Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion
On Jul 12, 2009, at 7:36 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 08:31 PM 7/12/2009, you wrote: since the normal CR-39 direct-contact chip is solidly damaged in areas in contact, The CR-39 is not damaged when the 6 micron protective film is in place. Also, the "electrolysis damage" and "contact damage" arguments were invalidated by control experiments. No, by "damaged" I meant that they are so heavily pitted that individual tracks can't be distinguished. Or counted. Ooops. My mistake. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Another Ring UFO
Problems with this being as claimed: 1. It goes into the clouds and includes being dimly visible so you would need one material to block it and another to attenuate it's brightness. 2. You would need to move the torch with every wiggle of the camera because it stays fixed in the background even though the camera is moved, this is essentially impossible to achieve with a reflection as it moves significantly as the viewer does. 3. Can anyone show me a torch that looks like that? Why is there so much change and motion inherent in the ring? the film quality isn't that bad. And it it's LED's then why aren't LED's visible, and wouldn't the lights illuminate other parts of the torch/hand and shading material? Evidence that this is anything more than a writer trying to promote his book & site? Zero. On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: > It's good. They did a great illusion. I wonder how many takes it took them > to get the angles right. A few milliseconds after the "UFO" goes up into the > clouds it comes back down for a very brief moment. That would be a flaw in > their magic trick. > >
Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion
On Jul 12, 2009, at 7:07 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:31:59 -0800: Hi, [snip] produce them. You can do the heat transfer estimate, based on the thermal conductivity of the electrolyte, but I don't think that is necessary, because the observed tracks and expected (under Takahashi) tracks are off by orders of magnitude. If there is a fraction of a millimeter of space between the cathode and the CR39, then that would stop most alphas, but I think everyone recognizes that. Only if the alphas are low energy, as in the SPAWAR experiments. If the alphas are all 23.8 MeV, as consistent with Takahashi's theory, then things are quite different. It is notable that the higher the energy of the alphas the lower the attenuation, the loss of energy per cm. Perhaps I have a mistake in my calculation. Here it is again: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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. Given that most fusion is said to occur, by Takahasi's theory and many others, at the surface, and given that co- deposted cathode surfaces are made up of nanometer scale particles, there is not enough barrier to 23.8 MeV alpha particles in typical cathodes to suppress their detection enough to account for the low count densities. To make a rough approximation based on copper, particle attenuation in Pd at 23.8 MeV should be less than 0.3 MeV/mg/ cm^2. The density of Pd is 12 g/cm^3. A 100 micron foil weighs 12 g/ cm^3 * (100x10^-6 cm) = 0.0012 g/cm^2 = 1.2 mg/cm^2. Attenuation in a 100 micron thick Pd foil, a 1.2 mg/cm foil, would only be on the order of (0.3 MeV/mg/cm^2) * (1.2 mg/cm^2) = 360 keV. Water would of course attenuate further but direct CR-39 contact, such as that used in the SPAWAR experiments, even with the added attenuation of an intervening 6 micron plastic film, should not significantly reduce the count of the 32.8 MeV alphas, only their apparent energies. The actually observed SPAWAR charged particles have much lower energies, so attenuate faster and are effectively stopped by small distances. The excess heat, observed in surface hot spots, by SPAWAR and various others, demand a significant particle count and higher energy CR-39 pits, if their source is from a Takahashi type mechanism. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Another point however is not so obvious. If Hydrinos are responsible, (or various other hypothesized mechanisms as well 8^) then much of the energy may be released in the form of fast electrons through internal conversion, rather than as alpha particles, and fast electrons don't show up in CR39. They would however create bremsstrahlung and photoelectric effect x-rays, but given the nature of the environment, the photo-electric effect x-rays may be low energy, and result primarily in heat. Some of the bremsstrahlung x-rays should show up, if looked for. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html All said, I see the gaping hole in Takahashi's theory being the orders of magnitude lack of detectable high energy alphas. Perhaps it is just a calculation error on my part. It wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Another Ring UFO
It's good. They did a great illusion. I wonder how many takes it took them to get the angles right. A few milliseconds after the "UFO" goes up into the clouds it comes back down for a very brief moment. That would be a flaw in their magic trick.
Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion
At 08:31 PM 7/12/2009, you wrote: since the normal CR-39 direct-contact chip is solidly damaged in areas in contact, The CR-39 is not damaged when the 6 micron protective film is in place. Also, the "electrolysis damage" and "contact damage" arguments were invalidated by control experiments. No, by "damaged" I meant that they are so heavily pitted that individual tracks can't be distinguished. Or counted.
