[Vo]: 60 Minutes - One intelligent critique.
Out of all the comments on the 60-minutes website, there is ONE reasonable critique which shows the person put some effort to research the subject matter and he asks some legitimate questions. I'd be very interested in reading Jed's, Ed's and any other Vorts' analysis of this gentlemen's material (see below)? -Mark [copied from the 60-Minutes website RE: comments to the Cold Fusion segment] Posted by joclondon at 7:47 AM : Apr 21, 2009 The comments by Richard Garwood, in your report, were probably correct. He suggested there may have been an error in measuring the input of electrical energy. The possibility of a 'systematic error' in the test protocols was also mentioned by Prof John Huizenga in his 1989 report to the US Dept of Energy. (DOE/S-0073 DE90 005611.) The following mechanism, from established, orthodox physics, may explain the source of the error. (Originally proposed in 2006.) That the under-recording of input electrical energy is due to the development of a phase shift between the current and the voltage in the electrical supply circuit. This results from the generation, during the course of the experiment, of highly polarised bubbles, [1]between the electrodes of the electrolytic cell. The polarisation of the ions in the boundary layer of these bubbles is accentuated by the presence of the electrode field. The polarised bubbles introduce a small capacitance value into what was initially a conventional DC circuit. With a highly stable DC source of input energy this is not a problem. However, in many of the tests analysed researchers have utilised variously, high frequency DC or AC supplies. As examples see, Eccles [2], Yamazaki [3], Piantelli [4], Storms [5], and Patterson [6]. The phase shift phenomenon in resistive/capacitive circuits is well documented. Although it is normally only looked at in detail in power factor correction problems. How you measure the input energy in such circuits becomes critically important. Current and voltage should be measured seperately, ideally with continuous high speed recording. The unreported input energy is likely to give a high speed transient signal. The use of conventional watt meters to measure input electrical power is likely to be problematical. Also the use of too long a sampling interval, or moving coil devices or visual inspection may not detect the transient signal. The conditions which appear to favour the presence of 'excess heat' are also those which facilitate phase shift. 1) A pulsed or oscillating supply current. The high the frequency the better. 2) a large interfacial area between the electrolyte and the generated gas bubbles, between the electrodes. Storms [5], page 6, and Patterson [7] and [8], may not have produced a catalytic surface as claimed, but merely an efficient method for producing gas nucleation sites. 3) A highly ionised electrolyte. 4) A high voltage between the electrodes. Features 1) and 2) must occur simultaneously, features 3) and 4) are desirable and serve to enhance the basic reaction. Any future claims for the generation of excess energy, (not just electrolytic cells) should incorporate and document means for the detection of phase shift. [1] Leonard B Loed. Static Electrification, 1958. Pub: Springer, Berlin. Page 66. [2] Patent: US 2005/0236376 A1. [3] Patent: EP 0 392 325 A2. [4] Patent: WO 95/20816. [5] E Storms. J. Fusion Technol., 29 (1996) 261. [6] Patent: US 2006/093874. [7] Patent: WO 97/39164. [8] Patent: WO 05/03437. Posted by joclondon at 7:47 AM : Apr 21, 2009 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2070 - Release Date: 4/20/2009 5:56 PM
Re: [Vo]:60 Minutes, Orion Works, Jed, Jones
Mike Carrell wrote: Guys, heads up, it is going to get interesting. The 60 minutes piece is a turning point worthy of celebration. Both technologies also point to a new era of physical understanding of the world. Sorting all this out will keep generations of grad students busy as the old guard of doubters gradually die off. Meanwhile the Jokers in the game will be an empowered EPA, and DOE, whose regulatory empires will be challenged. Stay tuned. Then there are the other horses in the race. There are various other methods of cohering the ZPE. Given LENR's problems with reproducibility, and BLP's need for sophisticated reactors, which limit it's use to industrial facilities, I wouldn't count the out. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:What does processed uranium oxide cost?
