[Vo]:4/5/2013 7:35:36 AM

[Kelly Smunt]

http://www.riversup.com/zoqltksa/tmlrs.psvjm?gkl  


 










 

  

  
Kelly Smunt

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Axil Axil]

A Fano interference is an Interference between a background and a resonant
scattering process that produces the asymmetric line-shape.

In a lattice,  the background frequency is infrared heat, the resonant
scattering process is dipole hole/electron oscillation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fano_resonance

Fano interference blocks EMF radiation out of the cavity, and redirects it
inward to focus on the inside of the cavity.

Fano resonance is a means to concentrate EMF into a sub-nanometer volume by
imposing a dark mode into the EMF.

The "weird kind of loss" is the loss of far field EMF radiation.

This process produces EMF that are near or at the atomic scale in a ultra
small volume "Hot Spot  -  aka NAE".

For more info see “Spaser”
The BEC of the spaser is what thermalizes the gammas
see
*Jaynes-Cummings-Hubbard (JCH) model*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings%E2%80%93Hubbard_model


On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> Axil
> I didn't know that was the focus of Peter Hagelstein's work. However, he
> says he adds a "weird kind of loss" to his model. Any idea what he means?
>
> BTW, It occured to me that a "failed" model, i.e. a classically unstable
> model, could also produce a similar result, where a given amount of
> energy is emitted continuously  over a certain range of frequencies instead
> of being emitted all at once as a gamma photon at one frequency.
>  Harry
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows:
>>
>> So after a lot of years of work on it, about 10 years ago we found a
>> model that actually did something like that. It's remarkable! It turns out
>> in the physics literature, there's a model called the 'Spin-Boson Model'
>> that's basically a fundamental quantum mechanics model, so you have a
>> harmonic oscillator and you hook it up to what's called a two level system
>> — that's just an idealisation, it's a little bit of physics having to do
>> with two of the energy levels in a more complicated system. But it makes
>> the math really simple, so the resulting model is one you can analyze to
>> death. People have studied that model now for between 40-60 years,
>> depending on how you count them. This model predicts the 30 or 50 fold, or
>> the ability to break up a two level system quantum into, for example, into
>> nearly 30 individual quanta.
>>
>> Axil says:
>> Let us now address another quantum optics model describing polaritons:
>>
>> The Jaynes–Cummings model.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model
>>
>> Starting at the very bottom, the most basic underlying model that teaches
>> us how waves/particles can resonate is the Jaynes–Cummings model (JCM). It
>> describes the system of a two-level atom interacting with a quantized mode
>> of an optical cavity, with or without the presence of light (in the form of
>> a bath of electromagnetic radiation that can cause spontaneous emission and
>> absorption).
>>
>> MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein continues in the interview as follows:
>>
>> What we found is the way that the model does it, it can do it, but it's
>> hindered. There's a destructive interference effect that goes on, that
>> makes the effect relatively weak. What we found, is that if you added a
>> weird kind of loss to the model— a loss that you would expect in the cold
>> fusion scenario. The new model, with loss, is much more relevant to the
>> physical situation called fusion than otherwise. But this weird kind of
>> loss, it breaks the destructive interference, and it makes this energy
>> exchange go orders of magnitude faster. And instead of being a relatively
>> weak effect, it's now a very strong, it's a dominant effect. This model is
>> exactly what you need! It's a microscopic engine to take big quanta and
>> chop it up into little tiny quanta. So that's what we've found.
>>
>> Axil says:
>>
>> This is Fano interference active in an optical cavity to localize EMF
>> radiation to the near field by eliminated far field emissions.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows:
>>> *
>>>
>>> So there are no significant amount of neutrons, there's no fast
>>> electrons, there's no gamma rays. There's nothing you might expect if it
>>> were a more normal nuclear reaction process. The basic statement here is
>>> that — if it's real and if it's nuclear... the argument for it being
>>> nuclear is that there's 4He (helium-4) observed in experiments, roughly one
>>> 4He for every 24 MeV of energy that's created. So what you need in the way
>>> of a theoretical model, basically a new kind of mechanism that doesn't work
>>> like the old Rutherford reaction picture that nuclear physics is based on.
>>> So that's the basic problem that I've been working on for a great many
>>> years.
>>>
>>> The big problem is one that has to do with the quantum m

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Harry Veeder]

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> It seems a bit more logical to suggest that the lack of gammas can be
> better
> explained by the lack of the kind of nuclear reaction that produces gammas.
> The most prevalent nuclear reaction in the Universe, reversible proton
> fusion, produces no gammas. Shouldn't we be taking a closer look at RPF?
>
>
>
Wikipedia says proton-proton fusion produces a neutrino and a positron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction

Won't this result in an electron-positron anihilation and two gamma rays?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation

Harry

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Harry Veeder]

Axil
I didn't know that was the focus of Peter Hagelstein's work. However, he
says he adds a "weird kind of loss" to his model. Any idea what he means?

BTW, It occured to me that a "failed" model, i.e. a classically unstable
model, could also produce a similar result, where a given amount of
energy is emitted continuously  over a certain range of frequencies instead
of being emitted all at once as a gamma photon at one frequency.
Harry
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows:
>
> So after a lot of years of work on it, about 10 years ago we found a model
> that actually did something like that. It's remarkable! It turns out in the
> physics literature, there's a model called the 'Spin-Boson Model' that's
> basically a fundamental quantum mechanics model, so you have a harmonic
> oscillator and you hook it up to what's called a two level system — that's
> just an idealisation, it's a little bit of physics having to do with two of
> the energy levels in a more complicated system. But it makes the math
> really simple, so the resulting model is one you can analyze to death.
> People have studied that model now for between 40-60 years, depending on
> how you count them. This model predicts the 30 or 50 fold, or the ability
> to break up a two level system quantum into, for example, into nearly 30
> individual quanta.
>
> Axil says:
> Let us now address another quantum optics model describing polaritons:
>
> The Jaynes–Cummings model.
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaynes%E2%80%93Cummings_model
>
> Starting at the very bottom, the most basic underlying model that teaches
> us how waves/particles can resonate is the Jaynes–Cummings model (JCM). It
> describes the system of a two-level atom interacting with a quantized mode
> of an optical cavity, with or without the presence of light (in the form of
> a bath of electromagnetic radiation that can cause spontaneous emission and
> absorption).
>
> MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein continues in the interview as follows:
>
> What we found is the way that the model does it, it can do it, but it's
> hindered. There's a destructive interference effect that goes on, that
> makes the effect relatively weak. What we found, is that if you added a
> weird kind of loss to the model— a loss that you would expect in the cold
> fusion scenario. The new model, with loss, is much more relevant to the
> physical situation called fusion than otherwise. But this weird kind of
> loss, it breaks the destructive interference, and it makes this energy
> exchange go orders of magnitude faster. And instead of being a relatively
> weak effect, it's now a very strong, it's a dominant effect. This model is
> exactly what you need! It's a microscopic engine to take big quanta and
> chop it up into little tiny quanta. So that's what we've found.
>
> Axil says:
>
> This is Fano interference active in an optical cavity to localize EMF
> radiation to the near field by eliminated far field emissions.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> *
>>
>> MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as follows:
>> *
>>
>> So there are no significant amount of neutrons, there's no fast
>> electrons, there's no gamma rays. There's nothing you might expect if it
>> were a more normal nuclear reaction process. The basic statement here is
>> that — if it's real and if it's nuclear... the argument for it being
>> nuclear is that there's 4He (helium-4) observed in experiments, roughly one
>> 4He for every 24 MeV of energy that's created. So what you need in the way
>> of a theoretical model, basically a new kind of mechanism that doesn't work
>> like the old Rutherford reaction picture that nuclear physics is based on.
>> So that's the basic problem that I've been working on for a great many
>> years.
>>
>> The big problem is one that has to do with the quantum mechanics issue.
>> The nuclear energy comes in a big energy quantum, and if it didn't get
>> broken up, then the big energy quantum would get expressed as energetic
>> particles, as normally happens in nuclear reactions. So the approach we've
>> taken is that we've said "the only conceivable route for making sense of
>> these observations at all, is that the big energy quanta have to get sliced
>> and diced up into a very very large number if much smaller energy quanta."
>> The much larger number is on the order of several hundred million. In NMR
>> physics and optical physics, people are familiar with breaking up a large
>> quantum into perhaps 30 smaller pieces, you could argue that there are some
>> experiments where you could argue that maybe that numbers as high as 100 or
>> so. It's unprecedented that you could take an MeV quantum and chop it up
>> into bite sized pieces that are 10s of meV.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If a bunch of low energy photons  is equivalent to the energy of 1 high
>>> energ

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Eric Walker 

 

One implication appears to be that you would see 4He traveling twice as fast in 
a given direction near where a reaction has taken place than you would in 
normal d+d plasma fusion.

