RE: Fw: New Shoulders Paper
Hi Bill. You need to read the paper in question; Jones is presenting Ken's quote without the necessary context. What Ken is driving at is that the EV contains a substantial amount of like charge in a small volume. The forces being balanced by such a structure would, at least superficially, seem immense. A "bottle" of ev's which were caused to become unbalanced would release a substantial amount of energy, somewhere between normal chemical energy and atomic energy. That's the "ugly" of which he speaks. I must admit, I find the idea of a penning trap for EV's very intriguing. I wonder if he's made any real headway in this regard. K. -Original Message- From: William Beaty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 9:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fw: New Shoulders Paper On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Jones Beene wrote: > billb wrote: > > With one meter of distance, the capacitance between the "lighting > > circuits" is tiny at 1meter separation. Such a charge-flow would cause a > > voltage buildup in the range of millions of megavolts. > > For the calculations involved with the Coulomb force, see the following website: > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html > The website does calculations for you using whatever numbers you put in. Yeah, but that website seems to be written for people who already understand the physics. Volts do not arise anywhere in the equations. If you don't already grasp the voltage issues there, well, that webpage doesn't teach them. It's basically this: if you make a leyden jar, then connect a power supply with voltage 1,000,000,000,000V, the attraction between the plates will be millions of tons. Yeah? So? Isn't that what we'd expect? (The text is almost pretending that the voltage of the "lighting circuit" remains at 120V the whole time.) (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: New light on LENR
At 4:25 PM 8/19/4, Edmund Storms wrote: >What exactly do you mean by replication? Do I have to make the same >mistakes? Do >I have to use a calorimeter that is affected by a magnetic field? You have to do what you apparently thus far have entirely failed to do. You have to have some approximate concept of the size and orientation of the magnetic field you imposed on the target. Removing a nominal or improperly oriented field should of course have no effect whatsoever. That is no guarantee that a field imposed in the manner Letts specifies will work either, but that is not yet a relevant point. Not properly imposing the magnetic field guarantees that the experiment is not properly replicated. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: Fw: New Shoulders Paper
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Jones Beene wrote: > billb wrote: > > With one meter of distance, the capacitance between the "lighting > > circuits" is tiny at 1meter separation. Such a charge-flow would cause a > > voltage buildup in the range of millions of megavolts. > > For the calculations involved with the Coulomb force, see the following website: > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html > The website does calculations for you using whatever numbers you put in. Yeah, but that website seems to be written for people who already understand the physics. Volts do not arise anywhere in the equations. If you don't already grasp the voltage issues there, well, that webpage doesn't teach them. It's basically this: if you make a leyden jar, then connect a power supply with voltage 1,000,000,000,000V, the attraction between the plates will be millions of tons. Yeah? So? Isn't that what we'd expect? (The text is almost pretending that the voltage of the "lighting circuit" remains at 120V the whole time.) (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: New light on LENR
Horace Heffner wrote: > At 6:52 AM 8/19/4, Edmund Storms wrote: > >Horace Heffner wrote: > > > >> At 3:23 PM 8/17/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> > >> >As I recall, Ed Storms replicated this and was duly impressed, but not all > >> >that impressed. > >> > >> Ed Storms did *not* replicate Letts' experiment, as I pointed out here on > >> vortex at the time. He oriented his magnetic field improperly, and thus, > >> as would be expected, he did not observe the Letts effect. His magnetic > >> field was aligned with the laser beam instead of perpendicular to it as > >> Letts required. Of further, but much lesser concern, was the fact that no > >> magnetic field measurments were obtained, or at least published, by either > >> Letts or