transmutation must be dissipated gradually before the final isotope is formed. Otherwise, a strong gamma must be emitted to conserve momentum. In addition, the method used to get over the barrier will be more difficult than required for fusion, as you pointed out. So, something very unique is required. I find that use of extra energy from fusion is a more logical method than assembly of the required large negative charge. Do you agree? Ed Storms On May 22, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, I am intrigued by your idea that the lack of gammas could be explained by fusion process which happens gradually rather than suddenly as is the case with hot fusion. However, on the one hand you say the fusion of protons and deuterons supplies the energy necessary to over come coulomb repulsion between Ni nucleus and the fusion products, but on the other hand you do not say where the energy comes from to over come the coulomb repulsion that exists among protons and deuterons. While it is possible to reduce the energy required by placing an electron between protons and deuterons I doubt this will generate enough fusion reactions and energy if coulomb's law is correct. Or have you done calculations which show that it will? Harry On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: No Harry, the Coulomb barrier is the same in Hot and Cold fusion. The difference is that it is overcome very rapidly during hot fusion and very slowly during cold fusion. That is the only difference between the two methods. This difference results in a different behavior. Yes, a theory should explain transmutation and mine does. However, transmutation can only occur as a minor consequence of fusion. Fusion must be taking place first, which provides the conditions and energy to get over the huge Coulomb barrier associated with transmutation. As a result, the heat results from the fusion reaction, while a little transmutation occurs and contributes a very small amount of energy. The two reactions must work together because they both have to follow the same rules, according to my approach Ed Storms On May 22, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: You propose that the coulomb barrier is structured differently from how it is normally portrayed in textbooks, and it is this difference that permits the low temperature fusion of protons and deuterons and energy production. Wouldn't the same difference help to explain how transmutations can happen as well? It seems to me a good theory should be able to explain both transmutations and energy production even if the nuclei involved differ in each case. Harry . On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, Harry
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
You propose that the coulomb barrier is structured differently from how it is normally portrayed in textbooks, and it is this difference that permits the low temperature fusion of protons and deuterons and energy production. Wouldn't the same difference help to explain how transmutations can happen as well? It seems to me a good theory should be able to explain both transmutations and energy production even if the nuclei involved differ in each case. Harry . On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, Harry this is one of the several reasons why transmutation cannot be the source of energy. Four more remain. Ed Storms On May 21, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: In an environment populated with Ni nuclei and H nuclei, the spontaneous fusion of a H nucleus with another H nucleus is favoured over spontaneous fusion with a Ni nucleus because the electrostatic force of repulsion is smaller between two H nucleus than it is between an H nucleus and an Ni nucleus. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
No Harry, the Coulomb barrier is the same in Hot and Cold fusion. The difference is that it is overcome very rapidly during hot fusion and very slowly during cold fusion. That is the only difference between the two methods. This difference results in a different behavior. Yes, a theory should explain transmutation and mine does. However, transmutation can only occur as a minor consequence of fusion. Fusion must be taking place first, which provides the conditions and energy to get over the huge Coulomb barrier associated with transmutation. As a result, the heat results from the fusion reaction, while a little transmutation occurs and contributes a very small amount of energy. The two reactions must work together because they both have to follow the same rules, according to my approach Ed Storms On May 22, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: You propose that the coulomb barrier is structured differently from how it is normally portrayed in textbooks, and it is this difference that permits the low temperature fusion of protons and deuterons and energy production. Wouldn't the same difference help to explain how transmutations can happen as well? It seems to me a good theory should be able to explain both transmutations and energy production even if the nuclei involved differ in each case. Harry . On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, Harry this is one of the several reasons why transmutation cannot be the source of energy. Four more remain. Ed Storms On May 21, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: In an environment populated with Ni nuclei and H nuclei, the spontaneous fusion of a H nucleus with another H nucleus is favoured over spontaneous fusion with a Ni nucleus because the electrostatic force of repulsion is smaller between two H nucleus than it is between an H nucleus and an Ni nucleus. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Ed, I am intrigued by your idea that the lack of gammas could be explained by fusion process which happens gradually rather than suddenly as is the case with hot fusion. However, on the one hand you say the fusion of protons and deuterons supplies the energy necessary to over come coulomb repulsion between Ni nucleus and the fusion products, but on the other hand you do not say where the energy comes from to over come the coulomb repulsion that exists among protons and deuterons. While it is possible to reduce the energy required by placing an electron between protons and deuterons I doubt this will generate enough fusion reactions and energy if coulomb's law is correct. Or have you done calculations which show that it will? Harry On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: No Harry, the Coulomb barrier is the same in Hot and Cold fusion. The difference is that it is overcome very rapidly during hot fusion and very slowly during cold fusion. That is the only difference between the two methods. This difference results in a different behavior. Yes, a theory should explain transmutation and mine does. However, transmutation can only occur as a minor consequence of fusion. Fusion must be taking place first, which provides the conditions and energy to get over the huge Coulomb barrier associated with transmutation. As a result, the heat results from the fusion reaction, while a little transmutation occurs and contributes a very small amount of energy. The two reactions must work together because they both have to follow the same rules, according to my approach Ed Storms On May 22, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: You propose that the coulomb barrier is structured differently from how it is normally portrayed in textbooks, and it is this difference that permits the low temperature fusion of protons and deuterons and energy production. Wouldn't the same difference help to explain how transmutations can happen as well? It seems to me a good theory should be able to explain both transmutations and energy production even if the nuclei involved differ in each case. Harry . On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, Harry this is one of the several reasons why transmutation cannot be the source of energy. Four more remain. Ed Storms On May 21, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: In an environment populated with Ni nuclei and H nuclei, the spontaneous fusion of a H nucleus with another H nucleus is favoured over spontaneous fusion with a Ni nucleus because the electrostatic force of repulsion is smaller between two H nucleus than it is between an H nucleus and an Ni nucleus. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Harry, calculations are useless in this case because the mechanism is unknown to which the calculations can be applied. We know that the mechanism for fusion and transmutation must be the same, which means they both must occur in the same NAE. I can describe a process that fits this requirement, but not here. As a basic fact, the barrier can be either lowered by intervention of negative charge or overcome by sufficient energy. Regardless of which method is used, the energy resulting from transmutation must be dissipated gradually before the final isotope is formed. Otherwise, a strong gamma must be emitted to conserve momentum. In addition, the method used to get over the barrier will be more difficult than required for fusion, as you pointed out. So, something very unique is required. I find that use of extra energy from fusion is a more logical method than assembly of the required large negative charge. Do you agree? Ed Storms On May 22, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, I am intrigued by your idea that the lack of gammas could be explained by fusion process which happens gradually rather than suddenly as is the case with hot fusion. However, on the one hand you say the fusion of protons and deuterons supplies the energy necessary to over come coulomb repulsion between Ni nucleus and the fusion products, but on the other hand you do not say where the energy comes from to over come the coulomb repulsion that exists among protons and deuterons. While it is possible to reduce the energy required by placing an electron between protons and deuterons I doubt this will generate enough fusion reactions and energy if coulomb's law is correct. Or have you done calculations which show that it will? Harry On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: No Harry, the Coulomb barrier is the same in Hot and Cold fusion. The difference is that it is overcome very rapidly during hot fusion and very slowly during cold fusion. That is the only difference between the two methods. This difference results in a different behavior. Yes, a theory should explain transmutation and mine does. However, transmutation can only occur as a minor consequence of fusion. Fusion must be taking place first, which provides the conditions and energy to get over the huge Coulomb barrier associated with transmutation. As a result, the heat results from the fusion reaction, while a little transmutation occurs and contributes a very small amount of energy. The two reactions must work together because they both have to follow the same rules, according to my approach Ed Storms On May 22, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: You propose that the coulomb barrier is structured differently from how it is normally portrayed in textbooks, and it is this difference that permits the low temperature fusion of protons and deuterons and energy production. Wouldn't the same difference help to explain how transmutations can happen as well? It seems to me a good theory should be able to explain both transmutations and energy production even if the nuclei involved differ in each case. Harry . On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, Harry this is one of the several reasons why transmutation cannot be the source of energy. Four more remain. Ed Storms On May 21, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: In an environment populated with Ni nuclei and H nuclei, the spontaneous fusion of a H nucleus with another H nucleus is favoured over spontaneous fusion with a Ni nucleus because the electrostatic force of repulsion is smaller between two H nucleus than it is between an H nucleus and an Ni nucleus. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