 

Let me emend that -- in d+d plasma fusion, you have the three branches:

 

1. d+d → 4He + ɣ (rare)

2. d+d → 3He + n (50 percent)

3. d+d → t + p (50 percent)

 

In (1), there is a 4He, and it is not traveling very quickly.  

 

 

 

One of the better hypotheses for deuterium reactions where helium-4 only is 
seen as ash is Takahashi’s tetrahedral condensate

 

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/TakahashiTheory.shtml

 

Since you have two alphas carrying away the energy - and no gammas, this theory 
is cleaner than many of the others. As a condensate, he avoids the 4-particle 
reaction … kind of…

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Harry Veeder]

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:54 PM,  wrote:
>
> To put it in simple terms, the presence of the spectator nucleus provides
>> the
>> 4He, something to "push off" against, like a swimmer pushing off against
>> the end
>> of the pool. The spectator nucleus also gets some of the kinetic energy,
>> IOW it
>> moves away a little when pushed.
>>
>
> It reminds me of the action of a bullet against the rear part of the
> chamber of a gun.  One implication appears to be that you would see 4He
> traveling twice as fast in a given direction near where a reaction has
> taken place than you would in normal d+d plasma fusion.
>
> It is easy to get an intuitive sense of how the fusion would play out and
> how there would be no gamma.  I wonder why this lead is not pursued further.
>
>
>


http://physics.aps.org/story/v24/st12

Published September 25, 2009 | Phys. Rev. Focus 24, 12 (2009) | DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevFocus.24.12

Researchers detected the recoil motion of a bead when fluorescent molecules
on its surface began emitting photons.
Radiation pressure-the force light exerts on matter-is so slight that it's
usually evident only in the atomic world or in the vacuum of space. Now a
pair of studies published in the 27 February Physical Review Letters and
the October Physical Review E suggests that a common laser-and-microscope
technique is sensitive enough to measure the recoil felt by a micron-sized
silica bead emitting light from its surface. Researchers used lasers to
trap a bead and measure the forces acting on it, while simultaneously
recording the light generated by molecules coating the bead's surface. They
report that the forces acting on the bead were correlated with the
intensity of emitted light, as would be expected if emitted photons were
nudging a bead back and forth like the exhaust from tiny thrusters.

The experiments used a type of photonic force microscopy (PFM), which is
used to measure forces acting on microscopic beads suspended in liquid. PFM
specialists first isolate a bead in the focus of a laser beam, creating an
optical trap. The bead then acts like a tethered buoy. Liquid molecules
randomly nudge it, but the trapping laser exerts a spring-like force that
draws the bead back to its starting point. By tracking the position of the
bead using a separate laser, researchers can measure the size of the bead's
jostling motions in the trap, which tells them the strength of the
fluctuating forces acting on it. Some researchers have observed signs of
radiation from the laser alone pressing on trapped beads, but those beads
were absorbing light rather than emitting it.

A team led by Dmitri Petrov of the Institute of Photonic Sciences in
Barcelona, Spain, wanted to see if PFM was sensitive enough to pick up the
recoil of beads trapped in a solution of photon-emitting molecules that
adhere to a bead's surface. To maximize the rate of photon emission, the
team dotted its beads with clusters of silver atoms, mimicking metal
nano-spheres that have been found to enhance the glow of nearby dye
molecules.

For their first experiment, published in February, the researchers trapped
two-micron-wide beads in a solution of the dye crystal violet. The dye
molecules convert a small amount of incoming light energy into atomic
vibrations and then emit light of slightly longer wavelength (Raman
scattering). The correlation was clear: when the team switched on the
"pump" laser to activate the dye, the bead's displacement, averaged over
many fluctuations, increased, corresponding to forces of up to 240
femtonewtons (1 femtonewton = 10 -15  newtons). The researchers calculated
the power of light emitted from the bead at 1 microwatt, which is "quite
amazing," says Satish Rao, a post-doctoral fellow in the Barcelona lab. "No
one else has been able to say how much light really comes off this
material."

In the follow-up experiment, Petrov and his colleagues tracked the
bleaching, or gradual fading, of the fluorescent molecule rhodamine, which
glows yellow under green light. In photobleacing, fluorescent molecules
fade strongly after a few tens of seconds. Accordingly, when the team
focused a green laser on the bead, it experienced a sudden force of about
300 femtonewtons, which quickly plummeted along with the fluorescent light
intensity. "On the face of it, it's pretty fantastic," says optical trapper
David Grier of New York University. The recoil force of photons is the
basis for laser cooling of atoms and molecules. "Seeing it for a
macroscopic object strikes me as something of a tour de force," he says.

Rao says this type of PFM could offer a more precise way of measuring the
efficiency and intensity of other light-emitting molecules, including the
bleaching of fluorescent dyes. Lukas Novotny, a nano-optics researcher at
Rochester University in New York state, doesn't see any immediate
applications. "For me the beauty is really the possibility of measuring
light through a me

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:


> One implication appears to be that you would see 4He traveling twice as
> fast in a given direction near where a reaction has taken place than you
> would in normal d+d plasma fusion.
>

Let me emend that -- in d+d plasma fusion, you have the three branches:

1. d+d → 4He + ɣ (rare)
2. d+d → 3He + n (50 percent)
3. d+d → t + p (50 percent)

In (1), there is a 4He, and it is not traveling very quickly.  So the 4He
in the proposed branch with the spectator, (4), say:

4. d+d + M → 4He + M,

where M is on both sides of the reaction (and doesn't undergo a change),
this 4He would be travelling much faster than the one in (1).  It would be
traveling on the order of twice as fast as the heavier particles in (2) or
(3), in an approximate sense.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

  You can’t be serious.
>

Yes, I think that's the point.  I had a friend in high school who would say
the most absurd things just to get a reaction out of people.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:54 PM,  wrote:

To put it in simple terms, the presence of the spectator nucleus provides
> the
> 4He, something to "push off" against, like a swimmer pushing off against
> the end
> of the pool. The spectator nucleus also gets some of the kinetic energy,
> IOW it
> moves away a little when pushed.
>

It reminds me of the action of a bullet against the rear part of the
chamber of a gun.  One implication appears to be that you would see 4He
traveling twice as fast in a given direction near where a reaction has
taken place than you would in normal d+d plasma fusion.

It is easy to get an intuitive sense of how the fusion would play out and
how there would be no gamma.  I wonder why this lead is not pursued further.

Eric

[Vo]:Probability fields ... was: A pile of clues...

[Jones Beene]

 

Lately Rossi has been saying a home version of the Ecat is years away
although he doesn't really say why.  

 

Harry 

 

Well, for the sake of tying up loose ends, one reason why - could be because
the unit will not start without a "probability field" enhancement. And such
an enhancement might be problematic for home use.

 

This enhancer is usually a radioactive isotope. This technique goes back a
long way in LENR - and by name, all the way back to the first issue of
Infinite Energy See I.E. # 1, p. 46, "Cold Fusion in a 'Ying Cell' and
Probability Enhancement by Boson Stimulation," by Nelson Ying and Charles W.
Shults III. They found a small radioactive source increased the reaction
rate by many orders of magnitude - way, way beyond its own physical
contribution.

