Re: [Vo]:Uploaded Karabut paper
Horace Heffner wrote: Agreed ...yet one should not forget that the neutron itself is diamagnetic. This is news to me. The neutron has a large magnetic moment. It's a pretty strong magnet. I do know that in scattering experiments neutrons respond strongly to diamagnetic effects induced on the sample by magnets, thus neutrons are useful in mapping diamagnetic atom lattice positions. Where does this info come from? I should have qualified that to say something like 'functional diamagnets' or 'spin oriented diamagnetism.' Diamagnetism is generally understood to be due to the non-cooperative behavior of orbiting electrons when exposed to an applied magnetic field. Of course, with no orbiting electrons, neutrons are excluded by definition, but they will be repelled by a magnetic field in one of the two possible spin states. Diamagnetic substances are generally composed of groups of atoms which have no net magnetic moments (ie., all the orbital shells are filled and there are no unpaired electrons). However, when exposed to a field, a negative magnetization is produced and thus the susceptibility is negative. OK. Moving on to non-atoms which can act the same way. At one time Oak Ridge was working on a neutron beam line which used what can be called spin aligned diamagnetism - if I am wording this correctly. Neutrons do have a magnetic moment and can interact with a magnetic field, B, by the dipole interaction where the magnetic moment of the neutron is oriented anti-parallel to the spin of the neutron. True diamagnets would have zero net magnetic moment, regardless of spin. Here is the quote, but the link I have is apparently dead: "Since the neutron is a spin-1/2 particle, it has two possible quantum spin states, oriented parallel and anti-parallel to the magnetic field. When the neutron spin is aligned parallel to the magnetic field, the interaction energy is positive. Regions of high magnetic field repel neutrons in the parallel or “low-field-seeking” spin state." That would be the functional equivalent of a diamagnet. And the concept was to use this feature in a neutron beam line since the repelling action did not reorient the spin. But again - if we define a diamagnet in terms of orbiting electrons - the neutron is excluded. By definition. Similarly, neutrons with spins anti-parallel to the magnetic field have a negative interaction energy, and are attracted to regions of higher magnetic field and are called “high field seekers”. This would make any beam line rather fragile, I suppose, since a spin change will be counter productive, and perhaps they (ORNL) gave up on it. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Test
echo On 6/27/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Messages not getting through, or not coming back . . . -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]:Uploaded Karabut paper
On Jun 27, 2007, at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Going in reverse order, Horace Heffner wrote: If it hasn't been done already, it seems to me of at least academic interest to measure the neutron absorption cross section in loaded Pd foil over a range of very low neutron energies. Slow neutrons should be magnetically attracted to, and thus ultimately fused to, adsorbed H nuclei at thermal energy levels. The cross section should be huge. Agreed ...yet one should not forget that the neutron itself is diamagnetic. This is news to me. The neutron has a large magnetic moment. It's a pretty strong magnet. I do know that in scattering experiments neutrons respond strongly to diamagnetic effects induced on the sample by magnets, thus neutrons are useful in mapping diamagnetic atom lattice positions. Where does this info come from? BTW, here has been lots of work done with neutron scattering in hydrides. Some material can be found in Chapter 5, of *Hyrogen in Metals III, Topics in Appied Physics, Vol 73, Springer 1997, p 215, ff. With a quick scan I didn't see anything about cold neutron scattering though. NOTED IN PASSING on page 206: "For a number of hydrides with the flouride structure, it is possible to introduce more than 2 hydrogen atoms per metal atom. In these cases the extra hydrogens are accommodated on octahedral sites, giving a theoretical maximum stoichiometry of MH_3." Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Uploaded Karabut paper
Going in reverse order, Horace Heffner wrote: If it hasn't been done already, it seems to me of at least academic interest to measure the neutron absorption cross section in loaded Pd foil over a range of very low neutron energies. Slow neutrons should be magnetically attracted to, and thus ultimately fused to, adsorbed H nuclei at thermal energy levels. The cross section should be huge. Agreed ...yet one should not forget that the neutron itself is diamagnetic. Edmund Storms wrote: > I'm surprised, Jones, that the Widom/Larsen theory is even being > considered. This theory has some serious faults that have not been > addressed by the authors I summarize a few below which are extracted > from a recent paper of mine. Well, I should have mentioned your concerns - but did not have time to do a thorough posting. And - you will have to admit that W/L is getting plenty of press/exposure of late, thanks to SPAWARS; plus the endorsement of Miley (apparently) doesn't hurt either. I agree that (like all other theories) this one has many problems yet to be answered; and Horace's suggestion would be a good start - but at least the first problem which you mention is the one which is better answered by the Mills' hydrino/deuterino or 'below ground state' model; where a 'virtual' and very low energy neutron or dineutron results, as the case may be - after the heat energy (in the EUV range) has already been shed. IMHO, they screwed up big-time on that detail. Of course, to complicate the situation - there are obviously many things going-on in the various experiments and no single theory will ever work for all of them. Your experiments tend to show that there is enoguh Helium to account for all of the OU whereas Karabut is showing 1000 time less than necessary. Undoubtedly, in many experiments there is at least some D+D fusion. The big-picture appears to be one of those situations where Ockham is out to lunch (or in the barbers shop) - and there is NO simple answer but instead many overlapping, messy and very complicated answers. Probably another reason why the mainstream would rather not deal with it at all. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Uploaded Karabut paper