The transfer of energy in a nuclear reaction must be sudden because of requirements of quantum mechanics. The first law of QM is that whenever energy is transferred, the superposition of a QM states is resolved. The transfer of energy is equivalent to an outside observer making a measurement of a QM system in superposition. This means that the thermalization of the energy quanta must be distributed and intrinsic to the energy release QM process. Of course, the energy release process could be a series of nuclear decay processes, but then it would not be fusion. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Harry, calculations are useless in this case because the mechanism is unknown to which the calculations can be applied. We know that the mechanism for fusion and transmutation must be the same, which means they both must occur in the same NAE. I can describe a process that fits this requirement, but not here. As a basic fact, the barrier can be either lowered by intervention of negative charge or overcome by sufficient energy. Regardless of which method is used, the energy resulting from transmutation must be dissipated gradually before the final isotope is formed. Otherwise, a strong gamma must be emitted to conserve momentum. In addition, the method used to get over the barrier will be more difficult than required for fusion, as you pointed out. So, something very unique is required. I find that use of extra energy from fusion is a more logical method than assembly of the required large negative charge. Do you agree? Ed Storms On May 22, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, I am intrigued by your idea that the lack of gammas could be explained by fusion process which happens gradually rather than suddenly as is the case with hot fusion. However, on the one hand you say the fusion of protons and deuterons supplies the energy necessary to over come coulomb repulsion between Ni nucleus and the fusion products, but on the other hand you do not say where the energy comes from to over come the coulomb repulsion that exists among protons and deuterons. While it is possible to reduce the energy required by placing an electron between protons and deuterons I doubt this will generate enough fusion reactions and energy if coulomb's law is correct. Or have you done calculations which show that it will? Harry On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: No Harry, the Coulomb barrier is the same in Hot and Cold fusion. The difference is that it is overcome very rapidly during hot fusion and very slowly during cold fusion. That is the only difference between the two methods. This difference results in a different behavior. Yes, a theory should explain transmutation and mine does. However, transmutation can only occur as a minor consequence of fusion. Fusion must be taking place first, which provides the conditions and energy to get over the huge Coulomb barrier associated with transmutation. As a result, the heat results from the fusion reaction, while a little transmutation occurs and contributes a very small amount of energy. The two reactions must work together because they both have to follow the same rules, according to my approach Ed Storms On May 22, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: You propose that the coulomb barrier is structured differently from how it is normally portrayed in textbooks, and it is this difference that permits the low temperature fusion of protons and deuterons and energy production. Wouldn't the same difference help to explain how transmutations can happen as well? It seems to me a good theory should be able to explain both transmutations and energy production even if the nuclei involved differ in each case. Harry . On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, Harry this is one of the several reasons why transmutation cannot be the source of energy. Four more remain. Ed Storms On May 21, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: In an environment populated with Ni nuclei and H nuclei, the spontaneous fusion of a H nucleus with another H nucleus is favoured over spontaneous fusion with a Ni nucleus because the electrostatic force of repulsion is smaller between two H nucleus than it is between an H nucleus and an Ni nucleus. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 21 May 2013 20:51:20 -0600: Hi Ed, [snip] You may be right. Time will tell. Robin, you are making an assumption here. You are assuming that no energy has been lost before the neutrino is emitted and the electron is absorbed. Suppose, as I have proposed, the energy is lost as a series of photons before the electron is added so that no energy remains to be carried by the neutrino. Cold fusion is unique because it requires this kind of process, i.e. the energy must be lost before the fusion process is complete. In contrast, hot fission occurs when all energy is lost at the time fusion is complete. That is the essential difference between the two phenomenon. You need to read my papers to see how CF must work to be consistent with what has been observed. The process can only be properly understood by considering all aspects of the process, not just this one event. Ed Storms On May 21, 2013, at 8:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 21 May 2013 18:28:19 -0600: Hi, [snip] However, if protium was fusing into deuterium, which is an extremely rare reaction to begin with, there should be gamma radiation. There is no gamma radiation from the p-e-p reaction (as distinct from the p-p reaction). The energy disappears with the neutrino. Therefore *effectively* this reaction produces no energy. However useful energy would be released from subsequent fusion reactions involving the D formed in the p-e-p reaction. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Ed, I think the structure of the coulomb barrier is open to intrinsic modification, but the variables governing this possibility cannot be uncovered by the tools and concepts of high energy physics. In most situations the coulomb barrier behaves in a textbook fashion, but when bathed in the right vibrations the barrier can be tuned to soften. This softening reduces the height of the barrier so that much less energy is required for fusion, but it will also enable the gradual dissipation of fusion energy you have postulated. Harry On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Harry, calculations are useless in this case because the mechanism is unknown to which the calculations can be applied. We know that the mechanism for fusion and transmutation must be the same, which means they both must occur in the same NAE. I can describe a process that fits this requirement, but not here. As a basic fact, the barrier can be either lowered by intervention of negative charge or overcome by sufficient energy. Regardless of which method is used, the energy resulting from transmutation must be dissipated gradually before the final isotope is formed. Otherwise, a strong gamma must be emitted to conserve momentum. In addition, the method used to get over the barrier will be more difficult than required for fusion, as you pointed out. So, something very unique is required. I find that use of extra energy from fusion is a more logical method than assembly of the required large negative charge. Do you agree? Ed Storms On May 22, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Ed, I am intrigued by your idea that the lack of gammas could be explained by fusion process which happens gradually rather than suddenly as is the case with hot fusion. However, on the one hand you say the fusion of protons and deuterons supplies the energy necessary to over come coulomb repulsion between Ni nucleus and the fusion products, but on the other hand you do not say where the energy comes from to over come the coulomb repulsion that exists among protons and deuterons. While it is possible to reduce the energy required by placing an electron between protons and deuterons I doubt this will generate enough fusion reactions and energy if coulomb's law is correct. Or have you done calculations which show that it will? Harry On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: No Harry, the Coulomb barrier is the same in Hot and Cold fusion. The difference is that it is overcome very rapidly during hot fusion and very slowly during cold fusion. That is the only difference between the two methods. This difference results in a different behavior. Yes, a theory should explain transmutation and mine does. However, transmutation can only occur as a minor consequence of fusion. Fusion must be taking place first, which provides the conditions and energy to get over the huge Coulomb barrier associated with transmutation. As a result, the heat results from the fusion reaction, while a little transmutation occurs and contributes a very small amount of energy. The two reactions must work together because they both have to follow the same rules, according to my approach Ed Storms On May 22, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: You propose that the coulomb barrier is structured differently from how it is normally portrayed in textbooks, and it is this difference that permits the low temperature fusion of protons and deuterons and energy production. Wouldn't the same difference help to explain how transmutations can happen as well? It seems to me a good theory should be able to explain both transmutations and energy production even if the nuclei involved differ in each case. Harry . On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, Harry this is one of the several reasons why transmutation cannot be the source of energy. Four more remain. Ed Storms On May 21, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: In an environment populated with Ni nuclei and H nuclei, the spontaneous fusion of a H nucleus with another H nucleus is favoured over spontaneous fusion with a Ni nucleus because the electrostatic force of repulsion is smaller between two H nucleus than it is between an H nucleus and an Ni nucleus. Harry
RE: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component. So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them. D2 Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:15:20 -0400 From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved Somewhere in all these recent comments, Jones Beene made interesting observations about the cost of nickel isotopes. I cannot find the comments. The gist of it was that if Rossi device requires an unusual metal isotope the cost may not be much cheaper than conventional energy. I believe that is incorrect. When I was researching the book I read some books and online resources about isotope separation, especially heavy water but also zinc and other elements. Perhaps my information is out of date, but what I learned then was that isotope separation technology has not been pursued much since World War II, when it was first developed for nuclear weapons. There has not been much practical use for isotopes. If a mass-market for a particular nickel isotope emerged, I believe that rapid progress would be made and the cost would soon fall. I also learned that much of the cost of isotope separation is for energy. Most of the techniques are energy intensive. Therefore, a cold fusion economy that called for isotope separation would bootstrap itself to lower costs. I illustrated this with the projected cost of heavy water, but that would apply to nickel as well, I think. I believe the quoted costs for isotopes are for highly pure monoisotopic samples. I do not think that Rossi would need a pure sample. If he only increased the concentration of one rare isotope, without eliminating the others, I assume that would work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction. Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat? Dr. Storms proposes that physical cracks in the lattice are the NAE and the money crop of the reaction does not have any Ni nuclei being consumed except as a possible side reaction. If the NAE are cracks (plausible but far from certain), then would the 62Ni create a more desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni? How would the isotope affect the crack as an NAE? Wouldn't only valence/conduction band electron effects show up in the crack? If so, how could an isotope in the lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack? At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that transmutation of Ni is endothermic. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component. So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them. D2
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
I wrote: If he only increased the concentration of one rare isotope, without eliminating the others, I assume that would work. The point being that present day isotope separation techniques work by processing the same material over and over again, gradually increasing the concentration of the desired isotope at each stage. That is what Bockris told me. That is what various other sources say. So if you only want a semi-pure concentration with one isotope at greater concentration than the natural distribution, you do not need to process the sample over and over again. This would greatly lower costs I believe. I doubt that Rossi's reactor would need monoisotopic metal. His reactors are not known for having pure material or clean-room grade construction. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Guys, Without getting too philosophical Cost is almost a relative thing. When the demand is there, the cost will come down to some reasonable level. When the politicians favor it, the cost will be even lower. Aluminum was more expensive than gold when it was first put into production. Zirconium was like platinum until a certain Admiral Rickover demanded that he get it for a thousand times cheaper - and he did within a year. I have checked with half a dozen suppliers and the present cost of Ni-62 is at least $10,000 per gram - which is much higher than palladium, but that is not the end of story. We can look at U235 for an example of a rare isotope - which Government has decided ought to be available cheaply. This is as the model for Ni-62 future pricing. However, that on that decision about nickel - it could be years away, and involves political interference from Big Oil. But it is safe to hazard a guess. Based upon the cost of natural nickel being around $10 per pound, and the sunk cost of large gas centrifuges owned by Sam, the cost of this isotope could be as low as a dollar a gram, if they wanted it to be. That is a factor of 10,000 less than now. That is about what Rossi is paying. The big problem is how do inventors and developers get hold of some for experiments? I have been told recently (very recently) that Rossi may be getting his - not from ENEA but from DoE - remember the Amp-Enerco connection? Yup - that DoE and those former high officials now with Amp-Enerco - who have the right to the ECat in the USA - and that is essentially why Rossi builds them in Florida and ships them to Italy. And it is why he says cost is no problem. Indeed Cost is no problem when the rare Ni-62 comes free from the NRC/DoE via Amp-Enerco. What a deal. Jones From: DJ Cravens Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component. So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them. D2 _ Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:15:20 -0400 From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved Somewhere in all these recent comments, Jones Beene made interesting observations about the cost of nickel isotopes. I cannot find the comments. The gist of it was that if Rossi device requires an unusual metal isotope the cost may not be much cheaper than conventional energy. I believe that is incorrect. When I was researching the book I read some books and online resources about isotope separation, especially heavy water but also zinc and other elements. Perhaps my information is out of date, but what I learned then was that isotope separation technology has not been pursued much since World War II, when it was first developed for nuclear weapons. There has not been much practical use for isotopes. If a mass-market for a particular nickel isotope emerged, I believe that rapid progress would be made and the cost would soon fall. I also learned that much of the cost of isotope separation is for energy. Most of the techniques are energy intensive. Therefore, a cold fusion economy that called for isotope separation would bootstrap itself to lower costs. I illustrated this with the projected cost of heavy water, but that would apply to nickel as well, I think. I believe the quoted costs for isotopes are for highly pure monoisotopic samples. I do not think that Rossi would need a pure sample. If he only increased the concentration of one rare isotope, without eliminating the others, I assume that would work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Good point, Bob. Simple arguments can show that the amount of energy claimed by Rossi can not result from the Ni+p=Cu reaction regardless of the isotope. Ironically, people will accept Rossi's claim that transmutation is the source of energy while questioning whether he makes any energy at all. Amazing! Ed Storms On May 21, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction. Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat? Dr. Storms proposes that physical cracks in the lattice are the NAE and the money crop of the reaction does not have any Ni nuclei being consumed except as a possible side reaction. If the NAE are cracks (plausible but far from certain), then would the 62Ni create a more desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni? How would the isotope affect the crack as an NAE? Wouldn't only valence/conduction band electron effects show up in the crack? If so, how could an isotope in the lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack? At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that transmutation of Ni is endothermic. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component. So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them. D2