Re: [Vo]:Another Ring UFO
This still leaves me wondering how a reflection can become partly obscured by clouds as it rises (about 14.5 seconds into the clip - you have pause-play-pause-play etc. to catch this)? (IOW was the movie fake, or the story?) the flashlight passes behind something that obscures it. but not the clouds outside. something dark within the room that is not visible as a reflection in the window
Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:31:59 -0800: Hi, [snip] >produce them. You can do the heat transfer estimate, based on the >thermal conductivity of the electrolyte, but I don't think that is >necessary, because the observed tracks and expected (under Takahashi) >tracks are off by orders of magnitude. If there is a fraction of a millimeter of space between the cathode and the CR39, then that would stop most alphas, but I think everyone recognizes that. Another point however is not so obvious. If Hydrinos are responsible, then much of the energy may be released in the form of fast electrons through internal conversion, rather than as alpha particles, and fast electrons don't show up in CR39. They would however create bremsstrahlung and photoelectric effect x-rays, but given the nature of the environment, the photo-electric effect x-rays may be low energy, and result primarily in heat. Some of the bremsstrahlung x-rays should show up, if looked for. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Another Ring UFO
Robin can answer what he did and did not mean, however I have no doubt he saw what I did. The claim is that it is just a reflection in the window of a torch. However as the UFO rises into the clouds it becomes partially obscured. I saw this and then read his comment, so I knew what he was talking about and I had the same objection, this disproves the person claiming his 10 year old faked it. Reflections don't become obscured by clouds. Also the camera is moving quite a lot, a reflection would move with the observer not remain stationary in the background. The person claiming it was hoaxed IS himself a hoaxer. On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > Actually, Robin was questioning the reality of the vid. > > It was allegedly videoed with a cheap camera and cheaper flashlight > reflecting on the kitchen window according to the second reference. > > Or was it? > > Only the Shadow People know. > > Tery > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 7:40 PM, John Berry wrote: > > The story is fake as Robin points out, the UFO look digital to me but > then > > again some real things can do. (and the best CGI can probably fool > anyone) > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:30 AM, wrote: > >> > >> In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:30:36 -0500: > >> Hi, > >> [snip] > >> > >> > >> This still leaves me wondering how a reflection can become partly > obscured > >> by > >> clouds as it rises (about 14.5 seconds into the clip - you have > >> pause-play-pause-play etc. to catch this)? > >> (IOW was the movie fake, or the story?) > >> > >> >Quite a spectacle, especially when it jaunts off into the clouds: > >> > > >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdYDrpTXoc0 > >> > > >> >But is it really what it seems? > >> > > >> >http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12805296 > >> > > >> >"I want to believe." > >> > > >> >Terry > >> Regards, > >> > >> Robin van Spaandonk > >> > >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html > >> > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Another Ring UFO
Actually, Robin was questioning the reality of the vid. It was allegedly videoed with a cheap camera and cheaper flashlight reflecting on the kitchen window according to the second reference. Or was it? Only the Shadow People know. Tery On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 7:40 PM, John Berry wrote: > The story is fake as Robin points out, the UFO look digital to me but then > again some real things can do. (and the best CGI can probably fool anyone) > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:30 AM, wrote: >> >> In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:30:36 -0500: >> Hi, >> [snip] >> >> >> This still leaves me wondering how a reflection can become partly obscured >> by >> clouds as it rises (about 14.5 seconds into the clip - you have >> pause-play-pause-play etc. to catch this)? >> (IOW was the movie fake, or the story?) >> >> >Quite a spectacle, especially when it jaunts off into the clouds: >> > >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdYDrpTXoc0 >> > >> >But is it really what it seems? >> > >> >http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12805296 >> > >> >"I want to believe." >> > >> >Terry >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html >> > >
Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion
On Jul 12, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: That sounds like the right objection. However, what I haven't seen is estimates of the actual particle counts compared to what would be expected from the generated heat. It's common sense. An experiment producing a watt for two weeks (various of the SPAWAR replications run about 2 weeks I think) produces (1J/s)*(60 s/m)60 m/h)*(24 h/d)*(7d/week)*(2 weeks)= 172800 J. Obtaining the number of fusions we have (172800 J)/(23.8 MeV) = 4.5x10^16 fusions. Even if the experiment only produces 1/millionth of a watt, that's 4.5x10^10 fusions, of which we should see about half the particles, or 2.3x10^10 particles. If half of those are too shallow to observe we still should get about 10^10 tracks. The observed tracks are on the order of 1000/mm^2 or less if memory serves. SPAWAR infrared photos showed roughly 2 degrees C hot spots developing on the cathodes. I don't think it is uncommon for CF experiments that generate excess heat to produce such hot spots, and for ordinary electrolysis that does not produce excess heat to not produce them. You can do the heat transfer estimate, based on the thermal conductivity of the electrolyte, but I don't think that is necessary, because the observed tracks and expected (under Takahashi) tracks are off by orders of magnitude. We do know that helium is generated in the right amount. That has been a topic of considerable debate! It is also notable that it appears the SPWAR protocol generates neutrons, even the high energy >9MeV MeV neutrons that would be expected from D-T reactions. Mosier-Boss et al talk about attenuation from the water film between the cathode and the CR-39. That is important when the alphas have the low