Re: [Vo]:Filament ion jets
Hi Horace, Let's try to agree on simple things, in a simple example. Say at t=0 the HV is turned on instantly and the +ve anode's tip starts emitting a dotted line of slow-flying +ve ions which won't arrive before t=50ms. Say the flow of charge is a constant 10nA flowing out of the tip. The anode current waveform is therefore a step function, zero for t0, 10nA for t=0. What I am saying is that the cathode current is exactly the same step function, as it would be for any electronic component, without a delay corresponding to the flight time, i.e. cathode current won't wait for 50ms to turn on. Do you agree with this? Regards, Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 7:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Filament ion jets On Jun 6, 2007, at 5:01 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Hi Horace, Sorry for the empty reply, my finger slipped. There will be no such delay, that was my point, except of course the subnanosecond speed of light delay for Coulomb forces to act across a few tens of cm, even if it takes 50 milliseconds for the whatever to cross the gap so that one might expect 50 milliseconds or more would elapse before current comes out the bottom of the pan. But that was *my* point. If threads are in place, there is a conductor across the gap, thus the signal should travel fast across the gap, not having to wait for insulated drops to carry the signal. This is not the point I was making. The point I was making was on the contrary that even if the current is carried by slow drops or ions or whatever which take ages (milliseconds) to cross the gap, the signal will still cross at the speed of light (subnanosecond). Let me know if what I wrote previously makes sense in this light, otherwise I can explain. I think your statement makes sense in this context if you assume the air gap plus drops, acting as a capacitor, conducts a signal similar in orders of magnitude to what we would expect from a filament. My underlying assumption is if there are no filaments there will be no signal - not at the 10 nanoamp level measured by Bill Beaty anyway, no signal until a filament contact is made. The fact the air gap is a capacitor seems to me irrelevant because the capacitance is miniscule, so it appears we have differing underlying assumptions in that respect that prevent us from mutually making sense of this. It appears we both agree and assume the signal should travel fast across a filament, i.e. not at the filament molecule speed. It was about this I said: But that was *my* point. We also both agree the signal would travel fast across an air gap capacitor, but apparently we have highly differing assumptions about the ability of the air gap capacitor to conduct a signal, or at least the comparative magnitude of strength of signal from an air gap vs a filament. I suspect we are not communicating at all and have not made sense about the nature of the signal onset though. If a continuous signal actually is detectable and carried by the capacitance of the drops plus air in the gap, then its onset, the rise in its magnitude, should be slow. The onset of a (continuous) signal carried by a filament should be very fast - at the moment of make, and disconnect fast, at the moment of break. If there are filaments making a connection then the signal travels according to the transmission line characteristics of the filament, which may well not be light speed, but will still be fairly fast, sub- nanosecond I would expect. I expect there may be some surprises in this regard, at differing frequencies and rise times, related to the mass of the probable charge carrier in a filament, the proton. A signal carried only by the differing potentials of independent drops would take millisecond delays, dependent on the drop velocity, and I think we agree on that, have made sense of that. A single filament's signal onset when a make occurs would be very fast, not dependent on the stream velocity. If in fact the signal were carried capacitively through independent drops in the gap, where the gap plus drops act as a capacitor, then the signal onset (of a continuous signal) would be comparatively slow, because the strength of signal depends on the capacitance of the gap, thus the geometry of the gap and the speed of filling the gap with droplets. The above may seem trivial, but I think the distinction is critical. For example, given two adjacent target plates, and slowly moving a source needle from above one to above the other, we would see a (superimposed continuous AC) signal jump from one plate to the other very fast if a filament were involved, and gradually switch between the two plates if capacitive transmission were involved. If lots of filaments from the source electrode were
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
Yes good point Horace, my chemical induced ionization hypothesis doesn't explain the barrier crossing. Unless maybe some neutral H atoms manage to leak through the micron-thin barrier before combining into H2? I suppose this would be much more likely in a contact arrangement, they don't say if their barrier tests were done by direct contact or with some air gap between the Pd sample and the barrier. Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper On Jun 6, 2007, at 6:39 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Hi Jed, Very interesting paper. They observed the radiations not just in air, but also in oxygen to a lesser extent, and also in hydrogen to an even lesser extent, cf their table 1: Table 1. Density of autoradiographs under various conditions. Density averaged and normalised to 24 h exposure time. Condition for autoradiographyDensity (× 10-3) 1 In normal air atmosphere 80 2 In oxygen atmosphere 32 3 In hydrogen atmosphere 3.5 4 In air with 0.25 mg/cm2 filter 6.0 5 In air with +0.67 kV/cm field 230 6 In air with -0.67 kV/cm field 210 The facts that the presence of an electric field increases the phenomenon, and that the polarity makes little difference, indicate that ions of both signs are formed. The effect of the electric field would be to make the opposite signed ions move in opposite directions (one going to the sample to discharge, the other going to the film) rather than meet and combine. I'll dare a theory: combination of two desorbed atomic H (or D) atoms into molecular hydrogen being highly exoenergetic as is well known, the kinetic energy of the resulting H2 (or D2) molecule is sufficient to impact-ionize some of the ambient gas molecules and/ or the palladium (electron emission). Those initial reactions could in turn induce further ionization reactions in some gases. You would expect different ionization rates in different gases or gas mixtures as observed, none in some gases as observed, and none in vacuum of course as observed. Let's see how this fares. For 2H(g)-H2(g) my thermochemistry calculator says 434 kJ/mole at 25°C, which is ~4.5 eV per H2 molecule if I am not mistaken. Bombarding ambient air with 4.5 eV particles will definitely induce some ionization reactions I am pretty sure. Also there are many metals whose electron work function (the K.E. required for an impact to eject an electron out of it) is below 4.5 eV. Pd's is 5.12 eV i.e. not too far, so you would expect some tunneling probability, and a much higher probability if lower work function impurities are present e.g. lithium (electron work function: 2.9 eV!). Well, the hypothesis does seem to have have at least one leg to stand on. Comments/critiques/corrections welcome. This theory makes some sense except for the cases where a physical barrier was included. From: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RoutRKphenomenon.pdf Fogging was also detected when thin filters (2 μm aluminised polycarbonate foil (0.25 mg/cm2) in one or several layers) were kept between the film and loaded samples. Weak fogging was always measured with one layer of such a filter (see Table 1). With two layers of filters fogging was observed only in one instance (barely above threshold). No fogging was ever observed, above threshold, with three or more layers of filters. Two microns is too much for tunneling to occur, so the barrier should be effective at preventing a chemical explanation *provided the barrier is not porous to chemical penetration.