Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
One problem with the methods I suggested for distinguishing dideuterinos from Helium in CF experiments is the possible large amount of deuterium that might be present. This would could make the D + (m/Q) = 2 peak too large to accurately distinguish the amount of added deuterons from a dideuterino ionization process. It should not prevent the accurate detection and concentration determination of Helium, however, because the He++ (m/Q) = 2 peak is still distinguishable from the D+ (m/Q) = 2 peak. One solution to a large D+ (m/Q) = 2 peak would be to filter the gas to be tested through palladium, which readily adsorbs ordinary D2 and thus removes it, and then test the residual gas for He, etc. This could have the drawback that dideuterinos may be able to diffuse through palladium even without an ionizing adsorbtion process. This problem can be addressed by this procedure: (1) measure the He content by ordinary mass spec. (2) filter out the D2, and possibly some dideuterinos in the process, using Pd filters (3) measure He and dideutrino content from residual gas (4) any large reduction in apparent Helium concentration is due to dideutrino loss through the Pd filter One thing that may help the process, if dideuterinos don't readily diffuse through the cathode material, is to allow the CF cathodes to degass the interior D2 prior to digesting of the cathode to obtain the Helium/dideuterino gas for the mass spec. What a lot of work! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
Correction noted below. I continue to make errors willy nilly as usual. Sorry! On Jul 11, 2009, at 6:19 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: First, I would point out that if removing the first electron from a hydrino molecule (which for convenience I take here as a class which includes one or two deuterino atoms) takes excessive voltage then it will not ionize in the mass spectrograph and thus not show up in a mass spectrogram at all. Beyond that, and I expect this is my weakness that you are addressing, I can't see how it is within reason to expect the formation of hydrinos below N=1/2 from typical cold fusion experiments. That is the context within which the discussion lies (see original comments from Jones Beene below), i.e. that it is not He that is being observed in CF experiments, but hydrino molecules. I don't really see how it is within reason to expect all CF experiments (at least all those in which He has been measured) to create hydrinos, much less hydrino molecules which are readily singly ionized in a mass spectrograph. However, given my limited vision in this matter, I still stand by the following: In approximate terms, suppose we say the m/Q ratio for He+ is (4/1) = 4. The m/q ratio for He++ is then (4/2) = 2. The m/Q ratio for a singly charged dideuterino is (4/1) = 4, thus it masquerades as a He+. If the ionization potential is pushed far enough, then the dideuterino breaks down and becomes ordinary deuterium D+ (or at least one of the deuterons does, since there is only one electron) with a mass/charge ratio of (2/1) = 2, thus it masquerades (not very well in a precision mass spec.) as He++. Suppose the singly charged dideuterino breaks down at a very high voltage, much higher than where He+ loses its last electron. Suppose very little helium is present in a sample, but a lot of dideuterinos. This would be readily detected by comparing the mass spectrographs for (average) ionization energies just above He+ and then just above He++, both in a high precision mass spec. The helium will migrate from the m/Q = 4 peak down into the m/Q =2 peak.If the singly charged dihydrinos require a large ionization energy, then they will all remain in the m/Q = 4 peak. This lack of any migration would be recognizable as anomalous. The above assumption of a differing second ionization energy is not needed to make the determination of the presence of dihydrinos though. Suppose you then push the ionization energy well beyond the dihydrino's full ionization energy. This will result in an increase in deuterons in the m/Q = 2 peak, but these, necessarily being *ordinary* D+ deuterons, will be readily distinguished from any small amount of He+ that would remain. In other words, as you push up the ionization energy, He+ will disappear from their (m/Q) = 2 peak, while, if any dihydrinos are present, they will *increase* the size of the m/Q = 2 deuterium peak. The above sentence has a typo and lacks clarity. It should read: "In other words, as you push up the ionization energy, He+ will disappear from their (m/Q) = 4 peak and migrate into their distinguishable He++ (m/Q) = 2 peak, while, if any fully ionizable dihydrinos are present, the