Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote: That is CODATA. Of course, it is no less accurate than any of the others. > Unfortunately, it is no more accurate either. How can it be when quarks > have variable mass? Variability in the mass of the quark does not prevent an accurate proton mass from being specified. What it does is places a bound on the numerical precision that an accurate proton mass value can have. In short, you say 938.2xx MeV, and CODATA (Wikipedia) says 938.272046(21) MeV. Both of these values is accurate to within your value, and the CODATA value may or may not be more accurate. (I have no opinion on whose value is the better one here.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
I wrote: I gather that the idea is that ... some kind of shell model [is involved]. > Another analogy that might be relevant -- there could be different "isotopes" for protons and neutrons, e.g., bound states with differing numbers of quarks. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
Another point to add to this thread -- it's kind of a cool idea to think there might be different energy levels for the proton (or neutron). I gather that the idea is that the constituent particles of the proton (currently believed to be quarks) can be in different states of angular momentum (in contrast to intrinsic spin, which presumably is conserved), and together perhaps provide some kind of shell model, comparable to the electron shell model of the atom and the nuclear shell model of the nucleus. In this case there would be a ground state and then different excited states for the proton as a whole. If a shell-model approach is suitable, perhaps most protons would be in the ground state and then there would be brief periods where some of them are nudged into an excited state, and perhaps a few that are in a longer-lasting metastable state. These states would relax and give off a photon through an immediate or a proximate interaction of some kind. If a quantum system with relaxed and excited states is involved, I doubt that a Gaussian distribution would describe the energies (masses) across the population. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
I wrote: If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 > eV to use for free energy speculation. > Sorry -- +/- 0.21 eV. (I need a personal editor.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:A good analogy for nanomagnetism
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 9:18 AM, David Roberson wrote: The wiki article seems to tie down the proton mass quite accurately, but it > may just be the accuracy of the calculation instead of actual measurements. > I would be interested in seeing actual mass measurements by real > instruments instead of super computer calculations. It is not too hard to > visualize that the measurement accuracy is questionable. How can I go > about finding those results? The wiki article gives the proton (rest) mass as being 938.272046(21) MeV/c^2 [1]. If this value is accurate, at that precision I believe we have +/- 1 0.21 eV to use for free energy speculation. As you allude to, there's the accuracy of the mass and the precision of the mass. The precision of the mass given above implies that the standard deviation of the measurements is very small (as small as the numbers in parentheses). The precision and the accuracy of the number are related. The accuracy is the fit with experiment, and it places a bound on the precision that can be specified. The number above is most likely not an ab initio calculation and is instead a summary of the experimental findings relating to the mass of the proton. Because there was no doubt some variability found in the proton mass, a more precise number (more decimal places out) could not be specified. All of this assumes the Wikipedia people are being appropriately diligent in this particular case. Eric [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: ... I get really tired hearing about all the mathematical and/or > experimental evidence complaints coming out of Vortex-L about what someone > perceives as a critical and/or fatal flaw concerning Mills' CP, but they > never make a concerted effort to directly ask "the doctor" to respond to > such concerns. Instead many just continue complain about their misgivings > here ... The good thing about Mills's prodigious efforts to construct a theory is that, because it is a theory, it is something that can be grasped and elucidated by other people. This is in contrast to a revealed religion, say, where one may need to turn to the head of the religion to get clarification on questions that come up. Eric
Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > Personal gripe of mine: ... I get really tired hearing about all the > mathematical and/or experimental evidence complaints coming out of Vortex-L > about what someone perceives as a critical and/or fatal flaw concerning > Mills' CP, but they never make a concerted effort to directly ask "the > doctor" to respond to such concerns. Instead many just continue complain > about their misgivings here, and never do anything more than that: They > just complain. And then, soon enough, their complaints turn into > irrefutable fact. Self fulfilling prophecy. > I hope that as reasonable complaints continue to come up, everyone of them will be aired here. Then the smart people here will either clear up the misperception or they won't. Personally, I now don't trust anything coming from BLP to be more than diversion or advertising pablum. I am very happy that not everyone here likes Mill's explanation, for it gives one the distinct impression of serving as a low-pass filter to scare away smart people (apart from a few Vorts who stick with it anyway). As for the forum, what you say is reasonable on one level, but I do not think I could in good conscience join it. I'd just end up trolling the place for the two days I stayed there. I don't like it when people troll Vortex, and I don't want to bother BLP's forum in a similar vein. Mills's terse answers are most unlikely to resolve the kinds of issues that have been brought up so far. Better that someone here who has a good grasp of the whole theory be willing to spell out in some detail what the difficulty in understanding is and why the theory addresses it. So far I have only heard strong defenses of BLP as a company and Mills as a visionary, which, of course, do not address the particular point of theory that is at issue. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Elon Musk needs LENR
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > If Elon Musk wants to be buried on Mars surrounded by legends of vigorous > and healthy pioneering stock ... > Perhaps "legions" of vigorous and healthy pioneering stock? I doubt Elon Musk is aiming quite so high for what can be accomplished in his lifetime. I wonder if it has occurred to would-be Martian colonists that living there would subject one to a bit of cabin fever. Eric
Re: [Vo]:NASA Telescope Observes Signal That Can't Be Explained By Known Physics
I wrote: I'm reminded of how 1/137 somehow becomes the fine structure constant > (=137.035,999,173(35)) in some people's minds. I guess for BLP's purposes, > it does not matter. > Sorry, that's supposed to be 1/137.035,999,173(35). Eric
Re: [Vo]:NASA Telescope Observes Signal That Can't Be Explained By Known Physics
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Jones Beene wrote: In the original article, the line at 3.5 keV, like all spectral lines is a > very sharp peak, so sharp as to look like a straight line - as it should > found that way in Mills’ theory. > I thought that Mills's theory predicts "continuum radiation" (the electron classically spiralling down to the next lowest redundant level and somehow emitting broadband radiation as it does), and a *cutoff* (absence) at the inverse Rydberg level, because the channel permitted for electrons to give off energy to the external environment once below the ground state is FRET (apart from the continuum radiation, somehow). To summarize my present understanding: - NASA's Chandra x-ray observatory picked a signal at 3.55 keV, which does not correspond to a known atomic transition [1]. - Mills's theory predicts a *cutoff* right before an inverse Rydberg value of 3.48 keV. - NASA's signal is a "bump" centered on the 3.55 keV. - Mills's theory predicts a broadband signal and *no* bump or sharp peak. - As you noted, the NASA signal will have undergone a significant redshift by the time it reaches Earth. So Mills's value of 3.48 keV is not only lower than 3.55 keV, it's a lot lower than the energy corresponding to whatever wavelength the light had at the source. This looks like it is exactly a non-prediction related to hydrinos. Perhaps I've missed something important. I'm reminded of how 1/137 somehow becomes the fine structure constant (=137.035,999,173(35)) in some people's minds. I guess for BLP's purposes, it does not matter. Eric [1] http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/mysterious-x-rays-might-hint-at-dark-matter-07082014/
Re: [Vo]:NASA Telescope Observes Signal That Can't Be Explained By Known Physics
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jones Beene wrote: In fact, as should be apparent to Mills the radiation seen in several > remote galaxies comes from such a great distance that it must be strongly > red-shifted, by the time we get it - but RM proposes a value that is LESS > than the value seen. Doh. I have two questions that maybe someone knows the answer to: - Is Mills "predicting" a "cutoff," i.e., a broadband spectrum with a cutoff at 3.48 keV, or a sharp peak at 3.48 keV? - Is the finding in the original article a broadband spectrum with a cutoff, or a sharp peak? Eric p.s., I think the fancy single-quote in the title is driving eskimo.com crazy. (I've replaced it with a simple quote.)
Re: [Vo]:2-New LENR Patent Applications via Alain Coetmeur
I wrote: All of the metals above appear to have low work functions. What is meant by > "electron-donor" in this context appears to be that they're hot cathodes. > ... > Also note that some of the metals in the list are radioactive, so they or their daughters will give off alphas or betas or fission into prompt particles. The alphas and prompt particles will cause all kinds of excitation in the electronic structure. Eric
Re: [Vo]:2-New LENR Patent Applications via Alain Coetmeur
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > *The at least one electron-donor material is selected from the group > consisting of: Cs, Ba, Sr, Rb, Li, Na, Ca, K, Fr, Ra, in particular this > electron-donor material is Cesium.* > (From Piantelli's patent.) I'm not a fan of Piantellli's understanding of what's going on in LENR. But I do respect that he's been working with nickel since early days. And there's the cool story about the cloud chamber, where he placed a piece of metal that had been undergoing LENR in a cloud chamber and it threw off all kinds of activity for a long period of time. All of the metals above appear to have low work functions. What is meant by "electron-donor" in this context appears to be that they're hot cathodes. This detail is a gratifying one indeed to turn up. Elsewhere we have speculated that Rossi's catalyst might be something that had a low work function and emitted electrons. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MARKOV? NOT REALLY// QUANTUM-Transition ENTANGLED sequential MATRIXs Principia is NON RANDOM
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:02 PM, JackHarbach O'Sullivan < alset9te...@gmail.com> wrote: In light of this: Markovian Randomness is an absurdity. . . > Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Slide 47 shows a significant difference. > A qualitative increase is seen in M/e=2 species in both the excess heat run and the control on both slides 46 and 47. We only have two trials, so we don't have a sense of what the trend was over a large number of trials. On slide 46 the control run does not go beyond 1000 ks, so we don't know what the curve would look like beyond that for the control. There does appear to be a significant difference in the total volume of gas, however. Presumably this was a pattern that was seen over the course of several control and excess heat runs. I'm hoping a writeup will be provided that will clarify some of these questions. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Maybe it is, as the slides have a purpose - but I doubt that it can be the > end-of-story, because even if it is true and the other four ways to > disintegrate the deuteron are absent, O-P does not explain the doubling of > gas molecules. More likely, it could be both partly true and incomplete. > If Yushino's and Muzuno's findings are not artifact, I'm thinking OP might be going on. I don't have a clear sense of whether it would be the primary source of heat. If there is OP, there will also be fast protons, which might cause spallation reactions with nearby deuterons: http://i.imgur.com/cATIdcT.png Note that if this happens, and OP is the main source of the heat, such spallation reactions destroy the fuel. Also, there would be lots of ~ 180 keV (and higher) beta particles from the decay of neutrons and neutron-rich radioisotopes, and possibly gammas from radiative capture. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Galactic Bubbles
Jack, Do you use a Markov Chain-based generator? Eric On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 3:17 PM, JackHarbach O'Sullivan < alset9te...@gmail.com> wrote: * * * EINSTEIN'S EPIPHANY ILLUSTRATED:TACHYONIC SUPER-FLUID > Transdimensional Relativity EPIPHANY. . . . > > TACHYONIC SUPER-FLUID is HYPERSPACE=DarkEnergy/DarkMatter. . . 'Dark > Matter &/or Dark Energy' is semantics, distinction without difference ONE > AND THE SAME. > > GALACTIC AXIAL 'LIGHT-BULBS 'aka transdimensionally ingress > AEXODARK(DarkEnergy) TACHYONIC SUPER FLUID. > > * * * EINSTEIN'S PREDICTED NOW PROVEN TRANSDIMENSIONAL RELATIVITY: Via > the transdimensional Einstein-Rosen portal of our Galactic-Hub Singularity > these reported 'Light-Bulb-Lobes of ingress "TACHYONIC HyperGravionic > SUPER-FLUID" of Axial Ingress Jets draw themselves/constrict themselves > into HyperGravity Field lobes via their own hyper-speed/hyper > gravionic-dense Aexoplasmonic field . . aka phenomenal HYPER VORTEX-SPIN > constantly observed ad infinitum. > > The HUBS of ALL GALAXIES are transdimensional balance grey-hole > SINGULARITIES. . . ALL Singularities are Einstein-Rosen transdimensional > torus eye point-bridges connecting Tachyonic Super-Fluid Hyper-Space to our > Ovoid Universe Space-Time-Normal. . . > > Per Einstein: Space Time Normal 'M' ass =EC^2 THUSLY accelerate > Galactic-Atomic 'Mass' @ EC^2 to Light-Speed which then Singularity Ingress > AexoDarkEnergy HYPERSPACE Tachyonic Super Fluid at the BASE AMBIENT ENERGY > LEVEL of AE-Dark Tachyonic Super Fluid VIRTUAL NO DISTANCE/VIRTUAL NO TIME > @ AE=EC^3. . . . >
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Two things. Deuterium stripping – if that is one of the operative gain > mechanisms would still release lots of neutrons to be detected external to > the reactor. Notice that the nickel cross-section for neutrons is basically > rather low. > I take it that deuterium stripping is an all-or-nothing thing. Either the neutron is stripped off and added to the large nucleus, or it is not, in which case you get the equivalent of an inelastic collision. I.e., there are no messy, partial stripping reactions. Whether or not this assumption is correct, I'm guessing that this is the angle that Yoshino and Mizuno are pursuing. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Since Yoshino did include slides showing > the neutron cross-section of Ni58, the implication is that neutrons have > been seen. > I think the slides showing the neutron-cross section were hinting at the class of (X)Ni(d,p)(X+1)Ni reactions (which are generally exothermic), where a proton is expelled in a deuterium stripping reaction. If this is the correct interpretation, there would be no neutrons to detect. It would be the protons that would be detected, i.e., in an increase in molecular hydrogen correlated with a decrease in molecular deuterium. Note that the change in species does not appear to have been well correlated with excess heat, as the change was seen in both the trial and the control (as noted by Bob). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Can the Hydrino explain excess heat in NiH and PdD systems?
