Re: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:04:47 -0800: Hi, [snip] Robin, We cannot assume that this is directly comparable to a known hot fusion reaction, assuming it is real. Why should we? There is every reason to suspect that LENR is based on previously unknown pathways. I agree. However I am criticizing their theory, not their experimental findings. I simply pointed out that if the theory they propose were the correct one, then one would expect to detect lots of gammas even outside the shielding. However there is a catch. My calculations were based on beta+ decay (as they suggest), and EC may be so enhanced during Hydrino fusion that it completely swamps beta+ decay (it's usually the other way around). That would essentially eliminate most of the annihilation gammas. This could be a truer picture of what's going on. The fusion energy would be emitted as kinetic energy of electrons ( protons?). About 1% of the electrons would create energetic X-rays, and a small percentage of these would be bremsstrahlung X-rays with a top edge equal to the electron energy (about 3.4 MeV). Even so, only about half of all Cu-59 decays go directly to the ground state. Those remaining still emit gammas of varying energies, and at least some of these ought to be detected. The best way to validate the claim is to test a sample of spent fuel for copper isotope ratio. We can probably expect the heavier 65Cu to be completely absent. That would constitute almost indisputable proof. Why wasn't this done? From one document I got the impression that it was done and a ratio tilted toward Cu-63 was detected. Jones [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?
Dear Vorticians, It is claimed that the experiment from Rossi released about 10kW of power. Suppose that the experiment produced this amount of power during about 2 hours, then a total amount of 72 MJ is produced. The amount of water that can be heated from 20 to 100 C is about 200 liters.( 20- buckets of water or a large boiler!). It would be easy to see if this amount of hot water has been produced during the reaction. Did the water flow away out of the room or did it stay there? If the water was kept in the room the amount of heat would have make the room a lot hotter and humid .The room temperature was only 23 C, so I wonder what is going on. Peter van Noorden the Netherlands - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 9:04 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory? In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:04:47 -0800: Hi, [snip] Robin, We cannot assume that this is directly comparable to a known hot fusion reaction, assuming it is real. Why should we? There is every reason to suspect that LENR is based on previously unknown pathways. I agree. However I am criticizing their theory, not their experimental findings. I simply pointed out that if the theory they propose were the correct one, then one would expect to detect lots of gammas even outside the shielding. However there is a catch. My calculations were based on beta+ decay (as they suggest), and EC may be so enhanced during Hydrino fusion that it completely swamps beta+ decay (it's usually the other way around). That would essentially eliminate most of the annihilation gammas. This could be a truer picture of what's going on. The fusion energy would be emitted as kinetic energy of electrons ( protons?). About 1% of the electrons would create energetic X-rays, and a small percentage of these would be bremsstrahlung X-rays with a top edge equal to the electron energy (about 3.4 MeV). Even so, only about half of all Cu-59 decays go directly to the ground state. Those remaining still emit gammas of varying energies, and at least some of these ought to be detected. The best way to validate the claim is to test a sample of spent fuel for copper isotope ratio. We can probably expect the heavier 65Cu to be completely absent. That would constitute almost indisputable proof. Why wasn't this done? From one document I got the impression that it was done and a ratio tilted toward Cu-63 was detected. Jones [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Dark matter / galaxy rotation problem approached with simple classical physics
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:38 PM, David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote: I have derived an effect which differs from Newton/Kepler orbits but with the wrong sign apparently increasing the problem even more. I would be glad if someone could check the calculations before I take them further. It would also be nice to calculate on some real example. http://djk.se/Dark%20matter%20problem%20approached%20with%20classical%20physics,%20local%20rotation%20increases%20the%20centrifugal%20force%20away%20from%20the%20galaxy%20core.pdf How big is the anomalous acceleration at our solar system? OK, the solar system is an example where the effect is very small and practically negligible. I have been looking for binary stars where the effect might be noticeable and it seems like HM Cancri is such a case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RX_J0806.3%2B1527 Those white dwarfs spin around each other at 500 km/s. I give all the details for the calculation in case anyone wants to check them. With the help of this nice tool http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/eqtogal_tool i could calculate the galactic coordinates based on the coordinates in Wikipedia, which gave me Epoch J2000.00 coordinates: 08 06 23.20 + 15 27 30.2 = Galactic coordinates: LII=206.9253 BII= 23.3960 Leading to this distance in lightyears from the galaxy core *cos(((207.3669 - 180) / 360) * 2 * pi) * 16000) + 26000)^2) + ((sin(((207.3669 - 180) / 360) * 2 * pi) * 16000)^2) + ((sin((23.9625 / 360) * 2 * pi) * 16000)^2))^0.5 = 41389.7368 light years **= 12.689869 kpc *Which according to this graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rotation_curve_(Milky_Way).JPG has about the same orbital speed around the galaxy of 220 km/s as our solar system The equation I derived on the top link says a = (vs^2 + vp^2/2)/r which means centrifugal acceleration depends on both the stars' speed in the orbit around the galactic core vs and the spinning speed around its binary vp. Classical acceleration ac = vs^2/r compared to a is a/ac=(vs^2 + vp^2/2)/r/(vs^2/r) = (vs^2 + vp^2/2)/r/(vs^2/r) = (220^2 + 500^2/2)/220^2 = 3.6 So in this case the gravitational pull has to be 3.6 times higher than even the dark matter addition. I think I add this to the document as a relevant example. What would happen in the case of lack of that strong gravity? David
Re: [Vo]:real heat wrong theory?
