Re: [Vo]:John Lear Interview
OrionWorks wrote: Thomas sez: Edmund Storms wrote: Any one who believes we did not land on the moon is simply delusional. Consequently, any opinion they have about any Ah Ed, just the man I wanted to talk to. Mr. Lear gave an explanation why it was impossible for us to have landed on the Moon. It's in the book. And what are his explanations? Are you expecting or hoping that Ed Storm will read Lear's book, just I'm not qualified to criticize the book, math is my weak suit. I listened to Lear's explanation and it went in one ear, and out the other. The questions in my post, that I'd like to get Ed to comment on involve the actions of the Bedini Motor on batteries. Chemistry is Ed's strong suit. We're both interested in LENR's and I suspect that pulse may prove interesting. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
[Vo]:Re: HyLENR : was: Britain reveals UFO documents
For lack of time I haven't gone back to my fusion rate maths efforts yet, but I guess encounters would be closer by a factor equal to the shrinking factor roughly, and since I remember you said fusion rate increased wildly with decreasing distance, I guess that if significantly shrunken hydrinos existed they would fuse almost immediately. I wonder, if my above speculation is correct, could this be the reason why Mills doesn't want any connection with LENR, because their propensity to fuse would make hydrinos impossible as stable particles? Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 11:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: HyLENR : was: Britain reveals UFO documents In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Wed, 21 May 2008 19:01:34 +0200: Hi, [snip] Particle physics = QM, so QM reactions means... reactions, right? What I mean is: D nuclei in ambient conditions D2 has some non-zero fusion rate. The nuclei of a D-deuterino molecule must have a much higher fusion rate due to the low orbit screening electron. How much higher, Robin, do you know? I posted an email to this forum recently with a formula for you to play with. ;) Wouldn't it be so much higher that significant fusion would have been noticed everywhere such a molecule is supposed to form? Individual molecules are extremely small, and even individual fusion events release very little energy on a human scale. Consider that there are many thousands of K-40 decay events taking place in your body every second, yet you are completely oblivious to this. IOW even nuclear events need to happen on a considerable scale before we notice them. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:Reed magnetic motor
I remember readomg about Troy Reed's motor years ago. It appears that he has succeeded in building a free running free energy machine. I wonder what Mark Goldes thinks about this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEfpGoYMdvQfeature=related --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Chlorine photo-reactivity
A couple of thoughts on a putative 'warm fusion' mechanism: BTW this capture notion is very similar to that proposed by Ed Storms. 1) Given the small, but proven, fusion rate of warm fusion - i.e. the Farnsworth Fusor, where the apparent threshold for fusion has been lowered from several MeV to several tens of KeV ... this is suggestive of the situation where the capture of 20-40 KeV electrons by bare deuterons can create enough near-neutral shrunken D, with at least a short lifetime, sufficient for real fusion to occur at far less energy than expected... ... and where: the capture mentioned above would be an alternative or near-Millsean explanation for the mechanics of that kind of fusion (i.e. highly redundant ground state). That is: if we are to believe the textbooks, and the past fifty years of teaching about the D+D fusion threshold (several MeV) for deuterium fusion, then a meaningful explanation (rather than a cavalier change of that value without explanation) is needed. 2) An ideal proof of an anomaly BUT in a non-plasma situation, would be a simple electron milliwatt beam impinging on a target containing free-protons or free-deuterons. 3) The most natural source of free protons in a target would be a strong acid. 4) An acid containing an element which is easily reacted with a normal neutron might be an effective target with which to offer a putative case for highly redundant ground state capture. The beam would need to have about 2^2 or four times more voltage potential than the Fusor, to account for the lack of spherical convergence, but 100 KeV should suffice. ERGO - electrons from such a beam, impinging on a target of concentrated boric acid, could provide perhaps the simplest way possible with which to determine whether or not this kind of mechanism is at work. One would expect plenty of KeV gammas, and therefore one would need some kind of gamma spectroscopy, which unfortunately, few garage labs have handy. One would NOT expect MeV gammas from such a target (nor a build-up of lithium). Are there any to be found? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: HyLENR : was: Britain reveals UFO documents