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Axil Axil wrote: I find it difficult to understand a situation where a multi-million dollar > company can exist and prosper for a quarter century without the development > of a single commercially viable product... > Here in California some startups will start out with a round of seed funding. They'll go along for a year, two or three and then do some soul searching, at which point they might "pivot," i.e., take a different tack or even a new direction. Typically a startup will not pivot more than once; possibly they'll pivot twice over the years. In most cases, within four years, say, they'll either have established a viable business selling a real product, or at least have built a real product that is useful to people, even if it does not yet make money (e.g., Twitter). The fact that BLP have pivoted several times over a period of 25 years and keep on going strongly suggests that they're working under a different set of pressures than a typical startup, even one that is research-oriented. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Important finding for nanomagnetism LENR
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 2:29 PM, David Roberson wrote: I am asking these questions in an attempt to determine the quantum step > energy levels associated with spin coupling. When I think of nuclear spin coupling, I think of a nucleus with different energy levels. Each level has a unique set of quantum numbers, including an angular momentum and a parity. There is a ground state, e.g., an angular momentum of 0 and a parity of +. Sometimes the ground state has an angular momentum different than 0+, e.g., 2+ or 1/2-. When the nucleus is excited to a different energy level, it's like pumping water up into a cistern. The water now has potential energy which, if a valve is opened, will be transformed into the kinetic energy of the water flowing downhill. The energy of the different nuclear excited states is often in the range of keV to MeV. So you can excite a nucleus to a higher energy level, and when it relaxes (often quite quickly, but sometimes it takes a bit of time), and a photon with energy equal to the difference in levels will be emitted -- e.g., a 193 keV gamma photon or a 1.7 MeV gamma photon. The transition, and therefore the photon energy, may not be directly to ground, and there may be a cascade of transitions as the nucleus relaxes. In this understanding, there is a transition from kinetic to potential energy and then from potential energy back to kinetic energy again, as the nucleus accepts energy (transitions to an excited state) and then emits it again (relaxes). Each transition will have its own half-life, but the half-lives are typically extremely short. In my limited understanding, in order for some kind of spin coupling to work as a means of fractionating the energy of a large gamma transition in a nearby compound nucleus following upon a fusion, I think the observer nucleus would need to relax only via transitions that are not far apart from one another, e.g., in the keV range rather than MeV range, in order to be consistent with the lack of gammas seen in LENR experiments. Sometimes a nucleus will have a large number of energy levels that are very close to one another, and in the relaxing of the excited state, there will be a series of photons emitted which do not go directly to ground. But all of this seems to leave a lot to chance, because a non-negligible portion of the time the nucleus will transition directly to ground, and thereby re-emitting a large photon. Sometimes a transition to ground will be forbidden; this is a detail that will depend upon the specific isotope, e.g., of nickel. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: I have a few observations that are not being discussed here (and I may be > missing something) from the slides from the MIT Colloquium. > >- *The report for the control experiment with no excess heat also >showed the decline of the M/e=4 species and rise of the M/e=2 &3 species*. > The two curves look qualitatively the same. >- In both experiments (excess heat and control), there appears to be a >loss of total mass of gas vs. time - by almost half in mass across the >experiment. >- Most of the mass loss was lost in the first half of the experiment, >then remaining nearly constant - yet the excess heat continued at about the >same power. It appears that the excess heat does not correlate well with >the loss of total mass of gas. >- The excess heat does not correlate with the amount of M/e=4 species. >- The gas "quantity" (is this a number of particles "quantity"?) grew >across the experiment even though the gas total mass declined. >- The excess heat does seem to correlate with Mizuno's total gas >quantity curve and the M/e=2 curve which look similar. > > These are good points. Note especially your bolded point, about the M/e=2 species increasing in both the excess heat run and the control. Either the control is not a control, or the increase in M/e=2 species is unrelated to the effect being observed. Note also that the maximum reactor temperature shown on slide 30 within the first 10k seconds was 70 C (not very hot). The experiment (including this particular trial?) lasted for a month, so perhaps the temperature increased beyond this later on. This detail is not necessarily indicative of artifact, but it's interesting from a commercialization perspective. Here is the link I have to the slides: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/YoshinoHreplicable.pdf Was a carefully edited writeup of the same experiment made available at some point? I do not think one can conclude much from conference slides. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Yoshino @ MIT
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Jones Beene wrote: 1) Deuterium does not convert into helium > Never since the advent of Bacon and the scientific method did a single experiment or set of experiments overturn a whole body of previous *experimental* results. When there's a new result, there's a need for a more sophisticated and encompassing explanation, not the shelving or ignoring of previous experiments (e.g., explaining them away as measurement error). The real challenge continues to be for those who ignore the entire breadth of experimental evidence and focus on a handful of experiments that suit their prior theory. It is ok to toss out individual experiments as being bad (for there are many bad LENR experiments). One is also free to throw out whole clusters of experiments over a period of years that show a common finding (e.g., 4He development), but good luck with that. It seems that Mizuno's experiment, if correct, shows one part of a large parameter space, where under certain conditions in an NiD/H gas system will evolve significant energy and spit out low-mass species. I think few who have done their homework would find this result revolutionary, in light of a range of similar and strange results over the years. It is encouraging, however, that Mizuno and Yoshino seems to be getting significant excess heat. Let's hope that others can reproduce this eventually. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
I wrote: In PdD and NiH, fast alphas and protons. Make that, "In PdD and NiH, fast protons." Fast alphas have also been seen, but to my knowledge not in NiH systems. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills hydrinos is not LENR
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Jones Beene wrote: We need to distinguish between “nuclear” and “fusion.” The is little > evidence of a fusion reaction in any form of LENR, sorry to say, but yes, > the gain is nuclear, in the sense of nuclear mass being converted into > energy in some way, which may not have been known prior to 1989. Most of us will have acquiesced in allowing Jones his point of view. But people who may be new to the scene will perhaps wonder at statements along these lines. To support it, Jones will need to produce evidence ruling out every instance of the following, as documented on a number of occasions in connection with PdD and sometimes NiH systems: - In PdD and NiH, fast alphas and protons. - In PdD, significant 4He production above background. - In PdD, in some cases significant tritium production above background. - In PdD and NiH, heat on order that lends itself to an explanation involving fusion (or fission). - Soft x-rays, suggestive of fast-moving charged particles. Jones is welcome to pursue his "nuclear but not fusion" angle, but it's good to keep in mind that this view is definitely just one among many. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Important finding for nanomagnetism LENR
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Interesting article. A quote: Recently, however, scientists at University of Strasbourg, France have > proposed that this limitation can be addressed by using miniaturized > ferromagnetic electrodes to create powerful localized force fields that can > be tuned by an external magnetic field. This reminds me of the Letts and Cravens paper on laser stimulation of deuterated palladium. When they applied an external magnetic field, they got different results. In the context of LENR, I wonder whether there could be a polarization of the nuclear spin states of nuclei within range of the strong magnetic nearfield created by some topological features in the lattice environment. It's not clear what this polarization might do. One possibility is that it could alter the cross-sections for reactions, and it could open up branches that are otherwise forbidden, e.g., when the nuclei are rotating quickly and have unsuitable multipole moments. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The Little Engine That Could
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Steve High wrote: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2014:07:28#SHT_provides_video_of_hydrogen_production_during_TRC_3rd-party_test Note that the nuclear binding energy of oxygen is ~ 7.7 MeV (the amount you would need to separate all of the nucleons). This makes some kind of O → 8 * H2 reaction highly endothermic. In addition, I assume the neutrons will have to beta decay to protons in order to get molecular H2. Each beta decay (one per molecule of H2) will deliver an electron with a max Q ~ 782 keV, whose spectrum will have a peak at around 180 keV. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jones Beene wrote: NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with > Poher’s device ... I have to hand it to groups at NASA for being relatively independent of the opinion of the physics mainstream. Apparently there is a culture of willingness to look at devices that are long-shots and whose inventors have not yet established their credibility. Eric
[Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive Eric
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Try Bechtel/Kresge. You do not need a visitors card there and they have > most of the good Journals. Good tip -- I'll take a look. With the guest card I have, I can log onto the Berkeley campus-wide journal site, download PDFs for just about any journal article (except, it seems, *Fusion Technology*) and print them out for a small fee. What R&D are you talking about, specifically? I was doing this reading about a year ago, when I was coming up to speed on the journal articles that were published in mainstream journals between 1989 to around 1992, before scientists lost enthusiasm and the tacit journal embargo really kicked in. Contrary to what I suggested earlier in my toungue-in-cheek description, this reading was actually almost entirely unrelated to the arc discharge stuff, although there are details that I remember from the early articles that are interesting. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: One solution could be that there exists another QM theory for hydrinos > only, they could simply be a new particle in QM speak or perhaps utilzing > some new force or whatnot. Thats it and > especially when we don't have a good understanding of the link between > them, we just cannot know for sure. > The "that's it" part seems like quite a lot. I'm not in a position to pass definitive judgment on Mills's theory, so I'm sort of forced by circumstance to keep an open mind. It's a kind of perfunctory, unenthusiastic open mindedness. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Heat dissipation is a MINOR engineering issue in the Suncell.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:57 PM, David Roberson wrote: A magnifying glass appears to reduce the effective area by a relatively > large amount, although I suspect the concentration is much less that 10,000 > to one. It would be easy to believe that the linear size of the apparent > sun at the focal point is 1/30 th the outside diameter of the glass. This > would appear to concentrate the light by 900 times. > The intensity of the emitted light sounds dangerous to me. Consider that a fresnel lense can easily be used to start a fire with one sun (in contrast to 10,000 suns). If the number is accurate, there may be military applications. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
I wrote: I've always been a little uncomfortable with the way the testing done on > behalf of BLP at Harvard-Smithsonian CfA is characterized. > What I need to come clean with is that I've been a little unfair, here. Because it turns out that the University of California at Berkeley has provided crucial backing for the idea some of us have been playing around with, that LENR is the result of microscopic electric arc discharges. What I mean is that people at Berkeley have rendered invaluable assistance in developing this general line of thought. What I mean is that the staff at the Doe Library have been crucial in directing me to where I could get a visitor library card, so that I could look at journal articles. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Heat dissipation is a MINOR engineering issue in the Suncell.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: With the hydrino explosion reportedly with 10,000 suns concentration ... > I have been trying to get a sense of what 10,000 suns would look like in the lab. I can only imagine it would be bright. I tried to get some numbers on what levels of light intensity can be undergone for brief periods of time, but I didn't find much. In concentrated solar installations there is an angle within which it is considered unsafe; the units I saw used in such contexts were MW, and I'm not sure how this translates into suns or whether a solid angle is needed. This is what I imagine 10,000 suns doing to you if you look at it: http://youtu.be/0APF3SO9tqE?t=3m11s Eric