RE: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
yes, I have doubts about Ni + p or Ni + 2p reactions. most of these seem endothermic to me. I would be more inclined to think there some kind of p+p like event. (OK Ed... p e p ) Dennis CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com From: stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:48:13 -0600 Good point, Bob. Simple arguments can show that the amount of energy claimed by Rossi can not result from the Ni+p=Cu reaction regardless of the isotope. Ironically, people will accept Rossi's claim that transmutation is the source of energy while questioning whether he makes any energy at all. Amazing! Ed Storms On May 21, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction. Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat? Dr. Storms proposes that physical cracks in the lattice are the NAE and the money crop of the reaction does not have any Ni nuclei being consumed except as a possible side reaction. If the NAE are cracks (plausible but far from certain), then would the 62Ni create a more desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni? How would the isotope affect the crack as an NAE? Wouldn't only valence/conduction band electron effects show up in the crack? If so, how could an isotope in the lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack? At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that transmutation of Ni is endothermic. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component. So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them. D2
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
If you have studied the ash from the Ni/H reactors you must conclude that: Any elements having an even number of nucleons with spin zero will react in LENR. LENR has a far greater energy density than U235 because cascades of LENR reaction products will fission from a very high atomic weight to a low weight. LENR reclaims the energy that a supernova used to produce the heavy reactive isotope and will reduce that isotope down to its original light atomic number configuration. Fusion is a secondary low probability reaction channel. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction. Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat? Dr. Storms proposes that physical cracks in the lattice are the NAE and the money crop of the reaction does not have any Ni nuclei being consumed except as a possible side reaction. If the NAE are cracks (plausible but far from certain), then would the 62Ni create a more desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni? How would the isotope affect the crack as an NAE? Wouldn't only valence/conduction band electron effects show up in the crack? If so, how could an isotope in the lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack? At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that transmutation of Ni is endothermic. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component. So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them. D2
RE: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
From: Bob Higgins I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction. Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat IMO this is a Mills type reaction (BLP), involving deep hydrogen redundancy - and the Ni does not transmute into another element. This particular isotope is simply a much better catalyst for deep redundancy at the 300 eV level. This mechanism goes beyond Randell Mills theory into QM and wave function collapse, which Mills rejects. Rossi and Focardi apparently believe that nickel transmutes to copper, but the proof offered indicates otherwise. Others believe that protons fuse to deuterium. There is no proof of that. Many qualified observers, at this stage, have markedly different opinions. However, it is worth repeating that if it is a nuclear reaction - there should be gamma radiation and/or radioactive ash. There is none. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
In an environment populated with Ni nuclei and H nuclei, the spontaneous fusion of a H nucleus with another H nucleus is favoured over spontaneous fusion with a Ni nucleus because the electrostatic force of repulsion is smaller between two H nucleus than it is between an H nucleus and an Ni nucleus. Harry On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:54 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: yes, I have doubts about Ni + p or Ni + 2p reactions. most of these seem endothermic to me. I would be more inclined to think there some kind of p+p like event. (OK Ed... p e p ) Dennis -- CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com From: stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:48:13 -0600 Good point, Bob. Simple arguments can show that the amount of energy claimed by Rossi can not result from the Ni+p=Cu reaction regardless of the isotope. Ironically, people will accept Rossi's claim that transmutation is the source of energy while questioning whether he makes any energy at all. Amazing! Ed Storms On May 21, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction. Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat? Dr. Storms proposes that physical cracks in the lattice are the NAE and the money crop of the reaction does not have any Ni nuclei being consumed except as a possible side reaction. If the NAE are cracks (plausible but far from certain), then would the 62Ni create a more desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni? How would the isotope affect the crack as an NAE? Wouldn't only valence/conduction band electron effects show up in the crack? If so, how could an isotope in the lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack? At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that transmutation of Ni is endothermic. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component. So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them. D2
