Re: [Vo]:Marwan asks AIP to explain cancellation
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:59:56 -0700: Hi, [snip] >-Original Message- >From: [email protected] > >I have two questions. > >1) What is the actual mechanism that brings about fusion? > >With the BEC experiments that we know about, condensates like Rb can >suddenly swing into strong attraction and implode. At Cornell, about >two-thirds of condensed rubidium atoms "disappeared" from the experiment >altogether. There was no local energy deficit and no report of an energy >anomaly, but still the incident is "telling" as to the mechanism. While I have speculated on nuclear reactions for this in the past, I don't really think that is what is going on. I think that the remaining thermal energy of the condensate ends up being concentrated upon some of the atoms, and these rapidly leave the condensate. IOW they haven't really disappeared, just gone outside the range of the detector in the experiment. > >This and other characteristics of Bose-Einstein condensates cannot be >explained with any current theory. My hypothesis is that negative >temperature induces actual fusion with the help of just such an attraction >event when there is a local energy deficit, such as in a Casimir cavity ... >where earlier there had been a few million sequential "first stage" events. >The deficit will actually stimulate the attraction, and then the fusion. Charles Cagle would probably agree with you. :) He thinks that the electric force reverses when a Bose condensate forms[*], i.e. that positive charges attract. > >This permits the 'first stage' processes, like Casimir heating, to resume, >with the excess energy coming in the form of UV light at 6.8 eV per >relativistic bounce within the cavity, for instance. I'm not sure why you have this fascination with 6.08 eV? > >The reason that these initial processes can be so hard to replicate, is >probably that there must be an expedited pathway to an actual nuclear >reaction - but that reaction itself does not "have to be" fusion. > >Thus everyone in the fizzix mainstream will tell you that there is no such >phenomenon as 'Casimir heating' ... but is that because they have never seen >it with a proper pathway - as with Rossi's nanopowder (presumably). > >If the Focardi/Rossi experiments are real and repeatable, then in that case >it appears the "book balancing" reaction involves the conversion of nickel >to copper via induced beta decay. Extreme levels of transmutation to Cu are >documented, and since this class of reaction is far less energetic than >deuterium fusion - a great abundance of copper, where there had been none >before, is to be expected. Could you point me to the paper? The main isotope of Ni is Ni-58, adding a proton to this would give Cu-59, which decays to Ni-59 with a half life of 81 seconds. However Ni-59 has a half life of 76000 years, and should readily accumulate. Adding a deuteron to Ni-58 would give Cu-60 which has a half life of 23.7 minutes, and decays to stable Ni-60. BTW a severely shrunken electron may increase the likelihood of electron capture reactions by many orders of magnitude. > >My prediction is that when all is told, we will learn that the BLP >sodium-hydride reaction produces copious magnesium - for the same underlying >reason. It is LENR and nothing less. > >2) Why is the deficit always exactly equal to the fusion energy, and not of >varying sizes? > >It isn't exact, in my opinion. There is probably a threshold level however. Could you expand on "threshold" a little? [*] More formally, that the force reverses direction when the De Broglie wavelength in the CM frame exceeds the separation distance. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Marwan asks AIP to explain cancellation
At 04:32 PM 10/20/2010, [email protected] wrote: Of course, but IMO it still qualifies as DD fusion, in as much as D is the fuel, nothing else is involved, and He4 is the ash. "DD fusion" strongly implies a reaction between two deuterons. Even though you can justify another meaning for it, that's not what is associated with it. Again and again, you will encounter in the skeptical literature an assertion that the characteristics of "DD fusion" are well known. I've been simply calling it deuterium fusion, and making the point that it is probably not "d-d fusion." It has the heat/helium ration of d-d fusion, but any fusion process that starts with deuterium and ends with helium will, no matter what the pathway (unless, of course, there are significant other products. I've identified this semantic error as a major part of how cold fusion was assassinated. I don't think they intended to be deceptive, the skeptics, but