RE: Fw: New Shoulders Paper
In reference to this website Bill B wrote: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html "Yeah, but that website seems to be written for people who alreadyunderstand the physics. Volts do not arise anywhere in the equations.If you don't already grasp the voltage issues there, well, that webpagedoesn't teach them." However if you go over to a related GSU website: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html#c1 The electric field E in volts/meter V/r = kQ/r^2 Solves to Potential V = kQ/r Still 9e9 volts at r = 1.0 meter if Q = 1.0 coulomb. I keep the GSU website index in my favorites file, it makes life simpler. :-) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html Frederick
Re: Fw: New Shoulders Paper
Frederick Sparber writes. This might shed some light on what Ken Shoulders is up to. :-) Yes. Ken has been convinced for some time that EVOs play a major role in cold fusion. I had always assumed (certainly incorrectly) that he had been referring to globules of electrons being accelerated somehow onto the active electrode, which is a cathode. Don't ask me why I was suffering under that misapprehension. Now it looks like he is referring to EVOs which are in the formative stage and never get accelerated at all -kind of pulsating within the cathode... or am I in dyslexic mode this morning? Very interesting in the context of the previous threads on the Letts effect. Not to mention the connection with the previously mentioned 86 terahertz having QM implications. Jones Oh. What is the connection? well it is admittedly tenuous, but if .005 eV is indeed the rest mass of the electron anti-neutrino, and every neutron (and consequently every deuteron) has a virtual one of these, then when the kinetic energy of the deuteron reaches this level due to its constrained mobility in a metal matrix, its kinetic energy can be said to be almost entirely supplied by its internal electron anti-neutrino which is in resonance mode. Further stimulation at this 86 terahertz frequency, in addition to aligning the electron spin with the nuclear spin, and setting the stage for high-temperature condensation, will serve to activate the neutrino, possibly setting the stage for ...? ...coordinated decay? ...shades of Bushido... the Japanese should love this one
Neutrino mass
Excellent !! online paper (pdf ) on neutrino oscillation and neutrino mass: Neutrino oscillations By Mark Thomson Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, http://tinyurl.com/5fq46 or http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/app/home/content.asp?wasp=99eqac4qxh2kuva9lk1preferrer=contributionformat=2page=1pagecount=18
Re: New light on LENR
Horace Heffner writes I would certainly agree that it is unfortunate that no one bothered to quantify the fields involved in their publication, or possibly to even measure them or even compute them theoretically. Huh? Fromthe Letts paper, page 7: During the course of experimentation it was discovered that polarization of the laser beam can dramatically affect the thermal response of the cathode to the laser beam. Cravens observed during one of our runs that when the laser beam polarization is perpendicular to an external magnetic field, the thermal response of the cathode is maximized. The polarization of the beam was rotated with a ½ wave retarder; as the polarization of the beam became parallel to the external magnetic field lines, apparent excess power declined. With the ½ wave retarder shown in Figure 9, the laser beam polarization was rotated with respect to an *external magnetic field of 350 Gauss.* How much more specific were you expecting him to be? And 350 Gauss is a fairly weak field, as I would categorize it. Its too bad he didn't get some NIB magnets which can have a surface field of 30x what he used. To that extent it can not be said one way or another the importance of the magnetic fields involved because they were not quantified. It can only be said that Letts observed an experimental effect upon adding or removing the magnets. Not exactly. Polarization is important. Field orientation is important. But Storms has demonstrated that the Laser alone is sufficient and that an axial field does not help at all. Storms also suggests that Letts calorimetry is being affected. If Letts does not acknowledge that point, then what all this says to me is that this experiment begs for more clarification. Ed says, Someday, someone might properly determine if a magnet is important. Meanwhile, I and McKubre replicated the basic observation. You seem to think that the claimed effect of the magnetic field has essential importance while I claim that producing extra heat using a laser is the essential point. This last sentence is clearly NOT true, as Ed previously indicated. I think he must have fired this off in haste. The excess heat is de minimis. The importance of the Laser is clearly related to field alignment within the matrix. From that standpoint the magnetic field should be able to add or subtract, depending on its proper alignment. I sense that Horace has performed this on his own but is not ready to share that work thus far. Understandable, but I hope he will at least share his thoughts on the underlying theory. Do you see this as a robust QM effect, Horace? Jones
FW: WHAT'S NEW Friday, August 20, 2004