If it hasn't been done already, it seems to me of at least academic interest to measure the neutron absorption cross section in loaded Pd foil over a range of very low neutron energies. Slow neutrons should be magnetically attracted to, and thus ultimately fused to, adsorbed H nuclei at thermal energy levels. The cross section should be huge. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Uploaded Karabut paper
I'm surprised, Jones, that the Widom/Larsen theory is even being considered. This theory has some serious faults that have not been addressed by the authors I summarize a few below which are extracted from a recent paper of mine. In brief, a theory needs to not only be consistent with what is observed but also consistent with what is NOT observed. In addition, it must be consistent with the basic laws of nature about which there is no debate. This theory fails on all counts. "A mechanism has been suggested recently by Widom and Larsen (37-40) based on a series of especially extraordinary assumptions, as follows: 1. Energy provided by the voltage gradient on an electrolyzing surface can add incrementally to an electron causing its mass to increase. This implies the existence of energy levels within the electron able to hold added energy long enough for the total to be increased to 0.78 MeV mass equivalent by incremental addition. This idea, by itself, is extraordinary and inconsistent with accepted understanding of the electron. 2. Once sufficient energy has accumulated, the massive electron will combine with a proton to create a neutron having very little thermal energy. This implies that the massive electron reacts only with a proton rather than with the more abundant metal atoms making up the sample and does not shed energy by detectable X-ray emission before it can be absorbed. 3. This “cold” neutron will add to the nucleus of palladium and/or nickel to change their isotopic composition. This implies that the combination of half-lives created by beta emission of these created isotopes will quickly result in the observed stable products without this beta emission being detected. 4. The atomic number distribution of transmutation products created by this process matches the one reported by Miley (41) after he electrolyzed Pd+Ni as the cathode and Li2SO4+H2O as the electrolyte. This implies that the calculated periodic function calculated by the authors actually has a relationship to the periodic behavior observed by Miley in spite of the match being rather poor. In addition, residual beta decay has not been detected. 5. Gamma radiation produce by the neutron reaction is absorbed by the super-heavy electrons. This implies that the gamma radiation can add to the mass and/or to the velocity of the super-heavy electron without producing additional radiation. In addition, to be consistent with observation, total absorption of gamma radiation must continue even after the cell is turned off. If this assumption were correct, super-heavy electrons would provide the ideal protection from gamma radiation. These assumptions are not consistent with the general behavior of the LENR phenomenon nor with experience obtained from studies of electron behavior. Indeed, these assumptions, if correct, would have extraordinary importance independent of cold fusion." As for the relationship between particle emission and heat, no conclusion can be drawn until all of the various kinds of probable particles are detected and measured. So far, only the alpha particles and a few X-rays have been detected. Obviously other emissions are present and are providing the additional energy. We can debate all day what these particles might be. I suggest it is much more efficient to actually measure them and then debate their source. Regards, Ed Jones Beene wrote: To cut to the chase: Many who follow this sort of thing might wonder if this older paper is consistent with Widom/Larsen (W/L)? That particular theory is gaining a huge foothold among those 'in the know' in LENR, it seems and at the expense of competing theories (D fusion). [side note] Although W/L have thus far refused to include the implication, their theory is ideally suited (almost to the point of demanding it) to interpretation within the guidelines of 'below ground state' hydrogen (Mills hydrino). Widom/Larsen (with backing from Miley) postulate that many ultra-low momentum neutrons are produced by the weak interaction annihilation of electrons and protons when an electrochemical cell is driven strongly out of equilibrium. The reason that neutrons are never seen (seldom is a better word), going back as far as P&F, is that their momentum is so exceedingly low (subthermal) that they are almost always captured before leaving the matrix. Large quantities of these neutrons are produced near the surface of a metal hydride cathode in an electrolytic cell but still do not exit. The low momentum implies extremely large cross-sections for absorption by various "seed" nuclei present including Pd isotopes and especially boron if there is any present even in ppm amounts. This absorption is relieved by beta decay processes (or fission in the case of boron). As stated in their paper, "most of the periodic table of chemical elements may be produced, at least to some extent." Query: is Karabut consistent with W/L
[Vo]:Test
Messages not getting through, or not coming back . . .
