Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
new videos from ravi raju: 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMSUe76PZLQ 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taFrw3xxDow (48minutes ago ;) ) http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=raviwfc enjoy. the thread seems to be moving on too http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3079
[Vo]:Re: Deflation Fusion - Thermal Cycling and High Temperature Alloys
Iwamura results with pressure loading only: interesting qualitatively but they don't achieve a sufficient reaction rate for detectable excess heat. You need a high D/Pd loading ratio (~1) for that, or so I understand, and they don't have it. Their ICCF12 paper indicates in Fig.11 a D density nD of 2*10^22 per cm3 for their best Pd complex. One cm3 of Pd is 12g --density 12.0--, which is 12/106.4=0.11 mole --molar mass 106.4g--, which is 0.11*6*10^23 atoms i.e. a Pd density of 6.6*10^22 atoms per cm3, so this would be a D/Pd of only 2/6.6=0.3 if I am not mistaken, far from unity. Double layer modelling at the atomic level, I meant does the geometry I used in my 3D model sound plausible to you? Does the Bockris book describe the detailed geometry of the Pd atoms/ excess electron layer / water molecules / electrolyte protons assembly? I'll post a more elaborated description of my semi-educated guess for that geometry in the relevant thread, where your comments will be welcome. Face Centered Cubic metals dimensions: nice compilation! I used almost the same figures as the standard ones you have listed for Pd, only a bit larger to allow for the slight expansion due to the loading (I used 0.4 nm for the unit cube side, yielding 0.283nm pitch between Pd atoms along the cube face's diagonals --your figure for the bond length is 2.75 A = 0.275 nm, not significantly different-- ). Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Deflation Fusion - Thermal Cycling and High Temperature Alloys On Aug 27, 2007, at 4:04 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: Hi Horace, lots of sensible contributions as usual, I wonder how many of you there are ? ;-) Let's call a truce in our ongoing controversy for a while. Sounds good to me. It is mostly only relevant to Figure 1 and associated text of my little paper anyway. You mention high pressure or high voltage hydrogen loading, do you think you can compete with the ~10^26 atmospheres loading achieved by electrolysis? :-) I don't think that it is necessary to compete with electrolysis loading. Consider the fact Iwamura used pressure loading only: Iwamural et al, “OBSERVATION OF LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS INDUCED BY D2 GAS PERMEATION THROUGH PD COMPLEXES”,The Ninth International Conference on Cold Fusion, 2002. Beijing, China: Tsinghua University, http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatioa.pdf Iwamural et al, “OBSERVATION OF LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS INDUCED BY D2 GAS PERMEATION THROUGH PD COMPLEXES”,The Eleventh International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, 2004. Marseille, Francehttp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatiob.pdf and Dufour (stunningly!) used only the tiny amount of hydrogen already in the Uranium matrix: Dufour, J., et al.,”EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATION OF NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN PALLADIUM AND URANIUM — POSSIBLE EXPLANATION BY HYDREX MODE”, Dec 2001, http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DufourJexperiment.pdf I don't take the Dufour results as necessarily credible without replication, but I certainly can't discredit them either. Speaking of which, your comments on my piccies would be welcome, is the metal-electrolyte interface plausibly modelled at the atomic level do you think? Yes. It has been described in great detail by Bockris and Reddy, *Modern Electrochemistry*, Plenum/Rosetta edition, 1973, ISBN 0-306-25001-2, a two volume paperback set, which includes the tunneling equations. I may have not looked hard enough but I couldn't find any realistic view of the double layer in Google Images, people tend to schematize the hydrated ions as separate entities all right, but the metal surface is always shown as an idealized flat plate whereas in fact its atoms are not smaller than the water molecules (they are of exactly equal size in the case of Palladium incidentally, which may be significant) I don't know if you are aware of it, but I provided at least approximate geometry figures for various FCC metals at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CCP.pdf Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive
Something that has always bothered me, can someone trained in science or gifted in, objectively look at fringe ideas without subconsciously rejecting the feasibility before analysis? It's a question that others have been asking for decades. So could one step back and say ignore the current Laws :-) and Theories and retain enough basic understanding and tools to show why something could be right, rather than flat wrong. For myself one must just be totally off the wall and shut the door to the mainstream and fall back on non biased question, gee what happens if I hit my finger with a hammer approach. You get a lot of pain, but after the first time the second blow seems not to hurt as much and understanding follows. The older group, over sixty seems to loosen up a bit and then as we move to the new breeds I see more notoriety issues than actual desire and direction. So I do not insult anyone, what I refer to is the YouTube clan that FAKE presentations just to get some chuckle from it all. The worst of the worst is when certain lists, blogs and news sites start covering these things. One broadcast failure or debunking will kill all real systems from being looked at of tried. When I lectured to Freshman Engineers I at least twice during a session was asked, 'Well what's the answer?'. My response was, 'Find Out'. The purpose of knowledge is to stimulate the creation of additional knowledge, by handing out answers you stop the procedure in its tracks. Assistance and nurturing are fundamental, but one must hit that finger a few times to be of benefit. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 6:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: Splitting the Positive Michel Jullian wrote: Oh well never mind how it was done exactly at the time, now we know there is at least one way to transfer energy from one battery to another with a higher voltage, using just a C, an L and a single switch, which indeed may seem impossible at first sight :-) Yes. But what we do not know, at least with absolute certainty, is if it is also possible for the shuttling process of asymmetrical charge/recharge to accomplish some kind of work in the process. Sure, the probability of that happening is zero according to mainstream fizzix, since it implies a LoT violation. Nevertheless, there are the numerous reports that this has been done. I do not blame anyone for ignoring or minimizing those reports. Were not for dozens of similar claims over the years, the small sliver of a chance for finding some kind of an energy breakthrough there would be nil. As for the LoT violation, consider the element lead (Pb). Half of any sample started out, billions of years ago as Thorium or Uranium. Can anyone be certain that there is not plenty of nuclear energy still left to be extracted from lead, even if the metal seems rather stable under normal conditions? LENR - or at least a subset of the field - may end-up being a gateway to a previously unknown type of nuclear decay, in which the element seems stable, and will never decay without a certain kind of intense stress. We are seeing glimmers of this already in IGE (even Wiki is tuned in) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gamma_emission At any rate, I am glad that not everyone conforms to the mainstream belief structure, even if it is correct 99% of the time. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Deflation Fusion - Thermal Cycling and High Temperature Alloys
On Aug 28, 2007, at 3:43 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Iwamura results with pressure loading only: interesting qualitatively but they don't achieve a sufficient reaction rate for detectable excess heat. You need a high D/Pd loading ratio (~1) for that, or so I understand, and they don't have it. Their ICCF12 paper indicates in Fig.11 a D density nD of 2*10^22 per cm3 for their best Pd complex. One cm3 of Pd is 12g --density 12.0--, which is 12/106.4=0.11 mole --molar mass 106.4g--, which is 0.11*6*10^23 atoms i.e. a Pd density of 6.6*10^22 atoms per cm3, so this would be a D/Pd of only 2/6.6=0.3 if I am not mistaken, far from unity. Iwamura et al (1) run at atmospheric pressure on the high pressure side, (2) merely use the one atmosphere pressure drop to vacuum to obtain their diffusion rate, and thus hydrogen tunneling rate, (3) load at low temperature, and (4) use a Pd lattice which places nominal pressure on the adsorbed hydrogen orbitals and which is subject to cracking except in some small crystalline domains, (5) operate at a low temperature, thus obtaining a nominal anvil effect and nominal tunneling rate, and (6) do not use magnetic, electrostatic, or EM fields for orbital deformation, loading, or surface stimulation. They are obtaining LENR using merely diffusion through an appropriate barrier. That is a phenominal scientific result, and a clue as to what is possible with appropriate metallurgical and other forms of engineering. High temperature lattices - that's where the action is to be found in my opinion. That opens up huge possibilities for active materials and operating ranges and lattice reliability. Another area that requires engineering is lattice conductivity. By dropping electron conductivity and controlling proton conductivity, it is then possible to utilize a field internal to the electrode. This is useful for controlling diffusion rates, and for obtaining simultaneous electron and hydrogen tunneling in controlled proportions. It is also feasible to some extent to control magnetic and dielectric properties. Controlling conductivity and/or tunneling barriers is also key to utilizing lateral currents through the loaded lattice, and this is also relevant in that it changes loading characteristics in the vicinity of the barriers. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:apparent vs.actual rotations