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: there is critiques stemming from not believing in hydrinos > because the feel they must give up on QM, which perhaps is not true. > Perhaps hydrinos and QM are not incompatible; for example, maybe they're dual, as you have suggested previously. If so, could you help me to understand where the "prediction" of a broadband spectrum comes from? This is the explanation as I have seen in promotional literature: as the electron goes to deeper redundant levels, first it yields a kick to the Mills catalyst via Forster resonance energy transfer (FRET), and then it "spirals down," giving off broadband emission. QED says that electrons radiate emissions in sharp peaks as they relax (or excite) from one quantized energy level to another. In effect, they tunnel from one level to another, and the *single* photon that is given off has an energy that is the delta of the two levels. In QED, there is an explicit understanding that there is no classical spiraling down. The spectra bear this out, as there are lines for the hydrogen atom at the non-redundant levels rather than broadband emissions. Broadband emissions suggest multiple photons, or another particle that is involved, or something else I haven't been acquainted with. My questions: - Is QED's claim about sharp lines and instantaneous transitions wrong for the non-redundant electron levels? - If it is not wrong, why are there sharp lines for the non-redundant levels and then broadband emissions for the redundant levels? Where does the discontinuity arise from? This kind of detail may seem like a trifling point to worry about; but it's actually very important. People have spent their whole lives looking at this type of question. One should not just wave it away. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: Mills spectral evidences is pretty thorough and I can't understand that if > true, it came from some other mysterious process. > Perhaps it would help if we could move beyond generalizations and get concrete. Would you be willing to provide some spectral predictions that we can look at? (Please forgive my ignorance of specifics of Mill's theory.) Just a handful will do. Hopefully they will be straightforward, and ideally they will be different from the quotidien kind of thing you see in LENR experiments; if they are not different, we'll need to start considering the possibility that Hydrinos and LENR are identical (which I understand Mills has disavowed). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
I wrote: spectroscopy at Harvard CfA showed evidence (and several possible > artifacts) of continuum radiation in the 10-30 nm range from low-energy ... > There is a further lack of clarity as to the employer of the spectropists. Were they GEN3 subcontractors with no affiliation to Harvard CfA who were permitted to use its facilities, perhaps by renting a machine for a short period of time? The careful wording of the preamble to the report leaves open a range of possibilities. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Mike Carrell wrote: That light was observed at BLP and confirmed at the Harvard-Smithsonian > Center for Astrophysics. I've always been a little uncomfortable with the way the testing done on behalf of BLP at Harvard-Smithsonian CfA is characterized. After hearing statements like the one above, one gets a little excited and wants to repeat to others, "Harvard professors tested and confirmed that Mill's device works and proved that hydrinos exist." But then one goes back to the writeup by GEN3 Partners, who oversaw the test, and reads: "Alexander Bykanov, PhD ... Spectroscopy was performed at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), Cambridge, MA, USA by spectroscopists under contract to GEN3 Partners". It seems that what was confirmed, if Bykanov's retelling is accurate, is that spectroscopy at Harvard CfA showed evidence (and several possible artifacts) of continuum radiation in the 10-30 nm range from low-energy, high current pinch discharges of molecular hydrogen, and not in comparable trials with helium. This fellow appears to be the Alexander Bykanov mentioned as the author of the GEN3 writeup: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/alexander-bykanov/10/b6b/583 (If this is the same Bykanov, and one wondered on a lark whether he had some kind affiliation with Harvard, one may now wonder no more.) Eric p.s. There are some of us (at least two) who like explanations of LENR involving electric arc discharges. [1] http://free-energy.xf.cz/H2/papers/GEN3_Harvard.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Mike Carrell wrote: Arc welders commonly flood t ears wit argon, a cheap inert gas, to avoid > oxidation of the metal before it cools. Ionized argon has served as a > catalyst in earlier gas phase experiments, but it plays no part in the > SunCell. > Sounds a lot like Papp's device. I have not done the homework on this particular demo, so I have no opinions about it. But here is the outcome I would *like* to see and that would render perfect justice to all parties: - The device is just a reprise of the Papp engine. - The technology is covered by Papp's patent. - The reaction is LENR driven. It has exactly zero do to with hydrinos, as evidenced by there not being any evidence for hydrinos beyond the usual evidence for LENR. - The COP is closer to 1-2 rather than +100, as has been claimed by unbiased and well-intentioned parties. Such a set of facts, if verified, would bring eternal bliss and happiness to the hearts. There might also be a little gnashing of teeth. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Spin coupling of DDL to 62Ni
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Jones Beene wrote: http://iccf15.frascati.enea.it/ICCF15-PRESENTATIONS/S8_O2_Cook.pdf > > If you have nothing better to do this weekend, here is a 71 page paper > which Rossi says gives a correct explanation of gain with Ni-H. I do not > have the time, so the hope is to entice someone else to "chop wood" (Van > Morrison fans will appreciate this metaphor) > I am happy to take one for the team in this instance. These are interesting slides in which Norman D. Cook [1] gives an overview of the argument for his FCC nuclear structure model. He describes a nuclear structure in which the nucleons arrange in an FCC lattice, with layers of protons and neutrons sandwiched together, and, in larger nuclei, forming a diamond-like structure (see slide 46). Cook suggests his model does away with the need for long-range "effective" forces between nucleons and allows the nucleus to be understood entirely in terms of interactions between nearest neighbors. I do not know anything about Cook, but he appears to have published in some reputable journals. The slides were connected with ICCF 15, which looks like it took place in Rome in 2009. Cook contrasts his model with the independent particle model, the liquid drop model and the lattice model of the nucleus. There is almost no obvious connection to LENR. A slide at the very end suggests that his model explains why symmetrical daughters are produced in the fission of palladium at low energies, and at an earlier point he seems to be saying that there is a ~ 3 MeV magnetic attractive force between nearest neighbor nucleons. To be honest, I don't see an obvious connection to LENR, possibly apart from the magnetism bit. I'm not sure how Rossi feels himself to be in a position to assess the merit of Cook's theory or how it relates to LENR. Eric [1] http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~cook/
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
> On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:51, Bob Higgins wrote: > > I don't really understand what you mean by "strong Coulomb field in the > background". I'm thinking of a gradient of Coulomb charge off to the side of the oncoming d's which is sufficient to polarize them as they approach one another in the center of mass frame. It would be provided by the heavy nuclei that make up the lattice sites in the metal (each of which will have a large number of protons). I am not thinking of relativistic velocities, and my hunch is that the d's will have time to orient in relation these gradients. > In plasma fusion, I envision the Coulomb field primarily coming from > repulsion from the two protons as they approach each other. Agreed. In a plasma, I doubt the positive charge density (or any charge density) in the background would be much, if anything. This is one of the details that I suspect makes cold fusion possible or not possible. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Axil Axil wrote: I am anonymous and as such I avoid the complications and the pitfalls of > ego and reputation. Whatever Ed says about me does not stick. > Perhaps you are anonymous. But you have left a trail of breadcrumbs as to your identity for anyone who pays attention. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Interview w/ Dr. Brian Ahern of MFMP
This is great. Note the "accumulated charge of pure, life-enhancing energy ... [radiated] into the environment along a plane perpendicular to the direction of flow." Vortex is the wacky overunity devices study group. I did not expect such things to become a personal hobby, or to take such pleasure in some of the doodads. Eric On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent >> structures can become stable * >> >> There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended >> period of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around within >> the context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. >> >> >> >> Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the BEC >> endures but will decay when isolated on its own. >> >> >> >> The application of energy to air will catalyze a polariton soliton, but >> that vortex will rapidly decay. A high energy electron produced by beta >> decay might produce a polariton soliton, when the emitted electron releases >> its energy in a collision with a nitrogen molecule. But that soliton does >> not stay around very long, it decays in Picoseconds. The same is true for >> spark discharge in air. However, if the spark vaporizes material, say an >> aluminum sheet, a cooling plasma of aluminum will supply nano and micro >> particles together with the electrons and the photons in the spark >> discharge within a contextual medium to catalyze a polariton soliton BEC. >> The energy of the discharge is great enough to form a BEC. With the support >> of this polariton BEC, this soliton ensemble persists and is localized for >> long enough to transmute the surrounding material through the projection of >> a coherent anapole magnetic field (a monopole field). >> >> >> >> Ken Shoulders saw this whole process unfold in this research, but he >> never added the polariton and the associated BEC context to his >> experimental explanations. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing >>> it elsewhere >>> >>> With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along >>> the way as an inappropriate analogy. >>> >>> The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which >>> results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs >>> mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of >>> material. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: >>> I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them "ion acoustical modes", T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he and Mallove believed was legitimate. So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for material requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set up these nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other vortex, is quite good at picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing it elsewhere -- in this case from the "Aether" into our 3D-space (Higgs field, ZPF, or whatever) (think of a longitudinal wave in a riverbed). We know ball-lightning solitons result from fracto-emissions -- perhaps it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent structures can become stable and setup resonance with the vacuum. All speculation of course. On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Another area that Ahern needs to look into is the way the Higgs field > seems to connect together magnetism and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), > which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions. > > When Ahern is postulating that nanomagnitism is effecting the vacuum, > he may mean to address how the Higgs field and nanomagnitism interact, > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their >> specialization to a limited field of study. To understand a system fully, >> many fields of study must be considered to put all the pieces together. >> >> >> >> One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to understand >> how magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. >> >> >> >>>
Re: [Vo]:Wave Powered Design for less than $200/kw