[Vo]:Magnemotion
Another one after the limited supply of Nd: http://magnemotion.com/index.shtml I believe this coil wrapped around a NdFeBo PM is how Steorn uses magnetic viscosity. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Uploaded Karabut paper
To cut to the chase: Many who follow this sort of thing might wonder if this older paper is consistent with Widom/Larsen (W/L)? That particular theory is gaining a huge foothold among those 'in the know' in LENR, it seems and at the expense of competing theories (D fusion). [side note] Although W/L have thus far refused to include the implication, their theory is ideally suited (almost to the point of demanding it) to interpretation within the guidelines of 'below ground state' hydrogen (Mills hydrino). Widom/Larsen (with backing from Miley) postulate that many ultra-low momentum neutrons are produced by the weak interaction annihilation of electrons and protons when an electrochemical cell is driven strongly out of equilibrium. The reason that neutrons are never seen (seldom is a better word), going back as far as P&F, is that their momentum is so exceedingly low (subthermal) that they are almost always captured before leaving the matrix. Large quantities of these neutrons are produced near the surface of a metal hydride cathode in an electrolytic cell but still do not exit. The low momentum implies extremely large cross-sections for absorption by various "seed" nuclei present including Pd isotopes and especially boron if there is any present even in ppm amounts. This absorption is relieved by beta decay processes (or fission in the case of boron). As stated in their paper, "most of the periodic table of chemical elements may be produced, at least to some extent." Query: is Karabut consistent with W/L ? IMHO: Probably. In separate experiments, Karabut et al. measure excess heat output *five times* exceeding the input electric power ! Even though this is an old paper, it seems rather authoritative. The result for the charged particle emission spectrum is presented. Charged particles with energies up to 18 MeV and an average energy of 2-4 MeV were seen - however, The summed energy of the registered products is three orders short of the values needed to explain the calorimetric results. This is MOST important! High energy ions and alphas are a red herring, since they are at least three orders of magnitude too low to account for the excess heat. IOW only one one part of one-thousand of the OU is provided by the high energy particles! Karabut:"Many new questions arise since the alphas, for instance, are found in quantities 3-4 orders short of those needed to explain the excess heat." They admit that they did not measure the lower energy electron flux and this still leaves the possibility of K-electron capture, or other forms of subthermal neutron production, with a radioactive isotope formation and with a consequent beta decay." Anyone 'care to rebut' Karabut ? Jones
[Vo]:Uploaded Karabut paper
See: Karabut, A.B., Y.R. Kucherov, and I.B. Savvatimova, Nuclear product ratio for glow discharge in deuterium. Phys. Lett. A, 1992. 170: p. 265. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KarabutABnuclearpro.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Planktos press release
On Jun 27, 2007, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote: ... It's all about honesty and true motivations - in the era of limited governmental funding. Color me highly suspicious, but all of this PR makes one wonder exactly what the true agenda of "Planktos Corp. (OTCBB:PLKT) of San Francisco and Vancouver" really is ? It's making money in a (hopefully) environmental way. However, there are, as of the 6/20/2007 SEC filing, no employees. Planktos (PLKT) is only a shell. Try: http://searchwww.sec.gov/EDGARFSClient/jsp/ EDGAR_MainAccess.jsp#topAnchor and type in PLKT for recent SEC filings. I certainly hope they make (he makes) money. I bought some stock because it seems to me to be a worthwhile idea. Of course good ideas and business acumen are very different things. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Air threads