Steven, Sorry for not responding sooner. I've had computer problems and a cold. Mr Veeder sez: ... OrionWorks sez: You appear to have presented two logically exclusive scenarios as to the behavior or "Wheel B" when the primary larger wheel is accelerated to the speed of one Rev/sec. It seems obvious to me that the results depicted in Figs 2a and 2b would be the correct outcome of this particular "thought experiment." Yes, I think everyone agrees. What is not clear at this time is whether the non-braked wheel is literally turning about its own centre while it is concurrently revolving about the centre of the disc. I contend that it is, but Michel disagrees. IMO, you're both right. It depends on your point of view. From an outside POV circle "B" will not appear to be revolving around it's own centre even though circle "B"'s bearings will be rotat! ing. Circ If B is turning about its own centre then it is the centripetal forces directed to this centre which would be responsible for the difference in tension. But again, I suggest you build some of these contraptions and check out the results for yourself. Right now I can't . If you feel so inclinedyou are welcome totry it . Harry
[Vo]:Yet another ignorant attack on cold fusion
See: http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/2007/08/genie-in-a-bott.html This one is written by someone who appears to know something about science, but -- as usual -- nothing about the scientific method. I appended a long rebuttal. The author will pay no attention but others who stumble across this may take note. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:the Gray Matter
Interesting article but it does raise the lead-acid battery red flag. (This will be the last skeptical reply I send for a while, I promise.) Jones Beene wrote: EV Gray was another one of those controversial inventors, who was either genius or scam artist, depending on one's POV, and other agendas. Below is a new slant on this chapter in the history of alternative energy. Gray invented a Fuelless Engine which operated on a new principle, and he claimed that it was to be able to 'split the positive' energy of electricity, in order to produce a self-running motor/generator as well as recharge batteries. Presumably this goes beyond the use of back emf, and it is possible that the meaning of split the positive has been mis-interpreted to mean an actual splitting of the positive charge from ionic charge carriers ... or not. Problem is- little proof of overunity survives, and the most convincing evidence was abandoned by the inventor himself, later in his life. There is a lot of reference material online, including his patents, the later of which are very different from the first on in many 'telling' ways. http://www.rexresearch.com/evgray/1gray.htm#13 In recent years, Peter Lindemann and Norman Wootan have converted and dramatized the Gray lore into a mini-industry, selling videos and books and lectures. These are provocative and high in rhetoric but naked of any convincing proof or scientific documentation. They also neglect, or at least fail to emphasize, the most glaring issue - which is the huge difference between the early Gray work (around '73) and the later work (the two patents from '86 and '87). The was an intervening personal implosion so to speak. There are a few observers today who are of the opinion that there was a large kernel of truth to the EV Gray story, but that it will NOT be found in rehashing the totality of information available, because Gray himself was not aware of what he had discovered. In fact, in later years Gray veered completely off-course and was never able to show anything as convincing as he did in 1973. At that time, the motor was operated into a 10 HP dynamometer load at 1100 rpm. This power output is 7460 watts. The battery power available from the four batteries would have been 5454 watt-hours, had they been pushing a normal load until total discharge. However, with this kind of arc-discharge load, the total battery power consumed by the motor was less than 30 watt-hours actual. Consequently, the amount of work done was hundreds of time more than it should have been. But if the plates were actually being consumed -- burned through? -- then don't you need to know what reaction was actually taking place in the batteries which was eating the plates in order to determine how much chemical energy was actually liberated before the batteries died? The system in one test operated continuously for over 200 hours with the four batteries without recharging. The batteries used were lead acid and notably they were supplied by Malloy with extra thick plates, What does the extra thickness do to the battery capacity? This seems particularly relevant given that the plates were actually being eroded in one way or another -- could that have led to exposing more of the interior of