 

This effect was seen infamously in a controversial technique which Rusi
Taleyarkhan used to increase the neutron yield in cavitation experiments -
which involved "seeding" the reactor with a tiny secondary source of

radiation which would create a few neutrons on its own - but thousands of
times more were triggered by the establishment of what can be called an
enhanced QM probability field. There was no duplicity - this was planned and
explicit. 

 

However, RT did not mention his underlying rationale for doing it, other
than that it worked: and to his great detriment... since the seeding
technique became a focal point of contention from bloodthirsty critics -
when in fact, it had a bona fide history in LENR.

 

Did not Dennis Cravens mention recently that he also seeds his experiments
with a tiny amount of thorium? 

 

Anyway, the probability-field is not a simple concept, since it is not about
a particular kind of reaction, but involves "decoherence" and "quantum
entanglement" and arcane types of information loopbacks.

 

 

 

 

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Harry Veeder]

Fran,
I think this would require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Harry

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Roarty, Francis X  wrote:

>  Harry,
>
> I am ok with COE remaining a law but the “convention” that
> HUP can never be tapped needs to be stricken. My point is that the random
> forces normally cancelled in the macro world become organized by casimir
> geometry and can provide an exploitable bias from zero point energy.
>
> Fran  
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2013 2:48 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!
> 
>
> ** **
>
> It might be possible to develop "realistic" models which explain these
> things if CoE is demoted from a law to a convention
>
> or should a law always take precedence over intelligibility
> and experience? 
>
>  
>
> Harry   
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> wrote:
>
> So, out of all the erudite Vorts, no one can answer the following simple
> questions:
>
> Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the proton from the
> DOWN-spin quarks???
>
> Why do...
>  "All spin directions collapse on one or the OPPOSITE direction depending
> on
> the measured photon polarization." ???
>
> Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in
> OPPOSITE
> directions???
>
> Where is the physical model that explains the REASON for these basic
> observations???
>
> Why is the magnetic field PERPENDICULAR to the E-field???
> It's all related...
>
> -Mark (the reluctant hijackee) Iverson
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Harry Veeder]

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:54 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> The recent inventions of Rossi do not have enough shielding to stop gammas
> at 511 keV.  I also have not seen him mention that this is a problem
> anymore and I hope that they are not emitted in large numbers since that
> would make home use of his device problematic.
>
>  Dave
>
>

Lately Rossi has been saying a home version of the Ecat is years away
although he doesn't really say why.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[David Roberson]

In the case where a positron and electron annihilate each other the 
conservation of momentum requires that the two photons be emitted in exact 
opposition and with exactly the same energy.  Perhaps it is possible to assume 
that if the two opposing photons are observed then a process of this type 
occurs.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Kevin O'Malley 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Apr 4, 2013 8:07 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!



On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:33 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:
 
Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in OPPOSITE
directions???

Where is the physical model that explains the REASON for these basic
observations???

***Here's the physical model I proposed here on Vortex
 
when you look at a balloon popping in slow motion, it does not
initially emit its energy in all directions at the first microsecond.  Its
release of energy goes in the direction that the penetration came from
initially.  If the balloon pop were due to 2 balloons banging together
forcefully, the initial release would be right where the 2 balloons
collided.  Similarly, when 2 atoms collide and fuse, I think their energy
release is not 360 degrees, but is perpendicular to the direction of the
plane where the 2 atoms meet.  It is initially in only 1 direction, not all
directions.   That release of energy will have a high degree of probability
due to its geometry of initial direction, to be directly in the path of
atoms on the lattice.  But in hot fusion, those 50,000 balloons all slam
into each other at varying different angles, leaving the impression that
the initial energy release is initially 360 degrees rather than in one
direction.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg76597.html
 
 

 

 





 

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:33 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in OPPOSITE
directions???

Where is the physical model that explains the REASON for these basic
observations???

***Here's the physical model I proposed here on Vortex

when you look at a balloon popping in slow motion, it does not
initially emit its energy in all directions at the first microsecond.  Its
release of energy goes in the direction that the penetration came from
initially.  If the balloon pop were due to 2 balloons banging together
forcefully, the initial release would be right where the 2 balloons
collided.  Similarly, when 2 atoms collide and fuse, I think their energy
release is not 360 degrees, but is perpendicular to the direction of the
plane where the 2 atoms meet.  It is initially in only 1 direction, not all
directions.   That release of energy will have a high degree of probability
due to its geometry of initial direction, to be directly in the path of
atoms on the lattice.  But in hot fusion, those 50,000 balloons all slam
into each other at varying different angles, leaving the impression that
the initial energy release is initially 360 degrees rather than in one
direction.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg76597.html





>
>

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[David Roberson]

The recent inventions of Rossi do not have enough shielding to stop gammas at 
511 keV.  I also have not seen him mention that this is a problem anymore and I 
hope that they are not emitted in large numbers since that would make home use 
of his device problematic.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Apr 4, 2013 7:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!



Rossi has consistently refused to provide details of what is going on inside 
the E-Cat reactor, but he has mentioned that gamma rays have been detected. In 
a video interview when asked about whether the E-Cat was a ‘cold fusion’ 
technology he said, “we have found traces of fusion because we have found 511 
kev gamma rays at the output, which is the emission of a positron and an 
electron, and a positron is the product of a proton turning into a neutron, so 
we have some kind of fusion  inside, but I do not think this is the main energy 
source.” Exactly how these gamma rays are shielded is not clear, but Rossi has 
mentioned in the past that lead is used.
 
I think you should dream up another source for occasional gamma emissions to 
support your illusion other than radium.




On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:


 
 

From:Axil 

 


Your inexactitudein thinking is hard to overcome. Let us try another piece of 
info as follows:

 


When Rossi first stated his demonstrations and thepublic comments about them, 
his first few shows were marred by a troublesomecondition during startup and 
shutdown where significant gamma radiation wasproduced… Ifyou remember, Celani 
said about the January 14 demo…  
 
The simplest explanationis that Rossi used a radioactive trigger for startup - 
and then put it back inits cask. 
 
No one was allowed towitness Rossi’s startup, and the employment of an easily 
identified radioactivestarter like radium - could explain why. 
 
At no other time AFAIK -in the later tests, was any radioactivity witnessed. 
Tests run in Swedenreported no radioactivity in the ash. 
 
I would say that it isyour gullibility that is hard to overcome. 
 
It is incredulous that sucha reaction could be a nuclear transmutation of 
nickel to copper - and yet not leaveradioactive ash.


 
 
 




 

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[David Roberson]

That is my fear Jones.  A photon has a large energy to momentum ratio as 
compared to an electron.  I would expect to see Compton reflection of the high 
energy gamma as it collides with electrons.  It is very presumptuous to assume 
that the gammas will be absorbed quickly.  Does anyone see how both energy and 
momentum can be conserved during a collision between a high energy gamma and 
any number of electrons?


I suppose that one can look back at the point of origin of the gamma and 
mentally reverse the process.  In that case the nucleus recoiled with much less 
energy than the gamma while it by definition had to conserve momentum.  Perhaps 
a large cloud of coupled electrons that scattered in every direction carrying 
off portions of the energy might be able to absorb the total energy.  The 
random directions of the dispersion cloud of electrons could balance the 
momentum portion of the equation if a miracle occurred.  Now I know I am a 
heretic with an overactive imagination!



Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Apr 4, 2013 7:04 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!



The problem with such ahigh energy gamma hitting an electron is that the total 
mass-energy of thetarget is only 2-3% of the mass-energy of the driver. This 
slight impediment doesnot even slow the gamma down very much. There could 
possibly be pair-productionbut to imagine that the re-emission was all infrared 
would probably mean thatmomentum could not be conserved. How could it?
 
 

From:David Roberson 

 
Has anyone looked to see that momentum is conserved in theseprocesses? 

 

Dave



-OriginalMessage-
From: mixent 

>More disinformation. There is no possibility of nano-sized sites stopping
>gamma radiation. This requires thick lead shielding.
 
..I have often wondered if an electron that is within the wavelength of a gamma
(i.e. a "near field" energy transfer) might absorb the energy as kinetic energy.
For a 23.8 MeV gamma the wavelength is 52 fm. For a Mills' Hydrino this is too
small for even the smallest Hydrino, however if my version is correct, then it
should be possible for f/H with a p > 32.
 
