RE: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
Sorry, but I find none of these reports believable – especially in light of the fact that a major High-Tech company, Thermacore, ran Ni + K2CO3 cells continuously for over on year – with over a hundred thousand watt-hours of net thermal gain, and with top notch radiation detection equipment - and yet they never reported 3H. Did they hold back that information? I suspect BLP has even more run time with Ni + K2CO3 … are they hiding the results? As for Srinivasan, Rothwell reported that he has directly contradicted, in verbal discussions, some of his own prior paper’s conclusions. I do not know anything about Notoya. But neither of them has the credibility of the Thermacore team, and they were operating under DARPA contracts. The cost of tritium - which the USA is willing to pay to keep its weapons functional - is in the neighborhood of $100,000 gram, and our yearly expenditure is in between $1-2 billions (based on the Savannah River reports and the UCLA study). A few countries who want to become players in the Arms race, will pay much more. Do you give up on a simple process for making it - with this kind of economic incentive? True, maybe you do go underground with it, but there is no evidence of that either, at least not that I am aware of. OTOH – it does explain why Thermacore could have been persuaded to “get outta town” with the technology - by their largest customer. And also why India might want to encourage others to disavow the possibility. Come to think of it, if I were a conspiracy nut, I would actually take another closer look at that scenario ... Jones From: Eric Walker Eric - perhaps the original post should have been phrased as “zero believable evidence”… instead of zero evidence. The paper does constitute putative “evidence” after all – actually rather convincing if it could be taken at face value. You forced me. :) Ni + K2CO3 + H2O: tritium 26 * background. Notoya et al., Tritium generation and large excess heat evolution by electrolysis in light and heavy water-potassium carbonate solutions with nickel electrodes, Fusion Technology, 26,179, 1994; Alkali-hydrogen cold fusion accompanied by tritium production on nickel, Trans. Fusion Technology, 26, 205, 1994. Ni + K2CO3 + H2O: tritium 10-100 * background. Notoya, Alkali-hydrogen cold fusion accompanied by tritium production on nickel, in the proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1993. Ni + K2CO3 + D2O, H2O: tritium 339 * background. Srinivasan et al., Tritium and excess heat generation during electrolysis of aqueous solutions of alkali salts with nickel cathode, in the proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1992. Ni + Li2CO3 + H2O: tritium 145 * background. Srinivasan et al., op cit. Please confirm either that these references do not meet your evidentiary standards or that the Ni-H2O electrolytic system is different in some basic way from the Ni-H2 system when considering the question of radiation. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
My bad, Eric. And I need to set the record straight on this important detail - since Randell Mills did find tritium - over twenty years ago - and before he decided to distance himself from LENR ! Once again, America's Newton shoots himself in the foot ! Too bad. Ed Storms, whose memory is much better than mine, reminds me of this important detail - and it is from a rather famous article in Fusion Technology : Mills Kneizys, Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion Fusion Technology 20, 65 (1991) Randy admits in print that they detected a significant amount of tritium but not enough to explain the heat. The estimated amount is not clear. Tritium measurement is easy, and it is so sensitive that very few atoms are required to reveal much more than background, which then looks like a large amount, and consequently it is hard to arrive at an accurate energy balance. But the fact that this admission comes from Mills himself, is important in many ways. And the lack of mention of nuclear reactions thereafter (after 1991) is itself damning in retrospect as it will be interpreted as intent to deceive. Lawyers should take note (this is for the other Randy). This appearance of tritium from a light water reaction also bolsters Ed's case for a (preliminary) round of deuterium forming reactions, which would be needed to supply the required level of deuterium, so that statistically we do not depend on the natural paucity ... but it also leaves the Thermacore story (apparent null result) unexplainable, and even more mysterious. In the end, there is little doubt than QM tunneling provides a mechanism for some amount of tritium to show up with light water alone. Since 3H is so easy to measure with certainty, due to its short half-life and known beta decay spectrum - even a few atoms are not be easily hidden. But it gets more complicated from there on. The next question is how much energy is really carried away by the neutrino, when hydrogen fuses into deuterium, or is there another route ? Can the net thermal gain be explained without redundant ground states or is that too part of the setup for allowing lots of hydrogen to fuse into deuterium? It just gets curiouser and curiouser... Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