the plates, and consequently led to a substantial increase in effective capacity of the batteries over the name-plate capacity (which assumes non-destructive recharging)? Since they weren't off-the-shelf batteries it seems like we're already in a somewhat gray area regarding what their capacity really was. which did fail eventually. That should have been the engineering task at hand, had fate not intervened in a strange set of legal and personal problems. If one were to freeze the EV Gray tale in in time - circa 1973 - when he was able to raise a reputed $6 million from investors (back when that amount was serious money) - only to later waste it all and more (mostly on attorneys and the 'high life') then a different picture emerges of what was happening, and what the operative source of OU consisted-of. After 1980, Gray's focus changed, and he tried many things which did not work as well, but ... back in '73 he Gray describes the operation of his motor as similar to recreating lightning. IOW it was based on high voltage cathode discharge. His VP of engineering (who was trained as an EE but later left the company after the venture capital disappeared) said that a series of high-voltage 'energy spikes' are transferred in a the recycle/regeneration system for recharging the batteries with 60 to 120-amp pulses, while at the same time driving a motor. Isn't pulse-charging a lead acid battery part of the known recipe for producing extra energy from the battery in exchange for burning it up? In short, the principle of the engine is to create arc discharges and recycle energy back and forth between cathode discharges and coils (tank
Re: [Vo]:Life on Mars
At last an explanation for the enigmatic Third Experiment! Some of us have been waiting a long, long time for the other shoe to drop on this one -- in fact I'd given up, assuming that if there ever had been anything there we'd probably have contaminated it out of all detectability already. But if it's as weird as this, it may not be easy to confuse with contamination. Next on the agenda: Find the local tap into the Ophiuchi Hotline... I'm sure it's out there, if we just knew where to look... Terry Blanton wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/23/scimars123.xml Scientists found life on Mars back in the 70s By Roger Highfield, Science Editor Last Updated: 6:01pm BST 23/08/2007 The soil on Mars may indeed be teeming with microbes, according to a new interpretation of data first collected more than 30 years ago. Scientists found life on Mars back in the 70s The search for life on Mars appeared to hit a dead end in 1976 when Viking landers touched down on the red planet and failed to detect biological activity. There was another flurry of excitement a decade later, when Nasa thought it had found evidence of life in a Mars meteorite but doubts have since been cast on that finding. Today, Joop Houtkooper from Justus-Liebig-University in Giessen, Germany, will claim the Viking spacecraft may in fact have encountered signs of a weird life form based on hydrogen peroxide on the subfreezing, arid Martian surface. more
Re: [Vo]:the Gray Matter
Stephen, There is simply not enough reliable information to answer your objections. Fortunately, several replication attempts on the basic concept are underway, but using differing approaches. Is it possible he suspected that the results with the batteries were directly related to the consumption of the batteries themselves, rather than an over-unity process in the system? Batteries make very expensive fuel, after all. Yes, of course - if they were really consummed. Palladium even more so. But that misses the point. The net energy extracted in the old reports, if the data can be believed, is way, way above any possibility for chemical reaction; and the batteries reportedly failed in, or near, a fully charged state anyway. If there is even a small chance that the lead-acid battery, with slight redesign, can serve the same function as an LENR cell (a variety not involving fusion but beta-decay, or faux-beta decay), then the effort to look deeper is worthwhile. There is more than a cursory similarity between the lead-acid battery presumed functionality and the SPAWAR functionality (Widom/Larsen hypothesis) - assuming that some kind of enhanced or stimulated beta-decay is at work in either case. Don't forget that the SPAWAR (apparent) beta decay tracks occurred with plain hydrogen, as well as deuterium. A modified Hydrex hypothesis fits very nicely within the parameters of these lead-acid cell reports. For whatever reason, many experts seem to be marginalizing the Dufour (Spence) ideas, which are ironically based on mainstream underpinning (QED) when nothing else in LENR is based on such a firm theoretical footing. Jones
Re: [Vo]:the Gray Matter
On Aug 28, 2007, at 1:08 PM, Jones Beene wrote: For whatever reason, many experts seem to be marginalizing the Dufour (Spence) ideas, which are ironically based on mainstream underpinning (QED) when nothing else in LENR is based on such a firm theoretical footing. The idea of a low energy bound hydrex, faux neutron, hydrino, blah blah blah, acting like a neutron and drifting through the cloud of electrons about the uranium atom is simply not credible. The binding energy is too small. It's like trying to hold down a roof in a tornado with an ordinary rubber band. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:the Gray Matter