energy observed in the SPAWAR experiments. It would not be important if the alphas were 23.8 MeV alphas for the reasons I outlined earlier. Attenuation is principally due to electron density, and electron density in water is less than in Pd. It's also possible that there is some spatial bias in the emission of the alphas from a TSC collapse and fusion; half the alphas are pretty much known to end up buried in the palladium; ones emitted at a low angle would have a longer path through the palladium film, if generated below the actual surface, and a longer path through the water, but we should be able to tell from the energy distribution and path indications as shown in the CR-39. Experimentally, we need to know what the actual counts are, what the trajectories are, correlated with excess heat. I don't think so. The track counts/densities are many *orders of magnitude* less than what would be expected under Takahashi's scenario. It is also true that the energies indicated by the tracks are way less than what would be expected from a 23.8 MeV alpha source, even considering the Pd, the water and the 6 mil protection. Takahashi proposes that the TSC does other things besides fuse all on its lonesome. Being neutrally charged, it can approach the other nuclei present, and some of the resulting reactions may end up with different end products, thus we might be seeing, with the alphas, only a fraction of the generated TSCs. He says it fuses 100% but that would presume certain initial conditions that might not always apply. I wonder at "barely detectable." I'd be much more comfortable with real numbers, The track counts/densities are available in the SPAWAR papers on LENR_CANR.org. since the normal CR-39 direct-contact chip is solidly damaged in areas in contact, The CR-39 is not damaged when the 6 micron protective film is in place. Also, the "electrolysis damage" and "contact damage" arguments were invalidated by control experiments. the scattered pitting is only seen away from direct contact. What is seen if there is only contact for a short time? By comparing pitting over short time intervals, it should be possible to come up with good measures of alpha flux, assuming those are alphas. The most recent SPAWAR paper published is addressing these kinds of issues, but it seems to have only begun. As I recall reading the papers, the 6 mil film does greatly reduce the count, so would this mean that the alphas are at much lower energies by the time they encounter the film? There are two populations of particles, some large, some smaller, with the smaller ones much more numerous when the 6 micron film is not in place. One is apparently alpha, and I think the other is consistent with about 1 MeV protons. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Another Ring UFO
The story is fake as Robin points out, the UFO look digital to me but then again some real things can do. (and the best CGI can probably fool anyone) On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:30 AM, wrote: > In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:30:36 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] > > > This still leaves me wondering how a reflection can become partly obscured > by > clouds as it rises (about 14.5 seconds into the clip - you have > pause-play-pause-play etc. to catch this)? > (IOW was the movie fake, or the story?) > > >Quite a spectacle, especially when it jaunts off into the clouds: > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdYDrpTXoc0 > > > >But is it really what it seems? > > > >http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12805296 > > > >"I want to believe." > > > >Terry > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html > >
Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion
On Jul 12, 2009, at 12:53 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I think the temperature is misleading. What matters is the *relative* energies of the two molecules; if they happen to have low relative energy -- the opposite of what we thought would be needed! --, they are as if at very low temperature. In other words, what we think of as a BEC, as a bulk phenomenon, requires very low temperatures. However, if all we are considering is two molecules, can those two condense in the same manner as a BEC? I don't see why not, but, then again, I really don't know enough to do more than ask a few questions. I'm no expert in QM. I'm a complete amateur. However, I do know the waveform of a BEC, even a two molecule BEC, can not be described as simply the overlap of individual waveforms, and things do not behave as one intuitively might expect. For simplicity lets just talk particles instead of molecules for a moment. Yes, as relative motion of any two particles is reduced to zero in the reference frame of the observer, their de Broglie wavelengths increase to infinity, and obviously greatly increase their overlap if the centers of charge are not co-centered. This is not sufficient to increase the probability of fusion. What is important is, upon observation and wave function collapse, the probability of the two resulting point particles (nuclei) being sufficiently close to produce the fusion. If you break the individual wave functions into little cubes of a size sufficiently small to produce fusion of two particles within one, then as the wave function gets bigger you end up with more cubes (i.e. proportional to the wavelength cubed number of cubes) even if the wave functions *fully overlap*, i.e. the particles are co-entered. If, for the sake of argument, each cube has equal probability, i.e. upon wave function collapse each particle can be found in any of the cubes with the same probability, then the probability of both particles occupying the same cube upon full collapse actually *diminishes* with expanded de Broglie wavelength. For example suppose you start off with 2^3 = 8 cubes. The probability of fusion in any one of the cubes is 1/8^2 = 1/64. You have 8 cubes, so the overall probability is 8*64 = 1/8. Suppose now you double the wavelength, so have 4^3 = 64 cubes. The probability of fusion in a particular cube is 1/64^2 = 1/4096. The combined probability of fusion, given there are 64 squares is 64 times larger, thus 1/64. The probability of fusion is reduced by a factor of 8 when the de Broglie wavelength is doubled (in this highly simplified version that is.) It gets worse. The probability could in actuality in all low speed cases be very close to zero. This is because the expected location (upon wave function collapse) of particles in combined wave functions is co-located with