On Jun 27, 2007, at 3:10 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Nice calculations Horace. They don't take into account the forces exerted by the probably much more numerous -but more distant- charges at the surface of the electrodes, which at some point when the current tends to zero will dominate, but it seems likely that this will not happen before the current gets down to pA levels. There are also the effects of diffusion and cascading to consider, random walk. Also, I think there is a lot of evidence water is in the threads: "The "threads" can survive in a zero-field region. I made a crude "thread gun" and passed a thread through an accelerator ring composed of an aluminum bundt pan. I didn't expect this to work, since the hole in the pain is shielded and relatively field-free. Yet the thread did come out the other side. Once I've set up a thread- emitter, I find that I can cup my hands very closely around the path of the invisible thread, yet this does not eliminate the furrow in the fog. Evidentally the threads either have enough inertia to survive the zero-field regions temporarily, and to traverse several inches of zero-field space... or they need no fields at all once they have been created. Their behavior is not simply that of ionized wind. They act WEIRD! " "At the tip of the fiber I could see streams of mist moving inwards in 3D from all directions, as if the tip of the fiber was the mouth of a tiny suction hose (like gasses surrounding a black hole!)" "I can see a tiny time-delay when I wiggle a long fingertip-thread, so the speed of the effect might be around 10mph or so, not instantaneous " http://amasci.com/weird/unusual/airexp.html Now are we sure that the current of those airthreads is really several nA? Yes, this is indeed in doubt. The best evidence to date: "I connected a microamp meter in series with the plate. It indicated zero. When I let the other HV wire create one furrow in the mist, the meter indicated zero UA. When I brought the cable close, so there were maybe 50 to 70 furrows being drawn along the mist, the meter started flickering, indicating approx. 0.5uA. These ion-streams, if that's what they are, are each delivering an electric current in the range of 10 nanoamperes or less. Jeeze. No wonder nobody ever notices them." http://amasci.com/weird/unusual/airexp.html Unfortunately I can't follow on on this. I'm hot on the trail of something important and exciting, hopefully the final step in a 9 year quest and collaboration. A... yes, that (borderline delusional) warm pre-experimental glow... Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Planktos press release
Jed Rothwell wrote: Russ George sent me a press release which has been published at several sites on the web, including this one: [snip] "to slow the catastrophic decline of ocean and terrestrial ecosystems driven by the escalating surplus of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels." For the sake of balance, let me add a 'biting' counterpoint. Any true environmentalist (or 'green-investor') should be suspicious of this press release. The whole operation seems to be cloaked in misrepresentation and mystery. It definitely seems far removed from being a nonprofit, or even a for-profit with lofty goals for society, but rather- from all external indicia - seems closer to vehicle for personal enrichment. For instance, one would have expected that a group whose purpose appears to be focused on raising money for "greener solutions" (and we do not know if that purpose really goes beyond fund-raising for its own sake, or not) would have been able to state the problem, the solution, and most of all the "mordida" a bit more openly. In actuality, both ocean plankton and terrestrial plant life do benefit, and benefit greatly, from "the escalating surplus of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels". That is not the problem. The problem, at least insofar as the oceans are concerned, is that CO2 which is *food* for plankton, is less soluble in warmer water. IOW - from the perspective of algae: CO2 - good; Warmer Oceans - bad If the ocean temperature, especially in higher latitudes, goes from 20C. to 30C. the amount of CO2 which the water can hold - drops from 1745 ppm to 1345 ppm- this is massive! It means that the warmer ocean can support over 25% less plankton than the colder ocean. Will "fertilization" help there? The solution of ocean fertilization with minerals (iron) ore is well-known, and seems to have been co-opted by this company under the guise of IP from a true non-profit which is never creditied - but even if the ultimate aim is totally above-board: should that solution be relegated to any for-profit company? What do they add, other than needless overhead (the mordida)? It is somewhat like those infamous charities who exist ostensibly to raise money for starving orphans in Africa but the beneficiaries end up getting 10 cents on every dollar collected, and the collectors enjoy the rest. As far as planting more trees - DUH ! - this has been on the "green" European agenda for over 100 years, and seems to be a gratuitous PR ploy to make the outfit look greener, and more like a real environmental group. OK - so why quibble ? ... It's all about honesty and true motivations - in the era of limited governmental funding. Color me highly suspicious, but all of this PR makes one wonder exactly what the true agenda of "Planktos Corp. (OTCBB:PLKT) of San Francisco and Vancouver" really is ? One thing for sure: it does involve "green". Jones