deuterons freed by the dihydrino ionization will increase the size of their separate and identifiable (m/Q) = 2 deuterium peak." Further, if the ionization energies for He+ and singly charged dihydrinos differ, then the m/Q = 2 migrations will occur at definitively different ionization voltages, which would provide even further confirmation of an anomalous (hydrino based) process. Even if the first ionization potential of the CF experiment created hydrino molecules was in range of the spectrograph ionization chamber, and even if the second hydrino molecule electron continues to bind both atoms and not stick with just one, and even if the second ionization potential of the hydrino molecule is hundreds of keV, the hydrino molecule presence will still be disclosed by the lack of migration from the m/Q=4 peak to the m/Q=2 peak when the ionization potential is sufficient to double ionize most all He that is in the sample. That proves the m/Q=4 peak is not from singly ionized helium. This is in stark disagreement with the statement attributed to Mills (below). On Jul 9, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Which is to say that when 4He is measured as the ash from LENR, and this has been assumed to be real helium, it could instead consist of one molecule of ”two fractional hydrogen isotopes” - better known as the Mills hydrino, or more specifically the Mills’ “di-deuterino.” Back circa 1994, if memory serves, Mills mentioned this possibility in Fusion Technology. The ionization potential for the “di-deuterino” would be extremely high according to Mills, in the case of deep redundancy – and essentially there is lit
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
OrionWorks wrote: >>From Mario Lacy: > >>> Edmund Storms wrote: Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not have been safe anywhere in the world. When you damage so many people, many of whom are very powerful and will connected to the Jewish community, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. Besides, his family was also at risk. He took the only rational path. >> Could be. Although with all those millions probably something >> could be done, I think. >> Anyways, he nevertheless served the scapegoat role, from the >> moment he was exposed to the public view. > > I see that Mr. Lawrence has weighed in with his two cents as well. Yeah, I don't like the direction a number of Mauro's posts are taking. Here are some additional items which started bells going off for me: Comment on capitalism: > That's the classical (profit driven) capitalist line Comment on the economic system, and how "incorrect" it is: > the economic system is today a > superstructure of the politic system > In short: we're are approaching the crisis of civilization which results > from incorrect social and economic models, A comment directed at Jones and his lifestyle: > Now, in front of the crisis, and instead of acknowledge this, you > pretend to find some miracle energy source to merely postpone the day of > reckoning > > Your way of life is also undesirable at the aesthetic and ethical > levels. I for one don't want to live my life as a self-indulgent > gluttonous person... I'm no doubt overreacting but the tone here is enough like Grok to make one wonder if one of the two was a sock puppet. (Note that Grok's English was intentionally so mis-spelled and mis-formed that he could very well have spoken it as a second language, and we might not have known.) Anyhow, Steve, as usual you are much, much better about giving the gentleman the benefit of the doubt, and your post (the part I snipped off, below) had some provocative/interesting points in it, which I won't respond to (since I just finished yelling about how this has deteriorated to being totally OT ;-) ). I have a nasty tendency to go off half cocked, and perhaps I am doing so this time too. Anyhow, I'll be out of town for a week, so I won't be yelling "DIALECTIC! BAD!" for at least a few days. 'Till next weekend... [snip part to which I'm not responding]
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