One final point on all of this relates to another elusive genius - JS Brown - and his Superconducting Protons in Metals arXiv:cond-mat/0504019v1 The hitherto neglected phonon-exchange interaction between interstitial protons in metal lattices is found to be large. It is shown that this effect may give rise to a phase of protonic superconductivity, characterized by the formation of Cooper-like pairs of protons, in certain metals at high stoichiometric loading. OK - The question arises - if there can be what is effectively paired protons in a lattice, ostensibly acting as a unit - then what about the possibility of going direct to tritium? After all, this is thousands of times more likely than the proton pair tunneling into a nickel nucleus (in terms of lower Coulomb repulsion). This direct route would seem to have the great advantage of bypassing spin problems, and of not requiring neutrinos to do it - depending on the details. As to the three body problem - maybe it is not really a problem since two protons are already bound. If we wanted to get really twisted here ... we could propose not only Brown's paired-protons, operating a unit - but also to have them mate with a Mills' hydrino hydride, at deep redundancy so you go all the way from protons to tritium in a single step with charge and spin balanced. Stanger things have happened. But not much stranger :-) _ The next question is how much energy is really carried away by the neutrino, when hydrogen fuses into deuterium, or is there another route ? Can the net thermal gain be explained without redundant ground states or is that too part of the setup for allowing lots of hydrogen to fuse into deuterium? It just gets curiouser and curiouser... Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
I think the difference in tritium production is electrical discharge. Degenerate electrons might open some path or channel to the production of tritium. Remember that there is always some Deuterium in water. Electrolysis might be the path to produce tritium. Thermacore – no Electrolysis – no tritium is found. Mills – Electrolysis – tritium is found. On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Sorry, but I find none of these reports believable – especially in light of the fact that a major High-Tech company, Thermacore, ran Ni + K2CO3 cells continuously for over on year – with over a hundred thousand watt-hours of net thermal gain, and with top notch radiation detection equipment - and yet they never reported 3H. ** ** Did they hold back that information? I suspect BLP has even more run time with Ni + K2CO3 … are they hiding the results? ** ** As for Srinivasan, Rothwell reported that he has directly contradicted, in verbal discussions, some of his own prior paper’s conclusions. I do not know anything about Notoya. But neither of them has the credibility of the Thermacore team, and they were operating under DARPA contracts. ** ** The cost of tritium - which the USA is willing to pay to keep its weapons functional - is in the neighborhood of $100,000 gram, and our yearly expenditure is in between $1-2 billions (based on the Savannah River reports and the UCLA study). ** ** A few countries who want to become players in the Arms race, will pay much more. Do you give up on a simple process for making it - with this kind of economic incentive? ** ** True, maybe you do go underground with it, but there is no evidence of that either, at least not that I am aware of. ** ** OTOH – it does explain why Thermacore could have been persuaded to “get outta town” with the technology - by their largest customer. And also why India might want to encourage others to disavow the possibility. ** ** Come to think of it, if I were a conspiracy nut, I would actually take another closer look at that scenario ... ** ** Jones ** ** *From:* Eric Walker ** ** Eric - perhaps the original post should have been phrased as “zero believable evidence”… instead of zero evidence. The paper does constitute putative “evidence” after all – actually rather convincing if it could be taken at face value. ** ** You forced me. :) ** ** Ni + K2CO3 + H2O: tritium 26 * background. Notoya et al., Tritium generation and large excess heat evolution by electrolysis in light and heavy water-potassium carbonate solutions with nickel electrodes, Fusion Technology, 26,179, 1994; Alkali-hydrogen cold fusion accompanied by tritium production on nickel, Trans. Fusion Technology, 26, 205, 1994.*** * ** ** Ni + K2CO3 + H2O: tritium 10-100 * background. Notoya, Alkali-hydrogen cold fusion accompanied by tritium production on nickel, in the proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1993.** ** ** ** Ni + K2CO3 + D2O, H2O: tritium 339 * background. Srinivasan et al., Tritium and excess heat generation during electrolysis of aqueous solutions of alkali salts with nickel cathode, in the proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1992. ** ** Ni + Li2CO3 + H2O: tritium 145 * background. Srinivasan et al., op cit.** ** ** ** Please confirm either that these references do not meet your evidentiary standards or that the Ni-H2O electrolytic system is different in some basic way from the Ni-H2 system when considering the question of radiation. ** ** Eric ** **