--- Horace Heffner wrote: The idea of a low energy bound hydrex, faux neutron, hydrino... acting like a neutron and drifting through the cloud of electrons about the uranium atom is simply not credible. The binding energy is too small. It's like trying to hold down a roof in a tornado with an ordinary rubber band. Without agreeing or disagreeing with that description (Dufour would disagree)- there is a certain amount of logic there, for sure - and it is basically why I created an alternative premise: that being that the bound electron (2.095 eV) simply removes an acid proton from chemical participation for a short time frame - about one second. Such a transient charge-removal can have secondary effects which are greater than the energy of the electron which started the chain of events. Theoretically, if the neutralized acid proton moves a sufficient distance away from its formerly-mated sulfate negative ion - then - and without the necessity of penetrating any atom's electron cloud, on decay (disengagement from the electron) the free proton can have a potential of up to the Bohr atom energy (13.6 eV) ... even if in actuality that never happens ... IOW there could be a useful gain w/o a preceding nuclear reaction. This local energy deficit adds up and in time would force a QM probability shift, and accelerate real but delayed beta-decay within that same locus. Without a candidate for accelerated beta-decay being present (potassium, lead, etc) the chain of QM events cannot continue. At least that is QM rationalization, and the approximate way in which the faux-beta-decay postulate is shaping up, for now. Jones
[Vo]:Surface Electron Layer Catalyzed Fusion hypothesis (was Re: Mystery pictures)
Good guess Jones, the haloes are indeed the excess electrons. The pictures show my (open to improvement) model for the PdD/electrolyte interface at the atomic scale. Tools used: Excel and Jmol. Atoms drawn at ~25% of their vanDerWaals radii on left view for clarity. Grey-blue: unit cell of 0.41nm side Face Centered Cubic Pd lattice in PdD1.0. The loaded deuterons (white) fill all its octahedral sites, forming an identical FCC lattice shifted inwards by 0.205 nm (half the cube side). One of them, colored light yellow, is about to deload via a pyramidal surface site through the excess electron layer in order to ultimately bubble up. Red and white D2O molecules, being polar, solvate positive electrolyte deuterons on their O side and negative surface Pd ions on their D side. The bulk size of D2O (occupies on average a cube of side 0.31 nm, cubic root of molecular mass 20E-3Kg/6E23 over density 1106Kg/m3 when unstressed) should allow it to be shoehorned by the field into the 0.29 nm pitch of the surface Pd atoms, i.e. the structures and thus the ion channels on both sides of the excess electron layer should be aligned. D2O acts as the dielectric of the double layer capacitor by separating its negative plate (cathode surface with its excess electrons) from the multilayer positive plate formed by the electrolyte deuterons on the right (only the first of many one D2O molecule thick layers is shown). One of those d's, colored light yellow, is about to jump from the positive plate to the negative one, going for one of the cathode's excess electrons in order to discharge and ultimately bubble up. My (not yet debunked on CMNS) theory for CF is that a significant number of such outgoing+incoming deuteron pairs reach the electron layer at the same time and fuse instead of their usual bubbling up, with the help of excess electron screening and channel alignment. An experiment where the probability of such encounters would be increased, e.g. by back-loading the cathode to maintain a steady front deloading flux of deuterons while electrolyzing, would support the hypothesis if it yielded enhanced heat or reaction products wrt previous PF experiments (where simultaneous deloading and electrolysis hasn't been particularly sought). Your opinions welcome. Michel3DCathodeSurfaceChargeCatal.jpg3DCathodeSurfaceChargeCata2.jpg
Re: [Vo]:the Gray Matter
On Aug 28, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Jones Beene wrote: --- Horace Heffner wrote: The idea of a low energy bound hydrex, faux neutron, hydrino... acting like a neutron and drifting through the cloud of electrons about the uranium atom is simply not credible. The binding energy is too small. It's like trying to hold down a roof in a tornado with an ordinary rubber band. Without agreeing or disagreeing with that description (Dufour would disagree)- And, again, I think that is probably why his theory is not accepted by experts. there is a certain amount of logic there, for sure - and it is basically why I created an alternative premise: that being that the bound electron (2.095 eV) simply removes an acid proton from chemical participation for a short time frame - about one second. Participation in what? What acid? I though we were talking metal lattice and adsorbed hydrogen? I think that bound particle is the resonance proposed by Spence. Dufour states: A quantum electrodynamics calculation was performed on the proton/electron system [6,7], pointing to the possibility of the existence of a resonance (life time of a few seconds, dimensions of a few fm and an endothermic energy of formation of a few eV). This resonance has been proposed to explain some hypothetical nuclear reactions [8,9]. 