they simply imagined that everyone who was claiming "fusion" was claiming d-d fusion, and the attempts to rationalize d-d fusion didn't help, i.e., the attempt to, say, postulate a Mossbauer-effect-like transfer of energy to the lattice instead of the emission of a gamma ray. There were so many problems with this that, politically, it would have been better, far better, to temporarily and provisionally abandon any idea that this was d-d fusion. It was an "unknown nuclear reaction," and it still is, but because we now know that the ash is helium and can rather safely assume, at this point, that the fuel is deuterium (not ruling out the possiblity of other kinds of fusion under different conditions), so it's "deuterium fusion" with an unknown mechanism. but some idea that it might be cluster fusion, a simple form which explains very much of the experimental evidence is 4D fusion. By the way, the fast electrons you mentioned might possibly be an answer. I don't know enough to speculate much. If we get a TSC condensate, and if in that state the Be-8 lasts longer than it would otherwise -- it might -- then the excited nucleus could have time to radiate the excitation energy to the lattice as photons (euv?). These would be difficult to detect. What happens if the Be-8 then fissions while still in the BEC? The BEC, now consisting of two helium atoms, would fly apart, I understand, and the electrons would share in that expansion. There are a number of possibilities, Storms mentions that we might see, for example, fast atoms. Neutrally charged! That is not a common phenomenon. A helium nucleus with its electrons at 23.8 MeV? Those electrons would not stay attached for long, and most of the energy would be with the nucleus. That doesn't work. But if the electrons and the helium expand in six different (but balanced, of course, conservation of momentum) directions, how much energy would each carry? I don't know. I only pretend I learned a little physics so many years ago. Shallow, it was. Just enough to be able to recognise light from dark. The total energy would be about 180 KeV, as I recall, from the ground state decay of Be-8, average 30 KeV per particle, or perhaps it would be 45 KeV for the electrons. I'd think that would generate Bremsstrahlung that would be observed. But larger clusters could have unfused atoms that would also carry away energy.
RE: [Vo]:Marwan asks AIP to explain cancellation
-Original Message- From: [email protected] I have two questions. 1) What is the actual mechanism that brings about fusion? With the BEC experiments that we know about, condensates like Rb can suddenly swing into strong attraction and implode. At Cornell, about two-thirds of condensed rubidium atoms "disappeared" from the experiment altogether. There was no local energy deficit and no report of an energy anomaly, but still the incident is "telling" as to the mechanism. This and other characteristics of Bose-Einstein condensates cannot be explained with any current theory. My hypothesis is that negative temperature induces actual fusion with the help of just such an attraction event when there is a local energy deficit, such as in a Casimir cavity ... where earlier there had been a few million sequential "first stage" events. The deficit will actually stimulate the attraction, and then the fusion. This permits the 'first stage' processes, like Casimir heating, to resume, with the excess energy coming in the form of UV light at 6.8 eV per relativistic bounce within the cavity, for instance. The reason that these initial processes can be so hard to replicate, is probably that there must be an expedited pathway to an actual nuclear reaction - but that reaction itself does not "have to be" fusion. Thus everyone in the fizzix mainstream will tell you that there is no such phenomenon as 'Casimir heating' ... but is that because they have never seen it with a proper pathway - as with Rossi's nanopowder (presumably). If the Focardi/Rossi experiments are real and repeatable, then in that case it appears the "book balancing" reaction involves the conversion of nickel to copper via induced beta decay. Extreme levels of transmutation to Cu are documented, and since this class of reaction is far less energetic than deuterium fusion - a great abundance of copper, where there had been none before, is to be expected. My prediction is that when all is told, we will learn that the BLP sodium-hydride reaction produces copious magnesium - for the same underlying reason. It is LENR and nothing less. 2) Why is the deficit always exactly equal to the fusion energy, and not of varying sizes? It isn't exact, in my opinion. There is probably a threshold level however.