 
 


 

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Axil Axil]

Rossi has consistently refused to provide details of what is going on
inside the E-Cat reactor, but he has mentioned that gamma rays have been
detected. In a video interview when asked about whether the E-Cat was a
‘cold fusion’ technology he said, “we have found traces of fusion because
we have found 511 kev gamma rays at the output, which is the emission of a
positron and an electron, and a positron is the product of a proton turning
into a neutron, so we have some kind of fusion inside, but I do not think
this is the main energy source.” Exactly how these gamma rays are shielded
is not clear, but Rossi has mentioned in the past that lead is used.

I think you should dream up another source for occasional gamma emissions
to support your illusion other than radium.


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Axil 
>
> ** **
>
> Your inexactitude in thinking is hard to overcome. Let us try another
> piece of info as follows:
>
>  
>
> When Rossi first stated his demonstrations and the public comments about
> them, his first few shows were marred by a troublesome condition during
> startup and shutdown where significant gamma radiation was produced… If
> you remember, Celani said about the January 14 demo…  
>
> ** **
>
> The simplest explanation is that Rossi used a radioactive trigger for
> startup - and then put it back in its cask. 
>
> ** **
>
> No one was allowed to witness Rossi’s startup, and the employment of an
> easily identified radioactive starter like radium - could explain why. ***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> At no other time AFAIK - in the later tests, was any radioactivity
> witnessed. Tests run in Sweden reported no radioactivity in the ash. 
>
> ** **
>
> I would say that it is your gullibility that is hard to overcome. 
>
> ** **
>
> It is incredulous that such a reaction could be a nuclear transmutation of
> nickel to copper - and yet not leave radioactive ash.
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Jones Beene]

The problem with such a high energy gamma hitting an electron is that the
total mass-energy of the target is only 2-3% of the mass-energy of the
driver. This slight impediment does not even slow the gamma down very much.
There could possibly be pair-production but to imagine that the re-emission
was all infrared would probably mean that momentum could not be conserved.
How could it?

 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

Has anyone looked to see that momentum is conserved in these processes? 

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent 

>More disinformation. There is no possibility of nano-sized sites stopping
>gamma radiation. This requires thick lead shielding.
 
..I have often wondered if an electron that is within the wavelength of a
gamma
(i.e. a "near field" energy transfer) might absorb the energy as kinetic
energy.
For a 23.8 MeV gamma the wavelength is 52 fm. For a Mills' Hydrino this is
too
small for even the smallest Hydrino, however if my version is correct, then
it
should be possible for f/H with a p > 32.
 
 
 

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Jones Beene]

 

 

From: Axil 

 

Your inexactitude in thinking is hard to overcome. Let us try another piece
of info as follows:

 

When Rossi first stated his demonstrations and the public comments about
them, his first few shows were marred by a troublesome condition during
startup and shutdown where significant gamma radiation was produced. If you
remember, Celani said about the January 14 demo.  

 

The simplest explanation is that Rossi used a radioactive trigger for
startup - and then put it back in its cask. 

 

No one was allowed to witness Rossi's startup, and the employment of an
easily identified radioactive starter like radium - could explain why. 

 

At no other time AFAIK - in the later tests, was any radioactivity
witnessed. Tests run in Sweden reported no radioactivity in the ash. 

 

I would say that it is your gullibility that is hard to overcome. 

 

It is incredulous that such a reaction could be a nuclear transmutation of
nickel to copper - and yet not leave radioactive ash.

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Axil Axil]

Your inexactitude in thinking is hard to overcome. Let us try another piece
of info as follows:

When Rossi first stated his demonstrations and the public comments about
them, his first few shows were marred by a troublesome condition during
startup and shutdown where significant gamma radiation was produced.
If you remember, Celani said about the January 14 demo as follows:

"After various vicissitudes, because the reactor was having major problems,
some inner resistors had broken down; Mr. Rossi came out of the room
delighted: "The reactor has started".  Before he came out, a few minutes
before, I had independently measured that both the gamma detector and the
mini Geiger had hit the top of the scale, whereas the two detectors of
electromagnetic interference were not showing anything."

This meant that a short but intense emission of gamma radiation had taken
place.

But while the reactor was in operation, at the demonstration on January 14,
no measurable nuclear radiation was detected. Villa wrote:

"The energy power input and output and gamma radiations were measured
before, during and after the active phase of the system, as well as the
hydrogen consumption. While a net energy output was observed, no γ excess
(with energy above 200 keV has been measured above the natural background
level (<180 Hz rate in single mode, compared to an expected rate largely in
excess of 1 MHz)."

Rossi eventually fixed this problem by getting his reactor up to operating
temperature before startup by using a secondary heater.
It was also suspected that Rossi's early reactors would cease to function
after 48 hours. This failure was suspected to have caused the DGT-Rossi
breakup.

This peculiar reactor behavior suggests a separation between the mechanism
that causes the LENR reaction and the mechanism that down-shifts the gamma
radiation to heat. This behavior leads to the conclusion that there exist
two separate and distinct LENR reaction mechanisms that are simultaneously
active within the nuclear active zone.

Recapitulating, one mechanism drives the LENR reaction and another
mitigates the resultant gamma radiation.

These two mechanisms may be symbiotic and reinforcing but the gamma
mitigation mechanism is not required to startup or maintain the reaction.




On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  You can't be serious. 
>
> ** **
>
> These are extraordinarily low radiation counts over long periods. 
>
> ** **
>
> 35 megajoules of excess heat over 22 days and what? ... a few hundred
> counts. LOL
>
> ** **
>
> This is strong evidence against a direct correlation of radiation to heat
> - not evidence for a correlation.
>
> ** **
>
> Yes, there is evidence of QM reaction, but no one doubts that excess heat
> will come with QM side effects.
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Axil Axil 
>
> ** **
>
> *Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems*
>
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Flibrary%2F2004%2F2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf&ei=-NpdUemSBITB4AP364CYBA&usg=AFQjCNHu3w5dimV_JIaouNutOQePoXu2Pg&sig2=ZCZ6WnU2Vjiyx3rrr9DHFQ
> 
>
>  
>
>  
>
> I have posted this about a half dozen times so far, but you seem to have a
> block to it.
>
> This experiment shows the reaction with and without gamma radiation 
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:**
> **
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* Axil Axil 
>
>  
>
> *The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous --- Of course this is
> not LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to
> assert two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence
> than the very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim.
> *
>
>  
>
> Gamma suppression does not cause LENR; it is accidental to the LENR
> reaction.
>
>  
>
> However, it is still very important. It is the principle demarcation line
> between LENR and LENR+.
>
>  
>
> Nonsense. There is no such thing as "gamma suppression" ... It is a complete
> fabrication of W-L without a shred of evidence AFAIK... if you have the
> evidence, please show it
>
>  
>
> The LENR reaction emits gammas and this energy release destroys the
> nuclear active sites. The LENR reactions will soon stop as the NAE are
> blown apart and cratered.
>
>  
>
> More disinformation. There is no possibility of nano-sized sites stopping
> gamma radiation. This requires thick lead shielding.
>
>  
>
> On the other hand, LENR+ thermalizes the energy that is produced in the
> NAE as a secondary mechanism, but this thermalization of the reaction
> allows the LENR+ reaction to occur over and over again from the same NAE
> for months on end.
>
>  
>
> There is no evidence for this.
>
>  
>
> ** **
>

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[David Roberson]

Has anyone looked to see that momentum is conserved in these processes?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Apr 4, 2013 5:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!


In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:29:42 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>More disinformation. There is no possibility of nano-sized sites stopping
>gamma radiation. This requires thick lead shielding.

..I have often wondered if an electron that is within the wavelength of a gamma
(i.e. a "near field" energy transfer) might absorb the energy as kinetic energy.
For a 23.8 MeV gamma the wavelength is 52 fm. For a Mills' Hydrino this is too
small for even the smallest Hydrino, however if my version is correct, then it
should be possible for f/H with a p > 32.