Turns out that yellowcake was an integral part of the banking "bomb" that brought the vaunted Lehman to its knees.. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aVgwamEW_98I&refer=news Hmm. that was metaphorically another kind of 'critical mass' no? IOW 'Leverage' seems to have its own tipping point. Even so, there are already price props for this important commodity in place, holding up the so-called low depressed price - -my 'source' at TVA sez that the price mentioned in the article above for yellowcake -is double the real free market price for big steady buyers, which is below $40 per kg (kg not pound). The miners love it when bankers get involved. and it is one more reason to overhaul the entire Wall Street and Chicago merchantile speculation system - get rid of short trading in everything but stocks- at least to anyone who is not a bona fide, steady consumer of the commodity in question. And get rid of high leverage. The consumer-taxpayer ends up picking up the tab for the Lehmanized greed-barons of the world. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Living proof that there is doubt
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:11:56 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Anyway - This potential problem in LENR, which will certainly get the NRC >involved eventually - is due to three separate factors. > >1) neutrons - if SPAWAR and others are correct. >Even a few neutrons are problematic over long term operation. That depends on the application. First consider that the number of neutrons would be many orders of magnitude less than from a fission reactor with the same power output. If fission reactors are considered acceptable (and I seem to recall you being a rather strong proponent thereof ;), then a LENR reactor should represent a vast improvement. However if some neutrons (or gamma or energetic x-rays) are produced in even relatively small amounts, then this would probably rule out some "personal" applications, e.g. one might not wish to have such a source in one's laptop. :) Yet, use in a home power unit might still be acceptable, if it were sufficiently shielded e.g. by being buried under a few feet of dirt outside the house. > >2) tritium - often seen, but not always. Can the possibility of 3H be >totally eliminated? Probably not - and it is EXTREMELY toxic, since it can >go directly into the human metabolism, through either the air of water >vector. While Tritium production probably can't be eliminated, if light water is used, then the production can be kept very low. Furthermore, given it's high reaction cross section with Deuterium, the vast majority of the tiny amount that is produced may well react within the reactor itself, making it of negligible concern, particularly if the reactor is a closed system (not out of the question). This risk could be even further reduced by using D depleted light water as the fuel for sensitive applications. > >3) The nature of the heavy reactants (transmutation products) With hydrinos, >as we have shown, these tend to be not radioactive and are lighter elements >- but with heavy elements such as palladium, radioactive activation >(isotopes of silver cadmium etc) this is problematic, and much harder to >imagine as benign. My reactor would not use any Pd, nor even LENR as currently understood, and if Al were used as the primary construction material, most of the reactor would be fuel, in one implementation of the device. :) > >The main problem I see with your aluminum hypothesis is that there seems to >be a very strong ferromagnetic bias for hydrino attraction into a nucleus, >as opposed to the hydride replacing an electron and lodging in an orbital. >That ferrormagnetic pull would be lacking with aluminum -and- where are the Normal ferromagnetism is caused by the atomic electrons and has nothing to do with nuclei. The Al nucleus does however have a magnetic moment, so if the magnetic field of Hydrinos plays a role, then an Al nucleus shouldn't pose any problems in that regard. >favorable orbital values in aluminum? None are listed in my version of CQM >(but there are about a dozen different versions out now). I was not suggesting that Al was a Mills catalyst (if that's what you were trying to say), just suggesting that it would make a good fuel. The two do not have to go hand in hand. > >Mills does not stress, or even mention AFAIK - the intense magnetic field of >the Hy - but his mentor, Dr Farrell often has. This is an important point. Good. :) [snip] >Of course if someone were able to get the bulk of the population of Hy down >to that few fm radius, as you suggest then anything works - but to my >thinking that likelihood seems extremely rare compared with the ease of >simply going with a robust UV implementation. ...yet it is precisely what my invention may readily achieve (if it works at all). (And much more readily than Mills himself can do BTW). > >Why tempt fate (with engineering for nuclear reactions) by getting the >getting the NRC involved at this early stage when there are non-toxic >alternatives ? Because Mills is struggling with Hydrino reactions to even get a COP of 2, whereas nuclear reactions can deliver a theoretical COP of 1000 or more (probably somewhat less in practice). However as a rough rule of thumb, nuclear reactions are a thousand times more energetic than Hydrino reactions, which is why it is sensible to use the Hydrinos as a stepping stone, rather than as an end in themselves. Obviously the nuclear option would result in a robust and reliable power generator, whereas the Hydrino only option isn't really quite there yet. Furthermore, there is the long term consideration that the nuclear option uses far less fuel than the Hydrino option, which tends to become more important when one considers things like irrigating an entire continent. ;) BTW returning for a moment to the molten Sodium I mentioned in my previous email, there is an existing patent for an electrical generator that uses a stream of molten tin(droplets?) to overcome a space charge, thus directly generating DC power. Sodium has a melting point o