Re: [Vo]:Marwan asks AIP to explain cancellation
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:23:48 -0700: Hi, [snip] >There is a fourth theory (working hypothesis) from yours truly - which is >can be called "local energy depletion fusion"... or "time-reversed BEC >fusion". > >The important points of it are: > >1) Helium is an effect, not a cause > >2) Energy is first depleted in small quanta, in units of 6.8 eV via >disruption to the Dirac epo field, which is NOT a part of our 3-space > >3) The ionization potential of positronium is 6.8 eV, but this energy level >is left in our 3-space, due to a number of cross-dimensional strains, >similar to those ZPE related effects that Fran Roarty and I have talked >about - including Casimir cavity acceleration. > >4) Small packets of energy released over time then accumulate to tens of MeV >equivalent levels, causing a local energy depleted region, which is >effectively extremely "cold" (far below absolute zero) > >5) Deuterons entering an energy-depleted region act as BECs but go even >further in that they can and do fuse, while at the same time returning the >large local energy deficit - as payback. > >6) This restores the local deficit of the Dirac epo field to effectively >"balance the books." I have two questions. 1) What is the actual mechanism that brings about fusion? 2) Why is the deficit always exactly equal to the fusion energy, and not of varying sizes? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Marwan asks AIP to explain cancellation
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:11:43 -0400: Hi, [snip] >>1) Takahashi >>2) Mine - the energy is carried away from the reaction by a fast >>electron (IC). >>3) Horace's - which I don't quite understand. > >Yes, of course, I often point this out. You are incorrect, however, >Takahashi's theory is not DD fusion. It is 4D fusion, four deuterons >simultaneously collapsing and fusing all at once, that's why the >product is helium and why there is no gamma ray (because there are >two products, so momentum can be conserved.) Of course, but IMO it still qualifies as DD fusion, in as much as D is the fuel, nothing else is involved, and He4 is the ash. > >What I point out is that perhaps there is some special condition for >2D fusion that causes it to branch exclusively to helium, and that >carries away the reaction energy in a different way. > >Sorry about your fast electron theory, if I'm correct, Hagelstein has >set a limit of about 20 KeV for any substantial levels of charged >particles from the reaction, otherwise stuff, like Bremmstrahlung >radiation, would be observed. That's a problem for about every theory >except cluster fusion. You may be correct about the Bremsstrahlung, but I don't think Hagelstein covered fast electrons in his paper. He did look at fast alpha particles. I even wrote to him to suggest fast electrons, but received no reply. > >I.e., *if* there is D-D fusion, it's taking place within a cluster, >so the reaction energy is shared among all members of the cluster. Quite possible. [snip] >Basically, it appears that anything that just brings two deuterons >together, like muon-catalyzed fusion, produces normal branching and results. See above. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:Marwan asks AIP to explain cancellation
Jones Beene mentioned a 4th point on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:25 [snip] 4) Small packets of energy released over time then accumulate to tens of MeV equivalent levels, causing a local energy depleted region, which is effectively extremely "cold" (far below absolute zero) [/snip] I think this "negative temperature" supports my application of Naudts relativistic hydrogen Theory to the Casimir effect. The Casimir cavity or related catalyst is needed to create relativistic Hydrogen without the need for high velocity. The temperature just like gravity is based on time and a relativistic perspective says the longer wavelength vacuum flux are still present inside the Casimir cavity -unchanged to a tiny observer inside the cavity but appearing shorter in wavelength to an observer or a hydrogen atom outside the cavity. The acceleration is equivalent so there is no Pythagorean relationship between C and velocity on the spatial axis, instead the energy density is changed due to suppression - instead of compression (decelerates rate) at the bottom of a gravity well where energy density is increased the cavity suppresses (accelerates rate) where the energy density is decreased. Put in terms of the Twin