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As for Srinivasan, Rothwell reported that he has directly contradicted, in verbal discussions, some of his own prior paper’s conclusions. That may be overstating it. I sent a memo to Srinivasan, copied to Beene. I describing what I recall about Srinivasan's lecture: I think your attitude [Srinivasan's attitude] was that the results could not be reproduced [at SRI], so that made them puzzling, or unsatisfactory, or -- you might say -- kind of useless. There are many irreproducible results in cold fusion. It is hard to judge the significance or validity of such results. I would say they are open questions. I do not recall that he disavowed or retracted the ICCF-3 results. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If we wanted to get really twisted here ... we could propose not only Brown's paired-protons, operating a unit - but also to have them mate with a Mills' hydrino hydride, at deep redundancy so you go all the way from protons to tritium in a single step with charge and spin balanced. Stanger things have happened. But not much stranger :-) I feel that the miracles are multiplying. :) Not that I have the slightest problem with miracles. The scientists working from 1890 to 1940 were conjuring up miracles left and right, and some of them turned out to be true ones. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
Eric - perhaps the original post should have been phrased as “zero believable evidence”… instead of zero evidence. The paper does constitute putative “evidence” after all – actually rather convincing if it could be taken at face value. Romodanov is a mystery. If what he was seeing and reporting was accurate (tritium from hydrogen in very significant quantities) – it should have led to a lucrative method for producing an extremely valuable isotope, especially to some countries. Aside from the science involved, this paper has dollar signs (actually Rials) written all over it. Yet the work apparently fizzled after 2003. Also, the paper is almost “too convincing” to be accurate given what Claytor has published (using deuterium). In the ensuing years, there has been no outside replication of Romodanov, or progress which shows up in the public record. Plus, it is no secret that there are thousands of severely underpaid, top-level scientists in Russia who are desperate to move to the West, under almost any pretense … they have little way to show off their wares other than slick papers, especially if they come with an implied threat. In short, a cynic might opine that this is more a feeler for continuing employment in a more hospitable locale, as it is bona fide science. But it would be instructive to know more of the story. From: Eric Walker Tritium is radioactive, so the evidence of radioactivity in the ash of the Ni-H reaction is nonzero…. Romodanov et al., Nuclear reactions in condensed media and X-ray, Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1998.
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
Jones, Not valuable. No market. Who would buy it? What would you use it for? Half-life of tritium (hydrogen-3) is 12.3 yr. Warm Regards, Reliable, a thinking person Jones Beene wrote: Eric - perhaps the original post should have been phrased as “zero believable evidence”… instead of zero evidence. The paper does constitute putative “evidence” after all – actually rather convincing if it could be taken at face value. Romodanov is a mystery. If what he was seeing and reporting was accurate (tritium from hydrogen in very significant quantities) – it should have led to a lucrative method for producing an extremely valuable isotope, especially to some countries. Aside from the science involved, this paper has dollar signs (actually Rials) written all over it. Yet the work apparently fizzled after 2003. Also, the paper is almost “too convincing” to be accurate given what Claytor has published (using deuterium). In the ensuing years, there has been no outside replication of Romodanov, or progress which shows up in the public record. Plus, it is no secret that there are thousands of severely underpaid, top-level scientists in Russia who are desperate to move to the West, under almost any pretense … they have little way to show off their wares other than slick papers, especially if they come with an implied threat. In short, a cynic might opine that this is more a feeler for continuing employment in a more hospitable locale, as it is bona fide science. But it would be instructive to know more of the story. *From:* Eric Walker Tritium is radioactive, so the evidence of radioactivity in the ash of the Ni-H reaction is nonzero…. Romodanov et al., Nuclear reactions in condensed media and X-ray, Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1998.