* The reduction of effect with increasing barrier thickness is consistent with higher than chemical energy particles. It might also be consistent with reduced chemical migration through pores. The fact the barrier is aluminized does make the prospect of ions moving through the barrier and actually reaching the film a less viable explanation though. Another explanation might be that both cation and anion chemical species with activated nuclei were created and selectively drawn to the barrier or film surface by the differing applied fields. Might be tritium in a LESS THAN NORMAL STATE OF NUCLEAR EXCITATION, only 300 eV. In an oxygen or air environment it would exist chemically in both cation (H+ or more likely H3O+) and anion (OH-) form, especially if the air were humid. In the past I have suggested a number of ways such lower that normal states of nuclear excitation might arise in CF. It would not matter if the ions discharged near the film, because the neutrals would be in proximity of the film and only migrate away by diffusion. All wild speculation, but I don't see any alternative explanations. Regards, Horace Heffner
[VO]:Re;OT: Light and transparent
BlankJones wrote.. The literary interpretation on this theme is sometimes rooted in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics but it can operate in reverse by assuming that each potential outcome has already happened somewhere previously in 4-space, and we presently have the group free-will to choose one branch over another. This makes the advocacy function of Vortex more important than you may realize. Howdy Jones, Yep! I've found that true. Vortex is like the Dime Box saloon. Keep stumbling over intellect while dodging beer bottles. Chinese shellac sure inspired lotsa science over the years. Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif
Re: [Vo]:Glow discharge papers from Savvatimova et al.
Jed Rothwell wrote: I uploaded three papers by Irina Savvatimova et al. Another one is coming, after she sends me some changes. This one: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MuromtsevVneutrinodi.pdf ... on the Iwamura effect **[if it could be trusted as accurate]** is every bit the bombshell (bad choice of idiom) as the SPAWARS experiments. The other papers are also interesting but here we have changes brought on by simple D2 diffusion. The most interesting thing to me is that once again - we have C figuring in very prominently - carbon. Or should I say 'virtual carbon' via a particle which mainstream physics denies as being stable: the dineutron (two bound neutrons) and then to compound the situation- the neutrino at high probability. I wish that the interconnection between the neutrino and the carbon nucleus via the dineutron were spelled out a little more clearly for the timid amongst us -- as this, at first glance, is both bizarre beyond all previous understanding - yet at the same time having this huge jolt of Archimedean aha, so that is it!. Actually one can scarcely spell it out any clearer (mathematically) than equations 1-6 but the implications are such that this writer balks at putting that into words. BACKSTORY: The paper titled ‘Low energy nuclear transmutation in condensed matter induced by D2 gas permeation through Pd complexes’ by Iwamura et al., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries was considered by many to have been the most important paper of ICCF10 Boston. Many replications and variations followed. Unfortunately, the details of these replications vary significantly between labs... as Iwamura found that the effective Z multiplier (so to speak) was 2 (alpha) not 6 (carbon). Somebody correct me if this is incorrect. The reasoning of Savvatimova is more appealing in many ways but - the $64 question: are the two results contradictory to a single more general explanantion? Can the neutrino really be involved at relatively high probability? Which kind of neutrino? Is so-called neutrino 'flavor-change' involved? IN a perfect world, any of these results (fully replicated) would easily win the Nobel prize for physics, not to mention the original work of PF. Problem is, as of now they do not mesh. IMHO it appears that Savvatimova has the more cogent theory but in many ways it seems to contradict Iwamuara as much as support him. Is that conclusion too much a 'rush to judgement'? Needless to say, we do not live in a perfect world nor even one of minimum fairness. With the caveat: **[if this paper could be trusted as accurate]** As everyone is aware, the Russians are very advanced in nuclear physics, but also, as a practical matter, the science establishment over there is in somewhat of economic shambles, so many poor papers have emerged from Russia of dubious reliability. Apologies if that assessment in any way taints what could be a most remarkable finding. Jones Got you plane ticket for Moscow yet, Steve? I hear that June is pretty nice. At least the snow is starting to melt ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
Michel Jullian wrote: I suppose this would be much more likely in a contact arrangement, they don't say if their barrier tests were done by direct contact or with some air gap between the Pd sample and the barrier. Other papers from BARC say there was an air gap, usually or always -- I am not sure. This was to eliminate the possibility that water or other chemicals caused the autoradiographs to darken. That is extremely unlikely, but they wanted to rule it out. They also ruled it out by placing one film behind another and observing the same pattern of radiation on both. You can read more about the experiments at BARC here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/BARC.htm - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