respect to the other particles, i.e. is co- dependent. The probability of finding of particle A in a given cube is conditional upon where particle B will be found, and vice versa. Particles having like charge have low probabilities of being found close together. This co-location affects things like the tendency for hydrogen molecules to be of a given barbell shape and size. You might expect that, as the protons are brought closer to each other, and the volume of the molecule decreased, the probability of the electrons being found between them and thus shielding their Coulomb barriers, would grow. Not so. The electron wave function actually thins out between the nuclei and thus increases the repulsion between the nuclei, thus restoring the molecular shape. The probability of the electrons jointly being found in the smaller volume between the nuclei decreases, and the probability of both being found on opposed sides of the nuclei increases. The probabilities are thus co- dependent. Similar arguments can be made for nuclei jammed into a tetrahedral space (their locations are co-dependent) as well as for any electron screening that might occur there. I suggested a possible means to beat this co-location problem (and thus cause fusion) here in 1996. It is described here: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BoseHyp.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Another mystery: Vyosotskii and biological transmutation.
At 04:39 AM 7/11/2009, you wrote: 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! Well, there's not much to it. To test the fast-decay of radioisotopes would require obtaining them, but the Fe-57 production from Mn-55 requires nothing special but the culture, presumably Saccharomyces cerevisiae T-8. S. cerevisiae is also known as Brewer's Yeast, or Baker's Yeast, but the exact culture (T-8) might matter very much. I searched for this and with quite a bit of difficulty found reference to a culture called T-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSM288275 and there is a contact. What if the strain doesn't matter so much? That would reduce the difficulty to finding a Mossbauer spectrographic resource. There is a company that does Fe-57 spectrography, but it's insanely expensive. http://www.mossbauer.com/prices.html Like $425 per sample. So for any kind of investigational work, one would need to set up regular access to a spectrometer You might try going to LENR-CANR.org and using "biological" as the search term for the site. It turns up Vysotskii and others. Yeah, I've read the papers. What I don't see is any independent confirmation -- or confirmation failure -- at all. 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/ Not terribly useful. 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. Actually, no. I was just remembering doing the experiment. There was just a radioisotopic source, Co-57, that decays into Fe-57, emitting gamma rays at a precise characteristic energy, mounted on a linear carriage driven by a motor so we could tune the velocity to dopper-shift the radiation, and a detector that measured gamma ray energy, I forget the details. I'm not in any kind of lab environment at all. Building a Mossbauer spectrographic setup might be doable. Co-57 sources are available for perhaps $75. What I don't know is what kind of sensitivity is needed for the gamma detector. It would be much easier for someone affiliated with a university that has the equipment. Hmmpph!
Re: [Vo]:ZPE energy extraction
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:52:55 -0500: Hi, [snip] >But he provides a video of John Christie of Lutec and his magnetic motor. ...Precisely. He's selling the plans to *someone else's* motor! :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Unintended ECO-consequences
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:44:50 -0700: Hi, Cars always migrate through the population as they get older. If we introduce a larger percentage of efficient vehicles at the top, then they will eventually filter down. The gas guzzlers will also eventually get taken off the bottom and scrapped. It will take decades, but eventually they will all be gone (with the exception of that tiny percentage kept as "antiques"). >The green world is fraught with irony - not the least of which is the >relationship between plant growth and CO2 levels. Lets not go there. Please. > >The unintended consequences problem with the new Volt, being rushed into >production, or any electric vehicle is this: will it be used by the >purchaser as an additional vehicle instead of a full replacement, and what >happens to the gas guzzler that she trades-in for the PHEV? . [hint: "not >my problem" is NOT the correct answer] > >If it is not a full replacement, then this is not something positive for the >environment, regardless of "efficiency". One vehicle is always better then >two, ecologically, and a 'sunk cost' in an SUV is better than a new Prius if >the SUV gets used more often by its new owner than you were using it. Even >when the present vehicle is an older model guzzler, there are secondary >implications to consider - without a national effort to remove gas guzzlers >forever, even newer SUVs. How? [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Another Ring UFO
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:30:36 -0500: Hi, [snip] This still leaves me wondering how a reflection can become partly obscured by clouds as it rises (about 14.5 seconds into the clip - you have pause-play-pause-play etc. to catch this)? (IOW was the movie fake, or the story?) >Quite a spectacle, especially when it jaunts off into the clouds: > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdYDrpTXoc0 > >But is it really what it seems? > >http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12805296 > >"I want to believe." > >Terry Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion
>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 It is not consistent with anything in the real world (of hot fusion). If you are going to accept the helium which is there, admittedly, as coming from deuterium fusion, then it is fruitless to try to shoehorn it into what is known about hot fusion. The secondary gamma radiation from 24 MeV alphas would be no different than if the alpha particles were accelerated in a beam line. If you contend otherwise then explain how it would be different, please. IOW there should be easily detected secondaries ! One can shrug-off the issue of the BEC at high temperature easier than one can shrug off the lack of secondary gamma radiation, I would think.