Storms. > > > >I suggest you read my ICCF-10 paper where this work is described. I found that > >a magnetic field was irrelevant to producing the effect. > > My comments above were *based* on that paper and the related discussion > here on vortex, in which I pointed out that you had your magnetic field > improperly oriented to achieve replication. I suggest you take the prudent > scientific approach of actully considering that I may have been correct in > that assertion. Are you saying the magnetic field at the laser target was > *not* aligned with the beam? I'm saying that the effect works whether a magnet is present or not. I tried it both ways. I found that the effect of the magnet in the Letts calorimeter was an artifact produced by changes in ion convection, which changed the temperature at the internal thermistor and the apparent amount of excess energy. > > > As I pointed oout in that discussion, the magnetic field so aligned would > certainly be expected to be irrelevant. You therefore did not replicate > Letts experiment. > > >If I did not > >replicate the Letts effect than I must have discovered the Storms effect. In > >any case, I once again showed that a laser does indeed increase the amount of > >excess energy produced by a F-P cell. That observation is the only aspect of > >the Letts effect that is important. > > Not so. If magnetic field intensity (in the proper direction) affect the > energy output, then that is a very significant finding, not only in regards > to establishing the fundamental theory, but also in regards to practical > considerations. Of course it would be important if the magnet had real effect, but it did not. Therefore, the "theory" needs to be changed. > Much more powerful magnetic fields than those used in > subject experiments can be provided without significant energy input. If > energy output is a function of field strength, then this could have major > implications with regard to energy production. > > >Letts made several claims about how the > >effect is affected by external variables that have not been found to be > >important. This failure does not distract from the basic claim. > > The fact you did not replicate Letts distracts from your claim that > magnetic field intensity does not matter. What exactly do you mean by replication? Do I have to make the same mistakes? Do I have to use a calorimeter that is affected by a magnetic field? Regards, Ed > > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner
Re: New light on LENR
At 6:52 AM 8/19/4, Edmund Storms wrote: >Horace Heffner wrote: > >> At 3:23 PM 8/17/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >> >As I recall, Ed Storms replicated this and was duly impressed, but not all >> >that impressed. >> >> Ed Storms did *not* replicate Letts' experiment, as I pointed out here on >> vortex at the time. He oriented his magnetic field improperly, and thus, >> as would be expected, he did not observe the Letts effect. His magnetic >> field was aligned with the laser beam instead of perpendicular to it as >> Letts required. Of further, but much lesser concern, was the fact that no >> magnetic field measurments were obtained, or at least published, by either >> Letts or Storms. > >I suggest you read my ICCF-10 paper where this work is described. I found that >a magnetic field was irrelevant to producing the effect. My comments above were *based* on that paper and the related discussion here on vortex, in which I pointed out that you had your magnetic field improperly oriented to achieve replication. I suggest you take the prudent scientific approach of actully considering that I may have been correct in that assertion. Are you saying the magnetic field at the laser target was *not* aligned with the beam? As I pointed oout in that discussion, the magnetic field so aligned would certainly be expected to be irrelevant. You therefore did not replicate Letts experiment. >If I did not >replicate the Letts effect than I must have discovered the Storms effect. In >any case, I once again showed that a laser does indeed increase the amount of >excess energy produced by a F-P cell. That observation is the only aspect of >the Letts effect that is important. Not so. If magnetic field intensity (in the proper direction) affect the energy output, then that is a very significant finding, not only in regards to establishing the fundamental theory, but also in regards to practical considerations. Much more powerful magnetic fields than those used in subject experiments can be provided without significant energy input. If energy output is a function of field strength, then this could have major implications with regard to energy production. >Letts made several claims about how the >effect is affected by external variables that have not been found to be >important. This failure does not distract from the basic claim. The fact you did not replicate Letts distracts from your claim that magnetic field intensity does not matter. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: New light on LENR