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Jones, there is no ash because no one has looked for deuterium. Everyone who might find enough deuterium to detect is focused on transmutation. If they now find deuterium, their favorite explanation will go up in smoke and the patents that claim to need nickel will be useless. I'm trying to get someone to look for deuterium and report the results. So far, no luck. Until this test is made, no conclusion is worth accepting. Ed Storms On May 21, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Bob Higgins I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction. Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat IMO this is a “Mills type” reaction (BLP), involving deep hydrogen redundancy - and the Ni does not transmute into another element. This particular isotope is simply a much better catalyst for deep redundancy at the 300 eV level. This mechanism goes beyond Randell Mills theory into QM and wave function collapse, which Mills rejects. Rossi and Focardi apparently believe that nickel transmutes to copper, but the proof offered indicates otherwise. Others believe that protons fuse to deuterium. There is no proof of that. Many qualified observers, at this stage, have markedly different opinions. However, it is worth repeating that if it is a nuclear reaction – there should be gamma radiation and/or radioactive ash. There is none. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Yes, Harry this is one of the several reasons why transmutation cannot be the source of energy. Four more remain. Ed Storms On May 21, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: In an environment populated with Ni nuclei and H nuclei, the spontaneous fusion of a H nucleus with another H nucleus is favoured over spontaneous fusion with a Ni nucleus because the electrostatic force of repulsion is smaller between two H nucleus than it is between an H nucleus and an Ni nucleus. Harry On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:54 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: yes, I have doubts about Ni + p or Ni + 2p reactions. most of these seem endothermic to me. I would be more inclined to think there some kind of p+p like event. (OK Ed... p e p ) Dennis CC: stor...@ix.netcom.com From: stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:48:13 -0600 Good point, Bob. Simple arguments can show that the amount of energy claimed by Rossi can not result from the Ni+p=Cu reaction regardless of the isotope. Ironically, people will accept Rossi's claim that transmutation is the source of energy while questioning whether he makes any energy at all. Amazing! Ed Storms On May 21, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction. Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat? Dr. Storms proposes that physical cracks in the lattice are the NAE and the money crop of the reaction does not have any Ni nuclei being consumed except as a possible side reaction. If the NAE are cracks (plausible but far from certain), then would the 62Ni create a more desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni? How would the isotope affect the crack as an NAE? Wouldn't only valence/conduction band electron effects show up in the crack? If so, how could an isotope in the lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack? At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that transmutation of Ni is endothermic. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component. So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them. D2
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Nickel nano-particles are superparamagnetic. They interact with dipole vibration. This may be the reason why nickel nanostructures are important in the nanoplasmonic causation of LENR. * Magnetic relaxation of a system of superparamagnetic particles weakly coupled by dipole-dipole interactions http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4294.pdf * On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote: I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction. Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat? Dr. Storms proposes that physical cracks in the lattice are the NAE and the money crop of the reaction does not have any Ni nuclei being consumed except as a possible side reaction. If the NAE are cracks (plausible but far from certain), then would the 62Ni create a more desirable crack than a 60Ni or a 64Ni? How would the isotope affect the crack as an NAE? Wouldn't only valence/conduction band electron effects show up in the crack? If so, how could an isotope in the lattice have any effect on what happens in the crack? At William and Mary's ILENR-12, Dr. Peter Hagelstein told me that transmutation of Ni is endothermic. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:18 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Ni 62 has zero spin but the others have a nuclear spin component. So I should be relatively easy to come up with a way to separate them. D2
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
If Ni62 is not consumed, the cost is somewhat academic.