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Thu, 22 May 2008 11:26:47 +0200: Hi, [snip] For lack of time I haven't gone back to my fusion rate maths efforts yet, but I guess encounters would be closer by a factor equal to the shrinking factor roughly, and since I remember you said fusion rate increased wildly with decreasing distance, I guess that if significantly shrunken hydrinos existed they would fuse almost immediately. I wonder, if my above speculation is correct, could this be the reason why Mills doesn't want any connection with LENR, because their propensity to fuse would make hydrinos impossible as stable particles? [snip] This is one reason why I suspect that each successive level of Hydrino shrinkage is more difficult to achieve than the previous level. The earlier levels are still too large to fuse, hence stable compounds are possible. Actually even the small ones need to be very small to have a reasonable fusion half life, with ordinary elements e.g. C, N , O etc. Probably too small to still form the Hydride. The higher the charge on the nucleus, the longer the fusion half-life. (This can get even more complicated if you like ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:Re: Chlorine photo-reactivity
- Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 4:46 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chlorine photo-reactivity 1) Given the small, but proven, fusion rate of warm fusion - i.e. the Farnsworth Fusor, where the apparent threshold for fusion has been lowered from several MeV to several tens of KeV There is no such threshold of course, as you said it's QM, so anything can happen with some non zero probability. Mere eV deuterons can fuse too, only not often. ... this is suggestive of the situation where the capture of 20-40 KeV electrons by bare deuterons can create enough near-neutral shrunken D, with at least a short lifetime, sufficient for real fusion to occur at far less energy than expected... I am not aware that the fusion rate in a Farnsworth Fusor is anomalous as you suggest. If it was, I would think mainstream science would have reacted by now. Also are you sure that 20-40 keV electrons are at play there, or did you mean 20-40 keV deuterons? I am yet to understand electrode polarity in these contraptions, is the outer electrode positive or negative? Michel
[Vo]:Re: HyLENR : was: Britain reveals UFO documents
I am sure it can! What's your take on the reason why deuterons fuse more easily than identically charged protons BTW? Jones proposed a reason that didn't convince me, namely that the extra neutron does some screening. Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 11:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: HyLENR : was: Britain reveals UFO documents In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Thu, 22 May 2008 11:26:47 +0200: Hi, [snip] For lack of time I haven't gone back to my fusion rate maths efforts yet, but I guess encounters would be closer by a factor equal to the shrinking factor roughly, and since I remember you said fusion rate increased wildly with decreasing distance, I guess that if significantly shrunken hydrinos existed they would fuse almost immediately. I wonder, if my above speculation is correct, could this be the reason why Mills doesn't want any connection with LENR, because their propensity to fuse would make hydrinos impossible as stable particles? [snip] This is one reason why I suspect that each successive level of Hydrino shrinkage is more difficult to achieve than the previous level. The earlier levels are still too large to fuse, hence stable compounds are possible. Actually even the small ones need to be very small to have a reasonable fusion half life, with ordinary elements e.g. C, N , O etc. Probably too small to still form the Hydride. The higher the charge on the nucleus, the longer the fusion half-life. (This can get even more complicated if you like ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: HyLENR : was: Britain reveals UFO documents
extra inertia? Harry On 22/5/2008 6:42 PM, Michel Jullian wrote: I am sure it can! What's your take on the reason why deuterons fuse more easily than identically charged protons BTW? Jones proposed a reason that didn't convince me, namely that the extra neutron does some screening. Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 11:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: HyLENR : was: Britain reveals UFO documents In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Thu, 22 May 2008 11:26:47 +0200: Hi, [snip] For lack of time I haven't gone back to my fusion rate maths efforts yet, but I guess encounters would be closer by a factor equal to the shrinking factor roughly, and since I remember you said fusion rate increased wildly with decreasing distance, I guess that if significantly shrunken hydrinos existed they would fuse almost immediately. I wonder, if my above speculation is correct, could this be the reason why Mills doesn't want any connection with LENR, because their propensity to fuse would make hydrinos impossible as stable particles? [snip] This is one reason why I suspect that each successive level of Hydrino shrinkage is more difficult to achieve than the previous level. The earlier levels are still too large to fuse, hence stable compounds are possible. Actually even the small ones need to be very small to have a reasonable fusion half life, with ordinary elements e.g. C, N , O etc. Probably too small to still form the Hydride. The higher the charge on the nucleus, the longer the fusion half-life. (This can get even more complicated if you like ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: HyLENR : was: Britain reveals UFO documents