At 9:56 AM 8/19/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: >Horace Heffner writes: > > > The Letts effect is not merely due to the heat pulse (heating) from a laser. > >That's what I said. On the contrary, 3:23 PM 8/17/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: >I think it has been known for some time that things like >laser light or a heat pulse will reliably trigger a reaction in a cathode >that is otherwise ready to go. I do not know whether a laser is >significantly better than the heat pulse, or tapping the cell, or >disturbing equilibrium some other way. Regards, Horace Heffner
RE: Ice to Fire
Keith Nagel writes: > >So let us wait until whoever > >it is makes his first hundred million TWD (Taiwan New Dollars). > >Maybe we can extort some money out of the fellow, in exchange for > >selectively erasing the archives. > > With all due respect Jed, you really seem not to understand how > the patent office works. > > The system REQUIRES that someone step up to the plate now > and submit prior art to the examiners after publication > of the application. That's the whole point of publishing > an application . . . I was kidding. Do you really think I propose to commit extortion? Come, come, what do you take me for, sirrah? Now then, having said that, naturally, I'll be happy to accept my share if this turns into a group effort, between friends that is, if Bill Beaty will be so kind, and also if he will take legal responsibility. Perhaps I would accept a little extra for making the suggestion in the first place . . . - Jed
RE: Ice to Fire
Hi Jed. You write: >That does not seem like a good idea. If someone can profit from the ideas >posted here, that would be a good thing. If the gadget succeeds >commercially, sooner or later someone will uncover the origin of the idea, >and the patent will be rescinded. That might even make the news, which >would be excellent publicity for this forum. So let us wait until whoever >it is makes his first hundred million TWD (Taiwan New Dollars). >Maybe we can extort some money out of the fellow, in exchange for >selectively erasing the archives. With all due respect Jed, you really seem not to understand how the patent office works. The system REQUIRES that someone step up to the plate now and submit prior art to the examiners after publication of the application. That's the whole point of publishing an application, something which was not really the case prior to harmonization of the US and European systems. Not doing so, especially with foreknowledge on our part, would be considered tacit approval. Waiting for the patent to issue and then challenging it would be an exercise in frustration for all parties, and given the huge financial advantage had by the applicant if he's successful would surely result in failure. Waiting would be looked upon as "bad faith" by any judge, and our discussion here presented as proof of that. Separate from that; there's something uniquely evil and monstrous about sitting on this list and funneling posts into applications. Think about it. What this asshat is trying to do is create "submarine" patents to challenge us if ideas posted here pan out into products. Such a parasite deserves far worse than the shaming he'll receive here; this kind of thing makes my blood boil. K.
RE: Ice to Fire
Regarding the use of cold fusion as a weapon, Martin Fleischmann has expressed concerns about this in the past, but he recently told me he thought the Popular Mechanics cover illustration was "excessive." He said: "There is, of course, a connection between "Cold Fusion" and the National Security implications but I doubt very much whether the article in 'Popular Mechanics' could contribute to this topic." Actually, I welcome any mention of cold fusion, in any context, in any newspaper or journal up to and including The National Inquirer. You never know what might result in greater public interest. Keith Nagel writes: > > someone sent me a translation of a Chinese (Taiwan) patent > > application which contained text, almost word-for-word, > > coming apparently from some previous speculation sent to vortex. > > This is an incredible claim; if true a serious public shaming > is in order. Post the application # and vort. text to a separate > thread and I'll prepare the tar and feathers (grin). The least > we can do is torpedo his application. That does not seem like a good idea. If someone can profit from the ideas posted here, that would be a good thing. If the gadget succeeds commercially, sooner or later someone will uncover the origin of the idea, and the patent will be rescinded. That might even make the news, which would be excellent publicity for this forum. So let us wait until whoever it is makes his first hundred million TWD (Taiwan New Dollars). Maybe we can extort some money out of the fellow, in exchange for selectively erasing the archives. - Jed
RE: New light on LENR
Hi Ed. Presumable you mean this paper. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEuseofavery.pdf I had a few questions about the Letts work; true to form you addressed them all in the paper. That you saw no resonant peak for laser frequency is a critical observation; given the fractal nature of the electrodeposited gold I wouldn't expect a resonance effect to be seen and indeed you don't. It would however increase the energy absorbed by the metal surface at that point. Have you tried using a strong light source masked to a pin-point? In my own work I've found that a light source on the cathode can cause a strong increase in electrodeposition at that point; the effect can be very gross in the case of a silver nitrate solution ( the silver dendrites actually "grow" towards the light ). K. -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 8:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New light on LENR Horace Heffner wrote: > At 3:23 PM 8/17/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > >As I recall, Ed Storms replicated this and was duly impressed, but not all > >that impressed. > > Ed Storms did *not* replicate Letts' experiment, as I pointed out here on > vortex at the time. He oriented his magnetic field improperly, and thus, > as would be expected, he did not observe the Letts effect. His magnetic > field was aligned with the laser beam instead of perpendicular to it as > Letts required. Of further, but much lesser concern, was the fact that no > magnetic field measurments were obtained, or at least published, by either > Letts or Storms. I suggest you read my ICCF-10 paper where this work is described. I found that a magnetic field was irrelevant to producing the effect. If I did not replicate the Letts effect than I must have discovered the Storms effect. In any case, I once again showed that a laser does indeed increase the amount of excess energy produced by a F-P cell. That observation is the only aspect of the Letts effect that is important. Letts made several claims about how the effect is affected by external variables that have not been found to be important. This failure does not distract from the basic claim. > > > >I think it has been known for some time that things like > >laser light or a heat pulse will reliably trigger a reaction in a cathode > >that is otherwise ready to go. I do not know whether a laser is > >significantly better than the heat pulse, or tapping the cell, or > >disturbing equilibrium some other way. > > > >- Jed > > The Letts effect is not merely due to the heat pulse (heating) from a laser. The increased temperature produced by a 35 mW laser is trivial, even when it is focused on a person's finger. Regards, Ed > > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner
I mixed up science and mechanics
Oops. I confused the issue here. I said that Popular Science (PS) has made vital contributions to cold fusion in the past. It has, but the recent lurid magazine cover was on Popular Mechanics, not Science. They are similar. I am not sure what Popular Mechanics (PM) has contributed to the field heretofore. There is nothing in the LENR-CANR publication database for PM. The large article in PS is also not in our database, but it should be. It was written by Wall Street journal reporter Jerry Bishop. Whatever faults PM may have, it could not be as bad as Scientific American. - Jed
RE: Ice to Fire
Hi Jones: You write: >I added this silly trailer because, believe it or not, > someone sent me a translation of a Chinese (Taiwan) patent > application which contained text, almost word-for-word, > coming apparently from some previous speculation sent to vortex. This is an incredible claim; if true a serious public shaming is in order. Post the application # and vort. text to a separate thread and I'll prepare the tar and feathers (grin). The least we can do is torpedo his application. K.