(This probably won't stand up to much scrutiny, so don't look too hard. ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html


 

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[mixent]

In reply to  Roarty, Francis X's message of Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:58:33 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>Harry,
>I am ok with COE remaining a law but the "convention" that HUP 
> can never be tapped needs to be stricken. My point is that the random forces 
> normally cancelled in the macro world become organized by casimir geometry 
> and can provide an exploitable bias from zero point energy.
>Fran

...organized forces seems to imply a net force acting on the object. You may
just have invented Cavorite. ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:29:42 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>More disinformation. There is no possibility of nano-sized sites stopping
>gamma radiation. This requires thick lead shielding.

..I have often wondered if an electron that is within the wavelength of a gamma
(i.e. a "near field" energy transfer) might absorb the energy as kinetic energy.
For a 23.8 MeV gamma the wavelength is 52 fm. For a Mills' Hydrino this is too
small for even the smallest Hydrino, however if my version is correct, then it
should be possible for f/H with a p > 32.

(This probably won't stand up to much scrutiny, so don't look too hard. ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 4 Apr 2013 16:02:17 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>*
>
>Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems
>*
>http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Flibrary%2F2004%2F2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf&ei=-NpdUemSBITB4AP364CYBA&usg=AFQjCNHu3w5dimV_JIaouNutOQePoXu2Pg&sig2=ZCZ6WnU2Vjiyx3rrr9DHFQ
>
>
>I have posted this about a half dozen times so far, but you seem to have a
>block to it.
>
>This experiment shows the reaction with and without gamma radiation

BTW there is obviously an error in the legend of Fig. 3. Apparently it should be
the same as the legend in Fig. 4, which is correct.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:It's a Plot

[Chris Zell]

I would think that the works of Charles Fort would offer strong support to the 
matrix concept.  Also, the appearance of ghosts often contain a strong 
repetitive character that makes me think about a glitch in a computer that gets 
it stuck in a loop.

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 3 Apr 2013 23:38:46 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>The higher the energy, the smaller the body, going down from outer electron
>shells to individual nucleons and, presumably, quarks.  But as the size
>decreases, the probability of an interaction will no doubt go down in
>corresponding measure, because the size of the targets decreases as well.
> So by the time you get to gammas, they will largely pass through a region
>of interest.  For photons of high enough energy, the mean free path
>generally goes up, meaning they travel farther and farther through the
>material.  Once we're at gammas, I believe a typical metal will be largely
>transparent to them.
>
>
>
>This is a false assumption. Nanoplasmoics show strong coupling between
>light and electrons at 10 to the minus 8 power of the wavelength of light.
>
>This same ability to couple gammas to electrons external to the nucleus is
>probable.

The ability of gammas to penetrate various elements can be calculated using a
similar approach to that which I recently suggested in regard to neutrons. The
appropriate constants are tabularized here:-

http://www.nist.gov/pml/data/xraycoef/index.cfm
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:20:58 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>[1] http://phys.org/news/2013-04-quarks-dictate-proton.html

BTW, compare this to:-

http://checkerboard.dnsalias.net/
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Jones Beene]

You can't be serious. 

 

These are extraordinarily low radiation counts over long periods. 

 

35 megajoules of excess heat over 22 days and what? . a few hundred counts.
LOL

 

This is strong evidence against a direct correlation of radiation to heat -
not evidence for a correlation.

 

Yes, there is evidence of QM reaction, but no one doubts that excess heat
will come with QM side effects.

 

 

From: Axil Axil 

 

Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t

&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%
3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Flibrary%2F2004%2F2004Focardi-EvidenceOfEle
ctromagneticRadiation.pdf&ei=-NpdUemSBITB4AP364CYBA&usg=AFQjCNHu3w5dimV_JIao
uNutOQePoXu2Pg&sig2=ZCZ6WnU2Vjiyx3rrr9DHFQ

 

 

I have posted this about a half dozen times so far, but you seem to have a
block to it.

This experiment shows the reaction with and without gamma radiation 

 

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

 

 

From: Axil Axil 

 

The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous --- Of course this is not
LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to assert
two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence than the
very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim.

 

Gamma suppression does not cause LENR; it is accidental to the LENR
reaction.

 

However, it is still very important. It is the principle demarcation line
between LENR and LENR+.

 

Nonsense. There is no such thing as "gamma suppression" . It is a complete
fabrication of W-L without a shred of evidence AFAIK. if you have the
evidence, please show it

 

The LENR reaction emits gammas and this energy release destroys the nuclear
active sites. The LENR reactions will soon stop as the NAE are blown apart
and cratered.

 

More disinformation. There is no possibility of nano-sized sites stopping
gamma radiation. This requires thick lead shielding.

 

On the other hand, LENR+ thermalizes the energy that is produced in the NAE
as a secondary mechanism, but this thermalization of the reaction allows the
LENR+ reaction to occur over and over again from the same NAE for months on
end.

 

There is no evidence for this.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:20:58 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>An example of a new branch would be:
>
>d + d ? 4He + M,
>
>where M is a nearby nucleus that shares the energy of the reaction as a
>spectator (all of this should be familiar as Ron Maimon's idea).  This
>conserves momentum somehow.

The spectator nucleus goes in one direction, the 4He goes in the opposite
direction. In the center of mass frame (which is also the frame of all the
nuclei at the moment of fusion), the momentum of each "product" is equal in
magnitude and opposite in sign, hence net zero.
This means that the energy of the reaction is divided up such that the lighter
nucleus gets the lion's share of the energy (because m * V = M * -v), and the
energy of each particle = (momentum^2)/(2*mass) ).

E.g. 

D + D + 106Pd => 106Pd + 0.865 MeV + 4He + 22.935 MeV

(Total energy is 23.8 MeV)

To put it in simple terms, the presence of the spectator nucleus provides the
4He, something to "push off" against, like a swimmer pushing off against the end
of the pool. The spectator nucleus also gets some of the kinetic energy, IOW it
moves away a little when pushed.

In hot fusion, the newly formed excited 4He nucleus has nothing to push off
against, and hence has no option other than to fission again, into either 
He3 + n or T + p. Very occasionally in hot fusion you get 4He + gamma.
Once again, with each of the two particles having equal and opposite momentum.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Axil Axil]

*

Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems
*
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Flibrary%2F2004%2F2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf&ei=-NpdUemSBITB4AP364CYBA&usg=AFQjCNHu3w5dimV_JIaouNutOQePoXu2Pg&sig2=ZCZ6WnU2Vjiyx3rrr9DHFQ


I have posted this about a half dozen times so far, but you seem to have a
block to it.

This experiment shows the reaction with and without gamma radiation


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Axil Axil 
>
> ** **
>
> *The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous --- Of course this is
> not LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to
> assert two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence
> than the very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim.
> *
>
>  
>
> Gamma suppression does not cause LENR; it is accidental to the LENR
> reaction.
>
>  
>
> However, it is still very important. It is the principle demarcation line
> between LENR and LENR+.
>
> ** **
>
> Nonsense. There is no such thing as “gamma suppression” … It is a complete
> fabrication of W-L without a shred of evidence AFAIK… if you have the
> evidence, please show it
>
>  
>
> The LENR reaction emits gammas and this energy release destroys the
> nuclear active sites. The LENR reactions will soon stop as the NAE are
> blown apart and cratered.
>
> ** **
>
> More disinformation. There is no possibility of nano-sized sites stopping
> gamma radiation. This requires thick lead shielding.
>
>  
>
> On the other hand, LENR+ thermalizes the energy that is produced in the
> NAE as a secondary mechanism, but this thermalization of the reaction
> allows the LENR+ reaction to occur over and over again from the same NAE
> for months on end.
>
> ** **
>
> There is no evidence for this.
>
> ** **
>

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Jones Beene]

_
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 


So, out of all the erudite Vorts, no one can answer the
following simple questions:

Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the proton
from the DOWN-spin quarks???

Short answer: erudition eroded... alternatively: not simple.

Long answer. A proton is composed of two up quarks and one down quark, so
they logically cannot be arranged as opposites. A handy visualization is
"Borromean rings" and a more technical version is the Efimov state.

Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting
off in OPPOSITE directions???