paradox it is we the observers outside the cavity that are accelerating away relative to the lower energy density field inside the cavity. When a hydrogen atom "returns" from a Casimir cavity to an observer outside the cavity it is equivalent to the earth bound twin taking a spacship to go visit the spatially accelerated twin - From the perspective of the spatially accelerated twin his brother aged rapidly on earth and from the perspective of hydrogen outside the cavity the hydrogen returning from the cavity has also aged rapidly (catalyzed?). Likewise temperasture and gravity measured from our perspective (time units) will also appear reduced relative to inside the cavity -so yes as Jones points out if we are near absolute zero outside the cavity then the temperature inside the cavity can be far below absolute zero and energy can be negative. Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:Marwan asks AIP to explain cancellation
At 04:45 PM 10/19/2010, [email protected] wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:28:48 -0400: Hi, [snip] >The assumption underneath this is a strange one, it is that the >reaction, if it exists, must be "d-d fusion." Since there are no >neutrons, no He-3, and, with helium, no gamma rays, *therefore* the >results must be in error. > >Of course, there is an alternate conclusion, just as logical: >"Therefore this is not d-d fusion." There is a third possibility. It is DD fusion, but the normal path is not followed. There are at least three theories that would make this possible. 1) Takahashi 2) Mine - the energy is carried away from the reaction by a fast electron (IC). 3) Horace's - which I don't quite understand. Yes, of course, I often point this out. You are incorrect, however, Takahashi's theory is not DD fusion. It is 4D fusion, four deuterons simultaneously collapsing and fusing all at once, that's why the product is helium and why there is no gamma ray (because there are two products, so momentum can be conserved.) What I point out is that perhaps there is some special condition for 2D fusion that causes it to branch exclusively to helium, and that carries away the reaction energy in a different way. Sorry about your fast electron theory, if I'm correct, Hagelstein has set a limit of about 20 KeV for any substantial levels of charged particles from the reaction, otherwise stuff, like Bremmstrahlung radiation, would be observed. That's a problem for about every theory except cluster fusion. I.e., *if* there is D-D fusion, it's taking place within a cluster, so the reaction energy is shared among all members of the cluster. And that simply is not ordinary d-d fusion. It's far easier just to say, "No, you are right. D-d fusion is impossible." And then, later, if somehow what is actually happening involves two deuterons becoming one helium nucleus, we can say, "Oops. We were wrong. Everybody was wrong. And here is what is actually happening." Basically, it appears that anything that just brings two deuterons together, like muon-catalyzed fusion, produces normal branching and results.
RE: [Vo]:Marwan asks AIP to explain cancellation
-Original Message- From: [email protected] There is a third possibility. It is DD fusion, but the normal path is not followed. There are at least three theories that would make this possible. 1) Takahashi 2) Mine - the energy is carried away from the reaction by a fast electron (IC). 3) Horace's - which I don't quite understand. There is a fourth theory (working hypothesis) from yours truly - which is can be called "local energy depletion fusion"... or "time-reversed BEC fusion". The important points of it are: 1) Helium is an effect, not a cause 2) Energy is first depleted in small quanta, in units of 6.8 eV via disruption to the Dirac epo field, which is NOT a part of our 3-space 3) The ionization potential of positronium is 6.8 eV, but this energy level is left in our 3-space, due to a number of cross-dimensional strains, similar to those ZPE related effects that Fran Roarty and I have talked about - including Casimir cavity acceleration. 4) Small packets of energy released over time then accumulate to tens of MeV equivalent levels, causing a local energy depleted region, which is effectively extremely "cold" (far below absolute zero) 5) Deuterons entering an energy-depleted region act as BECs but go even further in that they can and do fuse, while at the same time returning the large local energy deficit - as payback. 6) This restores the local deficit of the Dirac epo field to effectively "balance the books."