[Original Message] From: What's New [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Akira Kawasaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 8/20/2004 1:31:24 PM Subject: WHAT'S NEW Friday, August 20, 2004 WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 20 Aug 04 Washington, DC Paul Gresser contributed to this week's issue of What's New. 1. MISSILE DEFENSE: UNTESTED DEFENSE TRIUMPHS OVER PESSIMISM. At a Boeing missile plant, President Bush warned anyone thinking of threatening America and the free world with nuclear missiles that if You fire; we're going to shoot it down. It sounded like make my day, but is the gun loaded? A day later, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld called deployment a triumph of home and vision over pessimism and skepticism. That sounds about right. 2. NUCLEAR TERROR: NEW BOOK SAYS U.S. CITIES ARE VULNERABLE. The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism asserts that terrorist groups are now the only ones seeking to rain nuclear destruction on the United States. Charles Ferguson and William Potter, both at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Washington, break the threat down as: 1) theft of an intact nuclear weapon, 2) a bomb improvised from stolen fissile material, 3) attack on a nuclear power plant, and 4)dispersal of radioactive material. The first two are the most horrific, but least likely; the other two scare the bejesus out of people, but are unlikely to result in major loss of life. None involves the use of ballistic missiles. 3. PROJECT STEVE: THE EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGE OF BEING STEVE. In 2001, the Discovery Institute published ads listing names of 100 scientists who doubted Darwinism. The National Center for Science Education parodied the ads by collecting signatures just of scientists named Steve on a statement endorsing evolution. Steve was chosen to honor the late Stephen J. Gould, a renowned evolutionary biologist. The 440 Steves are co-authors of a paper in the Annals of Improbable Research, and can note on their resumes that they co-authored a paper with Stephen Hawking and Nobel laureates Steve Weinberg and Steve Chu. 4. CHURCH AND STATE: RELIGIOUS COALITION ENDORSES GEORGE W. BUSH. The National Faith-Based Initiative Coalition, religious leaders of the African-American faith-based community backed George W. Bush for president today. They praised Bush for making it clear what the American family should look like. They said Democrats no longer cared about blacks, and that it was time for them to choose a new political affiliation. When What's New asked what they thought about separation of Church and State, the Coalition explained that it was okay to lobby for federal funding of religious groups, so long as they did so as individuals. 5. SUPERSTITION: CHURCH DENIES SALVATION TO THE DIET- CHALLENGED. The Catholic Church denied 8-year-old Haley Waldman Holy Communion. Her sin? A rare disorder involving a severe reaction to gluten. Catholic doctrine says communion wafers must be made of wheat, like in the Last Supper. The Diocese of Trenton refuses to make an exception for Haley, who believes a rice-based communion should be sufficient. According to Catholic doctrine, the communion host becomes Atkins-friendly human flesh after the priest blesses it, so what's the problem? THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the University of Maryland, but they should be. --- Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.aps.org/WN To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New light on LENR
Dear Vorts: Despite the comments posted here, the optical irradiation of cold fusion cathodes dates back to 1989. Our paper from the Proceedings of ICCF-10 discusses this (paper #2 of 3 at ICCF-10), the physics involved, the role of heavy water, and biphasic effects. The paper is, to my knowledge and belief, not available at the censored LENR site. Any vort, student, or scientist who would like a copy of the paper prepublication, please send me a private email, subject: Photoinduced Excess Heat, and I will send a copy of the manuscript thereafter by email. The abstract of this paper is below, and the paper itself runs about 2 Megabytes in a pdf file. Other papers on cold fusion science and engineering not available elsewhere but published will shortly be available at the COLD FUSION TIMES web site http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html and the JET Thermal Products web site at http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html The second website includes a page showing our public demonstration of cold fusion, which was openly shown at MIT during the last week of August 2003 at ICCF-10. http://world.std.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html Hope that helps. Dr. Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Abstract from ICCF-10 --- Photoinduced Excess Heat from Laser-Irradiated Electrically-Polarized Palladium Cathodes in D2O Mitchell R. Swartz JET Thermal Products There is a positive photothermoelectric response for optically-irradiated [670 nm laser, 3.5 milliwatts] spiral-wound, electrically-polarized palladium cathodes in very low electrical conductivity heavy water. An incremental photoinduced excess heat of ~89+/-16 milliwatts results from a ~3 milliwatt incident optical beam, but only in the presence of a functioning active loaded cathode. The power gain at high input power levels has a biphasic photothermoelectric response.