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The overage which is in play in this hypothesis is the mystery energy source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from Mills, Rossi, DGT, Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. It is technically nuclear energy, since it comes from a nucleus - but it does not result in rearrangement of the proton nor a new element. I see. Please do not tell Steve Krivit about this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
I wrote: Now I know how people felt when isotopes were discovered. I meant that isotopes came as a surprise, and people initially questioned the experimental results rather than believe there variations in the weight of an element. It is an interesting episode in the history of science. I read about it decades ago. They were expecting to find that atomic weights are exact integral values starting with hydrogen (1). They got the wrong answers. Quite wrong, in some cases, such as Al, 26.982. As I recall they kept thinking: when instruments improve the results will get better and yield exactly 26.000. This is like the skeptical assertion that as calorimeters improve, the cold fusion effect will go away. The discovery of the neutron cleared up the mystery, but apparently, as mass measurements improve, they have revealed layer of variation below that. More complexity. - Jed
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
Jones, I've always felt there is a relationship between spontaneous emission, pyrophoricity and radioactive materials in a Puthoff atomic model kind of way and that stability is really just a matter of time scales - Forming macro geometries out of Casimir material allows us to modify what Puthoff refers to as the pressure and we can selectively expose gas atoms to higher or lower pressure. I think hydrinos are just regular old hydrogen atoms from their own local perspective and that they appear to crowd into impossibly small pockets from our perspective because of the effect this pressure has on space-time. It might explain the skewed spectroscopy as well because the light is traveling out of the cavities in a Pythagorean relationship with respect to the space time outside the cavities. Almost afraid to hit send for all this thin ice, Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 8:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: IOW the mass of hydrogen is not a quantum value, and there is no rationale that predicts it will be a single value instead of a range. In fact, mass determination of hydrogen, from various labs in various countries varies all over the place. You are saying the mass varies, and this is not an instrument artifact? As Jon Stewart says, I didn't see that coming. Now I know how people felt when isotopes were discovered. The accepted value for mass of a proton is 938.272013 MeV, but that value (in my hypothesis) is an average of many protons in many situations. Over the years, measurements made in different countries and a different times with different instruments have returned different values (close but different). Some of that is because there can be variation in the feed stock, aside from the instrumentation. In short, hydrogen from natural gas may vary slightly in mass compared to hydrogen from electrolysis of rainwater. This might be the result of the bedrock from which the methane was stored for millions of years having Uranium content which pumped up the non-quark bosons (gluons pions etc). The major hypothesis detail is that the more than half of the proton mass is not quantized, and some of that can be extracted by Coulomb repulsion at close range in IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen which is another name for dense hydrogen) - resulting in very fast protons, but only so long there is a usable overage in mass which does not allow quark dispersal. The hypothesis is falsifiable. In short - the average mass can vary to the extent of a fractional percent as either overage or deficit in various sources of hydrogen (say from 937 MeV to 940 MeV). At best, the known value of mass becomes what is really an average based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being used - before recalibration. Everyone recalibrates, as an expedient and so as not to be embarrassed by their instruments. The overage which is in play in this hypothesis is the mystery energy source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from Mills, Rossi, DGT, Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. It is technically nuclear energy, since it comes from a nucleus - but it does not result in rearrangement of the proton nor a new element. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash : Rossi -- changed
Rossi --- see #4 Carlo Salvi May 21st, 2012 at 12:59 PM Dear Mr Rossi About the new 600° celsius e-cat: 1)Does it start with the same time of the the first ecat or is it more faster to began to work ? 2)Does it uses the same quantity of Ni/H ? 3)Do you think it still can work for 6 month with one recharge or the new version burns NI/H faster ? 4)Are the ashes still composed with 30% copper or somethings changed ? 5)Do you think this new product will require a different certification from the old version ? 6) when the new product will be released, this will replace the first version or do you think youll sell both products ? Thank you very much, and good luck Mr Rossi. Carlo Salvi Andrea Rossi May 22nd, 2012 at 2:22 AM Dear Carlo Salvi: 1- faster 2- less 3- yes 4- changed 5- yes 6- no: they have different purposes. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Eric - perhaps the original post should have been phrased as “zero believable evidence”… instead of zero evidence. The paper does constitute putative “evidence” after all – actually rather convincing if it could be taken at face value. You forced me. :) Ni + K2CO3 + H2O: tritium 26 * background. Notoya et al., Tritium generation and large excess heat evolution by electrolysis in light and heavy water-potassium carbonate solutions with nickel electrodes, Fusion Technology, 26,179, 1994; Alkali-hydrogen cold fusion accompanied by tritium production on nickel, Trans. Fusion Technology, 26, 205, 1994. Ni + K2CO3 + H2O: tritium 10-100 * background. Notoya, Alkali-hydrogen cold fusion accompanied by tritium production on nickel, in the proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1993. Ni + K2CO3 + D2O, H2O: tritium 339 * background. Srinivasan et al., Tritium and excess heat generation during electrolysis of aqueous solutions of alkali salts with nickel cathode, in the proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1992. Ni + Li2CO3 + H2O: tritium 145 * background. Srinivasan et al., op cit. Please confirm either that these references do not meet your evidentiary standards or that the Ni-H2O electrolytic system is different in some basic way from the Ni-H2 system when considering the question of radiation. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Hi Robin, Either shrinking releases energy or it consumes energy. If it can no longer absorb EUV radiation to further shrink then it consumes energy. Yes, of course. Mills believes that below a certain level this process can be autocatalytic (if he has not changed that view). It is what happens at the end of this progression that determines the harder spectrum gammas, since as you say, on the way down it is EUV or soft x-rays only. A far more likely source of true gammas is the occasional actual fusion reaction... This is where we now disagree: what happens at the end game of hydrogen reducing to maximum redundancy. Your view is essentially the virtual neutron scenario - or a variety thereof. At one time this was my view as well. However, in a revised look at the evidence, I don't think that actual fusion can happen with any regularity, and consequently the end result of the progression to picometer geometry has to be fast proton expulsion from another Rydberg nucleus (i.e. another fully reduced hydrino) - which cannot fuse exothermically. Those who believe that two protons can fuse to deuterium must depend on the miracle of an astoundingly heavy electron - for which there is no proof. Otherwise it is endothermic or, with a putative nickel to copper reaction (Focardi's error) where it is easy to see that the forces preventing fusion are orders of magnitude higher than hydrogen to deuterium. Ed Storms champions the hydrogen to deuterium camp, and he could be correct if he can find the numbers to support this without a massively heavy electron (if I understand his hypothesis). In any event, gamma emission most often involve nuclear mass being converted into energy, but there is no necessity for fusion or actually transmutation- merely fast protons and a pathway involving mass depletion. The gammas that result from fast protons are bremsstrahlung, so they are not the highest energy fusion variety. This alternate viewpoint depends on nuclear mass, especially from the proton itself, being available without fusion. Since it is an average mass (with a range) heavier protons can give up mass (from internal bosons - pion, gluon etc) and still retain atomic identity. IOW the mass of hydrogen is not a quantum value, and there is no rationale that predicts it will be a single value instead of a range. In fact, mass determination of hydrogen, from various labs in various countries varies all over the place. Since there is zero evidence of high energy gammas in Ni-H reaction, and zero evidence of radioactivity in the ash - and only slight evidence of soft spectrum radiation, we need a scenario that fits the available evidence. The evidence could change, with more test results becoming public, but as of now- this average mass depletion hypothesis is the only hypothesis which manages to cover all the facts, IMHO. It also explains quiescence, which no other hypothesis can handle :) Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 21 May 2012 07:26:19 -0700: Hi Jones, [snip] -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Hi Robin, Either shrinking releases energy or it consumes energy. If it can no longer absorb EUV radiation to further shrink then it consumes energy. Yes, of course. Mills believes that below a certain level this process can be autocatalytic (if he has not changed that view). Actually Mills has always said that it can be autocatalytic (disproportionation) at *any* level. It is what happens at the end of this progression that determines the harder spectrum gammas, since as you say, on the way down it is EUV or soft x-rays only. The energy of the EM that is emitted depends on the difference between initial and final levels for any given transition. In order to create EM with gamma-ray energy, the difference in levels would have to be about 100. IOW the Hydrino would have go from level 1 to level 100 in a single transition. This implies a catalyst with an m=100 value. The only such catalysts are likely to be other already severely shrunken Hydrinos, and even then I think the transition would be highly unlikely. Far more likely would be a transition of lesser magnitude, e.g. with a change in level on the order of 1-4. A far more likely source of true gammas is the occasional actual fusion reaction... This is where we now disagree: what happens at the end game of hydrogen reducing to maximum redundancy. Your view is essentially the virtual neutron scenario - or a variety thereof. At one time this was my view as well. However, in a revised look at the