RE: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
From: Edmund Storms Jones, there is no ash because no one has looked for deuterium. Everyone who might find enough deuterium to detect is focused on transmutation. If they now find deuterium, their favorite explanation will go up in smoke and the patents that claim to need nickel will be useless. I'm trying to get someone to look for deuterium and report the results. So far, no luck. Until this test is made, no conclusion is worth accepting. Hi Ed, Almost everyone agrees that deuterium (and helium and tritium) should be looked for in the ash of this device, but that this probably will not happen soon. Your explanation of why Rossi doesn't want to know this could be absolutely correct. He shoots himself in the foot. Someone else must do this, if it is to be done. If the ratio of H to D in the gas was 6,500:1 when it was filled - and after a week of run-time the ratio was 5,000:1 then that finding would be meaningful. Hydrogen is unlikely to leak preferentially, so the large change in ratio would indicate fusion as the prima facie explanation. However, if protium was fusing into deuterium, which is an extremely rare reaction to begin with, there should be gamma radiation. If you say there is no gamma radiation because this is a novel type of fusion reaction which shows none, then there is still a huge problem (aside from the extra miracle) - tritium. At a certain point, tritium is favored and its decay radiation will be obvious - even after shutdown. yet none shows up, when any decent monitor should see it. You probably do not want to add a third miracle by suggesting that no tritium happens. Thus, the lack of tritium makes the search for extra deuterium of lower priority than it otherwise would be. In the end, if the H/D ratio is substantially different - we will have found something that indicates a novel form of hydrogen fusion, which Rossi's patent does not cover. However, another smart thing to do- if someone besides AR really wants to find out the modus operandi would be to first look for the lower energy photons - EUV. Rossi does not want to do that because of the huge portfolio of prior art from BLP. OTOH, Mills and company might want to do this kind of testing in a replica AR cell, as a way to get royalties from Rossi, in the event that he beats them to market. Many theories suggest the gain could be coming from EUV photons - and it is easier to document them than deuterium, but I doubt we will know form Rossi. I hope that Mills looks at the Ni-62 possibility, in the context of his theory. This could pay off handsomely, Randy . From: Bob Higgins I don't understand why 62Ni would make a difference in the reaction. Are we now seriously considering that the Ni nucleus participates in the nuclear reaction that causes the heat IMO this is a Mills type reaction (BLP), involving deep hydrogen redundancy - and the Ni does not transmute into another element. This particular isotope is simply a much better catalyst for deep redundancy at the 300 eV level. This mechanism goes beyond Randell Mills theory into QM and wave function collapse, which Mills rejects. Rossi and Focardi apparently believe that nickel transmutes to copper, but the proof offered indicates otherwise. Others believe that protons fuse to deuterium. There is no proof of that. Many qualified observers, at this stage, have markedly different opinions. However, it is worth repeating that if it is a nuclear reaction - there should be gamma radiation and/or radioactive ash. There is none. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Vortex will not accept an attachment so you will have to find the paper elsewhere. J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 11 (2013) 1-15 Research Article Nature of Energetic Radiation Emitted from a Metal Exposed to H2 Edmund Storms* and Brian Scanlan http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf or http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedj.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Isotope separation technology can be improved
Robin, you are making an assumption here. You are assuming that no energy has been lost before the neutrino is emitted and the electron is absorbed. Suppose, as I have proposed, the energy is lost as a series of photons before the electron is added so that no energy remains to be carried by the neutrino. Cold fusion is unique because it requires this kind of process, i.e. the energy must be lost before the fusion process is complete. In contrast, hot fission occurs when all energy is lost at the time fusion is complete. That is the essential difference between the two phenomenon. You need to read my papers to see how CF must work to be consistent with what has been observed. The process can only be properly understood by considering all aspects of the process, not just this one event. Ed Storms On May 21, 2013, at 8:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 21 May 2013 18:28:19 -0600: Hi, [snip] However, if protium was fusing into deuterium, which is an extremely rare reaction to begin with, there should be gamma radiation. There is no gamma radiation from the p-e-p reaction (as distinct from the p-p reaction). The energy disappears with the neutrino. Therefore *effectively* this reaction produces no energy. However useful energy would be released from subsequent fusion reactions involving the D formed in the p-e-p reaction. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