6. J.R. Spence, J.P. Vary, Phys. Lett. B 254 (1991) 1. 7. J.R. Spence, J.P. Vary, Phys. Lett. B 271 (1991) 27. 8. F.J. Mayer, J.R. Reitz, Fusion Technology 20 (1991) 367. 9. R. Antanasijevic, I. Lakicevic, Z. Marie, D. Zevic, A. Zaric, J.P. Vigier, Phys. Lett. A 180 (1993) 25. I certainly don't deny the possible existence of such a state (though Heisenberg probably makes the probability of it lasting as a real particle for 1 second slim). In fact, if such a state exists, it would act in similar ways to the deflated hydrogen state and could in fact catalyze D-D fusion in a lattice by the deflation fusion scenario. In fact, I stated; A momentary state exists periodically for hydrogen nuclei and nearby electrons in which a single small wave function exists for that state and the nucleus plus electron can act as single small intermediate state particle. (This state may be viewed alternatively under some interpretations as a coexisting state, a partial existence potentiality, or a state which manifests on observation with some finite probability. ) Call this small wave function state a deflated hydrogen state. However, the role of such a state is not to move through an electron cloud to a nucleus to create the fusion. Quite the opposite. It provides a target volume for tunneling which is energetically favorable for deuterium which is otherwise prone to tunnel to that volume, i.e. the wave form of which substantially overlaps that volume. That *is* deflation fusion by definition. However, the actual physical bound existence of such a particle is unnecessary to the deflation fusion concept. It is merely the probability of the state that is important. In may in fact be that an actual long term (e.g. 1 second) hydrex particle can exist (though it seems improbable to me) but has a low probability of creation or low probability of sustaining that existence for long, and that 3 body fusion is more likely to result from direct 3 body wave form collapse - but that occurs due to a relatively high probability of the deflated hydrogen state be it manifested as real or not vs a potentiality amplitude prior to the actual fusion. The probability of a uranium nucleus tunneling to a hydrex is small. There is one interesting possibility, however. Even the very slightly bound superconductor electron pairs tend to tunnel together simultaneously with about 50% probability. The less weakly bound hydrex may tend to tunnel as a single bound unit, and if so the probability of that neutral unit tunneling to the locus of a uranium nucleus would be vastly greater than for a proton doing the same. Also, the uranium nucleus has a large volume compared to a deuteron. Such a transient charge-removal can have secondary effects which are greater than the energy of the electron which started the chain of events. Theoretically, if the neutralized acid proton moves a sufficient distance away from its formerly-mated sulfate Uh.. what sulfate ion? If you are talking solution then the sulfate ion is bounded by one or two layers of polarized H2O, as is the H3O+ hydronium ion. They don't tend to get close to each other because the radially polarized water prevents it. negative ion - then - and without the necessity of penetrating any atom's electron cloud, on decay (disengagement from the electron) the free proton can have a potential of up to the Bohr atom energy (13.6 eV) ... Beta decay is over a thousand times larger. A 13.6 eV electron or proton will not register in CR-39. However, as Robin pointed out, assuming
Re: [Vo]:the Gray Matter
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:08:19 -0700: Hi, [snip] There is more than a cursory similarity between the lead-acid battery presumed functionality and the SPAWAR functionality (Widom/Larsen hypothesis) - assuming that some kind of enhanced or stimulated beta-decay is at work in either case. Don't forget that the SPAWAR (apparent) beta decay tracks occurred with plain hydrogen, as well as deuterium. [snip] Just muddying the waters again:- Pb can at least in theory alpha decay to Hg. The average decay energy would be about 0.6 MeV (varies depending on isotope). Perhaps electro-shock therapy is stimulating the decay? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:the Gray Matter