That one appears to be conservation of momentum, but the connection to quark
spin, if there is one, is not clear. 

Wiki sez: In classical mechanics, linear momentum or translational momentum
is the product of the mass and velocity of an object Linear momentum is
a conserved quantity and the gamma has equivalent mass, even if the rest
mass is zero.

Why is the magnetic field PERPENDICULAR to the E-field???  

This is also related to momentum in a way (if one is trying to find a
connection) - since the EM wave moves forward by transferring energy back
and forth between the two fields, and that momentum is conserved. As one
field collapses the other field builds, so the waves must be at right angles
to each other, since at any other angle there would be inequality in the
transfer.

Jones




<>

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Jones Beene]

 

 

From: Axil Axil 

 

The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous --- Of course this is not
LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to assert
two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence than the
very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim.

 

Gamma suppression does not cause LENR; it is accidental to the LENR
reaction.

 

However, it is still very important. It is the principle demarcation line
between LENR and LENR+.

 

Nonsense. There is no such thing as "gamma suppression" . It is a complete
fabrication of W-L without a shred of evidence AFAIK. if you have the
evidence, please show it

 

The LENR reaction emits gammas and this energy release destroys the nuclear
active sites. The LENR reactions will soon stop as the NAE are blown apart
and cratered.

 

More disinformation. There is no possibility of nano-sized sites stopping
gamma radiation. This requires thick lead shielding.

 

On the other hand, LENR+ thermalizes the energy that is produced in the NAE
as a secondary mechanism, but this thermalization of the reaction allows the
LENR+ reaction to occur over and over again from the same NAE for months on
end.

 

There is no evidence for this.

 

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Roarty, Francis X]

Harry,
I am ok with COE remaining a law but the "convention" that HUP 
can never be tapped needs to be stricken. My point is that the random forces 
normally cancelled in the macro world become organized by casimir geometry and 
can provide an exploitable bias from zero point energy.
Fran

From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 2:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

It might be possible to develop "realistic" models which explain these things 
if CoE is demoted from a law to a convention
or should a law always take precedence over intelligibility and experience?

Harry

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
mailto:zeropo...@charter.net>> wrote:
So, out of all the erudite Vorts, no one can answer the following simple
questions:

Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the proton from the
DOWN-spin quarks???

Why do...
 "All spin directions collapse on one or the OPPOSITE direction depending on
the measured photon polarization." ???

Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in OPPOSITE
directions???

Where is the physical model that explains the REASON for these basic
observations???

Why is the magnetic field PERPENDICULAR to the E-field???
It's all related...

-Mark (the reluctant hijackee) Iverson

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 6:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!


There seems to be two different overlapping threads going on here, since
Mark's original suggestion relating to subatomic quark resonance was
hijacked (by moi) in favor of another related subject: "lack of gammas" in
LENR. Apologies for that.

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Axil Axil]

*The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous --- Of course this is not
LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to assert
two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence than
the very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim.
*

Gamma suppression does not cause LENR; it is accidental to the LENR
reaction.

However, it is still very important. It is the principle demarcation line
between LENR and LENR+.

The LENR reaction emits gammas and this energy release destroys the nuclear
active sites. The LENR reactions will soon stop as the NAE are blown apart
and cratered.

On the other hand, LENR+ thermalizes the energy that is produced in the NAE
as a secondary mechanism, but this thermalization of the reaction allows
the LENR+ reaction to occur over and over again from the same NAE for
months on end.

When all this is considered, gamma thermalization is far more puzzling than
we think; it is connected to the LENR reaction but not required by it.

This type of mechanism is not supported by the W&L theory. Electrons
produce both the reaction and the gamma thermalization.

Electrons cannot do both jobs simultaneously. There must be a second
optional mechanism that these elections undergo to cause suppress the
gammas. I believe that that mechanism is Bose-Einstein condensation; a
ubiquitous condition in the lattice that is readily and continuously
restored and refreshed as the LENR+ reaction occurs.



On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> There seems to be two different overlapping threads going on here, since
> Mark's original suggestion relating to subatomic quark resonance was
> hijacked (by moi) in favor of another related subject: "lack of gammas" in
> LENR. Apologies for that.
>
> However, in regard to the latter, the take-away message should be that MeV
> quanta (gamma radiation) once emitted, can only be downshifted in steps -
> going down to 100s of keV, 10s of keV, hundreds of eV (EUV), 10s of eV (UV
> light), visible light and then to IR light, etc. All of this must be
> accomplished in dozens or hundreds of distinct steps involving millions of
> target atoms. Lewis Larsen wants to tell the world of physics that no, it
> is
> possible to do it all in one step, in one particle.
>
> The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous can be seen every day by
> looking up. Our sun makes gamma radiation as its prime energy product -
>  yet
> x-rays, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, microwave, and radio waves are all
> emitted - and the proportion of IR is well-understood. Of course this is
> not
> LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to assert
> two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence than
> the
> very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim.
>
> In the sun, gammas cannot escape without colliding with protons and
> electrons and losing a small portion of their energy on every collision -
> over and over and over. The same should be true on earth IF gammas are
> actually emitted. Moreover, a gamma ray typically spends 30,000 years
> colliding with atomic particles and re-emitting energy at a slightly lower
> energy level on the sun, until it finally escapes. That is a lot of
> downshifting, and to assert that it can all be avoided, because "we need to
> make gammas do that, in order to make our theory work" is essentially what
> the rest of science is being asked to believe.
>
> Don't ask me to explain the calculations that provided this million-day
> solar gamma lag time - but it is part of the standard model. Hagelstein -
> at
> least, suggests another pathway (phonon collective vibrations) that spreads
> the MeV radiation out over trillions of atoms in the metal lattice, unlike
> W-L which suggest a single particle downshifting. Almost no one in physics
> believes Hagelstein is correct on this, but he is far closer to making a
> case for "lack of gammas" than W-L.
>
> It seems a bit more logical to suggest that the lack of gammas can be
> better
> explained by the lack of the kind of nuclear reaction that produces gammas.
> The most prevalent nuclear reaction in the Universe, reversible proton
> fusion, produces no gammas. Shouldn't we be taking a closer look at RPF?
>
>
> From: Axil
> MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as
> follows:
> So there are no significant amount of neutrons, there's no
> fast electrons, there's no gamma rays. There's nothing you might expect if
> it were a more normal nuclear reaction process. The basic statement here is
> that - if it's real and if it's nuclear... the argument for it being
> nuclear
> is that there's 4He (helium-4) observed in experiments, roughly one 4He for
> every 24 MeV of energy that's created. So what you need in the way of a
> theoretical model, basically a new kind of mechanism that doesn't work like
> the old Rutherford reaction pict

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Harry Veeder]

It might be possible to develop "realistic" models which explain these
things if CoE is demoted from a law to a convention
or should a law always take precedence over intelligibility and experience?

Harry


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> So, out of all the erudite Vorts, no one can answer the following simple
> questions:
>
> Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the proton from the
> DOWN-spin quarks???
>
> Why do...
>  "All spin directions collapse on one or the OPPOSITE direction depending
> on
> the measured photon polarization." ???
>
> Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in
> OPPOSITE
> directions???
>
> Where is the physical model that explains the REASON for these basic
> observations???
>
> Why is the magnetic field PERPENDICULAR to the E-field???
> It's all related...
>
> -Mark (the reluctant hijackee) Iverson
>
> _
> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 6:39 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!
>
>
> There seems to be two different overlapping threads going on here, since
> Mark's original suggestion relating to subatomic quark resonance was
> hijacked (by moi) in favor of another related subject: "lack of gammas" in
> LENR. Apologies for that.
>
> 
>
>

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

So, out of all the erudite Vorts, no one can answer the following simple
questions:

Why are the UP-spin quarks on OPPOSITE sides of the proton from the
DOWN-spin quarks???

Why do...
 "All spin directions collapse on one or the OPPOSITE direction depending on
the measured photon polarization." ??? 

Why, in some nuclear interactions, do two gammas go shooting off in OPPOSITE
directions???

Where is the physical model that explains the REASON for these basic
observations???