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote: My design consists of deploying wave powered small pumps. Each pump cost > less than $15.. I plan to deploy around 10,800 such pumps to generate > between 1.4MW to 5MW of electricity depending on the intensity of the waves. > I'm guessing there will need to be tethering to anchor all of the pumps. What measures will be needed to ensure safety of swimmers in the area? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: Are you saying calorimeter measurements can measure sunlilght, UV and soft > X-Rays? I didn't think that was the case. Any electromagnetic radiation at these energies that is stopped within the volume of the calorimeter will be thermalized and picked up as a temperature increase. As others have mentioned, UV and soft x-rays do not have a long mean-free path in many substances and are likely to be stopped; if not within the calorimeter volume, then at its inner wall, unless the energy is primarily delivered as visible light and the calorimeter has a transparent wall. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Attenuation.svg http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/613529/ultraviolet-radiation That a calorimeter is likely to pick up the energy delivered by such radiation is a detail that Mills will readily understand. Are you familiar with the details of the calorimetry, e.g., what kind of calorimeter was used? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: When you speak of the plasma fusion output channels, I like to think of it > in a Bohr-sian way. Presuming plasma, you have isolated deuterium nuclei, > with each nucleus spinning around random vectors. When a pair approaches > with a trajectory alignment that the collision will result in fusion, the > relative rotation between the nuclei is still random. > After thinking about this more, I kind of like your description for the three dd branches. Is it something you heard or read about somewhere, or just what made sense to you? The strong force is like fly paper - it is so short range (fraction of a > nucleon diameter), you have to essentially "touch" before sticking. So you > end up with 3 possibilities of this close approach: 1) proton is closest > and hits and sticks first, 2) neutron is closest and hits and sticks first, > and 3) the proton and neutron hit just right so that they both hit at the > same time and stick in an interlocking fashion. When 1) happens, a neutron > is released and you get 3He. When 2 happens, a proton is released and you > get tritium, and when 3) happens you get 4He and a gamma. > Another possible interpretation of this is that in the d(d,p)t and d(d,n)3He branches, the two d's do not fully tunnel into a compound nucleus. Instead, the individual nucleons (p in one case, and n in the other) tunnel across the potential barrier along the lines of the Oppenheimer-Phillips process and are stripped off of the d that once held them. Preceding the scattering, there may or may not be reorientation of the d's to account for Coulomb repulsion from the proton in the oncoming d. This would predict that 1) and 2) would be fairly common and 3) would be > very rare. However, because of the Coulomb field, as the deuterium nuclei > approach each other, it would push the protons apart, making the neutrons > more likely to face each other, but this only happens at the last minute. > Because of this, 2) may be slightly more favored. > A different prediction would be that the strong Coulomb field in the background orients the d's so that the constituent p's are facing out away along the gradient towards less charge. So the incident d's would look like this: Coulomb field + n n | -> <- | p p In this scenario, the two d's collide in parallel instead of oriented at random or in tandem. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: The strong force is like fly paper - it is so short range (fraction of a > nucleon diameter), you have to essentially "touch" before sticking. So you > end up with 3 possibilities of this close approach: ... > I used to think of scattering this way too -- sort of like billiard balls colliding. More recently my understanding of scattering has changed, although it may still be less adequate than the model you propose. When you have a particle such as a neutron incident upon a nucleus, there is a chance that tunneling will occur. The waveform of the neutron might squeeze through the potential barrier of the nucleus and tunnel inside it; in the case of a neutron, the potential barrier is very low. If the neutron tunnels through the potential barrier, you'll now have a new nucleus in an excited state, with an additional neutron. Although nucleons are often thought of as being rigid, a composite nucleus is more like a drop of water -- vibrating with all kinds of modes and splashing around. With the addition of the neutron, the nucleus wants desperately to shed energy and transition to a lower energy level. It is wobbling quite a bit and is unstable. If it is on the neutron drip line, a neutron waveform will "drip" back out of the potential barrier provided by the strong interaction, and it will be as though the neutron were never captured, except the nucleus will still be in an excited state. If the neutron stays, the excited nucleus will transition to one or more lower-energy states through other means, often through gamma emission or internal conversion. With two deuterons, there's a similar phenomenon going on. The deuterons tunnel and form a very unstable compound nucleus, like a blob of water in the space shuttle. Even though the lifetime of the unstable compound nucleus is very brief, my understanding is that the nucleons will move around the nucleus within their shells many, many, many times before the final fate of the compound nucleus is decided. I don't take this to mean that there isn't some kind of classical physics going on within the nucleus. But it suggests to me that once tunneling to the compound nucleus has occured, we're no longer talking about the neutron of one deuteron facing the proton of another, and by this means deciding the outcome of the transition. This is just an impression. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: One of the things about Hagelstein's proposition that bothers me is that > the excited nucleus does not want to stay excited for very long - it decays > in an incredibly short time. Suppose you are de-exciting a dd* that wants > to release 24 MeV of energy with a set of phonons at 10THz. The frequency > difference is 24MeV=5.8e21Hz compared to 10THz=1E13Hz or a ratio of 5.8E8. > If you are taking the energy away with a 5.8E8x lower frequency phonon, it > seems like it would take 5.8E8x as long to extract the energy. Can an > excited nucleus be coerced into waiting to burp that long? It seems like > it would require extreme coupling between the excited nucleus and the > lattice for that to happen - much more coupling than the exchange coupling > of the electronic lattice can provide. > Yes -- your feeling about phonons is similar to mine (and, for me, spin coupling, too). The problem largely feels like a bandwidth/latency optimization problem. The compound nucleus is optimizing for the fastest, highest throughput decay. So it has different options (observed and hypothesized): - gamma emission -- high latency, high throughput - kinetic disintegration (to 3He, t, etc.) -- medium latency, high throughput - coupling with phonon modes -- low latency, low throughput? - spin coupling -- low latency, low throughput? - electromagnetic impulse (EMP) -- low latency, high throughput? (When seen in the above light, the optimized solution seems to me to be EMP, assuming the different channels have been properly characterized.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Axil Axil wrote: What happens in the endothermic energy case where energy is delivered to > enable the reaction. > I'm not sure. Perhaps the force of the incident beam is strong enough to give rise to endothermic reactions that would otherwise be energetically forbidden. > As in Mizuno, when deuterium becomes podium. > I suspect this is the OP process: (X)Ni + d → (X+1)Ni + p. Note that this is exothermic. > Is the energy delivered as a gamma ray or is it sent over in discrete low > energy quanta? > Since no gammas are detected, I assume none impart energy for endothermic reactions. I'm not all that confident I understand the details of the endotherm in Mizuno's experiments. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > Why focus on the Coulomb field? Focus on the intense magnetic fields that > can polarize nuclei parallel and antiparallel and cause them to spin in > harmony. Transfer of mass via spin energy is possible, although it is not > common in a plasma or free particle system most are familiar with. Solid > state lattices allow more options for interactions including spin coupling. The Coulomb field is more intuitively accessible to me at this point, and an ion core presents a huge surface of charge to impart energy to (in addition to any nearby electrons). I get the impression that spin coupling is like trying to go fast on a ten-speed bike, but using only the lowest gear. No matter how fast you pedal the pedals, energy is still going to be translated into motion of the bike only very slowly. This might just be a misimpression on my part. As I learn more about nuclear spin, perhaps its potential as a conduit will become apparent. Gammas are not necessary for mass conversion to thermal kinetic energy. I think we agree on this point. What's needed is to transfer the energy of the decay of a compound nucleus to the environment in a benign way (assuming we have fusion, as I do). Since we don't see gammas, I assume that energy is imparted through some other mechanism. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: Wasn't Graneau basically using acoustic principles to time his pulses and > engineer their intensity to break atomic bonds -- thereby producing his > "exploding water"? > Maybe. I don't have an opinion on whether the water arc results were any more than this. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: I posted this on another thread recently. > Yes -- I saw that. What you write is interesting. I am still acquainting myself with the relevance of Luttinger liquids, and I'm no fan of BECs in the context of LENR, although the electric arc part it seems to me is relevant. The idea of electric arcs has a long history in Vortex (at least as far back as Graneau's water arc experiments). Back in December 2013 Robin was helping me to better understand how electric arcs might be relevant: http://rolling-balance.blogspot.com/2013/12/what-i-think-might-be-going-on-in-lenr.html Eric
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Foks0904 . wrote: What parameter is limiting the downshift exactly? Ahern has speculated > that ferromagnetic collective modes, first explored by Ulam, are at play in > LENR. These systems tend to amplify the vibratory modes of a system and > then tend to localize energy in a coherent fashion -- seemingly in > violation of the second law (i.e. an open system phenomenon). This seems > compatible with Hagelstein. If this sort of self-organizing collective mode > is at play in LENR, what's to limit the downshifting/sharing effect across > the system? > I think we're thinking of something vaguely similar, and the terminology is starting to become ambiguous. When I think of a hot metal, I think of a lot of motion of the metal lattice atoms and, overall, a chaotic environment. The higher the temperature, the more chaotic the movement of the lattice sites. It is hard to imagine some kind of coherent motion of the heavy lattice sites spontaneously forming in such a context; in this regard, I am in agreement with Ed Storms. One might speculate that Hagelstein is attracted to the general approach of working out a harmonic oscillator simply because the math is familiar and leaves open the possibility of fractionating a large quantum of energy (perhaps we could call it the 24 MeV PdD quantum). What I'm thinking of is related to what one might think of as "downconversion," but different. When there is a fusion underway, it proceeds in stages. First the parent nuclei come together, and if they are close enough to tunnel, you get a compound nucleus. In the case of dd fusion, the [dd]* compound nucleus is highly unstable and will quickly decay to a more stable configuration. In plasma fusion research, this particular compound nucleus is known to transition from the excited state via three channels—d(d,n)3He, d(d,p)t, and d(d,ɣ)4He. These are the channels we're aware of for this particular reaction, which we've become acquainted with in the context of plasmas. When I think of "downconversion," I think of a d(d,ɣ)4He fusion happening and a gamma forming, and then you take care of the gamma by stepping it down through some kind of nuclear-level transformer. Once we've gotten this far, my intuition tells me that we're too late, and you're going to get the problem that Bob and Jones mention, where a significant portion of the gammas are going to leak and kill the graduate student. I don't think Hagelstein is talking about this. He's talking about something that preempts the gamma altogether by splitting the energy of the decay of the compound nucleus across a large number of phonon modes (and also more recently "nuclear degrees of freedom"). My difficulty with Hagelstein's approach is not how he tries to avoid the gamma by transmitting smaller packets of energy off to a large number of sinks; it's in his focus on harmonic oscillation. To my mind, the evidence best fits a story in which there is fusion of many different kinds occurring, and what is needed to bring it about without high energy gammas is a strong Coulomb field. Somehow the Coulomb field switches on a latent fusion branch that is not possible in diffuse plasmas. The Coulomb field provides a kind of path to ground not unlike the ground found in electronics. The presence of the field unlocks a way for an unstable compound nucleus to transfer the energy it must shed to sources of charge in immediate area. In this regard it is reminiscent of a lightning rod. Or like a capacitor with a short circuit to ground, the compound nucleus does not undergo any of the usual three decay modes and instead quickly imparts its energy via Coulomb coupling. Both electrons and ion cores receive an impulse. In a momentary flash, the ion cores, which are very heavy in relation to the compound nucleus, barely budge, and the electrons are accelerated enough to give off soft x-rays. Even a 24 MeV charge is thereby harmlessly diffused across a large number of sinks of differing masses. A candidate in my mind for such a Coulomb field is the narrow confines of the z-pinch of current in which a beam of protons or deuterons is accelerated under astronomical force into the side of a metal grain, in the context of the arcing of an electric arc. My assumption is that this Coulomb field is significantly stronger than in a diffuse plasma. The branches mentioned above were for PdD. In the case of NiH, I assume there is a combination of nickel proton capture and 3He generation (via pd reactions), as well as lots of other reactions, depending upon the impurities. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Microwave Transmutation/Blue Eagle Refiners
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Brad Lowe wrote: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms411WCBEZk > Is he creating "magnetic" carbon, or is it fusion? > http://www.materialstoday.com/carbon/news/magnetic-carbon/ The article talks about how proton irradiation can make carbon magnetic. Even if there was proton irradiation and it did not result in fusion (proton capture), is still interesting that there would be a energetic protons. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