evidence, I don't think that actual fusion can happen with any regularity, and consequently the end result of the progression to picometer geometry has to be fast proton expulsion from another Rydberg nucleus (i.e. another fully reduced hydrino) - which cannot fuse exothermically. Those who believe that two protons can fuse to deuterium must depend on the miracle of an astoundingly heavy electron - for which there is no proof. Otherwise it is endothermic This is demonstrably not true, or we wouldn't exist. The start of the fusion reaction chain in the Sun is two protons fusing to become a deuteron. This is an *exothermic* reaction which produces 1.44 MeV overall. It may follow either of two paths: 1) Electron capture. (= 1.44 MeV directly) 2) Positron emission. (produces 0.42 MeV directly then another 1.02 MeV upon positron annihilation). IMO Hydrinos would facilitate the EC path due to the proximity of the electron. (However the cross section of the reaction is so low that this is not likely to be occurring to any noticeable degree.) or, with a putative nickel to copper reaction (Focardi's error) where it is easy to see that the forces preventing fusion are orders of magnitude higher than hydrogen to deuterium. While true that the Coulomb barrier is vastly higher for Nickel there are two mitigating circumstances. 1) The fusion reaction itself is a straight forward fusion reaction, no weak force mediation required (unlike p+p = D). This makes a huge difference to the cross section). 2) In my model of the Hydrino, the smallest Hydrinos are small enough to approach within range of the nuclear force, making the Coulomb barrier irrelevant. This is also true of Horace's model. Ed Storms champions the hydrogen to deuterium camp, and he could be correct if he can find the numbers to support this without a massively heavy electron (if I understand his hypothesis). See above. In any event, gamma emission most often involve nuclear mass being converted into energy, but there is no necessity for fusion or actually transmutation- merely fast protons and a pathway involving mass depletion. The gammas that result from fast protons are bremsstrahlung, Any such bremsstrahlung is likely to be very low energy because the proton is much heavier (1800 times) than the electron, hence travels much more slowly (for the same kinetic energy). IOW the acceleration it undergoes is far less, and consequently the radiation much less). so they are not the highest energy fusion variety. You can say that again! :) This alternate viewpoint depends on nuclear mass, especially from the proton itself, being available without fusion. Since it is an average mass (with a range) heavier protons can give up mass (from internal bosons - pion, gluon etc) and still retain atomic identity. IOW the mass of hydrogen is not a quantum value, and there is no rationale that predicts it will be a single value instead of a range. In fact, mass determination of hydrogen, from various labs in various countries varies all over the place. You may well be correct in this regard, however it's debatable whether this is due to measurement error, or due to an intrinsic variation in mass. Since there is zero evidence of high energy gammas in Ni-H reaction, and zero evidence of radioactivity in the ash - and only slight evidence of soft spectrum
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: IOW the mass of hydrogen is not a quantum value, and there is no rationale that predicts it will be a single value instead of a range. In fact, mass determination of hydrogen, from various labs in various countries varies all over the place. You are saying the mass varies, and this is not an instrument artifact? As Jon Stewart says, I didn't see that coming. Now I know how people felt when isotopes were discovered. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: IOW the mass of hydrogen is not a quantum value, and there is no rationale that predicts it will be a single value instead of a range. In fact, mass determination of hydrogen, from various labs in various countries varies all over the place. You are saying the mass varies, and this is not an instrument artifact? As Jon Stewart says, I didn't see that coming. Now I know how people felt when isotopes were discovered. The accepted value for mass of a proton is 938.272013 MeV, but that value (in my hypothesis) is an average of many protons in many situations. Over the years, measurements made in different countries and a different times with different instruments have returned different values (close but different). Some of that is because there can be variation in the feed stock, aside from the instrumentation. In short, hydrogen from natural gas may vary slightly in mass compared to hydrogen from electrolysis of rainwater. This might be the result of the bedrock from which the methane was stored for millions of years having Uranium content which pumped up the non-quark bosons (gluons pions etc). The major hypothesis detail is that the more than half of the proton mass is not quantized, and some of that can be extracted by Coulomb repulsion at close range in IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen which is another name for dense hydrogen) - resulting in very fast protons, but only so long there is a usable overage in mass which does not allow quark dispersal. The hypothesis is falsifiable. In short - the average mass can vary to the extent of a fractional percent as either overage or deficit in various sources of hydrogen (say from 937 MeV to 940 MeV). At best, the known value of mass becomes what is really an average based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being used - before recalibration. Everyone recalibrates, as an expedient and so as not to be embarrassed by their instruments. The overage which is in play in this hypothesis is the mystery energy source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from Mills, Rossi, DGT, Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. It is technically nuclear energy, since it comes from a nucleus - but it does not result in rearrangement of the proton nor a new element. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