On Jun 7, 2007, at 6:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: I suppose this would be much more likely in a contact arrangement, they don't say if their barrier tests were done by direct contact or with some air gap between the Pd sample and the barrier. Other papers from BARC say there was an air gap, usually or always -- I am not sure. This was to eliminate the possibility that water or other chemicals caused the autoradiographs to darken. That is extremely unlikely, but they wanted to rule it out. They also ruled it out by placing one film behind another and observing the same pattern of radiation on both. Much of the work in the paper did not involve direct contact, used separators, including the surprising electric field results. It appears most of the work noted in the paper included spacers or filters. BOTH TECHNIQUES USED For autoradiography the X-ray films were kept in contact or a few mm away from the sample. FIG. 1 IS A CONTACT EXPOSURE Fig. 1 shows a contact autoradiograph of a disk loaded with D2 using a PF device (30 discharge shots, 24 hours exposure). This almost appears to be used for control purposes. FIG. 2 IS 0.2 mm SPACING Fig. 2 is an autoradiograph of a similar H2 loaded sample (30 discharge shots, 90 hours exposure) kept 0.2 mm away from the film. ELECTIC FIELD SPACER WAS 1.2 mm THICK The emissions were also subjected to electric field. The electric field between the loaded sample (disk type) and the film was maintained by a perspex spacer, 1.2 mm thick, having an opening of 12 mm at its centre. POLYCARBONATE FOIL SPACERS WERE 2 MICRONS Fogging was also detected when thin filters (2 μm aluminised polycarbonate foil (0.25 mg/cm2) in one or several layers) were kept between the film and loaded samples. MEASUREMENTS WITH AND WITHOUT GLASS AND SILICA FILTERS The autoradiography and TLD (CaSC4 based) measurements were made with and without glass and fused silica filters. Activity observed without filter in case of TLD study was seven times above background. No radiation was observed to cross glass or fused silica, indicating the absence (or very low intensity) of optical, ultraviolet or infrared radiators. These results were confirmed by photomultiplier and photodiode study. The above use of filters is not relevant regarding the spacing or chemical isolation, but it is relevant in that it rules out any energetic chemical or particle reactions that produce photons that account for the fogging of the film. That pretty much leaves production of a radioactive species that degasses from the Pd. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
Horace Heffner wrote: That pretty much leaves production of a radioactive species that degasses from the Pd. Only if one discounts the hydrino-hydride -- auger electron displacement explanation - or the one offered by Robin. Radioactive species degassing should fog film equally well, or better, in a vacuum situation. I certainly would blame no one for discounting the Mills hydrino in normal circumstances - since the species has not been proved to the satisfaction of most observers. However, to invent an even more improbable scenario, when the hydrino one has met minimum standards of viability, by virtue of dozens of peer-reviewed articles by Mills, and also fits the circumstances fairly well, does not make sense either. Jones OTOH, if Mills is correct, where's the beef (after 18 years)? [please don't say: in vitro] ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Filament ion jets
On Jun 7, 2007, at 4:57 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Hi Horace, Let's try to agree on simple things, in a simple example. Say at t=0 the HV is turned on instantly and the +ve anode's tip starts emitting a dotted line of slow-flying +ve ions I'm curious - why do you use the notation +ve? Does the e represent someting? I assume here you mean the needle is an anode of potential +ve, and the plate is ground. Hopefully you are not implying the filament is comprised of single molecule charged ions? Single molecule charged ions would distribute themselves across the area of the plates, following the field lines. The only hope of maintaining anything like a filament or jet is a high m/q ratio, which charged drops provide to a degree, and continuous filaments provide as well. Also, I think Bill said a metal target plate accumulated water, which would be consistent with either a droplet or water filament model. Such models are also consistent with the need to keep the environment wet, humid, or full of CO2. Say, maybe flowing water provides a way to visualize the filament - a powdered dye on a metal plate. When it gets wet it changes color. Only good for a one time shot, but it still would be impressive and maybe could be engineered to leave a permanent trace for study. which won't arrive before t=50ms. Say the flow of charge is a constant 10nA flowing out of the tip. The anode current waveform is therefore a step function, zero for t0, 10nA for t=0. What I am saying is that the cathode current is exactly the same step function, as it would be for any electronic component, without a delay corresponding to the flight time, i.e. cathode current won't wait for 50ms to turn on. Do you agree with this? No, not necessarily. Bill said the filaments were fairly neutral, and a pair could in fact travel parallel and close to each other for long distances. I therefore don't think the majority of the current flows until the filament completes contact with the plate, in which case the filament conducts current through itself. I think the voltage and thus the repulsion between two *conducting* filaments declines as the point of observation approaches the ground plate. I agree that in the *droplet model* the current onset would be immediate, as the droplets carried off the charge. We clearly are basing (biasing) our assumptions regarding conductivity depending on our personal models of the situation. In the filament model there are two currents involved: (1) the current that leaves some charges on the filament which is assembled from polar molecules held in place primarily by their polar (hydrogen bond) attraction with the alignment coordinated by the tip field E, and (2) the conduction current that occurs when contact is made between the two electrodes. If we knew the surface area of the filament we could compute the current required to eject a filament at velocity V and maintained at needle potential ve. I think it is an interesting question as to the exact mechanics the allows the formation of a jet instead of droplets. It may relate to the voltage, the power supply characteristics, the needle geometry, and maybe the resistance and surface physics of the needle. It may be highly related to the manner in which the needle attracts and feeds water and/or CO2 to the jet. It certainly should be affected by the surface tension at the needle tip, and thus may be highly related to the thickness of the water feed to the tip, and to the chemistry of the water, i.e. its CO2 content. But first there is a need to prove the continuous filament exists at all and to detect its presence and characteristics. Even without an imposed AC signal, the two plate method may be useful for determining the presence of filaments vs. drops. The experiment would consist of (1) establishing a current with the needle over one plate and (2) then moving the needle electrode back and forth between the centers of the two plates slowly, maintaining the current. Given two adjacent coplanar target plates, each with its own nano-ammeter, and slowly moving a source needle from above one to above the other, we would see the current jump from one plate to the other very fast if a filament were involved, and more gradually switch between the two plates if droplet current transmission were involved, especially at longer needle-plate separations. If lots of filaments from the source electrode were involved, we should still see the change in currents occur in jumps, while if droplet conduction is occurring then the transition of signal strengths would be more continuous. Another way to diagnose filament vs drop formation at the needle tip is through current fluctuations. If very pure DC is used, then an oscilloscope probe wire attached to the needle, but capacitively isolated from the needle using a
Re: [Vo]:Glow discharge papers from Savvatimova et al.