I wrote: Even a year ago I was persuaded that there must be some kind of high-energy > gamma downconversion at play ... > Just to clarify -- I do think the full energy of a nuclear transition, when there is one, is being dissipated to the environment, but not through some kind of harmonic oscillation with phonons or something similar, and especially not through the formation of a gamma followed by some kind of tennis game that downconverts it after it has been emitted. My working hypothesis is that the nuclear transition energy is being dumped all in one go across numerous charge carriers in the neighborhood of the interaction when it takes place in a strong Coulomb field. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Hagelstein has never been able to find a physical model for his contention, > not even one which is remotely close - and it is amazing that he has not > thrown in the towel on a losing battle. It simply does not happen in the > real world. > I agree with you on this one, Jones. Even a year ago I was persuaded that there must be some kind of high-energy gamma downconversion at play (or, as was suggested, possibly some upconversion). But I don't find this a promising lead anymore. I find even less likely the possibility that the downconversion would be mediated by phonons (although I'm not exactly sure what Hagelstein's position is on this subject). Eric
[Vo]:Karabut and soft x-rays
There is a researcher by the name of Alexander Karabut who has studied glow discharge in PdD systems for many years. Here is a brief discussion by Ludwik Kowalski of some of Karabut's work: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/223karabut.html In one kind of experiment, Karabut has carried out glow discharge with a palladium cathode and deuterium in the chamber. He has seen some interesting things doing this type of experiment. He has used photographic plates to capture strong evidence of both collimated and multidirectional x-rays being emitted from the palladium cathode in the course of trial runs. For the energy of the x-rays, Kowalski mentions photons in the range of 1.2 to 3 keV. If we set aside for the moment the possibility of exotic states of matter that might produce the x-rays, they might otherwise be due to the high energy excitation of L-level electrons in the palladium lattice atoms (see "Electron binding energies," down the page): http://www.webelements.com/palladium/orbital_properties.html The L-shell electrons might be excited through different means, but the collimation of some of the x-rays is suggestive of a beam of protons or deuterons travelling through layers of the target. If this is what is causing the collimation, there would be nothing specific to the palladium system in the phenomenon (except for the energy levels), and one could expect a similar phenomenon to arise with a nickel target. Another point worth drawing attention to is Kowalski's calculation of the rate of transmutations suggested in one of Karabut's papers, at 1E13 transmutations per second, which is well into Watt-level production. In light of this calculation, one might be nervous taking too much to heart the claim that is sometimes heard that transmutations are not seen on the order needed to explain excess heat. That this is LENR and not something else is suggested by the levels of excess heat reported by Karabut and the lack of gammas (if my memory serves me). Eric
Re: [Vo]:the fly in the ointment
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > The most flexible explanation of the LENR reaction is one that entails a > powerful bolt of energy impacting on an unspecified but variable pile of > atoms that result in any sort of recombination of any number of protons and > neutrons coming back together. ... This powerful bolt of energy would > supply the power to permit endothermic nuclear processes to proceed. ... > LENR is more like an atom smasher then a tokomak. > This is a detail worth thinking about, since the transmutations are all over the map. If nuclear reactions are the main show, as is my guess, the strong force is no doubt involved. When the strong force is involved, it is difficult to contemplate an pathway that does not end in an abrupt tunneling of some kind, even if you miraculously step things down significantly beforehand. In a nuclear reaction, there's going to be an abrupt transition. So my guess is that there's good old-fashioned beam collisions occurring, with every ambient species getting mixed into the beam pathway, and the environment is different from a plasma in some important way: http://i.imgur.com/PoRGR7G.png The blue is a current of protons from one electrically insulated metal grain to another, undergoing z-pinch, which focuses it. I read a few days ago that a photon will not interact with a free electron; in order for a scattering to occur, there has to be an electromagnetic field present. I'm guessing that a strong electromagnetic field alters the usual branches dramatically. (I suppose there may be something nonnuclear going on along the lines that Jones suggests, which results in prompt emissions as a minor side channel. Less likely, perhaps years of transmutation studies are all in error and due to contamination. But I would not place my bets on these explanations.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction"
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote: What does a near-zero K temperature phenomenon have to do with LENR or the > price of wheat? > > You are talking about a BEC of Rydberg atoms. That BEC is very heavy and > can only happen at low temperatures. A BEC of Zero mass or near zero mass > bosons can exist at vey high temperatures. So your inbreed assumptions are > not correct. > Although I'm skeptical about the BEC stuff, I'm not saying you're incorrect on this one. I do think you have the burden of showing that such a zero-mass or near-zero-mass BEC exists and is relevant to LENR. In order to be convincing, I think you would need to come up with a simple, cost-effective experiment that we can all agree is falsifiable and that will establish your claim. It would not be enough to point to promising articles on phys.org, as the starting points of such research are usually too far removed from the kinds of systems we're interested in. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction"
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Ruby wrote: Yes, data is missing, but there is also ALOT of data available, too. > Unfortunately, it is difficult to even agree on what the facts are! > Like you mention, it's difficult even to agree on what the facts are. Certainly on this list. The situation creates a breeding ground for endless speculation. Here are some of the questions I've had trying to read the primary source material as well as commentaries on it: - Is the quality of the article or report any good? Sometimes there are potential sources of error in plain view (e.g., the initial heat spike in a gas loading experiment being counted as excess heat, or a long period of endotherm that is ignored). There are rarely error bars, and in some cases little evidence that the author is aware of error bars. - Is the article saying something new? Sometimes a researcher seems to recycle the same material over and over for years. - Has the author's own bias as to what is going on resulted in inadvertent self-censorship on what he or she reports? - Is a review turning a few, ambiguous or inchoate patterns into basic principles too quickly? (E.g., the importance of cracks.) - Has a pet experiment for idiosyncratic reasons been cast as one of fundamental importance? - What is going on with the NiH/NiD systems, anyway? For nickel we basically have Rossi, Piantelli, Mizuno, and, if you like, Thermacore, to look to, and for Rossi we don't have much of substance beyond the Elforsk report. Presumably the nickel people are doing much better than the palladium people right now; at least, this is what we're given to believe, without much to back up this impression. Hopefully Mizuno will help us out here, since I hear he's been seeing some promising things. Concerning the theorizing, both off and on this list: - What does a near-zero K temperature phenomenon have to do with LENR or the price of wheat? - How can you have something as delicate as a molecule both serve as a guide for the strong interaction and keep from breaking apart in a hot metal lattice, while keeping electrons and protons evenly spaced along it? - By what train of careful experimentation was it shown that magnetism has a huge effect on the fusion or fission cross sections in the kinds of contexts we're looking at? - How can one in humility put forward a theory to explain excess heat that simultaneously implies that the last 80 years of physics be wrong? Even Einstein was just tying together some loose ends that were already being discussed by others before he came along. - Why does such-and-such theory seem to ignore about 80 percent of the LENR research that has been done and focus on a possible mechanism involving neutrons? What we need are predictions from these theories, predictions that can be > tested. Please make a post on each of the theories and what their > predictions are. That would be helpful. A series of summaries is an excellent idea, perhaps sent to this list, perhaps compiled into a book. There could be two sections -- a summary written in such a way that the primary author or authors of the theory could agree with the wording, and a second section that highlights some of the non-tendentious implications of the theory (e.g., things that would make it falsifiable). The second section would pay little heed to the theorist's sensibilities and would just state things as the author of the summaries sees things. But it would also be written in with a certain minimalism and not involve complex and questionable trains of logic of the kind found in earlier efforts to do this type of thing. Rather than presenting claims about physics and chemistry in dogmatic, black and white terms -- "this theory cannot be right because if this were happening you would see all kinds of gamma activity" -- the second section for a theory being highlighted would say things like, "in order to have 4He result from dd fusion, the theory has the burden of showing that there's a way for the energy of the gamma to thermalized somehow." I can think of few people already involved in LENR who have the background knowledge to get the concepts right and offer a rigorous description together with the detachment to describe the various theories in a neutral way. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction"
I wrote: Are you thinking of 3He? If Ed Storms is right, and deuterium is being > produced in an NiH system, then one might expect 3He from proton capture > afterwards (assuming a lot of assumptions). In Ed's hydroton theory, > there's no clear reason that neutrons would be involved. > Nevermind. I think you're thinking of a d-e-p reaction of some kind. Would the relative cross sections from scattering experiments necessarily apply in the low-energy limit? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction"
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Jones Beene wrote: If his theory were > accurate, there should be plenty of tritium formation in Ni-H. Lots more > than is seen. > d + p → 3He + ɣ (as seen in scattering experiments) d + n → t + ɣ Are you thinking of 3He? If Ed Storms is right, and deuterium is being produced in an NiH system, then one might expect 3He from proton capture afterwards (assuming a lot of assumptions). In Ed's hydroton theory, there's no clear reason that neutrons would be involved. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Review of Ed Storms book: "The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction"
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: I really like how Ed's theory fits PdD, and you may be right about the more > exotic elements of NiH, but lets face it, we don't have much solid > experimental work to pull from in NiH. > I look forward to reading Ed's book. It arrived in the mail about a week ago. Currently I'm in the middle of another book which I hope to finish first, but I'll start on Ed's book when I'm done. Each researcher in the field has his strengths. What I like about Ed's contributions are his compendious reviews, his attention to detail and his careful compiling and summarizing of so much of the data that has been collected over the years. After reading his "Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction," I realized that PdD was not the only system that was interesting and that there were many others, as well, such as NiH, TiD, etc., that should paid attention to, as well as a suspicion (no doubt Ed's as well) that LENR takes a different course depending on which combination appears of the large number of possible parameters. Ed has shown that the experimental record is complex and difficult to pin down or draw generalizations from. In addition, when Ed has stubbornly insisted on a generalization, such as the finding that in PdD experiments, the 4He that is detected is detected without the accompanying gamma photons or bremsstrahlung that one would expect of a dd fusion reaction, such conclusions have often been borne out in my own reading of some of the original sources. Where I start to trust Ed less is when he steps away from his experimental work and begins to theorize. This, in two ways -- first, to my mind, his hydroton theory is altogether improbable, for some of the same objections he raises about other theories (e.g., relating to thermodynamics), as well as for other reasons. In addition, I sometimes worry that he has unintentionally overlooked experimental findings that provide evidence against his hydroton theory. He also suggests that deuterium might be a byproduct in NiH LENR, which, as far as I can tell, is unrelated to any experimental that has been carried out. If Ed's theory seems to me to be unpromising, this is not to say that I find Hagelstein's or Takahashi's theories are any more promising, although they do appear to have a better command of the relevant math. Ed thinks there is a common mechanism at work in NiH and PdD, and my sense is that this is a good assumption. That doesn't mean the reactions are the same, or even that the substrate plays the same role in all cases (e.g., it could be a reactant in one case and somewhat inert in another). He also is rightly scornful of theorizing untethered to experimental research and of efforts to sort things out purely using math, and I can definitely relate to this as well. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Jones Beene wrote: The University testing was done with X-rays ... which would serve to > reinflate the fractional species. > I have heard some proponents claim that hydrinos are the basis of dark matter. If hydrinos can be reinflated with x-rays, this should cause observable anomalies in the vicinity of x-ray sources (e.g., pulsars, x-ray binaries, etc.). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: I'm curious about one thing. What is it about Mills' orbitspheres that you > don't like. Keep in mind I don't understand the math involved. My difficulties start with the shape. I understand an orbitsphere to be a sphere of negative charge of negligible thickness made up of an infinite series of current loops. By contrast, (standard) quantum mechanics, even in the context of a hydrogen atom with a single electron, talks about spherical harmonics: http://en.citizendium.org/images/thumb/e/ec/Spherical_harmonics.png/700px-Spherical_harmonics.png Spherical harmonics are 3-dimensional, in contrast to the orbitsphere, which is a two-dimensional shell (if I have gotten a detail wrong, I hope someone will correct me). The three dimensions allow you to say things like "the electron will have a nontrivial probability of being in the nucleus part of the time." Presumably an orbitsphere will not -- there's no obvious reason that the "electron" would ever leave the confines of the 2-dimensional spherical shell. Spherical harmonics are seen once again in the nucleus in trying to understand the energy levels of the constituent protons and neutrons (i.e., as seen in the energies of gamma photons emitted from an exited nucleus). In atoms more complex than the hydrogen atom, the shapes of the shells have various implications. Here is an image in which the charge density is being understood in terms of 3d electron orbitals of non-spherical shape: http://d22izw7byeupn1.cloudfront.net//33e0f36f-eb35-407f-9650-4bd7afcf125b/PhysRevB.90.041105.png There are different approaches we can take to harmonize the cognitive dissonance that the Mills orbitsphere and the spherical harmonic descriptions give rise to: - We can assume that the two descriptions of the single electron in the hydrogen atom are dual. This is what Stefan Israelsson Tampe has suggested in a separate thread. I personally do not see how this could be the case, unless we take the Mills description to be more abstract. - We can say that for the hydrogen atom, below the ground state, there are orbitspheres, and above the ground state (e.g., excited Rydberg levels), there are spherical harmonics. But why the abrupt switch from one model to another? - We can say that when it comes to electrons in any atom, there are no spherical harmonics, only orbitspheres, even for levels above the lowest (non-redundant) one. But if that's the case, do we do the same for the nuclear shells? And what do we tell the poor physicists who have been coming up with incorrect charge density maps for solids by making incorrect assumptions about the electron orbital shapes? These are only the first questions that come to mind. This is a thread that, once pulled, takes you into an alternative universe where everything you've learned must be recast using new explanations. And so far we've only talked about the shape of the electron orbital. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: Sadly, the CQM vs SQM debate, (and now possibly the LENR debate as well, if > you get your way) is degenerating into a political battle to protect > entrenched pet theories. For me the motivation is a little different than protecting a pet theory (although I do admit to missing quantum mechanics every time I think about orbitspheres). My reason for taking a less generous attitude towards BLP is a growing sense that they are aware that they have nothing to show and that they will have nothing to show in the medium term. The main question I have doubts over is whether they believe they'll have something in the longer term; I'm becoming more and more skeptical, but I suppose this is possible. That said, their operation is starting to take on the aspect of a confidence game. I say this as someone who had no opinion of them three years ago. There are people here who I am guessing have a financial stake with them. I doubt they are aware of any malfeasance if it exists. For those of you who strongly advocate for BLP, the company, rather than hydrinos, the concept, the thought will cross my mind that you are providing them with financial backing. There are others who are just interested in seeing an underdog succeed, which is a different thing. I respect Robin's predisposition towards hydrinos, so don't feel prepared to write them off altogether. Talking about hydrinos is one thing, and tossing out the uncertainty principle is perhaps something else. I find the latter idea a little fanciful, for with it goes some important results in physics. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Mike Carrell wrote: Good news for Eric: he doesn’t have to pay $789 for GUTCP. It is available > as a free download from the website, like most of Mills’ initial postings. > For the 90 journal papers a fee is charged by the journal publishers for > reprints. But ten, he has to actually read it. You have removed a significant obstacle to my reading it. Now I will plan to read it as soon as I find the motivation to do so. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > If I remember correctly, CQM refers to normal quantum mechanics, which is > to > > be contrasted with hydrinos. > > Actually, it refers to Randell's unique hybridization of S(tandard)QM > and the concept of an orbitsphere ... Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense. > Read the book, it's less than 1000 pages, IIRC. :-) > It would make me sad to pay BLP 789 dollars for this book. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: Classical Quantum Mechanics. > If I remember correctly, CQM refers to normal quantum mechanics, which is to be contrasted with hydrinos. As a point of detail, CQM stands for "Complex (Patent) Quashing Mechanism." Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: If BLP can close the loop, well then... maybe... just maybe something like > hydrinos do exist in this wacky universe of ours. His closing the loop will not necessarily be evidence for the existence of hydrinos. He could be tapping into LENR somehow, for example (as might have been the case with Papp sometime back). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mills' Interview
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Haynie wrote: http://pesn.com/2014/07/12/9602517_Landmark-Interview_ > with_Randell-Mills_Blacklight-Power/ >From the PESN article above: Randell said that the engineering firms they are consulting with say that > there are no engineering obstacles to marry the Blacklight system with > photovoltaics, but that all systems are Go. All the different engineering > problems are covered, including light angle, emission from electrodes, heat > dissipation and transfer, and material handling. "This thing is meant to > be", is their assessment. They are extraordinarily optimistic this will > roll out quickly. It wont' take decades or even years. "Every major issue > has broken in our favor," said Randell. It seems, then, that a major redesign of their system is once more underway. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's competitive analisys
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > > I have noticed that the bloggers on Vortex-l are discussing internal >> conversion through electron capture as a possible LENR producer. > > > The recent thread about internal conversion was asking whether there as a > way to quickly thermalize a gamma in the context of PdD. The question of > NiH (e.g., Rossi's reaction) was set temporarily aside for that thread. > I failed to mention the important detail -- there was no discussion of electron capture. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's competitive analisys
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Axil Axil wrote: I have noticed that the bloggers on Vortex-l are discussing internal > conversion through electron capture as a possible LENR producer. The recent thread about internal conversion was asking whether there as a way to quickly thermalize a gamma in the context of PdD. The question of NiH (e.g., Rossi's reaction) was set temporarily aside for that thread. They seem to look for reactions involving deuterium rather than in the > metals used in LENR. In the context of NiH, one possibility that was discussed (among many) was a (X)Ni + d → (X+1)Ni + p reaction, in which case the metal is relevant (as well as deuterium). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Axil Axil wrote: How much would you bet on helium produced from alpha decay? > No specific amount -- the 700 would include all possible sources of 4He: dd fusion, alpha decay, etc. I'm not wedded to PdD LENR being dd fusion, per se. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Jones Beene wrote: This is not a fair characterization from a technical standpoint. We can > trust the calorimetry – which is the more important detail by far. > The 4He measurements have been important in establishing PdD LENR specifically as a *nuclear* phenomenon. In this sense they're quite important. The researchers (Miles, McKubre, etc.) had the presence of mind to know that a mass spec with a resolution that could distinguish 4He from D2 would be necessary. They have come out with unequivocal statements concerning a positive 4He signal, above and beyond the sources of noise and error you identify, which they were aware of and took into consideration. One reason they put such effort into these measurements was precisely to establish that we're dealing with a nuclear phenomenon. I'm not in a position to assess the quality of their findings. But I can say that their results, if reliable, are pretty important in pinning down what is going on. I can also say that if they have come out and unequivocally stood by 4He measurements that turned out to be unreliable, I would also have significantly less trust in their calorimetry from that point on as well. I am skeptical, to put it mildly, that the m=4 species that were observed were deep-dirac level bound deuterons. If I were on a game show, and I had 1000 dollars to apportion between three possibilities, where the correct bet would be multiplied by 1000, and the choices were (1) they saw real 4He, (2) they saw something completely unrelated to 4He (e.g., some kind of ion, or regular old D2) and (3) they saw DDL bound deuterons, I would put 700 dollars on (1), 299.50 dollars on (2) and 50 cents on (3). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 10:02 AM, David Roberson wrote: I hope that the expected report about Rossi's device will clarify the > issue. The nuclear ash is critical to our understanding. > I too hope it will clarify the issue. I doubt it will shed much light on the PdD system, apart from shedding light on general processes, although hopefully it will tell us something concrete about the NiH or possibly NiH/D system. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 8:27 PM, David Roberson wrote: Jones makes a good argument that it is unlikely to eliminate all of the > gammas and I suspect he is correct. > The argument, which says that even if you obtain 99.9 percent efficiency, you would still see a large number of gammas for the levels of power observed, is a good one, for it narrows down the possibilities significantly. It is not an airtight implication that therefore there is no fusion, however. If one leaves open the possibility that there is some unknown mechanism that thermalizes fusion energy through broadband excitation of electrons, there is still the further possibility that cold fusion (e.g., d(d,Q)4He) only happens when the thermalization mechanism is in operation. When there is cold fusion, that mechanism is in operation. When that mechanism isn't operating, there is no cold fusion. Cold fusion and that mechanism, whatever it is, are two sides of the same coin. We are in more difficulties than we get out of if we set dd fusion aside in the context of trying to understand PdD cold fusion, for we must then discount years of research stating unequivocally that there has been 4He evolution. If the PdD guys did years of shoddy work, who is there to trust? In the context of NiH, there is also the nettlesome issue of prompt protons to explain. Protons in the MeV range imply some kind of nuclear reaction. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Axil Axil wrote: In terms of LENR. why is it important to have the spin of the nucleus > affect the elections? ... IMHO, the spin of the nucleus must be 0 for LENR > to occur in that nucleus. Moving spin from the nucleus to the elections > gains us nothing. > There's two different contexts in this thread. One is the original context you provided, which is that the spin of the nucleus is somehow important to making LENR happen (I have no opinion on this question). The other context is one that Bob has suggested, which is that spin coupling might be able to provide a channel from the nucleus to the electrons through which the energy of a gamma transition can be dissipated. In the first context, it might not matter whether the possible spin interactions are bidirectional. In the second context, the possibility is that the energy of a fusion might flow out of the compound nucleus and thermalize through excitation of the electrons via spin coupling, in which case it's important that the nucleons be able to transfer energy to the electrons. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Dynamic nuclear polarization
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Aren’t you completely misinterpreting what this article states in trying to > shoehorn it in LENR? > The article does indeed talk about an effect of one or two electrons on the spin of a nucleus (or nucleon), rather than the other way around. I'm also going to guess that the amount of "torque" that can pass through this system is weak, if an electron (or system of electrons) can affect the nucleus. There were two or three places where it sounded like the effect might be somewhat bidirectional, e.g.: "The optimization is related to an embedded three-spin (electron-electron-nucleus) process that mutually flips the coupled three spins under the energy conservation (mainly) of the Zeeman interactions." The word "mutual" makes it sound like the spin of the nucleus can have an effect on the spins of the two electrons. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hydrofill and LaNi5
I wrote: Note also that lanthanum oxide has a work function that makes it a hot > cathode [1]. The possible use of lanthanum hexaboride as the catalyst in > the Hot Cat was noted in an earlier thread. > To add to this, perhaps the reason it would serve as a catalyst would be that under heating it could potentially ionize a portion of the hydrogen gas in the device. The work function is likely to be in the low eV, and the ionization potential of hydrogen is ~ 13 eV, so there's a mismatch. But I suspect any ejected electrons will follow a Boltzmann distribution rather than a sharp one, so perhaps there will be some energetic electrons present that can ionize the hydrogen. Once hydrogen is ionized, it will accelerate under a potential difference. Eric p.s., there was a 2005 thread taking things in a similar direction: https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg05722.html.
