Re: [Vo]:Uploaded Karabut paper

2007-06-27 Thread Jones Beene

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

2007-06-27 Thread leaking pen

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

2007-06-27 Thread Horace Heffner


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

2007-06-27 Thread Jones Beene

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

2007-06-27 Thread Horace Heffner
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

2007-06-27 Thread Edmund Storms
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

2007-06-27 Thread Jed Rothwell

Messages not getting through, or not coming back . . .



[Vo]:Magnemotion

2007-06-27 Thread Terry Blanton

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

2007-06-27 Thread Jones Beene
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

2007-06-27 Thread Jed Rothwell

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

2007-06-27 Thread Horace Heffner


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

2007-06-27 Thread Horace Heffner


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

2007-06-27 Thread Jones Beene

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

2007-06-27 Thread Jed Rothwell
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

2007-06-27 Thread Dr. Mitchell Swartz


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

2007-06-27 Thread Michel Jullian
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
> 
> 
> 
>