Jones Beene wrote: ... on the Iwamura effect **[if it could be trusted as accurate]** With the caveat: **[if this paper could be trusted as accurate]** As everyone is aware, the Russians are very advanced in nuclear physics, but also, as a practical matter, the science establishment over there is in somewhat of economic shambles . . . It is indeed a shambles. And these results are so strange that I expect most other cold fusion researchers have ignored them. I cannot judge whether these results are valid or not. I think we will only know that if and when they are replicated. I do not think Jones was questioning the authors' honesty -- only the possibility that this is some sort of mistake, or the result of massive incompetence. But in case anyone wonders about this issue, I think everyone who knows Irina will agree that her personal integrity is beyond question. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
On Jun 7, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: That pretty much leaves production of a radioactive species that degasses from the Pd. Only if one discounts the hydrino-hydride -- auger electron displacement explanation - or the one offered by Robin. Radioactive species degassing should fog film equally well, or better, in a vacuum situation. It is not possible to get an exposure in a vacuum from degassing species using the same exposure time as with atmospheric pressure gas. This is not even a close call. The exposure times are way too long. The radioactive species gets immediately evacuated. The low ion energy prevents sources within the Pd from exposing the film. The exposure time varied from 24 to 120 hours.. From : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RoutRKphenomenon.pdf Fig. 2, for example, had a 90 hour exposure time. I certainly would blame no one for discounting the Mills hydrino in normal circumstances - since the species has not been proved to the satisfaction of most observers. I discounted the Mills theory only to the extent that the suggested mechanism (below) should produce photons and energetic alphas, which also expose the film, and this was ruled out by experiment, and also to the extent that this explanation is inconsistent with the much higher film exposure in *both* a positive and negative E field. Reviewing: On Jun 6, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: I would offer the following suggestion. Hydrino molecules fuse with either O18 from Oxygen/air, or with D2 in Hydrogen gas to create either energetic alphas in the case of O18, or (T p)/(He3 n) in the case of D2. These in turn ionize the surrounding gas releasing low energy electrons. When alphas ionize gasses they typically lose about 400 eV per atom, which isn't a bad match for the purported electron energy. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
Horace, It is not possible to get an exposure in a vacuum from degassing species using the same exposure time as with atmospheric pressure gas. This is not even a close call. The exposure times are way too long. The radioactive species gets immediately evacuated. Do you have a reference for this high initial degassing rate, followed by a subsequent almost complete degassing turn-off ? I would have thought that following a high initial rate (few seconds) which takes the loading down 10% or so, from the starting level, that the subsequent rate of degassing would be slow and steady. And besides - what kind of beta decay or radioactivity produces ~300 eV electons? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
On Jun 7, 2007, at 10:44 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace, It is not possible to get an exposure in a vacuum from degassing species using the same exposure time as with atmospheric pressure gas. This is not even a close call. The exposure times are way too long. The radioactive species gets immediately evacuated. Do you have a reference for this high initial degassing rate, followed by a subsequent almost complete degassing turn-off ? This is a nonsensical model of the process and certainly *not* one implied by me. Degassing rate from Pd follows a decline curve. It is not the Pd degassing rate which removes the radioactive species from the film vicinity, keeps its concentration low, but rather the vacuum pump. I would have thought that following a high initial rate (few seconds) which takes the loading down 10% or so, from the starting level, that the subsequent rate of degassing would be slow and steady. Yes it is slow and declining. It depends on the diffusion rate of the species in the matrix and the pressure differential. But that is not important to my point. My point is the gas, once out of the Pd, is quickly removed by the vacuum pump. It can't stick around to expose the film. And besides - what kind of beta decay or radioactivity produces ~300 eV electons? As I said, one from a tritium nucleus having a less than normal excitation level. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
A thought follows about the nature of the compartment, i.e. volume, close to the film, and its importance to experimental controls. The following is a simple diffusion model of the compartment close to the film. Pd---T_in-compartment--- T_out + gas_out ^ | gas_in The compartment has volume based flow rates T_in, T_out, gas_in and gas_out, where we can assume over a short time interval involved the Pd has a fixed flow rate of T_in into the compartment. The compartment is not fully sealed, so there is diffusion of ambient gas into and out of the compartment, and a diffusion of T out of the compartment as well. At equilibrium, the compartment maintains equilibrium pressure, so, : T_in + gas_in = T_out + gas out At equilibrium we also have: T_in = T_out so: gas_in = gas_out The concentration ratio of the gasses in the compartment at equilibrium becomes R = T_in / gas_in. This means the tighter the seal around the compartment the higher the concentration of the T, the higher its partial pressure. The partial pressure p(T) of the T in the compartment, p(T) is: p(T) = R * [p(T) + p(gas)] which at pressure P is: p(T) = R * P Given the compartment is shallow, the exposure rate of the film Ef is proportional to the mass of T, and thus to its partial pressure times its density: Ef = p(T) * (density of T at P) = R * P * (density of T at P) The higher the pressure the larger the exposure rate. The better the compartment seal, the better the exposure rate. For very shallow compartments, less than the beta mean free path, the thicker the compartment, the larger the exposure rate. Now, this might indicate a small flaw in the two experiments with the voltage applied. The control run should have been a run with the applied voltage zero. The compartment seal may have been very good, and the thickness just right to get a high T exposure rate. If the fogging at 0 volts matches those at positive and negative voltages, then the effect is not voltage related at all. A lack of this control data invalidates any conclusion based on field related data. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