>From Mario Lacy: >> Edmund Storms wrote: >> > Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not >> > have been safe anywhere in the world. When you damage so many people, >> > many of whom are very powerful and will connected to the Jewish >> > community, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. >> > Besides, his family was also at risk. He took the only rational >> > path. > > Could be. Although with all those millions probably something > could be done, I think. > Anyways, he nevertheless served the scapegoat role, from the > moment he was exposed to the public view. I see that Mr. Lawrence has weighed in with his two cents as well. Now, it's my turn to shed a few pennies from my own purse, regardless of how wildly off topic this thread has degenerated to. To speculate that Maddox "...served the scapegoat role" implies that through deliberate forethought and careful planning (a conspiracy, if you wish) he was left out in the open high-and-dry by his "associates" in order that they could save their own skins. But all the evidence that seems to have been revealed so far would indicate that Maddox pretty much masterminded his devastating Ponzi scheme all on his own. Certainly, it is conceivable that Maddox had a few "assistants", possibly playing their roles passively. But their "sins" are likely to be more the "sins of omission", as compared to the "sins of commission." If such guilty parties DO exist, I suspect few will be discovered. They are not likely to be in positions of power where they could have pulled any strings that would have personally lead to Maddox being set up as the "scapegoat." If anything, such "assistants" are probably pulling what few dwindling "strings" they have left at their own disposal to keep themselves carefully concealed from unwanted scrutiny. What I think is far more alarming, perhaps even sinister, is the fact that years ago certain financial analysts had already determined (some, without a shadow of doubt) that what Maddox was doing HAD to be blatantly illegal. What could almost be conceived as criminal negligence at work here is the fact that these whistleblower's attempts to warn the financial community were ignored. Perhaps another example of "the sins of omission" at work here. But, IMO, such "sins of omission" is not necessarily in itself evidence to support conjecture that Maddox was being carefully set up to play the role of a highly publicized "scapegoat." I think it's more a matter that such "sins of omission", (meaning: They did NOT investigate the matter as thoroughly as they should of when they had been given repeated evidence to suggest something was terribly amiss), are now causing such "guilty parties" to distance themselves as far as they possibly can from being personally tainted by the horrible Maddox fallout. But again, such actions to distance themselves from Maddox is not evidence in itself that they are operating covertly within the context of a conspiracy to turn Maddox into their personal "scapegoat" in order to save their own skins. Whom do you speculate these "associates" might be, the "associates" who allegedly masterminded subsequent events that are now being played out in the news, the ones that are responsible for personally turning Maddox into the "scapegoat"? ...Or are you using the term "scapegoat" within a different context? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
On Jul 11, 2009, at 3:42 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:10:13 -0800: Hi, [snip] If you fully ionize a dideuterino, if that is readily feasible, since it ostensibly takes around 70 eV , then you still get mass 2 deuterium nuclei, not a mass 4 He nucleus. It takes 70 eV to remove the second electron from the negative Hydrino ion. To remove both electrons from a maximally shrunken Deuterino molecule resulting in two Deuterium nuclei costs several hundred keV. First, I would point out that if removing the first electron from a hydrino molecule (which for convenience I take here as a class which includes one or two deuterino atoms) takes excessive voltage then it will not ionize in the mass spectrograph and thus not show up in a mass spectrogram at all. Beyond that, and I expect this is my weakness that you are addressing, I can't see how it is within reason to expect the formation of hydrinos below N=1/2 from typical cold fusion experiments. That is the context within which the discussion lies (see original comments from Jones Beene below), i.e. that it is not He that is being observed in CF experiments, but hydrino molecules. I don't really see how it is within reason to expect all CF experiments (at least all those in which He has been measured) to create hydrinos, much less hydrino molecules which are readily singly ionized in a mass spectrograph. However, given my limited vision in this matter, I still stand by the following: In approximate terms, suppose we say the m/Q ratio for He+ is (4/1) = 4. The m/q ratio for He++ is then (4/2) = 2. The m/Q ratio for a singly charged dideuterino is (4/1) = 4, thus it masquerades as a He +. If the ionization potential is pushed far enough, then the dideuterino breaks down and becomes ordinary deuterium D+ (or at least one of the deuterons does, since there is only one electron) with a mass/charge ratio of (2/1) = 2, thus it masquerades (not very well in a precision mass spec.) as He++. Suppose