RE: [Vo]:Living proof that there is doubt
Robin, Thanks. Right you are, wrt 39Ar Goes to show ya' that one should never try to compose such messages from memory, without going back to notes. However, the main point that I was shooting at in that posting, should have been obvious and is unchanged: there is a much greater probability for "activation" i.e. radioactive build-up in LENR, than in hydrino tech. In fact, the paper Jed cited yesterday (even as he was arguing another POV about the activation problem): Kidwell, D. "Trace Analysis of Elements in a Palladium Matrix" actually mentions the problem of palladium activation ;-) Anyway - This potential problem in LENR, which will certainly get the NRC involved eventually - is due to three separate factors. 1) neutrons - if SPAWAR and others are correct. Even a few neutrons are problematic over long term operation. 2) tritium - often seen, but not always. Can the possibility of 3H be totally eliminated? Probably not - and it is EXTREMELY toxic, since it can go directly into the human metabolism, through either the air of water vector. 3) The nature of the heavy reactants (transmutation products) With hydrinos, as we have shown, these tend to be not radioactive and are lighter elements - but with heavy elements such as palladium, radioactive activation (isotopes of silver cadmium etc) this is problematic, and much harder to imagine as benign. The main problem I see with your aluminum hypothesis is that there seems to be a very strong ferromagnetic bias for hydrino attraction into a nucleus, as opposed to the hydride replacing an electron and lodging in an orbital. That ferrormagnetic pull would be lacking with aluminum -and- where are the favorable orbital values in aluminum? None are listed in my version of CQM (but there are about a dozen different versions out now). Mills does not stress, or even mention AFAIK - the intense magnetic field of the Hy - but his mentor, Dr Farrell often has. This is an important point. I think this is one of the details that compose the BLP "trade secrets" that Mills does not want disseminated, but it occasionally leaks out. I have my secret list of these and you probably have yours. Of course if someone were able to get the bulk of the population of Hy down to that few fm radius, as you suggest then anything works - but to my thinking that likelihood seems extremely rare compared with the ease of simply going with a robust UV implementation. Why tempt fate (with engineering for nuclear reactions) by getting the getting the NRC involved at this early stage when there are non-toxic alternatives ? Jones -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:54:26 -0700: Hi, [snip] >23Na --> 24Mg >- or argon to potassium, >39Ar --> 40K (which is mildly radioactive) There is no 39Ar. Only the stable isotopes exist, i.e. 36, 38, and 40, with the overwhelming majority being 40Ar. The reaction of 40Ar with a proton yields 41K, which is also stable. Generally speaking the elements with 1 proton less than the really stable isotopes (e.g. 16O, 20Ne, 24Mg, 28Si, 32S etc.) would make good fuel targets, i.e (15N - scarce;19F,23Na,27Al,31P). The last 4 are also all single isotope elements, so the natural element can be used "as is" without isotope separation. My favorite is 27Al, because it's an ordinary metal, with melting point of 660 ºC and also the third most abundant element in the crust. (The reasonable melting point makes reactor design easy, though there is also something to be said for molten sodium). The Al reactions are:- Hy + 27Al -> 24Mg + 4He + 1.6 MeV, and Hy + 27Al -> 28Si + IC electron + 11.55 MeV both of which are clean. I'm kind of hoping that Hy + 27Al -> 28Si + gamma won't be significant. ;) The fast IC electron from the Si reaction will also create some bremsstrahlung, though I'm not sure how much, &/or how significant it will be. BTW I wrote to Oriani some time ago suggesting the reaction Hy + 23Na -> 20Ne + 4He + 2.37 MeV as a possible explanation for his experimental results (ICCF 11), but he thought the central charge on Na was so high as to rule it out. Of course, he doesn't know that according to one version of my theory the smallest Hydrino only has a radius of about 3.4 fm, which more or less puts it in range of the nuclear force, so tunneling becomes either "unnecessary" or so easy that just about any target nucleus should be possible. (If shrinkage all the way to the 137'th level is possible, then the smallest radius becomes 2.8 fm, which is definitely within range of the nuclear force.) >-or potassium to calcium, >39K -> 40Ca. > [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