Re: [Vo]:Hydrofill and LaNi5
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Jones Beene wrote: As best I can tell from online sources, the storage metal used in this > Hydrofill cartridge is known as proprietary AB5, but in reality is the > generic hydrogen storage alloy- LaNi5 which is lanthanum penta-nickel. > > Whoa... that rings a bell so to speak. > Note also that lanthanum oxide has a work function that makes it a hot cathode [1]. The possible use of lanthanum hexaboride as the catalyst in the Hot Cat was noted in an earlier thread. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_cathode
Re: [Vo]:understanding the relationship between internal conversion and the far field
On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 3:41 PM, wrote: You can get an idea of this from the HUP where delta E x delta t >= h_bar/2. > If delta E is the energy of the reaction (about 4 MeV), then you get a > time of > at least 8E-23 sec. > (I think this is the way it is normally calculated.) > In any event it is obvious that a process that only takes order 1E-22 > seconds is > far more likely to occur than one which takes 1E-9 seconds (I think this is > actually more like 1E-17 BTW, but I'm not sure whether these times can be > measured or this is just calculated.) > So that's how conjugate variables are used. Note that the difference between 1E-22 s and 1E-17 s is significant for what we're talking about. A photon can travel atomic distances in 1E-17 s, while it will not get very far in 1E-22 s. I think the shortest duration measured (according to Wikipedia) is 12 attoseconds = 1.2E-17 s, so the 1E-22 must be a calculation or a lower bound. A photon is only virtual if the separation distance is less than the > wavelength > of the photon (actually I suspect that this should be wavelength/2*Pi). > According to this page [1], "in the case of photons, power and information transfer by virtual particles is a relatively short-range phenomenon (existing only within a few wavelengths of the field-disturbance, which carries information or transferred power)". Unless the statement is in error, it seems, then, the virtual photon can exist within several wavelengths rather than less than a wavelength. Note that the wavelength of a 24 MeV photon is 51 fermis. Several wavelengths would be perhaps 100-200 fermis. It seems that such a photon would not travel very far before having to become a real photon. If the 24 MeV could take the form of thousands of virtual photons, by contrast, they would each have a much smaller energy (24 MeV / 1000 = 24,000 eV, say), and a corresponding wavelength of 51,666 fm. Multiplying this wavelength by three to get several times the wavelength, the virtual photons would extend out to around 155 pm, which is on the order of the lattice spacing in a metal. The reason I like virtual photons over real ones is that it's nicer to have "messages being passed between interacting particles" (e.g., Feynman diagrams) than to have to have "gammas being intercepted" (e.g., Widom-Larsen). Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
Re: [Vo]:understanding the relationship between internal conversion and the far field
Thank you, Bob. If you have any textbooks you particularly like (e.g., touching on nuclear spin states and nuclear transitions), feel free to recommend them. For anyone who is interested, I have found the following helpful in getting a broad overview: - Turner, "Atoms, Radiation, and Radiation Protection," http://www.amazon.com/Atoms-Radiation-Protection-James-Turner/dp/3527406069 - Magill and Galy, "Radioactivity, Radionuclides, Radiation," http://www.amazon.com/Radioactivity-Radionuclides-Radiation-Joseph-Magill/dp/product-description/3540211160 The book by Turner is fantastic and goes into a range of topics, including a detailed discussion about how various detectors work. I found the book in several MIT course syllabi. Turner was at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the book appears to be an important one. The book by Magill and Galy is a nice refresher, but they do not go into much detail and make some assumptions about the reader's knowledge of the field, and I wouldn't have been able to follow the discussion without having first read Turner's book. Next up is a textbook by Kenneth Krane called "Introductory Nuclear Physics," which has also shown up in several MIT course syllabi. Eric On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > Eric-- > > I have several items that may pertain to your effort to understand > internal conversion of nuclei. > > >1. Various isotopes have dipole and quadrapole moments existing in the >stable nucleus as well as the excited nucleus. Isomers and radioactive >nuclei may have these moments. The moments may be electric dipole or >quadrapole as well as magnetic dipole and quadrapole moments. > > > 2. Modern electronics can produce both magnetic and electric > dipole and quadrapole input oscillating fields that can be in resonance > with the respective resonance of any given isotope whether it is in its > ground state, an isomeric condition or a radioactive state with a long half > life. > > 3. Spin states of the various nuclei and their excited states control the > allowed transitions of the nucleus from state to state. > > 4. Spin with orbital electrons in a lattice and the electrons’ intrinsic > spin as well as other particles within the lattice may also be involved in > the reaction and provide the conditions that make the transitions in energy > possible. This idea is consistent with a paper recently published in the > “Proceedings of the 14th Meeting of Japan CF Research Society, JCF14 > December 7 - 8, 2013 Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan”( ISSN > 2187-2260) > > 5. The last paper of these proceedings describes a theory that entails > the extended quantum mechanical system connecting lattice nuclei as well as > D or H within the lattice of transition metals. Other papers in the > proceedings discuss experimental data, mostly accomplished by various > researchers presenting at the JCF14 meeting. The idea involves bands of > neutrons that extend between the metal nuclei of the lattice. It suggests > that the reaction is mediated by the H or D in the lattice. > > 6. Back on June 22 Axil Axil wrote, “ It would be great if we could find > one mechanism that provides the total set of transmutation produces seen in > LENR. ... The Philips reaction is not a "one reaction fit all" solution.” > The paper cited above fits Axil’s wish. > > Jed identified these JCF proceedings as available at: > > *http://www.jcfrs.org/file/jcf14-proceedings.pdf* > <http://www.jcfrs.org/file/jcf14-proceedings.pdf> > > Bob > > > > > > > > > Sent from Windows Mail > > *From:* Eric Walker > *Sent:* Sunday, July 6, 2014 2:56 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Are there any textbooks you can recommend that touch on some of these > areas in some detail? > > Eric > > > On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 3:41 PM, wrote: > > In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 5 Jul 2014 23:28:13 -0700: >> Hi Eric, >> [snip] >> >Here's where my understanding starts to get fuzzy. The above description >> >talked about isomeric transitions, which involve the decay of a >> metastable >> >isomer to the ground state of the isotope. Metastable isomers are >> >long-lived excited states of nuclei, ones that have significant >> half-lives. >> > Similar, shorter-lived nuclei are not considered metastable and are >> >instead referred to as compound nuclei. For example, in dd fusion, the >> >short-lived compound nucleus [dd]* is not an isomer of 4He because it >> >decays quite rapidly in one of three ways -- to p+t, n+3He and 4He+?. >> (The >> &g
Re: [Vo]:understanding the relationship between internal conversion and the far field
Are there any textbooks you can recommend that touch on some of these areas in some detail? Eric On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 3:41 PM, wrote: In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 5 Jul 2014 23:28:13 -0700: > Hi Eric, > [snip] > >Here's where my understanding starts to get fuzzy. The above description > >talked about isomeric transitions, which involve the decay of a metastable > >isomer to the ground state of the isotope. Metastable isomers are > >long-lived excited states of nuclei, ones that have significant > half-lives. > > Similar, shorter-lived nuclei are not considered metastable and are > >instead referred to as compound nuclei. For example, in dd fusion, the > >short-lived compound nucleus [dd]* is not an isomer of 4He because it > >decays quite rapidly in one of three ways -- to p+t, n+3He and 4He+?. > (The > >4He+? branch is orders of magnitude less likely than the p+t and n+3He > >branches, whose likelihoods are roughly split 50-50.) I understand from > >reading around that the emission of a gamma photon during the deexcitation > >of a metastable isomer can be on the order of 10E-9 seconds, and that the > >time required for the emission is something that depends upon the spin of > >the excited nucleus. Excited nuclei with certain spins will take > >significantly longer to emit a gamma photon than nuclei with other spins. > > By first order approximation, metastable nuclei can't decay. In order to > do so, > I think they need some form of external interaction. That's why they have > comparatively long lifetimes. > > > Am I correct in thinking that the same principles apply to a compound > >nucleus such as [dd]*? I.e., in the gamma photon branch, the [dd]* > >de-excitation is on the order of 10E-9 seconds, or perhaps longer? Also, > I > >haven't found a reference that gives the approximate times needed for the > >other branches (p+t and n+3He), in which the compound nucleus splits up > >into fragments. > > You can get an idea of this from the HUP where delta E x delta t >= > h_bar/2. > If delta E is the energy of the reaction (about 4 MeV), then you get a > time of > at least 8E-23 sec. > (I think this is the way it is normally calculated.) > In any event it is obvious that a process that only takes order 1E-22 > seconds is > far more likely to occur than one which takes 1E-9 seconds (I think this is > actually more like 1E-17 BTW, but I'm not sure whether these times can be > measured or this is just calculated.) > > > > >Returning to internal conversion, one explanation for it focuses on the > >fact that inner shell electrons have a high probability of passing through > >the nucleus. > > Yes but they are only present for a very short time. > > >The idea is that during the time that the electron is within > >the nucleus there is a nontrivial probability that it will interact with > >the excited state, which, if this happens, will result in the energy of > the > >excited state being passed on to the electron. The implication is that > the > >less likely an electron is to be found within the nucleus, the less likely > >that the electron will be ejected as a result of internal conversion. So > >the probability of IC is highest with K-shell electrons and decreases the > >further you go out. One question I have about this explanation is that IC > >is mediated via the electromagnetic interaction; my understanding of this > >is that there is a virtual photon that passes from the nucleus to the > >electron. I do not see why the electron would particularly need to be > >passing through the nucleus for such a virtual photon to reach it, for the > >electromagnetic interaction is long-range. Anywhere a virtual photon can > >reach, it seems, there would be a nontrivial probability for an internal > >conversion decay to occur. > > A photon is only virtual if the separation distance is less than the > wavelength > of the photon (actually I suspect that this should be wavelength/2*Pi). > > > >Another challenge I have with this explanation > >is that I think the de Broglie wavelength of an orbital electron is going > >to be far larger than the nucleus or any than particular nucleon; my > >understanding is that this is a problem because the de Broglie wavelengths > >have to be roughly comparable for an interaction of some kind to be > >probable. > > ...but it isn't very probable, that's why it can barely compete with "slow" > gamma emission. However I don't know what part of the probability is due to > duration of the interaction, and what part due to Be Broglie wavelength > mismatch. Perhaps you also need to take into consideration the be Broglie > wavelength of the nucleons. Also consider that by the time an orbital > electron > passes through the nucleus it has gained considerable kinetic energy from > the > electric field, so it's De Broglie wavelength is much shorter. (Still too > long, > but not by many orders of magnitude. :) > > > > >One question I have has to do with the energy of the v
Re: [Vo]:understanding the relationship between internal conversion and the far field
Interesting proposal, Jones. I'll have to think about it. Thanks for the pointer to the paper. On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 6:34 AM, Jones Beene wrote: If Mizuno is correct we could add a fourth pathway for the dd reaction in > LENR. That would be p+p+p+p. It is not clear if this reaction should be > called fusion or fission or a new form of IC :-) but as of July 2014, it > looms as the most important unexplained experiment on the horizon for > deuterium-based LENR. > For this one, my working hypothesis is that Mizuno is seeing these two reactions in tandem: (X)Ni + d → (X+1)Ni + p (Oppenheimer-Phillips process) p + d → p + p + n → p + p + p (about 10 min. later) This tack obviously has several objections to worry about, such as the lack of detected neutrons and the lack of activation. My initial strategy for dealing with these objections is to wonder whether the channel is actually pretty small, in comparison to any energy that is developed. Eric
[Vo]:understanding the relationship between internal conversion and the far field