Jones, ability to make macroscopic particle predictions based on microscopic properties is called Statistical Mechanics, a function of the distribution of the system on its micro-states. From nothing comes a point with predicted properties. Aha, this one reminds me of what the experimental lads call a proton with one electron associated with it. Retire to a University Library cubical and study Statistical Mechanics as if you had an exam in it next week. Give yourself a break from Mistaken notions about human populations and other non intellectual pursuits. Now you can win a Nobel prize by mathematically predicting the mass of Avogadro's number of Ni atoms to one million places. Warm Regards, Reliable* * Jones Beene wrote: From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: IOW the mass of hydrogen is not a quantum value, and there is no rationale that predicts it will be a single value instead of a range. In fact, mass determination of hydrogen, from various labs in various countries varies all over the place. You are saying the mass varies, and this is not an instrument artifact? As Jon Stewart says, I didn't see that coming. Now I know how people felt when isotopes were discovered. The accepted value for mass of a proton is 938.272013 MeV, but that value (in my hypothesis) is an average of many protons in many situations. Over the years, measurements made in different countries and a different times with different instruments have returned different values (close but different). Some of that is because there can be variation in the feed stock, aside from the instrumentation. In short, hydrogen from natural gas may vary slightly in mass compared to hydrogen from electrolysis of rainwater. This might be the result of the bedrock from which the methane was stored for millions of years having Uranium content which pumped up the non-quark bosons (gluons pions etc). The major hypothesis detail is that the more than half of the proton mass is not quantized, and some of that can be extracted by Coulomb repulsion at close range in IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen which is another name for dense hydrogen) - resulting in very fast protons, but only so long there is a usable overage in mass which does not allow quark dispersal. The hypothesis is falsifiable. In short - the average mass can vary to the extent of a fractional percent as either overage or deficit in various sources of hydrogen (say from 937 MeV to 940 MeV). At best, the known value of mass becomes what is really an average based on whatever the most advanced current measurement technique is being used - before recalibration. Everyone recalibrates, as an expedient and so as not to be embarrassed by their instruments. The overage which is in play in this hypothesis is the mystery energy source for Ni-H reactions, whether they be from Mills, Rossi, DGT, Piantelli, Celani, or Thermacore. It is technically nuclear energy, since it comes from a nucleus - but it does not result in rearrangement of the proton nor a new element. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Since there is zero evidence of high energy gammas in Ni-H reaction, and zero evidence of radioactivity in the ash - and only slight evidence of soft spectrum radiation, Tritium is radioactive, so the evidence of radioactivity in the ash of the Ni-H reaction is nonzero. D2 + H2 gas, Fe-Cr + Ni-Ti substrate: 10^11 atoms tritium. Romodanov et al., Nuclear reactions in condensed media and X-ray, Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1998. Ni + H2 gas: tritium at 7.7 * 10^2 times background. Sankaranarayanan et al., Evidence for tritium generation in self-heated nickel wires subjected to hydrogen gas absorption/desorption cycles, Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1995; Investigation of low level tritium generation in Ni-H2O electrolytic cells, Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, 1993. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Tritium is radioactive, so the evidence of radioactivity in the ash of the Ni-H reaction is nonzero. If we allow Ni + H2O, I can provide two additional references in support of tritium generation and, implicitly, radioactivity. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 19 May 2012 06:54:33 -0700: Hi Jones, [snip] In a hybrid Millsean understanding, gammas and especially soft x-rays in the range of several hundred eV up to 10s of keV range are expected. Hard gammas are not expected. These softer gammas happen on the statistical end (Boltzmanns tail) of ground state redundancy. They represent a small proportion of net energy. Hydrogen past a certain level of redundancy can continue to reduce its effective diameter to a much lower geometry auto-catalytically, if it is not sequestered. The gammas seen will typically account for a few percent of the net energy and are evidence of run-away hydrogen redundancy. Most of the excess energy upwards to 99% of the net energy of the process, is derived from UV and EUV as Mills proposes; and the few gammas seen are an unwanted side effect. The reason that only a small percentage of shrunken hydrogen goes this route is simple. As its radius shrinks, hydrogen develops extremely high magnetic susceptibility, and in the presence of ferromagnetic electrodes (or even paramagnetic) the species becomes