Why is the magnetic field PERPENDICULAR to the E-field???  
It's all related...

-Mark (the reluctant hijackee) Iverson

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 6:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!


There seems to be two different overlapping threads going on here, since
Mark's original suggestion relating to subatomic quark resonance was
hijacked (by moi) in favor of another related subject: "lack of gammas" in
LENR. Apologies for that. 



<>

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[David Roberson]

Jones, I forgive you for hijacking the original thread since I was an 
accomplice.  I would like to understand the RPF reaction better if possible and 
to determine why it does not emit a gamma as you point out.  If the collisions 
between the protons are elastic, then the energy could be conserved by recoil 
behavior.  A great deal depends upon how long the two protons are under the 
influence of the strong force once the collision occurs.


It might be difficult to make a determination of the amount of time during 
which the protons are in close proximity.  I would expect the pair to be highly 
excited in this situation with plenty of energy available to emit.  But, the 
energy available is also the amount required to break apart the reacting 
protons as well and that seems to be what ultimately occurs.  I guess one must 
attempt to understand why the energy is not emitted as a gamma leaving the 
protons connected which is the question at hand.


Is there proof that the gamma emission does not occur?  In the center of the 
sun one might encounter an enormous flux of gammas of this binding energy and 
more due to excess kinetic energy among the reacting protons.  Perhaps the bath 
of high energy gammas continue to encounter the proton pairs and supply enough 
energy to break them apart as it becomes absorbed.


We do know that occasionally a proton pair becomes a deuterium nucleus and the 
process continues to supply heat to the solar system.  I believe that the 
energy required to break apart the deuterium nuclei is not available in large 
enough quantities so many of them remain intact.


Is it well understood why the pair of excited protons does not emit a gamma to 
lower their energy?  Is there proof that this does not occur only to be 
restored by the vast flood of gammas from other similar processes?  I ask these 
questions because I do not know the answers and would like to understand why 
certain behavior is observed.


Dave  



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Apr 4, 2013 9:39 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!


There seems to be two different overlapping threads going on here, since
Mark's original suggestion relating to subatomic quark resonance was
hijacked (by moi) in favor of another related subject: "lack of gammas" in
LENR. Apologies for that. 

However, in regard to the latter, the take-away message should be that MeV
quanta (gamma radiation) once emitted, can only be downshifted in steps -
going down to 100s of keV, 10s of keV, hundreds of eV (EUV), 10s of eV (UV
light), visible light and then to IR light, etc. All of this must be
accomplished in dozens or hundreds of distinct steps involving millions of
target atoms. Lewis Larsen wants to tell the world of physics that no, it is
possible to do it all in one step, in one particle.

The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous can be seen every day by
looking up. Our sun makes gamma radiation as its prime energy product -  yet
x-rays, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, microwave, and radio waves are all
emitted - and the proportion of IR is well-understood. Of course this is not
LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to assert
two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence than the
very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim.

In the sun, gammas cannot escape without colliding with protons and
electrons and losing a small portion of their energy on every collision -
over and over and over. The same should be true on earth IF gammas are
actually emitted. Moreover, a gamma ray typically spends 30,000 years
colliding with atomic particles and re-emitting energy at a slightly lower
energy level on the sun, until it finally escapes. That is a lot of
downshifting, and to assert that it can all be avoided, because "we need to
make gammas do that, in order to make our theory work" is essentially what
the rest of science is being asked to believe. 

Don't ask me to explain the calculations that provided this million-day
solar gamma lag time - but it is part of the standard model. Hagelstein - at
least, suggests another pathway (phonon collective vibrations) that spreads
the MeV radiation out over trillions of atoms in the metal lattice, unlike
W-L which suggest a single particle downshifting. Almost no one in physics
believes Hagelstein is correct on this, but he is far closer to making a
case for "lack of gammas" than W-L.

It seems a bit more logical to suggest that the lack of gammas can be better
explained by the lack of the kind of nuclear reaction that produces gammas.
The most prevalent nuclear reaction in the Universe, reversible proton
fusion, produces no gammas. Shouldn't we be taking a closer look at RPF?


From: Axil 
MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as
follows: 
So there are no significant amount of neutrons, there's no
fast elec

Re: [Vo]:mostly OT cancer breakthrough

[Jed Rothwell]

Yeah Mizzou! The place is becoming my favorite university.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:


> . . . there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
> of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.
>

I know little of theory, but that has long been my gut feeling. Some cold
fusion cells to produce gamma rays but I think this is a secondary effect,
or something completely unrelated such as fracto fusion.

I have heard many theory presentations in which the author speculates that
some complex mechanism manages to catch nearly all -- but not quite all! --
of the gammas before they come out of the lattice. This seems extremely
unlikely to me. How could the mechanism be so exquisitely tuned to make it
work 99.99% of the time but not the last faction of times?

Here is something that often happens in science and technology. People
discover X, and then later on they discover Y. Because they happen to find
X first, they assume that Y is a variant or subset of X. They assume that X
sets the general rule and Y must be something along similar lines which
follows the same rules and where there is a variation that variation must
be explained separately as a special case.

It often turns out that Y is the general case, and X was a variation. Or it
turns out that the two of them are unrelated.

We naturally assume that cold fusion is some sort of variation of plasma
fusion, because we discovered plasma fusion first. For all anyone can say,
it might turn out that plasma fusion is an unusual high-temperature variety
of cold fusion.

In the case of technology, we develop a method of doing something and then
when new and better machines are developed we bring along the old method
out of force of habit. We assume that this is how you should do things so
let's continue doing it that way, even though the circumstances have
changed. This is why newly invented machines look quaint were oddly out of
kilter a few years later. The early automobiles looked like "horseless
carriages" because they were, in the literal sense. A carriage for a horse
can be built high off the road. Making automobiles that way is a bad idea
because they travel much faster and they are blown around.  Model T Fords
driven in windy conditions or high speed blew all over the road. It took 20
or 30 years before people began to make automobiles streamlined and low to
the road.

- Jed

[Vo]:mostly OT cancer breakthrough

[Roarty, Francis X]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130403131354.htm

[Vo]:Evaluation of Uncertainties in Measurement of Isotopic Abundance by Semi-quantitative Analysis with TOF-SIMS

[Jed Rothwell]

This is a paper in the latest issue of J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sic.:

http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol11.pdf

Over the years, many experts in mass spectroscopy have told me that SIMS
can be inaccurate in some conditions, such as when one isotope is found in
much lower concentration than another. This paper does a good job of
spelling out the limitations and cautions you should bring to a SIMS
analysis.

Isotope shifts are one of the most difficult things to confirm in cold
fusion. If they are real, they are probably important. If not, they are a
waste of time. That does not help much, does it?


This issue also features an interesting look at Ed Storms' theory,
including a debate with one of the referees who wanted to reject the paper.
A civil, thoughtful debate.

As Jean-Paul said in the Preface:

"Again in this volume, I had to make a decision regarding a paper by Edmund
Storms. The referee did not agree with the reviewer, therefore we decided
to publish the paper along with the comments of the referee. I know that
this is not a common way of including the comments of referee in scientific
journals, but this field is very uncommon, and deserves an unusual openness
to ideas and suggestions."

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Jones Beene]

There seems to be two different overlapping threads going on here, since
Mark's original suggestion relating to subatomic quark resonance was
hijacked (by moi) in favor of another related subject: "lack of gammas" in
LENR. Apologies for that. 

However, in regard to the latter, the take-away message should be that MeV
quanta (gamma radiation) once emitted, can only be downshifted in steps -
going down to 100s of keV, 10s of keV, hundreds of eV (EUV), 10s of eV (UV
light), visible light and then to IR light, etc. All of this must be
accomplished in dozens or hundreds of distinct steps involving millions of
target atoms. Lewis Larsen wants to tell the world of physics that no, it is
possible to do it all in one step, in one particle.

The reason this claim of W-L theory is ludicrous can be seen every day by
looking up. Our sun makes gamma radiation as its prime energy product -  yet
x-rays, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, microwave, and radio waves are all
emitted - and the proportion of IR is well-understood. Of course this is not
LENR, but it is the model for gamma downshifting, and if you want to assert
two distinct miracles - then it is wise to show some other evidence than the
very phenomenon you wish to explain - with your outrageous claim.