Re: [Vo]:Marwan asks AIP to explain cancellation
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:28:48 -0400: Hi, [snip] >The assumption underneath this is a strange one, it is that the >reaction, if it exists, must be "d-d fusion." Since there are no >neutrons, no He-3, and, with helium, no gamma rays, *therefore* the >results must be in error. > >Of course, there is an alternate conclusion, just as logical: >"Therefore this is not d-d fusion." There is a third possibility. It is DD fusion, but the normal path is not followed. There are at least three theories that would make this possible. 1) Takahashi 2) Mine - the energy is carried away from the reaction by a fast electron (IC). 3) Horace's - which I don't quite understand. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Marwan asks AIP to explain cancellation
At 01:54 PM 10/19/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: The AIP responded to Marwan as follows: AIP has declined to publish the conference proceedings volume entitled "Symposium on New Energy Technology" based on an internal scientific review of the final material delivered to us. Our conference proceedings series, like most others, does not provide the authors access to an external peer review process. If the authors involved in this symposium are interested in receiving detailed reports on their work from the scientific community, we encourage them to submit their work to one of the scholarly journals in the appropriate field. This is certainly not surprising. An "internal scientific review" will include, for the AIP, quite likely, highly biased individuals who aren't going to be convinced by a cold fusion hot water heater. "They are just imagining that they are warmer, those clever cold fusioneers have monkeyed with the thermostat so that it appears to be heating water, but it isn't." Well, maybe a cold fusion hot water heater would convince them. But it's entirely beside the point. We see the skeptical arguments all the time, they are based on a set of firmly held assumptions, a number of them, and unless there is some formal back-and-forth process, it is impossible to uncover and show that these assumptions are unwarranted. The basic one, going way back, is that if there is excess heat, if there is helium, for example, then the physics textbooks would have to be rewritten, because deuterium fusion doesn't behave like this. The assumption underneath this is a strange one, it is that the reaction, if it exists, must be "d-d fusion." Since there are no neutrons, no He-3, and, with helium, no gamma rays, *therefore* the results must be in error. Of course, there is an alternate conclusion, just as logical: "Therefore this is not d-d fusion." One of the great sources of confusion in this field, literally con-fusion, was the quite correct insistence that d-d fusion could not be completely ruled out, because perhaps some mechanism could be found or understood that would explain the different branching ratio and dumping of the energy as heat instead of as radiation, etc. That makes perfect logical sense, but politically, it was an error. Politically, the cold fusion researchers should have been saying, from the beginning, "We agree. This is, most likely, not "d-d fusion," it is something else. And then insisting on experimental results vs. non-existent theory. Since there cannot *ever* be a theory that says "the unknown is impossible." That's not science, that's religion -- i.e., a kind of "scientism" that believes that we already know everything we need to know about theory as the basis of reality. This is disappointing, I'm sure. But their advice is sound. Submit the papers to ordinary peer-reviewed journals, preferably mainstream ones. Then publish, as needed, the reviewer comments and the rejection, if it's rejected. I do know that one of the saner skeptics, Dieter Britz, has claimed that some papers are rejected by mainstream journals because they are of low quality. But if a mainstream journal is rejecting a paper because it doesn't contain a theoretical explanation of otherwise interesting results, we should know, for the future, and we should make sure that this is documented, because future generations -- which might be next year! -- will want to see just what idiots these editors were. And there are definitely mainstream journals, now, not afraid to publish papers on cold fusion. I'd say, though, go for the gold. Submit to Nature. Submit to Science. And, indeed, submit to the AIP journal. Find out if they are still idiots. Alternatively, you will get criticisms of your paper that you can answer, or you can improve your work and writing about it. And if journal publication is impossible, if there is a wall of rejection, maybe your paper isn't so good! Make sure that your results get published anyway, as conference papers or the like. No experimental or theoretical work should be wasted, and if it is made readily available, it is not wasted. A dedicated skeptic, this Kemosabe fellow, has a theory that Naturwissenschaften published the Storms Review as a Hail Mary play. He believes that they are desperate to improve the standing of Naturwissenschaften, so they are gambling that cold fusion turns out to be true, and they will come out smelling like roses. Yes. They will, indeed. Note that the top two publishers of academic journals are Elsevier and Springer-Verlag, and they are all betting the same way, they are publishing material that is positive on cold fusion. The skeptical position is becoming fringe. Consider how Kirk Shanahan was treated at Journal of Environmental Monitoring. He looks like a fringe lunatic. Which he is! Do *not* attack the AIP. Quite simply, they are in over their head. Cold fusion is generally a
Re: [Vo]:Marwan asks AIP to explain cancellation
The AIP responded to Marwan as follows: AIP has declined to publish the conference proceedings volume entitled "Symposium on New Energy Technology" based on an internal scientific review of the final material delivered to us. Our conference proceedings series, like most others, does not provide the authors access to an external peer review process. If the authors involved in this symposium are interested in receiving detailed reports on their work from the scientific community, we encourage them to submit their work to one of the scholarly journals in the appropriate field. We do recognize that we have informed you of this decision late in the process, which is why, in our letter of 18 October 2010, we offered "to facilitate the printing of the Volume book for the attendees of the Symposium." We understand that you declined this offer. AIP considers the matter closed and will not enter into further correspondence. Regards, Mark Cassar, Ph.D. Publisher, Journals & Technical Publications American Institute of Physics