I'm in the process of trying to better understand internal conversion and it's cross section vis-a-vis inner shell electrons and sources of charge in the far field. I'm hoping someone (Robin?) can help me to get the terminology right and point me to further reading. Here is my understanding so far. Internal conversion is a process in which an inner shell electron is expelled from an atom as the result of a nuclear transition. It is mediated by the electromagnetic force (in contrast to the weak or strong interactions) and results from electromagnetic coupling between the electron and an excited nucleus. The kind of nuclear transition that leads to internal conversion is generally an isomeric transition; i.e., the deexcitation of a metastable isomer to a lower energy level. Internal conversion competes with gamma emission, and there is an internal conversion coefficient, which for a competing pair of branches, one IC and the other gamma photon emitting, gives you the ratio of internal conversion electrons to photons. In some cases the internal conversion coefficient can be quite high, meaning that IC is greatly favored over gamma photon emission. There are a number of factors that are thought to go into a high IC coefficient -- when the energy of the transition is small, when the nucleus is large, and when the daughter nucleus has zero spin, for example. Unlike in the case of beta emission, the energies for internal conversion electrons are not broadband and show up in line spectra as sharp peaks. This is because unlike in the case of beta decay there is no neutrino to take part of the energy of the decay away from the emitted electron. Here's where my understanding starts to get fuzzy. The above description talked about isomeric transitions, which involve the decay of a metastable isomer to the ground state of the isotope. Metastable isomers are long-lived excited states of nuclei, ones that have significant half-lives. Similar, shorter-lived nuclei are not considered metastable and are instead referred to as compound nuclei. For example, in dd fusion, the short-lived compound nucleus [dd]* is not an isomer of 4He because it decays quite rapidly in one of three ways -- to p+t, n+3He and 4He+ɣ. (The 4He+ɣ branch is orders of magnitude less likely than the p+t and n+3He branches, whose likelihoods are roughly split 50-50.) I understand from reading around that the emission of a gamma photon during the deexcitation of a metastable isomer can be on the order of 10E-9 seconds, and that the time required for the emission is something that depends upon the spin of the excited nucleus. Excited nuclei with certain spins will take significantly longer to emit a gamma photon than nuclei with other spins. Am I correct in thinking that the same principles apply to a compound nucleus such as [dd]*? I.e., in the gamma photon branch, the [dd]* de-excitation is on the order of 10E-9 seconds, or perhaps longer? Also, I haven't found a reference that gives the approximate times needed for the other branches (p+t and n+3He), in which the compound nucleus splits up into fragments. Returning to internal conversion, one explanation for it focuses on the fact that inner shell electrons have a high probability of passing through the nucleus. The idea is that during the time that the electron is within the nucleus there is a nontrivial probability that it will interact with the excited state, which, if this happens, will result in the energy of the excited state being passed on to the electron. The implication is that the less likely an electron is to be found within the nucleus, the less likely that the electron will be ejected as a result of internal conversion. So the probability of IC is highest with K-shell electrons and decreases the further you go out. One question I have about this explanation is that IC is mediated via the electromagnetic interaction; my understanding of this is that there is a virtual photon that passes from the nucleus to the electron. I do not see why the electron would particularly need to be passing through the nucleus for such a virtual photon to reach it, for the electromagnetic interaction is long-range. Anywhere a virtual photon can reach, it seems, there would be a nontrivial probability for an internal conversion decay to occur. Another challenge I have with this explanation is that I think the de Broglie wavelength of an orbital electron is going to be far larger than the nucleus or any than particular nucleon; my understanding is that this is a problem because the de Broglie wavelengths have to be roughly comparable for an interaction of some kind to be probable. One question I have has to do with the energy of the virtual photon. Internal conversion is less likely, other things being equal, if the energy of the transition is large (e.g., on the order of MeVs). Not having read this detail, I would have thought that the energy of the decay would factor into the di
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:39 PM, wrote: That the estimates for the time taken in the Sun vary between 1 & 17 > years, then this tells me that such estimates are not on a very sound > footing. > If the difference is a factor of 17 for a constant star like the Sun, then > I'm > surprised that they only got if wrong by a factor of 2 for the supernova. > Good point about the lack of precision in the estimates. I used a footnote but failed to include the original reference (it was to Wikipedia [1]). The Wikipedia article in turn references an article by NASA [2]. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun [2] http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/locations/ttt_sunlight.php
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:51 PM, wrote: The delay is caused by the photons trying to fight their way through the > plasma > and gas. Even after the explosion has taken place, some of them still have > to > fight their way through the expanding plasma cloud ... Note also that in a star like the sun, the estimated time for radiation to reach the surface is between 10,000 and 170,000 years [1]. I'm not sure exactly how this time is apportioned for different starting points from the center. But nonetheless if these values can be compared to the 4 hour delay, then we can get a rough estimate of the speedup: 10,000 years / 4 hours = 8.76581E7 hours / 4 hours ~ 21,914,531 So if you're right about the delay being due to the light traveling slower in the milieu of the supernova than in a vacuum, even then there's been a 21 million-fold increase in its velocity, which seems reasonable. I imagine they're measuring the start of the four hours by looking for radiation from the direction of the source above some minimum intensity? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
> On Jun 29, 2014, at 14:14, Stefan Israelsson Tampe > wrote: > Actually, mills theory and QED is pretty close in calculating quantities for > the hydrogen's atom. They must be dual or approx. Dual. > I doubt they are dual. The electron shell model says that with increasing orbital angular momentum there is a change in the shape of the orbital; e.g., the s, p and d orbitals. These orbital shapes have been incorporated into solid state physics to help explain the emergence of various orders that are observed -- superconduction, ferromagnetism, etc. To the best of my knowledge, Mills describes a single orbital shape -- the orbitsphere. If there is only the orbitsphere, solid state physicists had better go back to the drawing board. Mills's theory sounds like a radical departure from known behavior of bound electrons rather than a description that is dual. > It took keppler 10 years of hard work to get his theory into acceptance. > I don't think Mills's situation is analogous to that of Kepler.
Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: Anyway how to interpret the electron as a ball going around or really a > field is not yet proved even to date. If you look at Mills theory, the > electron is a spherical electron charge, so If he is right, and nobody has > debunked that representation, then the field representation is more correct > and is what I maintain is the physics, not a ball going around in circles. > I don't think the present understanding of a probabilistic location for the electron requires that it be understood as a ball orbiting the nucleus. But as I think further about Mills's orbitsphere, I have started to wonder how it deals with these questions: - If a bound electron takes the form of a thin shell of charge at a certain distance from the center of charge (or mass) of the nucleus, how is it possible to think of the electron either as a wave or a particle? What is it that is oscillating? Is the wavefunction to be a trivial, constant one? - If we get rid of wavefunctions and particles when thinking about bound electrons, do we also throw away the uncertainty principle? Here we start to get into the woods with Mills's theory. I suspect that to fully embrace it is not unlike joining a Christian group that insists that you cut all past ties to your family and friends. In this case, you must replace each equation from humanity's collective study of physics that causes trouble with some alternate explanation that goes back to Mills. It is like pulling a thread on a sweater that keeps unraveling. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Software collision experiment
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: My thought is the following, if the proton hit the hydrogen atom fast > enough the electron field does not adapt fast enough and I would assume > that the picture is like a bullet penetrating a shield. Here the gamov > factors explain the reaction rate. > I suspect in the present context that it would be hard to accelerate a proton to a velocity of the same order of magnitude as that of the electrons buzzing around. If my understanding is correct, they see something as massive as a proton lumbering along, barely moving, as the bound electrons race around their nuclei many times. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A new barrier to overcome
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Axil Axil wrote: It would be great if we could find one mechanism that provides the total > set of transmutation produces seen in LENR. ... The Philips reaction is not > a "one reaction fit all" solution. > Agreed. The data do not match simple neutron capture. There would have to be other reactions as well (e.g., successive proton capture, and pd and dd reactions). Eric
Re: [Vo]:A new barrier to overcome
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The lack of gamma specks against the Phillips process. The thermalization > of the ejected proton would produce gamma radiation which would not be > suppressed by the initial LENR reaction. > > Ego, the Phillips reaction is not a primary reaction mechanism. > In my setup, the ejected proton will not fly through a lattice with bound electrons. It will burrow into a group of free protons and deuterons, being pulled in a direction counter to it. I think it would quickly thermalize. Even if the proton were to fly off into the lattice, the photons emitted would all be of lower energy, if I correctly remember a point that Robin made a few weeks ago. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A new barrier to overcome
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Charge density is limited by the Pauli exclusion principle. In order for a > load of electrons to concentrate, electron charge must be delocalized. > Yes -- I take back my remark about charge density. It is probably higher around the nuclei of heavy elements. I meant something more along the lines of the charge density in such an environment in comparison to free plasmas, where fusion is often studied. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A new barrier to overcome
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Bob Cook wrote: In the O-P process what disrupts the glueon bonding of the neutron to the > proton to allow their separation? > > It does not happen very often given the concentration of D in the universe. > My best guess (perhaps not even a guess -- random shooting in the dark): strong acceleration under the influence of a transient electric arc between two electrically insulated grains in a metal with lots of impurities: http://i.imgur.com/dp37X3R.png In effect, the free protons and deuterons are momentarily forced into a recess and compressed to astronomical pressures. In addition, there is a surrounding field of electrons migrating the opposite direction that, together with the very close free protons and deuterons, makes for an environment that is fundamentally different than anywhere else in the universe; e.g., the ambient charge density is perhaps uniquely high. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A new barrier to overcome
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Axil Axil wrote: stripping implies a multiple reaction mechanism where one neutron produced > in the first reaction is used by a second reaction. ... We would expect to > see loads of free neutrons floating around waiting for the second reaction > to begin. > Please be so kind as to provide further documentation of this assumption. From what I read of the O-P process, it all occurs in a single step (see the "Mechanism" section, towards the end): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer%E2%80%93Phillips_process Eric
Re: [Vo]:A new barrier to overcome
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Axil Axil wrote: The conundrum is that neutrons are NEVER seen in LENR reactions. How can > isotopes change without the presence of neutrons, The total lack of > neutrons is an important dot to be connected. > Yes -- good point. I'm thinking not of neutron capture from a swarm of free neutrons (a la W-L), but of neutron-stripping reactions via the Oppenheimer-Phillips process, where a neutron is stripped from deuterium. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A new barrier to overcome
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Axil Axil wrote: it sure looks to me like the protons and neutrons in the input material are > being chopped up, blended together, and reformed into a wide range of both > light and heavy output elements. ... For example, in the Mizuno reaction, > it looks like the neutrons of deuterium in the hydrogen envelope are being > reformatted into an equal number of protons in a reaction that takes energy > to perform (endothermic). > > > > What is LENR doing to those deuterium atoms? It also looks like the metal > lattice substrate is being changed. > Another possibility is that we're seeing some fairly mundane things here: - where additional protons are being seen, there is spallation of deuterium from prompt particles. - where isotopes are shifting by several protons, there is pile-on of multiple proton capture reactions occurring (there's no clear reason that the shifts would need to be instantaneous). - where we see additions of other elements (copper, iron, etc.) in their natural isotopic ratios, this is due to successive neutron and proton capture reactions, selected for favorable energy release. This line of explanation is probably much less plausible than one involving QCD or the Higgs field, of course. ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Jones Beene wrote: E-Cat world reporting another delay from the TIP testers... I feel that someone should volunteer to write a Vortex beerhall song. We can while away the time to the TIP report by loudly singing the song and clinking beer steins. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Say it ain't so, Joe
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: I'm a little disappointed, but as Daniel and others have suggested, at the > very least, this seems to suggest that nuclear levels of excess heat have > been measured yet again. Why bother with delaying the report for the sake > of isotopic analysis otherwise? > I agree. My guess is that they're seeing something that will be hard to square with current scientific opinion, and they want to take as long as is needed and bring in as many people as needed to cross all of their t's and dot all of their i's. As should have happened with the faster-than-light neutrinos and the BICEP2 results. Eric