Ice to Fire
Can you rationalize how the "cold" in a certain kind of cold fusion experiment can, in effect, become suddenly very, very hot: Hot enough for thermonuclear fusion, in fact? Let's assume for the moment that a nuclear reaction occurs rarely at a few hundred degrees K in a highly stressed metal matrix, loaded with D2, such that the "effective" internal pressurization of the matrix gives the encased deuterons a greatly reduced kinetic mobility - corresponding to a very low temperature, a few degrees K. and a kinetic energy of about .005 eV. This .005 energy figure is very near the suspected mass of one particular variety of solar neutrino. But that could be coincidental, and is fodder for another day's speculation. This .005 eV also corresponds to frequency of about 86 terahertz and a wavelength of ~3 microns, if I didn't miscalculate. This figure, 3 microns, is also about the thickness of the active surface layer in some LENR active metals like Pd and Ti and is also about the thickness of a flash-plated metal coating, such as a gold electroplated coating. 86 terahertz has QM significance according to this Tsuchida paper "Quantum states of deuterons in palladium." in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: where the author used a particular method, the equivalent linear two-body (ELTB) method to arrive at the important frequency of 0.86 x 10^14. Now consider how "Electron Spins Can Control Nuclear Spins" - AIP Physics News by Schewe, Riordon, and Stein ABSTRACT snippet: [Laser induced] "Electron spins can control nuclear spins ... when trapped in a very confined space... Did you make the *connection* of why sub-IR laser light in the important QM frequency of 85 terahertz might stimulate fusion beyond all expectation? Let's see, we have 1) aligned electron spin 2) aligned nuclear spin 3) extremely small effective deBroglie wavelength, etc. Can you spell BEC? I can't - thank goodness for acronyms. Now if one happened to have such an LENR experiment going and wanted to maximize the probability of a high-temperature BEC-like condensate of deuterons forming to induce fusion, then it makes sense that one would want to try to locate a coherent light source for the 85 terahertz frequency range. Is there such an animal? I don't know for sure, but here is a googled hit that looks promising: "Diode-Pumped Tunable 3 Micron Laser Sources"Authors: Cassanho, Arlete; Jenssen, Hans; http://www.stormingmedia.us/68/6883/A688373.html Jones All the above information, as accurate or inaccurate as it may turn out to be, is herby ceded to the public domain. I added this silly trailer because, believe it or not, someone sent me a translation of a Chinese (Taiwan) patent application which contained text, almost word-for-word, coming apparently from some previous speculation sent to vortex.
Re: New light on LENR
Horace Heffner writes: > The Letts effect is not merely due to the heat pulse (heating) from a laser. That's what I said. - Jed
Re: New light on LENR
Horace Heffner wrote: > At 3:23 PM 8/17/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > >As I recall, Ed Storms replicated this and was duly impressed, but not all > >that impressed. > > Ed Storms did *not* replicate Letts' experiment, as I pointed out here on > vortex at the time. He oriented his magnetic field improperly, and thus, > as would be expected, he did not observe the Letts effect. His magnetic > field was aligned with the laser beam instead of perpendicular to it as > Letts required. Of further, but much lesser concern, was the fact that no > magnetic field measurments were obtained, or at least published, by either > Letts or Storms. I suggest you read my ICCF-10 paper where this work is described. I found that a magnetic field was irrelevant to producing the effect. If I did not replicate the Letts effect than I must have discovered the Storms effect. In any case, I once again showed that a laser does indeed increase the amount of excess energy produced by a F-P cell. That observation is the only aspect of the Letts effect that is important. Letts made several claims about how the effect is affected by external variables that have not been found to be important. This failure does not distract from the basic claim. > > > >I think it has been known for some time that things like > >laser light or a heat pulse will reliably trigger a reaction in a cathode > >that is otherwise ready to go. I do not know whether a laser is > >significantly better than the heat pulse, or tapping the cell, or > >disturbing equilibrium some other way. > > > >- Jed > > The Letts effect is not merely due to the heat pulse (heating) from a laser. The increased temperature produced by a 35 mW laser is trivial, even when it is focused on a person's finger. Regards, Ed > > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner
Re: New light on LENR
At 3:23 PM 8/17/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: >As I recall, Ed Storms replicated this and was duly impressed, but not all >that impressed. Ed Storms did *not* replicate Letts' experiment, as I pointed out here on vortex at the time. He oriented his magnetic field improperly, and thus, as would be expected, he did not observe the Letts effect. His magnetic field was aligned with the laser beam instead of perpendicular to it as Letts required. Of further, but much lesser concern, was the fact that no magnetic field measurments were obtained, or at least published, by either Letts or Storms. >I think it has been known for some time that things like >laser light or a heat pulse will reliably trigger a reaction in a cathode >that is otherwise ready to go. I do not know whether a laser is >significantly better than the heat pulse, or tapping the cell, or >disturbing equilibrium some other way. > >- Jed The Letts effect is not merely due to the heat pulse (heating) from a laser. Regards, Horace Heffner