the singly charged dideuterino breaks down at a very high voltage, much higher than where He+ loses its last electron. Suppose very little helium is present in a sample, but a lot of dideuterinos. This would be readily detected by comparing the mass spectrographs for (average) ionization energies just above He+ and then just above He++, both in a high precision mass spec. The helium will migrate from the m/Q = 4 peak down into the m/Q =2 peak.If the singly charged dihydrinos require a large ionization energy, then they will all remain in the m/Q = 4 peak. This lack of any migration would be recognizable as anomalous. The above assumption of a differing second ionization energy is not needed to make the determination of the presence of dihydrinos though. Suppose you then push the ionization energy well beyond the dihydrino's full ionization energy. This will result in an increase in deuterons in the m/Q = 2 peak, but these, necessarily being *ordinary* D+ deuterons, will be readily distinguished from any small amount of He+ that would remain. In other words, as you push up the ionization energy, He+ will disappear from their (m/Q) = 2 peak, while, if any dihydrinos are present, they will *increase* the size of the m/Q = 2 deuterium peak. Further, if the ionization energies for He+ and singly charged dihydrinos differ, then the m/Q = 2 migrations will occur at definitively different ionization voltages, which would provide even further confirmation of an anomalous (hydrino based) process. Even if the first ionization potential of the CF experiment created hydrino molecules was in range of the spectrograph ionization chamber, and even if the second hydrino molecule electron continues to bind both atoms and not stick with just one, and even if the second ionization potential of the hydrino molecule is hundreds of keV, the hydrino molecule presence will still be disclosed by the lack of migration from the m/Q=4 peak to the m/Q=2 peak when the ionization potential is sufficient to double ionize most all He that is in the sample. That proves the m/Q=4 peak is not from singly ionized helium. This is in stark disagreement with the statement attributed to Mills (below). On Jul 9, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Which is to say that when 4He is measured as the ash from LENR, and this has been assumed to be real helium, it could instead consist of one molecule of ”two fractional hydrogen isotopes” - better known as the Mills hydrino, or more specifically the Mills’ “di- deuterino.” Back circa 1994, if memory serves, Mills mentioned this possibility in Fusion Technology. The ionization potential for the “di-deuterino” would be extremely high according to Mills, in the case of deep redundancy – and essentially there is little way they could ever be dis
Re: [Vo]:OT: RepRap is ready
Mauro Lacy wrote: > Talking about the power of Open Source, what about the same concept but > applied to material goods? > > The first version of RepRap, an almost completely self replicating 3D > printer, is ready: > http://reprap.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome > > At least in theory, it can achieve exponential propagation, and fast > development and improvement cycles. Some kind of evolutionary machine. > I wonder how many time I'll have to wait for someone to print me one ;-) This is a very cool gadget -- thanks for the link. I don't think you'll get a copy made entirely on a Reprap any time soon, though. Rapid prototyping "3-d printers" already exist, of course, and the current version of RepRap uses the same technology, according to the linked page ... which means it makes plastic parts. The 'printing' step, as I understand it, uses either powder which is fused to form solid plastic or liquid plastic which is thermoset, and either way it's pretty much limited to things which can be fabricated out of blocks of plastic. So, this version can't draw the wires, put the insulation on them, make those metal rods which form the framework on which the plastic parts are hung, or make any of the electronics which make it go. Presumably it doesn't actually assemble the new gadget, either; it makes the plastic pieces and then the assembly is done by a human. None the less it is surely a very cool gadget. The web page also links to a .doc file describing work that's been done on more flexible prototyping, which also sounds very nifty. I haven't read the details, but from a quick skim, it appears that they use Wood's metal to keep the temps down to something the gadget can handle, and they can prototype at least some of the electronics that way. Still be a long, long time before they can print computer chips or draw high performance wires on your desktop, of course.