[Vo]:Another Ring UFO
Quite a spectacle, especially when it jaunts off into the clouds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdYDrpTXoc0 But is it really what it seems? http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12805296 "I want to believe." Terry
Re: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion
Now, this really gets to it! At 12:03 AM 7/11/2009, you wrote: On Jul 10, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Takahashi's theory ... it seems to me that it predicts most known CF phenomena: 1. No direct neutrons. 2. Surface reaction, since deuterium dissociates on entering the lattice. 3. Takahashi predicts from quantum theory that if the TSC forms, it will fuse 100%. 4. No momentum transfer problem, all energy is kinetic with the alpha particles. 5. Alpha radiation. [snip] 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. Given that most fusion is said to occur, by Takahasi's theory and many others, at the surface, and given that co- deposted cathode surfaces are made up of nanometer scale particles, there is not enough barrier to 13 MeV alpha particles in typical cathodes to suppress their detection enough to account for the low count densities. To make a rough approximation based on copper, particle attenuation in Pd at 13 MeV should be less than 0.3 MeV/mg/ cm^2. The density of Pd is 12 g/cm^3. A 100 micron foil weighs 12 g/ cm^3 * (100x10^-6 cm) = 0.0012 g/cm^2 = 1.2 mg/cm^2. Attenuation in a 100 micron thick Pd foil, a 1.2 mg/cm foil, would only be on the order of (0.3 MeV/mg/cm^2) * (1.2 mg/cm) = 360 keV. Water would of course attenuate further, but direct CR-39 contact, such as that used in the SPAWAR experiments, even with the added attenuation of an intervening 6 micron plastic film, should not significantly reduce the count of the 32 MeV alphas, only their apparent energies. The excess heat, observed in surface hot spots, by SPAWAR and various others, demand a significant particle count. That sounds like the right objection. However, what I haven't seen is estimates of the actual particle counts compared to what would be expected from the generated heat. We do know that helium is generated in the right amount. Mosier-Boss et al talk about attenuation from the water film between the cathode and the CR-39. It's also possible that there is some spatial bias in the emission of the alphas from a TSC collapse and fusion; half the alphas are pretty much known to end up buried in the palladium; ones emitted at a low angle would have a longer path through the palladium film, if generated below the actual surface, and a longer path through the water, but we should be able to tell from the energy distribution and path indications as shown in the CR-39. Experimentally, we need to know what the actual counts are, what the trajectories are, correlated with excess heat. Takahashi proposes that the TSC does other things besides fuse all on its lonesome. Being neutrally charged, it can approach the other nuclei present, and some of the resulting reactions may end up with different end products, thus we might be seeing, with the alphas, only a fraction of the generated TSCs. He says it fuses 100% but that would presume certain initial conditions that might not always apply. I wonder at "barely detectable." I'd be much more comfortable with real numbers, since the normal CR-39 direct-contact chip is solidly damaged in areas in contact, the scattered pitting is only seen away from direct contact. What is seen if there is only contact for a short time? By comparing pitting over short time intervals, it should be possible to come up with good measures of alpha flux, assuming those are alphas. The most recent SPAWAR paper published is addressing these kinds of issues, but it seems to have only begun. As I recall reading the papers, the 6 mil film does greatly reduce the count, so would this mean that the alphas are at much lower energies by the time they encounter the film?
RE: [Vo]:Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate and Cold Fusion
At 10:35 PM 7/10/2009, you wrote: -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > So why does Takahashi not mention the words "Bose-Einstein condensate," which is what the TSC seems to be? ... not cold enough ? > And why does Kim not mention Takahashi, his prior experimental work, and his theory? ... professional jealousy ? > Have I got this wrong? Is the TSC not a Bose-Einstein condensate? If a transitory high temperature version of the BEC is possible, then yes, this could be possible, and would serves to answer a lot of questions. However there are other hypothetical ways for four nuclei to condense. AFAIK there is zero real proof that a BEC is possible at anywhere near 300-400 K, although that hypothesis has been mentioned as far back as 1992, if not earlier. Proof always seems to get in the way. I think the temperature is misleading. What matters is the *relative* energies of the two molecules; if they happen to have low relative energy -- the opposite of what we thought would be needed! --, they are as if at very low temperature. In other words, what we think of as a BEC, as a bulk phenomenon, requires very low temperatures. However, if all we are considering is two molecules, can those two condense in the same manner as a BEC? I don't see why not, but, then again, I really don't know enough to do more than ask a few questions. However, there is another possibility that goes back to the geometry you mentioned - the tetrahedron, which is one of nature's most favored structures. That hypothesis is even further out, but possibly no more of a stretch than a hot BEC. Yes, the tetrahedron is important, particularly with respect to confinement by a cubic lattice. Although the tetrahedron has no orthocenter in the sense of intersecting altitudes, there is a 'virtual' center known as the Monge point which could conceivably hold or even 'entice' a strong negative charge - via the four nuclei at the vertex getting into some kind of resonance in a tight matrix situation. The central virtual charge would need to be Spin 1 and not a lepton, or else a bound pair of leptons. Long before P&F, when Aspden had a little more credibility than he does these days (due to 40 years of few confirming experiments) he was talking about bound dual virtual muons. This citation will be hard to find: H. Aspden: "Physics without Einstein" (Sabberton, Southampton, 1969) He was able to tie it all mathematically into the fine structure constant; and that virtual muon pair might work as an agent of condensation or Coulomb shield or whatever - for four tetrahedral deuterons in an alternative TSC. Far enough out there for you? Takahashi includes the electrons in his analysis. It's important: what we have isn't simply four deuterons, it's two deuterium molecules, arranged crosswise for maximum packing efficiency into a cube. That puts the deuterons into a tetrahedron, one each at the center of four opposing faces of the cube, or, because of the electronic binding of the molecule, inward toward the center of the cube. Whatever the configuration is, it would obviously be quite rare, if Takahashi's calculations are accurate. He doesn't seem to try to calculate the efficiency of formation of the TSC, as far as I've seen, just what happens if if the tetrahedral configuration forms. My guess is that this would require very low relative velocities of the deuterium molecules and the lattice, which just may explain the rarity. It's just due to the distribution of velocities. While this might seem to predict higher fusion at lower temperatures, perhaps there are other factors, such as flow rate through the lattice, dissociation rates and exact dissociation mechanism, etc, that work in the other direction. Hey, let's face it - there is nothing that works to everyone's satisfaction. The best thing about Aspden is that he is (was) able to find all sorts of strange coincidental values that align ... for (probably) unrelated reasons ... or not. Thanks for the consideration. I've seen some very superficial (but tentative) dismissals of TSC theory that aren't explained well enough. For example, you mention temperature, but, as I think I've pointed out, that does actually lead to a rejection of the theory, it would merely indicate that it would be rare. Which we know it is. The other rejection reason I've seen is that the theory predicts most energy goes into alpha particles at 23.8 MeV and supposedly this would cause secondary reactions. But my understanding is that those secondary reactions are, in fact, observed, so where is the beef? Is there some quantitative analysis that indicates otherwise? Detecting the full alpha radiation is quite difficult, most of it is absorbed pretty quickly, in a very short distance. Is there less Bremsstrahlung radiation than would be predicted? Perhaps the depth in the lattice is important; I've been assuming it's a purely surface phenomenon, but
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Jed sez: > OrionWorks wrote: > > "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" . . . > > 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. . . ." > > Madoff, not Maddox. Maddox was the editor of Nature. He had plenty of > assistants, but what he did was perfectly legal. > > In the long view of history, Maddox and his cohorts caused much more harm > than Madoff, albeit unintentionally. They thought they were doing good. > > - Jed Jeez! I even googled "maddox" and "ponzi scheme" together in an attempt to make sure I got the spellin cerrect. Upon closer inspection I now see Google changed the spellin to from"Maddox" to "Madoff". Once again I have been deceived, for my own good! -- Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:ZPE energy extraction
But he provides a video of John Christie of Lutec and his magnetic motor. Terry On 7/12/09, David Jonsson wrote: > I saw this thing adverstised in Google Mail. > http://www.magniwork.com/?hop=vince8151 > It is according to the site a generator extracting energy from the ZPE. > > I can not tell if it works but I wonder if ZPE extraction works. ZPE is a > frequency spectrum and can be used for extraction energy if any of the > amplitudes of the frequency compounds in the spectrum is higher than other > parts. In ZPE there is a cubic dependency. This makes me assume that ZPE > generators converts the higher frequencies to lower frequencies and then use > amplitude differences between them. Is this the way it works? > > Since efficiency in the transformation is far from 100% there will be en > excess of lower frequencies and shortage on higher frequencies around ZPE > generators. ZPE determines atomic excitation relaxation parameters, ground > states of electron orbits, inertial and gravitational properties. There > seems to be a lot of environmental effects caused by ZPE machines. I think > these effects should me mentioned in sales of these machines in order to > avoid negative long time side effects. > > David > > David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370 > >
[Vo]:Unintended ECO-consequences
The green world is fraught with irony - not the least of which is the relationship between plant growth and CO2 levels. Lets not go there. Please. The unintended consequences problem with the new Volt, being rushed into production, or any electric vehicle is this: will it be used by the purchaser as an additional vehicle instead of a full replacement, and what happens to the gas guzzler that she trades-in for the PHEV? . [hint: "not my problem" is NOT the correct answer] If it is not a full replacement, then this is not something positive for the environment, regardless of "efficiency". One vehicle is always better then two, ecologically, and a 'sunk cost' in an SUV is better than a new Prius if the SUV gets used more often by its new owner than you were using it. Even when the present vehicle is an older model guzzler, there are secondary implications to consider - without a national effort to remove gas guzzlers forever, even newer SUVs. How? The ideal situation would be a series of sponsored 'chop shops' so to speak - to remove the big engine and replace it with an after-market electric power train and batteries, if, that is: these were made to be cost competitive (they are not even close now). Why not keep two tons of steel on the road for as long as possible, since it took ten tons of coal, initially - to bring that baby from mine to mine. One accurate comment that is worth cogitating on is this one, paraphrased from one of the blogs: Shocking to some that the best green vehicle "to buy" is often "not to buy" - but to keep an old large vehicle and drive it sparingly by "using your head," consolidating trips, and car pooling. IOW, It's not just about miles per gallon but about net CO2 per vehicle over its lifetime, and mostly about the massive carbon "footprint" left by the automobile manufacturing process itself. Needless to say, Detroit does not want to hear this. ANY new vehicle is an unneeded burden on the environment, however powered, because of the large CO2 burden needed to make the steel, plastics and other parts - which burden is not returned in a PHEV for many years - maybe never. A two ton vehicle, if one traced the emissions back to the iron ore mine, is probably equivalent to a quarter million road miles, and those are coal emissions - the worst kind. I would like to know what this figure really is but I doubt that Detroit wants us to know. Somebody else's problem. Plus look at the further unintended consequences: When a person buys a brand new electric car and sells the late model hummer, they conveniently overlook the fact that the SUV gets bought by someone that really wants that kind of package at a discount, and will probably drive it more frequently, in the worst circumstances stop-and-go, to haul the kids around to soccer practice or even to pick up a slurpee from the 7/11. If you think about it, this is the worst possible scenario - and the conservationist would be better off not buying the PHEV at all. A better scenario would be to add some spin, so to speak - to get out the correct info, and to make it "hip" to keep an old car as long as possible, tune it up, and drive it smartly and less often - or do the aftermarket electric conversion thing when that is available reasonably. It's the both older big displacement used cars from thirty years ago, combined with the energy needs of BUILDING efficient new cars thats killing us - in equal measure. The difference between the 28 mpg new gas car and the 40 mpg new hybrid is almost meaningless in the big picture. Downsizing the new car market permanently in not a bad idea, except politically. "Unintended consequences" . there is self-fulfilling law in there somewhere, and the 'echo' of it all becomes mind-numbing, after a while. Jones . to wit: "Unintended Consequences" the novel, was Tim McVeigh's favorite read, while awaiting trial for the Ok City bombing. . loved it . and noted that "if it had come out a few years earlier, I would have given serious consideration to using sniper attacks in a war of attrition against the government instead of bombing a federal building" thus sayeth TV and furthermore, "If people say 'The Turner Diaries' was my Bible, 'Unintended Consequences' would be my New Testament... It might have changed my whole plan of operation if I'd read that one first.." I am speechless to respond. Maybe that is a good thing.