[Vo]:Planktos press release
Russ George sent me a press release which has been published at several sites on the web, including this one: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2007/21/c7538.html It begins: "Planktos Calls for ''All Hands on Deck'' Emergency Response to Prevent Massive Plant Life Extinction in the World's Seas VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, June 21 /CNW/ - Planktos Corp. (OTCBB:PLKT) of San Francisco and Vancouver engages in developing and delivering ecorestoration solutions to slow the catastrophic decline of ocean and terrestrial ecosystems driven by the escalating surplus of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The Planktos "greener solutions" projects include the creation of tens of thousands of hectares of new climate forests within the national park systems of the European Union and the pioneering of ocean restoration technologies to rehabilitate decimated marine ecosystems. . . ." - Jed
[Vo]:LANR (CF,LENR) Colloquium
This is the first Announcement regarding a 2007 Cold Fusion Colloquium on "Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) The Science and Technology of Deuterated Metals" Date: Saturday, August 18, 2007 Title: Colloquium on the Physics, Electrical Engineering, and Material Science of Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions [cold fusion, LENR] Place: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Pre-registration required Hosted by: Dr. Mitchell Swartz and Prof. Peter Hagelstein Preliminary Tentative Lecture Schedule: 9:30 AM - 2:30 PM Other Lectures to be announced Prof. Peter Hagelstein - New Theory Involving Deuterated Metals Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Excess Heat Measurements in Deuterated Palladium Prof. Alan Widom- Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces Dr. Brian Ahern - Phenomena associated with Ultrahigh Loading Rates of Wires Lunch: 12:30 - 1:30 Afternoon Group Discussion : 2:30 PM - 4:30 PM More Information (will be changed as developments follow): at url: http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq07.html For upcoming pre-registration material for the Saturday lecture Colloquium (limited seating) send email (Subject "Colloquium) to Science Coordinator: Dr. Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Air threads
Nice calculations Horace. They don't take into account the forces exerted by the probably much more numerous -but more distant- charges at the surface of the electrodes, which at some point when the current tends to zero will dominate, but it seems likely that this will not happen before the current gets down to pA levels. Now are we sure that the current of those airthreads is really several nA? Michel - Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 4:18 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Air threads > If we assume 10^-9 amp, that's 6.24x10^9 electrons per second. If we > assume a 10 cm path length and 100 kph ion speed we have a transit > time of (10 cm)/(100 kph) = 0.0036 sec., thus (6.24x10^9 q/s)(0.0036 > s) = 2.25x10^7 electrons in the path. That gives a separation of (10 > cm)/(2.25x10^7 q) = 4.44x10^-9 m between charges. That means a force > of (8.98755x10^9 m/F) (q^2)/(4.44x10^-9 m)^2 = 1.17x10^-11 N = > 1.19x10^-12 kgf. > > > That's (1.19x10^12 kgf)/(Me) = 1.28x10^19 m/s2 acceleration, or > 1.3x10^18 g's on a bare electron. Using the mass of nitrogen > molecule as about 2*14 times the mass of a proton we get(1.19x10^12 > kgf)/(4.68x10^-26 kg) = 2.5x10^14 m/s^2 = 2.55x10^13 g's, which is > still impressive. > > If things spread out a cm or so, we have force = (8.98755x10^9 m/F) > (q^2)/(0.01 m)^2 = 2.3x10^-24 N = 2.35x10^-25 kgf. That gives > (2.35x10^-25 kgf)/(4.68x10^-26 kg) = 49 m/s^2 = 5 g's. It still has > some lateral expansion pressure on the jet. > > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > > >