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Mauro Lacy wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >> I don't know why he didn't run. > > He didn't ran because he was a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't run, by their > very definition. > It's always better to blame it all on a "lone shooter", than acknowledge > the corruption within the system. This is wildly OFF TOPIC, it's provocative politics of the worst sort, it appears in this message unsupported by anything except your bald assertion. The discussion in this thread had to do with Madoff as a model for scammers in other areas, which is certainly relevant to the 'free energy' field. However, Mauro's dialectical twist on it is something else. We have heard all this junk about the "corruption within the system" being the root of all evil, very recently, from Grok. We have no need to hear it all over again from Mauro. PLEASE KEEP THIS GARBAGE OFF VORTEX. >
RE: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion
>Luis Alvarez was the first reported observer of muon-catalyzed fusion, and >despite deuterium being present along with hydrogen in the gaseous medium, >the reaction was NOT d-d fusion. >Asking oneself: "why not?" could be instructive. RvS ...because he was looking at ordinary Hydrogen, and only one atom in about 6800 is D, hence the chances of any given D fusing with another D rather than with H are only one in 6800. IOW it probably did happen, but would have been so rare that it wasn't noticed. Robin, A cryo bubble chamber can contain HH, DD or HD. Or really anything in between. Most often, as you are assuming - liquefied hydrogen HH which has a small amount of natural deuterium but less than water, since the H comes from methane. However, I had remembered something unusual about this one an even remember seeing the tracks - and that Alvarez was looking at HD specifically. He was. I have attempted to locate that forty year old paper online, to little avail. Alvarez's Nobel acceptance speech is online and it indicates specifically that he was looking for the most favorable reaction being in HD and for the reasons given. It turns out that, yes, initially the fist tracks had been seen HH with some natural HD present, and afterwards the HD concentration was increased and finally this was compared to DD. IOW there is NO reaction without some deuterium, and consequently any added deuterium increases the cross section, up to a point ... BUT since the muonic hydrogen atom is the first step in a two step bootstrapping process, you may need both for efficiency. There is a valid alternate first step with the muonic D atom alone, and no H at all, but he does not mention it as being useful. Perhaps the reduced near-field of a deuteron makes that required kind of muonic atom more unlikely in the short time frame, before muon decay. Furthermore, Alvarez does mention that the deuterium only reaction results in 3He + H and NO 4He. If there is a tritium branch he does not mention it. This should go down as one of the first cases of cold fusion, since it was conducted near absolute zero ! Here is the relevant quote: The resulting muonic hydrogen atom, [which is a proton bound to a muon - which displaces the electron at a fractional orbit, no less] had many of the properties of a neutron, and could diffuse freely through liquid hydrogen. When it came close to the deuteron in an HD molecule, the muon would transfer to the deuteron, because the ground state of the p-d atom is lower than that of the p-y atom, in consequence of effect. The new might then recoil some distance as a result of the exchange reaction, thus explaining the gap [in the bubble chamber photos]. The final stage of capture of a proton was also energetically favorable, so a proton and deuteron could now be confined close enough together by the heavy negative muon to fuse into a 3He nucleus plus the energy given to the internally converted muon. We had a short but exhilarating experience when we thought we had solved all of the fuel problems of mankind for the rest of time. A few hasty calculations indicated that in liquid HD a single negative muon would catalyze enough fusion reactions before it decayed to supply the energy to operate an accelerator to produce more muons, with energy left over after making the liquid HD from sea water. While everyone else had been trying to solve this problem by heating hydrogen plasmas to millions of degrees, we had apparently stumbled on the solution, involving very low temperatures instead. But soon, more realistic estimates showed that we were off the mark by several orders of magnitude - a < near miss > in this kind of physics! Just before we published our results, we learned that the muon-catalysis reaction had been proposed in 1947 by Frank as an alternative explanation of what Powell et al. had assumed (correctly) to be the decay of p+ to m+. Frank suggested that it might be the reaction we had just seen in liquid hydrogen, starting with a m- Zel'dovitch had extended the ideas of Frank concerning this reaction, but because their papers were not known to anyone in Berkeley, we had a great deal of personal pleasure that we otherwise would have missed. I will conclude this episode by noting that we immediately increased the deuterium concentration in our liquid hydrogen and observed the expected increase in fusion reaction, and saw two examples of successive catalyses by a single muon. We also observed the catalysis of D + D -> 3H + H in pure liquid deuterium. END of quote. Three things worth noting or pursuing: 1) The HD reaction is apparently favored in a two step reaction in a liquid, but what about in a metal matrix? 2) The muon reaction does not result in substantial helium 4 - at least not in the way it was performed by Alvarez. Others have apparently seen 4He. 3He could be advantageous for the purpose of producing a marketable exotic gas in a commercial venture. 3) The comparative
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:10:13 -0800: Hi, [snip] >If you fully ionize a dideuterino, if that is >readily feasible, since it ostensibly takes around 70 eV , then you >still get mass 2 deuterium nuclei, not a mass 4 He nucleus. It takes 70 eV to remove the second electron from the negative Hydrino ion. To remove both electrons from a maximally shrunken Deuterino molecule resulting in two Deuterium nuclei costs several hundred keV. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 9 Jul 2009 18:39:58 -0700: Hi, [snip] >However, the fact that Frascati found mostly 4He make Mills' 1994 >contention, mentioned below - almost untenable - UNLESS - the shrunken D2 >also lost almost exactly the correct amount of mass to confuse the >instrument. and no it could NOT lose the entire 22-24 MeV under Mills' >theory AFAIK . begging the question of how much would confuse the >instrument? [snip] The difference in mass between a completely shrunken Deuterino molecule and an ordinary Deuterium molecule is at most a few hundred keV. The mass difference between the latter and a Helium molecule OTOH, is about 24 MeV, so it's possible to confuse Deuterino molecules with ordinary molecules, but not with Helium. IOW if they can distinguish ordinary D2 from Helium, then can also distinguish Deuterino molecules from Helium. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:43:39 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Luis Alvarez was the first reported observer of muon-catalyzed fusion, and >despite deuterium being present along with hydrogen in the gaseous medium, >the reaction was NOT d-d fusion. > >Asking oneself: "why not?" could be instructive. ...because he was looking at ordinary Hydrogen, and only one atom in about 6800 is D, hence the chances of any given D fusing with another D rather than with H are only one in 6800. IOW it probably did happen, but would have been so rare that it wasn't noticed. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
[Vo]:OT: RepRap is ready
Talking about the power of Open Source, what about the same concept but applied to material goods? The first version of RepRap, an almost completely self replicating 3D printer, is ready: http://reprap.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome At least in theory, it can achieve exponential propagation, and fast development and improvement cycles. Some kind of evolutionary machine. I wonder how many time I'll have to wait for someone to print me one ;-) Best regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion
Correction: I wrote: "The emission of barely detectable amounts of 23.8 MeV alphas from thin foils or co-deposition experiments is not consistent with the excess heat observed." I should have more precisely written: "The emission of small amounts of alphas from thin foils or co-deposition experiments is not consistent with the excess heat observed. Further, CR-39 tracks indicate uniformly far less energy than 23.8 MeV alphas." Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion
... Long before P&F, when Aspden ... was talking about bound dual virtual muons. This citation will be hard to find: H. Aspden: "Physics without Einstein" (Sabberton, Southampton, 1969) IN order not to leave a "loose end" in this thread - and for completing a minimal "virtual muon" hypothesis for cold fusion, a brief googling shows that there is a more to this subject than idle speculation. Not much more, but more. Luis Alvarez was the first reported observer of muon-catalyzed fusion, and despite deuterium being present along with hydrogen in the gaseous medium, the reaction was NOT d-d fusion. Asking oneself: "why not?" could be instructive. IOW that overlooked factoid could be significant. What Alvarez witnessed was p-d fusion, proton and deuteron, when analyzing the outcome of experiments with muons incident on a hydrogen bubble chamber at Berkeley in 1956. No helium-4 was seen. The fusion reaction with muon catalysis, as it turns out, results preferentially in helium-3 (then called a 'helion' which would make a nice name for a new version of this concept), and 5.5 MeV of energy, mostly in the form of a gamma. Is this branch somehow "selective" or "receptive" for muon catalyzation (as opposed to merely a higher cross section)? Certainly Alvarez never suggested that - nor has anyone else as far as I know. It could be coincidental ... or not. As we know, fusion reactions where there is but a single massive particle as ash - are far rarer (lower cross section) than are reactions where two massive particle which can carry away excess energy. There are good reasons for this, and its partly why the TSC came into existence = i.e. the rationale is that if you have two massive particles then you do not need to account for the absence of high energy gammas (at least not the primary gamma) which would be expected. AND are easy to document. This failing: the lack of a high energy gamma is always the insurmountable reason that experts in fusion doubt the D + D -> He-4 scenario - despite the Haglestein kludge of a phonon cascade. IOW why invent one unproveable explanation for a reaction which may not exist? Don't get me wrong - the helium is there, in LENR without any doubt - but it cannot come from d+d fusion, according to mainstream physics. The TSC may or may not help your understanding in that regard, but there is an implication of the Alvarez finding which should be mentioned - in the case of another hypothetical variety of LENR involving tetrahedral structures in a metal matrix - encapsulating what will occasionally become a virtual muon, or bound muon virtual pair (of the Aspden variety). OK ... whew ... That was a long setup for this paper: "Phase Conjugation Feynman Diagrams" by Douglass A. White http://www.dpedtech.com/FD.pdf and particularly the Feynman diagram of virtual muon formation on page 7. What this diagram may indicate to some observers, if you want to frame LENR (in part or totally) as muon based, and given that the muon is ubiquitous in nature, due to cosmic rays - but are extraordinarily short-lived so as to seemingly be impossible to harness - However- the implication could be: ... that muons NEVER really fully decay - in the sense of becoming unavailable to a reaction! instead they merely experience "transformational decay" (in the sense of color change ?) from real to virtual - which can be analogized to nature "putting them in the Dirac freezer" for later use. "Just another crutch" ala the Haglestein cascade, you complain ? Probably, but at least it is a new crutch, and you heard it first on Vortex today. Jones Oh, what about falsifiability? Well here is a stab at that. You generally have heard the conclusion stated: that there is a either a big disadvantage, or no proven advantage, to using a balanced mix of deuterium and light hydrogen in any LENR experiment. Or alternatively that helium 3 is seldom seen as ash. That is "common knowledge" but there is no rigorous proof of it as a general rule, and only the slightest of anecdote that it is really true for experiments not involving palladium, and especially could be false with a different matrix metal or alloy, ERGO- instead it could only apply to the common P&F experiments which are optimized for deuterium. Whereas - IF a version of muon catalyzed TSC were to be valid (called it VMC-TSC or virtual muon catalyzed tetrahedral symmetric condensation or simply the helion concept) and IF there is something to the Alvarez helion preferential cross section; then perhaps this can be engineered in advance to proceed favorably that way with a goal of actually AVOIDING helium-4. In which case, one would suspect that a 50:50 mix of D+H could have some increased rate of fusion over alternatives when properly implemented. And moreover the ash would be mostly helium-3. That should make it easy to verify - if it is valid. It would also make the ash very valuable and could push a commercial product into development
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Edmund Storms wrote: > Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not have > been safe anywhere in the world. When you damage so many people, many > of whom are very powerful and will connected to the Jewish community, > you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. Besides, his > family was also at risk. He took the only rational path. > Could be. Although with all those millions probably something could be done, I think. Anyways, he nevertheless served the scapegoat role, from the moment he was exposed to the public view.
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not have been safe anywhere in the world. When you damage so many people, many of whom are very powerful and will connected to the Jewish community, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. Besides, his family was also at risk. He took the only rational path. Ed On Jul 11, 2009, at 8:07 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I don't know why he didn't run. He didn't ran because he was a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't run, by their very definition. It's always better to blame it all on a "lone shooter", than acknowledge the corruption within the system.
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > I don't know why he didn't run. He didn't ran because he was a scapegoat. Scapegoats don't run, by their very definition. It's always better to blame it all on a "lone shooter", than acknowledge the corruption within the system.