Horace, This is a nonsensical model of the process and certainly *not* one implied by me. Well - playing devil's advocate once again, if tritium were coming off in the vacuum exhaust in well-equipped labs, it would set off a warning - but maybe they did not have any such precaution... nevertheless ... in trying to get a better protocol pinned-down, in case anyone (such as a Mills proponent) might wish to whittle down the open possibilities, it would seem that tritium has such a unique signature that it would not be hard to find it, especially with a dedicated tritium detector, unless it is ALL at the much lower energy level (and how could that be?) That is, if one looks in the right place like the vacuum exhaust, or turning the pump off, tritium detectors should spot it like a sore thumb and also - another factor weighing against tritium is that one can doubt that helium would have much of an effect on tritium release, in the situation where there was only helium, but less fogging. You would agree that if a vacuum is drawn on a tight seal, then pump turned off for the multi-hour exposure, and there is still only minimal fogging - then the exposure is not due to the release of tritium ? If tritium can be eliminated, then beta decay of the neutron is still an open possibility - but a vacuum would not have eliminated that before (in the original) - and the crux of this puzzle is that the effect goes away with a either a vacuum or with an unreactive gas (He, Ar)... and also - the other factor weighing against tritium is that helium should not have much of an effect. If I am understanding this, with a reactive gas present - O2 or N2 there is an fairly large signal and it is not due to photons. If tritium, photons and neutron decay are eliminated and 300 volt electrons are the culprit, then my original take on this was to look for a species that would displace an inner electron of O2 or N2. Auger electron spectroscopy is where you usually see electrons of this energy. The hydrino-hydride, as a candidate - which in an ion having a bound electron of the exact energy to be displaced might be able to do this. At least that is one possibility which has not been ruled out. Look on Robin's site: http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/New-hydrogen.html ...for the shrinkage necessary (looks like 1/9 to 1/10) which is necessary to get almost exactly to this 300 volt level if both of the electrons in the hydride pair to the same level - which Mills may not believe happens, but others do. I do not buy the possibility which Robin mentioned of further shrinkage, as that involves a photon, nor the possibility of a nuclear reaction - which is eliminated by the low energy of the electron and the lack of gammas. Where else in physics does one normally find electrons in this range, other than Auger spectroscopy ? If anyone replicates this, they should borrow such a device and pin down the exact energy, perhaps. Jones
[Vo]:Japanese news features global warming
The nightly NHK National New broadcast in Japan has often discussed global warming lately. Prime Minister Abe says that Japan should take a leading role in combatting it, and he will say that at the G 8 conference now underway. Former P.M. Koizumi gave a speech the other day along the same lines. Japan has had extremely hot weather in recent years, and the news broadcasters and newspapers now routinely attribute it to global warming, without doubt or dissension. They have not done much to stop global warming, but at least they take the problem seriously and they are beginning to launch serious efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Plus they are imitating the U.S. and deploying some nonsense programs such as ethanol, fortunately on a tiny scale that will cause little harm. The nuclear power industry is a shambles, with revelation after revelation of misconduct, accidents and cover-ups over the past 30 years now coming to light. But this state of affairs is so common for Japanese industry and government that I do not think anyone will oppose the expanded use of nuclear power. The power companies are being grilled by the police and the Parliament, and the investigations have revealed many problems with coal and gas fired plants too, and even hydroelectric dams. It is a little difficult to decide whether you would prefer to live next to a coal-fired plant run by idiots street-hood Mafiosi dropouts, or a nuclear plant run by those same idiots. . . I do not ever recall seeing Japanese press coverage of the sort of anti-global warming arguments that are common in the U.S. In Japan they tend to assume that pronouncements made by mainstream scientists are authoritative and cannot be questioned. There is no opposition to global warming from religious kooks, as there is in the U.S. Religion has had little impact on post-WWII Japanese culture and politics. That does not mean that officials or industry follows recommendations made by scientists, but they do not contradict them or contradict them. Unfortunately, going by the same standard of respect for authority, nearly all Japanese newspapers and magazines denounce cold fusion research. The only reason it is still funded to a small extent is that many aspects of Japanese society -- and universities in particular -- are heavily balkanized. They are decentralized. The left hand does not know or care what the right hand is doing. Industrial and data processing standards, for example, are weak. Leaders are often figureheads. Political and budgetary power is in the hands of low-ranking officials in corporations and government. Japan's disastrous war in China was orchestrated by low-level field officers who acted contrary to orders from headquarters. (They assassinated Chinese leaders and organized fake attacks against themselves, like the German attacks against Poland, and the U.S. Tonkin Gulf incident, which as President Johnson said at the time, 'was probably our guys shooting at a whale or something, but who cares?') This system of letting the staff run the organization may seem awkward, but it has some advantages, such as the fact Mizuno and others can continue for years doing research that, in the U.S. or Europe would get them harassed, fired, or hauled before the kind of Congressional witch hunt that Rusi Taleyarkhan faces. Nobody at the University cares what Mizuno does, except for his immediate superiors and they are not all that superior. They have been making desultory efforts to stop him since 1989, and they told him he would never be promoted above assistant professor (which he has not been), but they do not care much one way or the other. He will soon face mandatory retirement, so he will be out of their hair. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Japanese news features global warming
A piece well worth reading, factual, hard to stomach, but a keen insight into Japan Inc. Substitute corporate CEO's, Blackstone et.al. and bureaucrats for Mafioso and its resembles the USA. Richard Jed wrote.. The nightly NHK National New broadcast in Japan has often discussed global warming lately. Prime Minister Abe says that Japan should take a leading role in combatting it, and he will say that at the G 8 conference now underway. Former P.M. Koizumi gave a speech the other day along the same lines. Japan has had extremely hot weather in recent years, and the news broadcasters and newspapers now routinely attribute it to global warming, without doubt or dissension. They have not done much to stop global warming, but at least they take the problem seriously and they are beginning to launch serious efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Plus they are imitating the U.S. and deploying some nonsense programs such as ethanol, fortunately on a tiny scale that will cause little harm. The nuclear power industry is a shambles, with revelation after revelation of misconduct, accidents and cover-ups over the past 30 years now coming to light. But this state of affairs is so common for Japanese industry and government that I do not think anyone will oppose the expanded use of nuclear power. The power companies are being grilled by the police and the Parliament, and the investigations have revealed many problems with coal and gas fired plants too, and even hydroelectric dams. It is a little difficult to decide whether you would prefer to live next to a coal-fired plant run by idiots street-hood Mafiosi dropouts, or a nuclear plant run by those same idiots. . . I do not ever recall seeing Japanese press coverage of the sort of anti-global warming arguments that are common in the U.S. In Japan they tend to assume that pronouncements made by mainstream scientists are authoritative and cannot be questioned. There is no opposition to global warming from religious kooks, as there is in the U.S. Religion has had little impact on post-WWII Japanese culture and politics. That does not mean that officials or industry follows recommendations made by scientists, but they do not contradict them or contradict them. Unfortunately, going by the same standard of respect for authority, nearly all Japanese newspapers and magazines denounce cold fusion research. The only reason it is still funded to a small extent is that many aspects of Japanese society -- and universities in particular -- are heavily balkanized. They are decentralized. The left hand does not know or care what the right hand is doing. Industrial and data processing standards, for example, are weak. Leaders are often figureheads. Political and budgetary power is in the hands of low-ranking officials in corporations and government. Japan's disastrous war in China was orchestrated by low-level field officers who acted contrary to orders from headquarters. (They assassinated Chinese leaders and organized fake attacks against themselves, like the German attacks against Poland, and the U.S. Tonkin Gulf incident, which as President Johnson said at the time, 'was probably our guys shooting at a whale or something, but who cares?') This system of letting the staff run the organization may seem awkward, but it has some advantages, such as the fact Mizuno and others can continue for years doing research that, in the U.S. or Europe would get them harassed, fired, or hauled before the kind of Congressional witch hunt that Rusi Taleyarkhan faces. Nobody at the University cares what Mizuno does, except for his immediate superiors and they are not all that superior. They have been making desultory efforts to stop him since 1989, and they told him he would never be promoted above assistant professor (which he has not been), but they do not care much one way or the other. He will soon face mandatory retirement, so he will be out of their hair. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Japanese news features global warming
I wrote: It is a little difficult to decide whether you would prefer to live next to a coal-fired plant run by idiots street-hood Mafiosi dropouts, or a nuclear plant run by those same idiots. . . Street-hoods is an exaggeration, but a friend of mine with inside knowledge of the Tokai nuclear fuel plant, where the criticality accident occurred, told me the industry tends to attract gum-chewing pomaded young men who do not have many prospects and who do not pay much attention to safety lectures. I read about a guy like that at a U.S. nuclear fuel plant who pooh-poohed the safety regs. He went around saying: This stuff can't really hurt you! We don't need all these damn rules. One day, to prove his point, he dipped his arm into a drum of liquid high-level rad-waste. He died in agony within months. My friend described the nuclear industry the way Wouk described the U.S. Navy: 'A machine designed by geniuses to be run by idiots' That does not mean that officials or industry follows recommendations made by scientists, but they do not contradict them or contradict them. I meant to say contradict or ridicule them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 4:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper Michel Jullian wrote: I suppose this would be much more likely in a contact arrangement, they don't say if their barrier tests were done by direct contact or with some air gap between the Pd sample and the barrier. Other papers from BARC say there was an air gap, usually or always -- I am not sure. Only sometimes, as Horace pointed out. In the specific case of their barrier tests they didn't say, so it might well have been a contact test. In which case H desorbing from Pd could well cross the micron thin barrier before energetically combining into H2 between the barrier and the film. It still can do so if there is an air gap, but the probability is much smaller. This was to eliminate the possibility that water or other chemicals caused the autoradiographs to darken. That is extremely unlikely, but they wanted to rule it out. They also ruled it out by placing one film behind another and observing the same pattern of radiation on both. Mmm, I doubt this, since the radiation doesn't cross the film as they say quite explicitly in the paper (in the two-sided film they find that only the top emulsion is impressed). Michel You can read more about the experiments at BARC here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/BARC.htm - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Filament ion jets
(+ve was shorthand for positive, sorry if that was confusing, I won't use it again) To be able to compare candidate scenarii on the basis of current waveforms, we should first ascertain how currents would behave in each case, trying not to digress too much (please show mercy for my limited proficiency in this foreign language). My suggestion was to start with the ion jet hypothesis (subject line), which may not be as absurd as you suggest BTW. In that hypothesis, do you agree with my assertion below that we should get identical and synchronous step waveforms for anode and cathode currents, or do you expect a delay allowing for the flight time? Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Filament ion jets On Jun 7, 2007, at 4:57 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Hi Horace, Let's try to agree on simple things, in a simple example. Say at t=0 the HV is turned on instantly and the +ve anode's tip starts emitting a dotted line of slow-flying +ve ions I'm curious - why do you use the notation +ve? Does the e represent someting? I assume here you mean the needle is an anode of potential +ve, and the plate is ground. Hopefully you are not implying the filament is comprised of single molecule charged ions? Single molecule charged ions would distribute themselves across the area of the plates, following the field lines. The only hope of maintaining anything like a filament or jet is a high m/q ratio, which charged drops provide to a degree, and continuous filaments provide as well. Also, I think Bill said a metal target plate accumulated water, which would be consistent with either a droplet or water filament model. Such models are also consistent with the need to keep the environment wet, humid, or full of CO2. Say, maybe flowing water provides a way to visualize the filament - a powdered dye on a metal plate. When it gets wet it changes color. Only good for a one time shot, but it still would be impressive and maybe could be engineered to leave a permanent trace for study. which won't arrive before t=50ms. Say the flow of charge is a constant 10nA flowing out of the tip. The anode current waveform is therefore a step function, zero for t0, 10nA for t=0. What I am saying is that the cathode current is exactly the same step function, as it would be for any electronic component, without a delay corresponding to the flight time, i.e. cathode current won't wait for 50ms to turn on. Do you agree with this? No, not necessarily. Bill said the filaments were fairly neutral, and a pair could in fact travel parallel and close to each other for long distances. I therefore don't think the majority of the current flows until the filament completes contact with the plate, in which case the filament conducts current through itself. I think the voltage and thus the repulsion between two *conducting* filaments declines as the point of observation approaches the ground plate. I agree that in the *droplet model* the current onset would be immediate, as the droplets carried off the charge. We clearly are basing (biasing) our assumptions regarding conductivity depending on our personal models of the situation. In the filament model there are two currents involved: (1) the current that leaves some charges on the filament which is assembled from polar molecules held in place primarily by their polar (hydrogen bond) attraction with the alignment coordinated by the tip field E, and (2) the conduction current that occurs when contact is made between the two electrodes. If we knew the surface area of the filament we could compute the current required to eject a filament at velocity V and maintained at needle potential ve. I think it is an interesting question as to the exact mechanics the allows the formation of a jet instead of droplets. It may relate to the voltage, the power supply characteristics, the needle geometry, and maybe the resistance and surface physics of the needle. It may be highly related to the manner in which the needle attracts and feeds water and/or CO2 to the jet. It certainly should be affected by the surface tension at the needle tip, and thus may be highly related to the thickness of the water feed to the tip, and to the chemistry of the water, i.e. its CO2 content. But first there is a need to prove the continuous filament exists at all and to detect its presence and characteristics. Even without an imposed AC signal, the two plate method may be useful for determining the presence of filaments vs. drops. The experiment would consist of (1) establishing a current with the needle over one plate and (2) then moving the needle electrode back and forth between the centers of the two plates
Re: [Vo]:Rout ICCF3 paper
On Jun 7, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace, This is a nonsensical model of the process and certainly *not* one implied by me. Well - playing devil's advocate once again, I think my interest here is fast ending. I have a lot of mundane things I have to do before winter, and it looks like I won't be able to get to the science things that are of most interest to me. if tritium were coming off in the vacuum exhaust in well-equipped labs, it would set off a warning - but maybe they did not have any such precaution... nevertheless ... in trying to get a better protocol pinned-down, in case anyone (such as a Mills proponent) might wish to whittle down the open possibilities, it would seem that tritium has such a unique signature that it would not be hard to find it, especially with a dedicated tritium detector, unless it is ALL at the much lower energy level (and how could that be?) That is, if one looks in the right place like the vacuum exhaust, or turning the pump off, tritium detectors should spot it like a sore thumb and also - another factor weighing against tritium is that one can doubt that helium would have much of an effect on tritium release, in the situation where there was only helium, but less fogging. The above is a red herring. I never said anything about normal tritium. You would agree that if a vacuum is drawn on a tight seal, then pump turned off for the multi-hour exposure, and there is still only minimal fogging - then the exposure is not due to the release of tritium ? Of course I would not agree! I just went to a lot of trouble to show why. This is utterly frustrating. Ef = p(T) * (density of T at P) = R * P * (density of T at P) If the pressure P is zero then partial pressure p(T) of T is zero so the film exposure rate Ef is zero. If the p remains near zero then the exposure rate remains near zero. To the extent there is a vacuum, the exposure rate is diminished. If tritium can be eliminated, then beta decay of the neutron is still an open possibility Except for the fact the neutron decay energy (782,350 V) is about 2600 times too high. - but a vacuum would not have eliminated that before (in the original) - and the crux of this puzzle is that the effect goes away with a either a vacuum or with an unreactive gas (He, Ar)... and also - the other factor weighing against tritium is that helium should not have much of an effect. If I am understanding this, with a reactive gas present - O2 or N2 Just O2. Some samples were also kept in atmospheres of nitrogen, helium and argon gases. The gas pressure was retained slightly (~ 50 mbar) above one atmosphere. The exposure time in all the cases was 96 h. No radiation, above threshold, was observed on any of these autoradiographs. Maybe would get it with N2 also if an ammonia forming catalyst were present, but ammonia would not respond to an E field. Just because the E field experiment is not conclusive, due to a lack of control, does not mean there is reason to completely throw it out yet. There were runs with similar width gaps at 0 potential, so the results may be valid, and if so it will still require both positive and negative ions of the species to explain. there is an fairly large signal and it is not due to photons. If tritium, photons and neutron decay are eliminated and 300 volt electrons are the culprit, then my original take on this was to look for a species that would displace an inner electron of O2 or N2. Auger electron spectroscopy is where you usually see electrons of this energy. But you see x-rays from auger electrons, lots of photons from the cascades, and where's the needed 300 eV particles? Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Filament ion jets
On Jun 7, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: (+ve was shorthand for positive, sorry if that was confusing, I won't use it again) To be able to compare candidate scenarii on the basis of current waveforms, we should first ascertain how currents would behave in each case, trying not to digress too much (please show mercy for my limited proficiency in this foreign language). My suggestion was to start with the ion jet hypothesis (subject line), which may not be as absurd as you suggest BTW. In that hypothesis, do you agree with my assertion below that we should get identical and synchronous step waveforms for anode and cathode currents, or do you expect a delay allowing for the flight time? I think I've exhausted my interest in this. Bill Beaty seems to be the only one who has had enough interest to experiment, and without experiments we're just philosophising about angels on the tip of a pin. I've contributed what I think may be a good experimental approach for anyone who may be so inclined, so I am happy to leave it at that. If I had a lot of time and money to spend I'd rig one up myself, but right now I have neither. Sigh. Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Filament ion jets On Jun 7, 2007, at 4:57 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Hi Horace, Let's try to agree on simple things, in a simple example. Say at t=0 the HV is turned on instantly and the +ve anode's tip starts emitting a dotted line of slow-flying +ve ions I'm curious - why do you use the notation +ve? Does the e represent someting? I assume here you mean the needle is an anode of potential +ve, and the plate is ground. Hopefully you are not implying the filament is comprised of single molecule charged ions? Single molecule charged ions would distribute themselves across the area of the plates, following the field lines. The only hope of maintaining anything like a filament or jet is a high m/q ratio, which charged drops provide to a degree, and continuous filaments provide as well. Also, I think Bill said a metal target plate accumulated water, which would be consistent with either a droplet or water filament model. Such models are also consistent with the need to keep the environment wet, humid, or full of CO2. Say, maybe flowing water provides a way to visualize the filament - a powdered dye on a metal plate. When it gets wet it changes color. Only good for a one time shot, but it still would be impressive and maybe could be engineered to leave a permanent trace for study. which won't arrive before t=50ms. Say the flow of charge is a constant 10nA flowing out of the tip. The anode current waveform is therefore a step function, zero for t0, 10nA for t=0. What I am saying is that the cathode current is exactly the same step function, as it would be for any electronic component, without a delay corresponding to the flight time, i.e. cathode current won't wait for 50ms to turn on. Do you agree with this? No, not necessarily. Bill said the filaments were fairly neutral, and a pair could in fact travel parallel and close to each other for long distances. I therefore don't think the majority of the current flows until the filament completes contact with the plate, in which case the filament conducts current through itself. I think the voltage and thus the repulsion between two *conducting* filaments declines as the point of observation approaches the ground plate. I agree that in the *droplet model* the current onset would be immediate, as the droplets carried off the charge. We clearly are basing (biasing) our assumptions regarding conductivity depending on our personal models of the situation. In the filament model there are two currents involved: (1) the current that leaves some charges on the filament which is assembled from polar molecules held in place primarily by their polar (hydrogen bond) attraction with the alignment coordinated by the tip field E, and (2) the conduction current that occurs when contact is made between the two electrodes. If we knew the surface area of the filament we could compute the current required to eject a filament at velocity V and maintained at needle potential ve. I think it is an interesting question as to the exact mechanics the allows the formation of a jet instead of droplets. It may relate to the voltage, the power supply characteristics, the needle geometry, and maybe the resistance and surface physics of the needle. It may be highly related to the manner in which the needle attracts and feeds water and/or CO2 to the jet. It certainly should be affected by the surface tension at the needle tip, and thus may be highly related to the thickness of the water feed to the tip, and to the chemistry of the water, i.e. its CO2 content. But first there is a need to prove the continuous filament exists at all and to
[Vo]:Tesla Revisted
Check this out. Scientists have discovered wireless transmission of power in the home. Don't suppose they'll give poor ol' Tesla any credit. http://tinyurl.com/3e4c6b M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
RE: [Vo]:Tesla Revisted
Oh, here's another one, where they actually mention Tesla but claim he only attempted it. I guess they don't know he used to light up his whole lab this way. This sort of thing never ceases to amaze me. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070607/ap_on_hi_te/wireless_power M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