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:19:09 -0800: Hi, [snip] The idea of a low energy bound hydrex, faux neutron, hydrino, blah blah blah, acting like a neutron and drifting through the cloud of electrons about the uranium atom is simply not credible. The binding energy is too small. It's like trying to hold down a roof in a tornado with an ordinary rubber band. [snip] This is not necessarily true of Hydrinos. The very severely shrunken ones have binding energies running into the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of eV. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Surface Electron Layer Catalyzed Fusion hypothesis (was Re: Mystery pictures)
I'm just going to say what I think is right without references, because citing references for this would take me days of effort. On Aug 28, 2007, at 3:50 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: Good guess Jones, the haloes are indeed the excess electrons. Excess electrons don't hang around on the surface like that. They are in conduction bands. Their waveforms are distributed throughout conduction bands, not localized in blobs. It takes energy for them to leave that state - so there is an energy barrier they tunnel through to get to an ion in solution. Cathode electrons tend to tunnel to H3O+ hydronium ions and thereby neutralize a hydrogen, i.e: e- + H3O+ -- H2O + H and they are never free during this process because they tunnel through a barrier to their final state. This process/reaction is called electronation. Due to particle mass being in the exponent of the number e in the tunneling probability, electronation is far more likely than adsorbtion, which takes time for H3O+ rotations, during which electronation can occur and thus form neutral H gas away from the metal where it is not adsorbed. Electrons can easily tunnel across several H2O molecules. Protons take a while to tunnel from an H3O+ to an immediately adjacent H2O molecule because only a small amplitude exists away from the H3O+ electron orbitals. Protons do not tend to exist in a free state in solution. They are bound to the H3O+ ion by shared electrons, and the H3O+ ions are surrounded by polarized H2O molecules. The pictures show my (open to improvement) model for the PdD/ electrolyte interface at the atomic scale. Tools used: Excel and Jmol. Atoms drawn at ~25% of their vanDerWaals radii on left view for clarity. 028901c7e9ce$2ec13fe0$3800a8c0 028a01c7e9ce$2ec13fe0$3800a8c0 Grey-blue: unit cell of 0.41nm side Face Centered Cubic Pd lattice in PdD1.0. The loaded deuterons (white) fill all its octahedral sites, forming an identical FCC lattice shifted inwards by 0.205 nm (half the cube side). One of them, colored light yellow, is about to deload via a pyramidal surface site through the excess electron layer in order to ultimately bubble up. I think in FCC lattices D tends to tunnel through the square face holes, but I'll need to find a ref. on that to be sure. Red and white D2O molecules, being polar, solvate positive electrolyte deuterons on their O side and negative surface Pd ions on their D side. This is not right. The positive deuterons end up as H3O+ ions. The spare deuteron moves through the solution in an E field by tunneling to an adjacent H2O atom which then must rotate 180 degrees before the next tunneling event. The H3O+ ions are surrounded by a polarized blanket of H2O. The bulk size of D2O (occupies on average a cube of side 0.31 nm, cubic root of molecular mass 20E-3Kg/6E23 over density 1106Kg/m3 when unstressed) should allow it to be shoehorned by the field into the 0.29 nm pitch of the surface Pd atoms, i.e. the structures and thus the ion channels on both sides of the excess electron layer should be aligned. The excess electrons are waveforms in the metal, not little blobs on the surface. D2O acts as the dielectric of the double layer capacitor This double layer of atoms at the cathode surface is commonly called the interface. The first few layers of metal+adsorbents is called the interphase. by separating its negative plate (cathode surface with its excess electrons) from the multilayer positive plate formed by the electrolyte deuterons Deuterons in the interface when the cathode becomes a cathode are immediately either electronated or adsorbed. For this reason, the interface is generally not shown containing H3O+ ions because it consists almost entirely of the two molecule thick water interface. Ions other than hydrogen are kept even further away by their own polarized blankets of water molecules. on the right (only the first of many one D2O molecule thick layers is shown). One of those d's, colored light yellow, is about to jump from the positive plate to the negative one, going for one of the cathode's excess electrons in order to discharge and ultimately bubble up. This doesn't happen. If the D+ makes it to the plate it is adsorbed, not evolved as gas. The D that ends up as gas is electronated by tunneling electrons. My (not yet debunked on CMNS) theory for CF is that a significant number of such outgoing+incoming deuteron pairs reach the electron layer at the same time and fuse instead of their usual bubbling up, One problem with this theory is the old where is the electron problem. When a deuteron enters a the first plane lattice site, which is by tunneling because a D atom doesn't fit through the holes, it is joined by an electron which doesn't quite fit. If (and when - that lattice vibrates) the orbital does not fit, the