In the sun, gammas cannot escape without colliding with protons and
electrons and losing a small portion of their energy on every collision -
over and over and over. The same should be true on earth IF gammas are
actually emitted. Moreover, a gamma ray typically spends 30,000 years
colliding with atomic particles and re-emitting energy at a slightly lower
energy level on the sun, until it finally escapes. That is a lot of
downshifting, and to assert that it can all be avoided, because "we need to
make gammas do that, in order to make our theory work" is essentially what
the rest of science is being asked to believe. 

Don't ask me to explain the calculations that provided this million-day
solar gamma lag time - but it is part of the standard model. Hagelstein - at
least, suggests another pathway (phonon collective vibrations) that spreads
the MeV radiation out over trillions of atoms in the metal lattice, unlike
W-L which suggest a single particle downshifting. Almost no one in physics
believes Hagelstein is correct on this, but he is far closer to making a
case for "lack of gammas" than W-L.

It seems a bit more logical to suggest that the lack of gammas can be better
explained by the lack of the kind of nuclear reaction that produces gammas.
The most prevalent nuclear reaction in the Universe, reversible proton
fusion, produces no gammas. Shouldn't we be taking a closer look at RPF?


From: Axil 
MIT Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein stated in an interview as
follows: 
So there are no significant amount of neutrons, there's no
fast electrons, there's no gamma rays. There's nothing you might expect if
it were a more normal nuclear reaction process. The basic statement here is
that - if it's real and if it's nuclear... the argument for it being nuclear
is that there's 4He (helium-4) observed in experiments, roughly one 4He for
every 24 MeV of energy that's created. So what you need in the way of a
theoretical model, basically a new kind of mechanism that doesn't work like
the old Rutherford reaction picture that nuclear physics is based on. So
that's the basic problem that I've been working on for a great many years.
The big problem is one that has to do with the quantum
mechanics issue. The nuclear energy comes in a big energy quantum, and if it
didn't get broken up, then the big energy quantum would get expressed as
energetic particles, as normally happens in nuclear reactions. So the
approach we've taken is that we've said "the only conceivable route for
making sense of these observations at all, is that the big energy quanta
have to get sliced and diced up into a very very large number if much
smaller energy quanta." The much larger number is on the order of several
hundred million. In NMR physics and optical physics, people are familiar
with breaking up a large quantum into perhaps 30 smaller pieces, you could
argue that there are some experiments where you could argue that maybe that
numbers as high as 100 or so. It's unprecedented that you could take an MeV
quantum and chop it up into bite sized pieces that are 10s of meV.
Harry Veeder wrote:
 
If a bunch of low energy photons  is equivalent to the
energy of 1 high energy gamma photon, why can't a particular nuclear
reaction sometimes produce a mountain of infrared photons instead one gamma
photon? According to conservation of energy this is possible, so why is it
considered impossible?
 
harry

MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: 
Dave stated:
"... and that the energy from the reactions is shared among
the atoms surroun

[Vo]:anitgravity book on sale

[fznidarsic]

http://www.amazon.com/Energy-Cold-Fusion-Antigravity-Znidarsic/dp/1480270237/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1365076195&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=%22znidarsic+science+books%22

Re: [Vo]:A pile of clues... should be obvious by now!

[Kevin O'Malley]

In the end, it should be crystal clear to anyone who understands nuclear
engineering - that there is no possible way to adequately explain the lack
of gammas in LENR - other than that they never happened at all.

Jones
***This is an elegant aspect of the theory, it obeys Occham's Razor.

[Vo]:Thrusters powered by ionic wind as efficient alternative propulsion technology -- huge solar powered high altitude airships could spiral into orbit in a week, using their own H2 gas for reactio

[Rich Murray]

Thrusters powered by ionic wind as efficient alternative propulsion
technology -- huge solar powered high altitude airships could spiral into
orbit in a week, using their own H2 gas as reaction mass for myriad tiny
thrusters: Rich Murray 2013.04.04


http://phys.org/news/2013-04-thrusters-powered-ionic-efficient-alternative.html#nwlt


Yevgen 13 hours ago comment

Efficiency of ionic wind apparatus have been explored and published years
ago, in 2002, and optimized designs have been analysed. Collection of these
publications can be found here: http://sudy_zhenja.tripod.com/lifter_theory/

Read more at:
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-thrusters-powered-ionic-efficient-alternative.html#jCp

Thrusters powered by ionic wind may be efficient alternative to
conventional atmospheric propulsion technologies

April 3, 2013 by Jennifer Chu

When a current passes between two electrodes — one thinner than the other —
it creates a wind in the air between. If enough voltage is applied, the
resulting wind can produce a thrust without the help of motors or fuel.

 This phenomenon, called electrohydrodynamic thrust — or, more
colloquially, "ionic wind" — was first identified in the 1960s. Since then,
ionic wind has largely been limited to science-fair projects and basement
experiments; hobbyists have posted hundreds of how-to videos on building
"ionocrafts" — lightweight vehicles made of balsa wood, aluminum foil and
wire— that lift off and hover with increased voltage. Despite this wealth
of hobbyist information, there have been few rigorous studies of ionic wind
as a viable propulsion system.

Some researchers have theorized that ionic thrusters, if used as jet
propulsion, would be extremely inefficient, requiring massive amounts of
electricity to produce enough thrust to propel a vehicle.

Now researchers at MIT have run their own experiments and found that ionic
thrusters may be a far more efficient source of propulsion than
conventional jet engines. In their experiments, they found that ionic wind
produces 110 newtons of thrust per kilowatt, compared with a jet engine's 2
newtons per kilowatt.

The team has published its results in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Steven Barrett, an assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics at
MIT, envisions that ionic wind may be used as a propulsion system for
small, lightweight aircraft. In addition to their relatively high
efficiency, ionic thrusters are silent, and invisible in infrared, as they
give off no heat — ideal traits, he says, for a surveillance vehicle. "You
could imagine all sorts of military or security benefits to having a silent
propulsion system with no infrared signature," says Barrett, who
co-authored the paper with graduate student Kento Masuyama.

Shooting the gap

A basic ionic thruster consists of three parts: a very thin copper
electrode, called an emitter; a thicker tube of aluminum, known as a
collector; and the air gap in between.
A lightweight frame typically supports the wires, which connect to an
electrical power source.
As voltage is applied, the field gradient strips away electrons from nearby
air molecules. These newly ionized molecules are strongly repelled by the
corona wire, and strongly attracted to the collector.
As this cloud of ions moves toward the collector, it collides with
surrounding neutral air molecules, pushing them along and creating a wind,
or thrust.
To measure an ion thruster's efficiency, Barrett and Masuyama built a
similarly simple setup, and hung the contraption under a suspended digital
scale.
They applied tens of thousands of volts, creating enough current draw to
power an incandescent light bulb.
They altered the distance between the electrodes, and recorded the thrust
as the device lifted off the ground.
Barrett says that the device was most efficient at producing lower thrust —
a desirable, albeit counterintuitive, result. "It's kind of surprising, but
if you have a high-velocity jet, you leave in your wake a load of wasted
kinetic energy," Barrett explains. "So you want as low-velocity a jet as
you can, while still producing enough thrust."
He adds that an ionic wind is a good way to produce a low-velocity jet over
a large area.

Getting to liftoff

Barrett acknowledges that there is one big obstacle to ionic wind
propulsion: thrust density, or the amount of thrust produced per given
area. Ionic thrusters depend on the wind produced between electrodes; the
larger the space between electrodes, the stronger the thrust produced. That
means lifting a small aircraft and its electrical power supply would
require a very large air gap. Barrett envisions that electrodynamic
thrusters for aircraft — if they worked — would encompass the entire
vehicle.

Another drawback is the voltage needed to get a vehicle off the ground:
Small, lightweight balsa models require several kilovolts. Barrett
estimates a small craft, with onboard instrumentation and a power supply,
would need hundreds or thousands of kilovolts. "The volta