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
OrionWorks wrote: "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" . . . 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. . . ." Madoff, not Maddox. Maddox was the editor of Nature. He had plenty of assistants, but what he did was perfectly legal. In the long view of history, Maddox and his cohorts caused much more harm than Madoff, albeit unintentionally. They thought they were doing good. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ZPE energy extraction
Just another SCAM. Why selling plans if they have a device that works? Mark On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 8:14 AM, David Jonsson wrote: > I saw this thing adverstised in Google Mail. > http://www.magniwork.com > It is according to the site a generator extracting energy from the ZPE. > >
RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times
-Original Message- From: Horace Heffner > 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 ... Yes. We must assume that with a much smaller effective 'electron cloud' dideuterinos would easily diffuse - BUT this feature can probably be put to good use with a second filter that blocks deuterium molecules only - a few ceramics like magnesium oxide and some polymers come to mind as possibilities. I would add the following points to your suggestions of how this process of distinguishing the two can be done more accurately, and this will assume that the mass-spec instrument being used cannot make an accurate determination (which actually I think it can make, but for a different reason - related to magnetic susceptibility and the quadrupole interaction) There are two physical properties which are claimed to be spectacularly different between the hydrogen and the hydrino state. One is magnetic susceptibility and the other is effective spatial volume. The differences can be assumed to be huge, according to occasional comments from experts like John Farrell, department chair at Franklin and Marshall College, Mills first alma mater and the only expert from the Mills camp who seems to speak to these issues on occassion. A third likely difference is a higher boiling point but we can neglect that one for now since the first two are so substantial that nothing else will be needed, and Mills has not published the data on this. Unlike the monatomic atom, hydrogen gas is very weakly magnetic since- when bonded to form the molecule, the angular momentum of one electron is opposite in direction to that of the other. The same must be assumed to be true of dideuterinos. This is not known to me, but Farrell might know, and I doubt if Mills would tell us. However, once ionized (perhaps by the mass spec itself) there should be a big difference - which might mean many things. Including the fact that many instruments will see it. There is a table on the Wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_susceptibility ... showing the negative value of helium, which should offer a clue as to another possible technique. Since Mills is tight lipped on this subject for a variety of reasons, I wonder if it would be productive to email John Farrell for guidance. My question to Robin: have you been in touch with Farrell - and does he freely offer this kind of advice- or is he under some kind of NDA ? Jones
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
On Jul 12, 2009, at 6:18 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: 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. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm not trolling, or trying to initiate a debate. I just felt the question was hanging in the hair, so to speak. I came up with the "scapegoat" thesis on my own, so I'll not post any links (besides, this is OT). An internet search should yield some interesting results on the subject, I suppose. Mauro, this is not a subject that benefits from debate because it is so much a matter of opinion without factual support. In addition, you are using the word scapegoat incorrectly. The scapegoat is an innocent person who is used by the guilty to misdirect blame. In this case Malloff is clearly guilty along with many other people. These other people are gradually being found and will also be sent to prison. This scam affected too many important people to be ignored. In any case, this subject has no general importance except to make a person more careful where they put their money and whom they trust. Ed Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:OT: RepRap is ready
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > 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. > Yes, I know. An very interesting aspect of the reprap is that it is an open design, published under the GNU license. The GNU license mandates that all the changes to a project must be published. That means that if it catches some attention, it can evolve very quicky into different and relatively cheap 3D printers and CNC machines (partially self-replicating, or not.) In my opinion, there are two major obstacles to its growth at the moment: - It is relatively complex to build and assemble. At the moment, it is a project for specialists, from specialists. - It is expensive. Although much more cheaper than a "real" 3D printer, the full kit still costs around US$ 1500. In the near future, they say the cost can go down to around $400, if someone print the printable parts for you, and the non-printable part lower their costs due to demand. Version II promises to print electrical wires, and incorporate a laser cutter, multiple heads, etc. Maybe in one or two years, the project will start to look really good and affordable. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:More From the Steorn Jury
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > 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. > Well, that's a matter of taste and opinion, isn't? I'm not grok! and my mispellings and grammatical errors are sincere :) most of the time, they are the result of quick posting and not double checking before, and sometimes simply the result of an informal education in the english languaje. Best regards, Mauro > 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
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > 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. > Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm not trolling, or trying to initiate a debate. I just felt the question was hanging in the hair, so to speak. I came up with the "scapegoat" thesis on my own, so I'll not post any links (besides, this is OT). An internet search should yield some interesting results on the subject, I suppose. Regards, Mauro
[Vo]:ZPE energy extraction
I saw this thing adverstised in Google Mail. http://www.magniwork.com/?hop=vince8151 It is according to the site a generator extracting energy from the ZPE. I can not tell if it works but I wonder if ZPE extraction works. ZPE is a frequency spectrum and can be used for extraction energy if any of the amplitudes of the frequency compounds in the spectrum is higher than other parts. In ZPE there is a cubic dependency. This makes me assume that ZPE generators converts the higher frequencies to lower frequencies and then use amplitude differences between them. Is this the way it works? Since efficiency in the transformation is far from 100% there will be en excess of lower frequencies and shortage on higher frequencies around ZPE generators. ZPE determines atomic excitation relaxation parameters, ground states of electron orbits, inertial and gravitational properties. There seems to be a lot of environmental effects caused by ZPE machines. I think these effects should me mentioned in sales of these machines in order to avoid negative long time side effects. David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