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Fri, 23 May 2008 01:42:01 +0200: Hi, [snip] I am sure it can! What's your take on the reason why deuterons fuse more easily than identically charged protons BTW? Jones proposed a reason that didn't convince me, namely that the extra neutron does some screening. [snip] The reason I have seen elsewhere is that the extra neutron increases the nuclear binding force, which of course helps to pull the nuclei together (at short range). I think if you look at quantum calculations of the cross section of similar types of reactions, you will see that increased energy of the reaction usually results in a larger cross section (which is just a restatement of what I just said about the nuclear binding force). (Note this is only true where apples are being compared with apples - you can only compare reactions that have the same energy disposal mechanisms, and also both reaction must either involve or not involve the weak force. E.g. the D-D reaction can be compared to the D-T reaction, but not to the P-P reaction. In the former case we see that the cross section of the D-T reaction is larger because the extra neutron results in a greater binding energy. Both D-D and D-T dispose of their energy through particle emission. You see the same thing when comparing the P-D reaction to the P-T reaction. Both lose energy through gamma emission, but the P-T reaction has a larger cross section because of the greater binding energy. BTW, it isn't clear from your question when you refer to protons whether you are referring to the P-P reaction or the P-D reaction. The former has an extremely low cross section because a weak force conversion reaction is required. IOW while a proton might more easily tunnel, it still has to undergo a weak force reaction while in the nucleus. P-D has a lower cross section than D-D because it can't dispose of the energy of the reaction through particle emission. It has to dump the energy through gamma-ray emission and this is thousands of times slower than particle emission, which in turn results in a much lower cross section. Or alternatively, you can think of such reactions as more likely to simply fall apart again ( a form of particle emission where there is no net energy release), than to emit a gamma ray. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Fun with magnets; was RE: [Vo]:Magnetic viscosity question: generating a harmonic frequency
I have been doing many experiments with magnets recently, and have hundreds of the most powerful magnets available from e.g. http://www.forcefieldmagnets.com/catalog/index.php http://www.supermagnetman.net/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NdFeB#Other_dangers http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=BX0X0X0 http://www.magnet4sale.com/home.php http://www.unitednuclear.com/magnets.htm If you haven't experienced these rare earth magnets, I think you'll be in for some surprises! Be very careful with these. Ideally you'll need a special workshop with only non-magnetic materials around, such as titanium tools, and wooden workbenches, no computers, disk drives, credit cards, etc. nearby, and practice being aware of what you're doing. You must constantly think about what you're doing, as if you're carrying around U235 or nitroglycerine ( I know, I've had numerous close calls, pinched fingers, and shattered magnets, sucking up tools from a foot away, getting stuck to a vise, etc. ). The forces can be in tons for two magnets with 1.2 Tesla flux densities (12000 Gauss) at their surfaces. I've had to build a special tool to separate two magnets that got accidentally got stuck together: http://www.kjmagnetics.com/buildamagnetseparator.asp Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US http://HoytStearns.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: Chlorine photo-reactivity
--- Michel I am not aware that the fusion rate in a Farnsworth Fusor is anomalous as you suggest. After all of these decades, it's not now all that much of a surprise (to anyone who hasn't been confined in an ivory tower) but it once was deemed anomalous. If it was, I would think mainstream science would have reacted by now. Hmm... Thirty+ years, yes ... that would be about right, except that too much notice of it might detract from the obscene funding levels for hot fusion. Actually hot fusion funding is probably not obscene, per se -- except by comparison with the promising but unfunded alternatives. Also are you sure that 20-40 keV electrons are at play there, or did you mean 20-40 keV deuterons? The plasma is balanced and net neutral so there are both electrons, positive ions (deuterons) and negative ions. ... and perhaps redundant-ground-state species not yet identified ;-) If I am not mistaken, the (D2-) ion is more prevalent than one would suspect, indicative of three body interaction -- but it has been a while since I was following all the posts on that forum (which are quite perceptive, in comparison with other forums) am yet to understand electrode polarity in these contraptions, is the outer electrode positive or negative? Either way will work. Farnsworth himself was fond of adding an electron gun(s) in addition to the grid; which was the design which had the highest output (still five orders of magnitude [or more] from breakeven) Richard Hull has debunked the myth of an actual runaway, but they were getting so 'hot' by the time that ITT dropped the program that they had to be operated in a shielded 'pit'. Jones