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Cost of Japanese car inspection
--- On Fri, 7/10/09, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jed, New York state is never to be outdone in the stupidity department. You should read the inspection manual for here; it is a three-ring circus. 1. If a car has a 1mm hole in a rear taillight lens, it fails. Because, you know, that tiny bit of white light coming out of the red lens might confuse a driver as to whether or not you're coming or going. My opinion: if a driver is so blind or stupid as to not be able to discern that, should they really be driving? 2. You'll love this one... if the gas tank is normally held on by two steel straps, but one is just GONE, and the other is rusted so bad that it is obviously going to break at the slightest bump...you are REQUIRED to pass the vehicle. No kidding. One of my coworkers who is an inspector actually got audited by the DMV for attempting to fail a car with this situation; the DMV suit told him he had to pass it, and that if he didn't, he could be fined and possibly lose his inspection license. 3. Exhaust rustouts fail... if it impacts the catalytic converter, that great holy of holies. But if the rest of the exhaust...intermediate pipes, premuffler, muffler, tailpipe... if that is rusted out and is going to do a 'missile away!' when making 65 down the interstate, it still passes. 4. The slightest bit of looseness in a tie rod mandates a failure. But a ball joint that is moving in and out a quarter inch (meaning...BAD BAD BAD!!!) passes. 5. Grinding, sloppy wheel bearings so bad that the wheel is literally ready to fall off (this can and DOES happen) pass inspection. But a broken rubber boot over a CV axle fails. 6. Brake rotors are not part of inspection. They can be gouged to hell, but if the almighty pads are okay, it passes. I guess no one at the DMV realizes that it takes TWO surfaces for friction to work. As they say, there's life. And then there's New York life. --Kyle
[Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Craig Haynie (Houston) wrote on 7-11-09: It reminds me of Greg Watson. We never could figure out what his motive was. He claimed to have found an anomaly in magnetic fields that he could exploit. He claimed to have built a magnetic track which would move a ball around the track indefinitely. But it could never be looked at independently. -- Steven Vincent Johnson wrote on 7-11-09: >From Mr. Lawrence: ... ``I don't know why he [Madoff] didn't run.'' ... Shoot! I'm still alive! I thought I'd surely die in my bed of silken sheets before everything unraveled. -- Hi All, Greg never sent me a SMOT (or refunded the $130); but I always felt that he saw the effect. Maybe it was a Hutchinson effect -- he may have been working at the conjunction of powerful telluric forces. Jack Smith
Re: [Vo]:Another mystery: Vyosotskii and biological transmutation.
On Jul 10, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I can understand why biological transmutation makes some people edgy. When I first came across this, I was edgy too. Ah, well, I thought, cold fusion being so widely rejected, the conferences have to be open to new ideas. Not only is it very fringe (a bad thing to some, a good thing to others) it would make me very nervous to order and keep around the materials for this kind of research, despite the fact it is harmless. A home biological lab might easily be misinterpreted! You might try going to LENR-CANR.org and using "biological" as the search term for the site. It turns up Vysotskii and others. I don't recall anyone posting actual related experiments of their own on this list over the last 15-16 years, but my memory isn't good. There was some posting of some apparently bogus transmutation experiments here by Joe Champion (something into gold kind of thing), but replication by a high school student (daughter of a list member) produced differing results. Others may wish to comment on Joe's reliability. Jed Rothwell actually tested some of his output if I recall. Champion's site is at: http://www.drjoechampion.com/ There has been a lot of discussion of Kervran's work with chickens. It vaguely seems to me that someone in Bockris' group at Texas A&M had some luck along those lines, but I could be confused. Jean-Paul Biberian did some personal work in the biological arena: http://membres.lycos.fr/grainedescience/ Then I read the actual papers. Storms reports it pretty well. I happen to have a piece of background that made Vyosotskii's work with Mossbauer spectroscopy appeal to me; I was a sophomore at Caltech when Mossbauer, who was there, had just won the Nobel Prize, and we did a Mossbauer experiment in physics lab. (Feynman, by the way, taught my two years of physics at Caltech. Luck of the draw, I suppose.) Incredible luck! The technique is insanely precise, I don't believe it's possible that his detection of Fe-57 was an artifact. Many people, seeing that spectrogram, wouldn't get that. If cold fusion or other low-energy nuclear reactions are possible, as it surely seems they are, there is nothing particularly weird about proteins, which can create very precise molecular conditions, accomplishing it, particularly if it conferred some survival advantage under even rare conditions. So ... has anyone tried to replicate Vyosotskii's work? Mossbauer spectroscopy isn't terribly rare or expensive or difficult, You must be in an academic lab or commercial environment. and the experiment seems terminally simple, one would want to make sure that one had the right bacterial cultures to have a good shot at replication. Vyosotkii's work with mass reduction of radioactivity is likewise something pretty simple, if it works. Measuring the radioactivity of a sample is straightforward, and chemical processes should ordinarily have little effect (though there are known effects of chemical environment on half-life, a little-recognized accepted example of CANR). Again, any replications? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