Re: New light on LENR
Hi Mitchell Any vort, student, or scientist who would like a copy of the paper prepublication, please send me a private email, I would like a copy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TIA, Jones Beene
Re: New light on LENR
At 10:40 AM 8/20/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: Don't be argumentative. Yes, sorry, I'm in a grumpy mood. What can one expect from a curmudgeon? My only reasonable defense is that if we all agreed on everything there would not be much to discuss! 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: New light on LENR
I will make one more attempt. 1. I claim that a laser produces extra energy when no magnet is used and when it is orientated the manner I used. Letts showed that the laser produced about the same amount of energy I observed when the magnet was orientated in his manner. He claimed that he got the best effect when he used his orientation. Perhaps a better effect might result using his orientation, but the basic effect occurred with and without a magnet. This all I ever claimed. Without actually using Lett's magnets, it would be impossible to apply an identical field. 2. An isoperibolic calorimeter has an artifact when a magnetic field is applied. Such fields change the internal thermal gradients so that the calibration no longer applies. Therefore, any claim based on such a calorimeter involving a magnetic field can not be believed. 3. I'm confused as to why this is so important to you and why you insist that a magnetic field is so important. You or anyone else are free to explore the effect of a magnet knowing that the basic claim has been reproduced. I assume you find that word more acceptable than replicate. Regards, Ed Horace Heffner wrote: At 7:09 AM 8/20/4, Edmund Storms wrote: Horace, I seem to be having a hard time making my self understood. Funny, I too feel I have not been able to make myself understood. The effect of a magnetic field, no matter how it is orientated, is an artifact of calorimeter used. In the Letts-Cravens experiment the magnetic field is not an atrifact, but rather a critical experimental variable. Determination of the effect of a powerful magnetic field perpendicular to the laser beam is critical to establishing the theory. If the magnetic field were not an important issue the why would both Letts and yourself bother to include powerful magnets in the experiment? Why would there even be a discussion such as we are having? This is not an artifact issue. I would certainly agree that it is unfortunate that no one bothered to quantify the fields involved in their publication, or possibly to even measure them or even compute them theoretically. To that extent it can not be said one way or another the importance of the magnetic fields involved because they were not quantified. It can only be said that Letts observed an experimental effect upon adding or removing the magnets. Even if a magnet does have an effect, this fact could not be determined by Letts because of this artifact. I showed that a laser can increase heat output of a F-P cell, exactly as Letts demonstrated. This much of the claim was replicated. No one, at this time, knows if a magnetic field would have an effect or not. This seems to be a major change of position on your part. It is inconsistent with your recent statment on the issue: I found that a magnetic field was irrelevant to producing the effect. By that I mean that the basic effect occurs with and without a magnet. The magnet would be relevant if I found an effect when the magnet was applied and no effect when the magnet was removed. However, this is not the case. It is possible that the effect could be improved with proper orientation. Such a possible effect does not change the statement that the magnetic field is irrelevant to the basic effect. Someday, someone might properly determine if a magnet is important. Meanwhile, I and McKubre replicated the basic observation. You seem to think that the claimed effect of the magnetic field has essential importance while I claim that producing extra heat using a laser is the essential point. This is not my main point at all. My principle objection is to *your* making any claims that your experiment made any determination whatsoever as to the effect of the magnetic field. I claimed that the effect occurred whether the magnet was applied or not. Therefore, I made a determination about the effect of a magnet. I did not explore any details about how a magnet might improve the effect. You included the magnets in your experiments, but you oriented them so as to be ineffective. You are misleading other researchers when you make statements like I found that a magnetic field was irrelevant to producing the effect. I am simply trying to get you to look at your experiment with a more thoroughly critical eye to see possibly *why* you determined there was no static magnetic field effect, contrary to Letts' results. What would you expected me to see if I applied the magnet in the same way Letts did? Would you expect I would see a much bigger effect? As it was, I saw almost the same effect as Letts did with his magnet, but without a magnet. You seem to be complaining about why I don't see a bigger effect. If you want to produce a bigger effect, I suggest you explore some of the variables, including t magnetic orientation. I'm sure the effect can be made bigger several different ways. However, don't get on my case because I did not try