sequestered within the inner orbitals, and can no longer absorb EUV radiation to further shrink. Even paramagnetic electrodes will inhibit runaway. You can't have it both ways. ;) Either shrinking releases energy or it consumes energy. If it can no longer absorb EUV radiation to further shrink then it consumes energy. If Most of the excess energy upwards to 99% of the net energy of the process, is derived from UV and EUV as Mills proposes; and the few gammas seen are an unwanted side effect. ... then it releases energy. BTW gammas from this process are *extremely* unlikely as that would require an m value of about 100. Even then the energy can't exceed 255 keV. Furthermore since the origin would be the shrinking electron, they are more properly classified as x-rays. A far more likely source of true gammas is the occasional actual fusion reaction, or it's also possible that the gammas are in fact energetic bremsstrahlung resulting from an IC fusion reaction. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Also, does anyone have references to replicated experiments with the Ni-H systems regarding the ash products? I am aware of the many excellent results that have been published in reference to the palladium electrolysis cells and corresponding helium production. I am seeking similar evidence if it exists for the Ni-H gas systems. There are several detailed reviews of the experiments that go into things like the nuclear ash, the substrate, the isotope of hydrogen, and so on. I highly recommend Ed Storms's The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. A table in that book indicates that one of the kinds of ash that has evolved from at least one Ni-H gas experiment is tritium (two papers are cited, both by Sankaranarayanan et al. in the proceedings of the Fourth and Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion, respectively). I have looked for a reference to helium in connection with Ni-H gas systems but found nothing so far. Another table in that book mentions no less than eleven LENR experiments in which gammas were produced, in two cases from an Ni-H system. The detail that is remarkable is that the levels are well below what would be expected for the energy that is produced. Beyond this I have no information on gammas in relation to Ni-H gas systems, specifically. But that gammas are sometimes reported for LENR experiments in general would be difficult to dispute. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
From: Eric Walker …. no less than eleven LENR experiments in which gammas were produced, in two cases from an Ni-H system. The detail that is remarkable is that the levels are well below what would be expected for the energy that is produced... The best explanation for this phenomenon has evolved here on vortex over the years - from Robin, myself and the others who have followed Mills’ work, but are not shy about merging CQM into a bigger picture by cherry-picking its relevant details. Mills himself is a “gamma denier” :-) at least publicly - but that is most likely a legal ploy - to distance himself from LENR when it comes to Intellectual Property. In a hybrid Millsean understanding, gammas and especially soft x-rays in the range of several hundred eV up to 10s of keV range are expected. Hard gammas are not expected. These softer gammas happen on the statistical end (Boltzmann’s tail) of ground state redundancy. They represent a small proportion of net energy. Hydrogen past a certain level of redundancy can continue to reduce its effective diameter to a much lower geometry auto-catalytically, if it is not sequestered. The gammas seen will typically account for a few percent of the net energy – and are evidence of run-away hydrogen redundancy. Most of the excess energy – upwards to 99% of the net energy of the process, is derived from UV and EUV as Mills proposes; and the few gammas seen are an unwanted side effect. The reason that only a small percentage of ‘shrunken’ hydrogen goes this route is simple. As its radius shrinks, hydrogen develops extremely high magnetic susceptibility, and in the presence of ferromagnetic electrodes (or even paramagnetic) the species becomes sequestered within the inner orbitals, and can no longer absorb EUV radiation to further shrink. Even paramagnetic electrodes will inhibit runaway. UV and EUV radiation is where most of the activity happens in Ni-H. Gammas are incidental, but they cannot be ignored. Unlike W-L theory or Brillouin, this is NOT primarily a weak force reaction but that is easy to confuse since a few transmutation products are indeed beta emitters. Actual transmutation is more likely with non-ferromagnetic electrodes like tungsten, as opposed to nickel. See the Cirillo paper for what can be expected with W. BTW - if one wants to prove this kind of Millsean-based explanation to skeptics - and by including a gamma signature which can be predicted ahead of time, a suggestion is replicate Cirillo and do so by continually removing electrode surface layers over time and accumulating that as your evidence. You will most likely find significant rhenium-187 which is an ideal proof of transmutation, since it is itself radioactive- but with a long half life (and predictable decay fall-off rate) and an unmistakable beta signature, which is low enough to be considered relatively safe (banana range). Plus rhenium is so rare, otherwise, that when you predict it to transmute from tungsten - and it shows up - not just in elemental analysis but with its own beta emission signature - that is extremely convincing. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Nickel-hydrogen nuclear ash
I do not know of any solid information on Ni cold fusion reactions or products. I wish I did. We really need that. - Jed