P.J van Noorden pjvan...@xs4all.nl wrote: The amount of water that can be heated from 20 to 100 C is about 200 liters.( 20- buckets of water or a large boiler!). It would be easy to see if this amount of hot water has been produced during the reaction. Did the water flow away out of the room or did it stay there? This particular test run ran for an hour. After 30 minutes, all of the water was vaporized and it came out as dry steam. Dry steam means there were no droplets of unboiled water in the steam, so we can be sure we know the enthalpy. I am still waiting for the final review my 400-word report. My contact promised to call me and discuss it by 1:00 p.m. EST. Sorry for the delay. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote: At 05:23 PM 1/15/2011, you wrote: Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote: First, the setup WAS a flow calorimetric system. Not the way I used it. I changed the configuration for my tests. I diverted the flow into a cup. It was being used as a flow calorimeter by Patterson et al., in the data reported by them. But my data came from another, non-flow configuration. My readings agreed with theirs. I was careful to hold the cut at the same height as the reservoir, to keep the flow rate from changing. I removed the hose from the reservoir, moved it to the cup until I collected 1 liter, and then put the hose back. Then I stirred the water and measured the temperature in the cup, and then in the reservoir. Anyone who thinks that method does not work has no grasp of basic physics, and no common sense. - Jed 1. It is not about physics and common sense, it is about truth. The record, even on vortex, shows Rothwell is disingenuous, substituting ad hominem for truth. Rothwell's non-flow configuration appears to be confabulated *ad hoc* - since this WAS previously reported as a flow calorimetric system. Rothwell previous agreed, over and over. At 10:25 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Swartz: *If yes, was it a vertical flow calorimetric system? * Rothwell: Me: *Yes.* Corroborating this, only a desperate sophomore would honestly think they could claim to have sampled the cell, applied the FLOW EQUATION (which itself is an approximation) and have it as a non-flow configuration. In this case, Rothwell knew it was a flow system. === 2A. *The Pressure Head Fell *When Rothwell diverted the flow into a cup two more errors appeared. First, *the pressure head was decreased, as Mitchell Jones correctly previously pointed out . . .* The flow rate would have to change by a factor of 50 to 100 (at different times during the run). We could see and hear the water falling back into the reservoir. The flow did not change by a factor of 50. We would have noticed that. When say we I mean myself and the others who watched me do the tests, including Patterson, Cravens, George Miley and others. These other people agreed that the method works, and that it confirmed Cravens' flow calorimetry. Swartz is not only calling me incompetent, he is saying that George Miley et al. are incompetent. I am sorry to keep harping on this, but it is a prime example of the way some cold fusion researchers attack research by others in this field, for irrational reasons. Swartz, Arata and others are often as bad as the worst skeptics. I expect that many cold fusion researchers will soon be attacking Rossi for similar irrational reasons. Swartz may attack Rossi for the same reason he attacks Patterson Cravens: because Rossi also uses vertical flow calorimetry during the the liquid phase. For that matter, so do the people at SRI, Energetics Technologies and elsewhere. I have not noted that Swartz attacks McKubre, but I wouldn't put it past him. In any case, I am in good company with the likes of Miley and McKubre. I am confident that they are right, and Swartz is wrong. I shall say no more about this. - Jed
[Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Everyone now seems to be looking ahead and focusing on replication. Good. If anyone thinks that replication of this device is a wicked problem now, or in an abstract way, then they will learn soon that it becomes diabolical why? The device only works with a secret catalyst, together with the nickel. Rossi say this himself. My colleague asked Focardi directly do you know what the catalyst is? He said without hesitation that he did not know, and that no one except Rossi knows. How can the device be replicated successfully without that detail, and do you really want to see a lot of null results ? The patent rejection notice from the WIPO for the original filing states that he must disclose the catalyst or drop the reference to it, yet in his revised filing he did not disclose. This indicates that it will remain a trade secret and that the patent is essentially worthless except as an threat of litigation. I think Peters wishful solution to the wicked problem is therefore naïve. Who will attempt a meaningful replication without disclosure of relevant details? Rossi (LTI) cannot have it both ways; and he is free to keep the catalyst a trade secret or to patent it, but replication could be impossible without that detail. More likely, the risk to Rossi is that someone in an attempted replication will discover it, or find a better one, and they will patent it. Jones From: Peter Gluck Dear Jed, You are right. I am working out- in the frame of my blog a system for real life problem solving. The painful puzzle of CF's bad reproducibility seemed to be a wicked problem (see Wikipedia etc- it is an fundamental concept) Now it has one solution.
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: My colleague asked Focardi directly “do you know what the catalyst is?” He said without hesitation that he did not know, and that no one except Rossi knows. Yup. That's what I have heard too. Typical of the inventor's disease. If Rossi drops dead today he will take the secret of this device to the grave, just as so many others have done. How can the device be replicated successfully without that detail, and do you really want to see a lot of null results ? That is the subject of vigorous debate by many people behind the scenes at this moment. The patent rejection notice from the WIPO for the original filing states that he must disclose the catalyst or drop the reference to it, yet in his revised filing he did not disclose. This indicates that it will remain a “trade secret” and that the patent is essentially worthless except as an threat of litigation. I would say perfectly worthless. Not worth the electrons it is displayed with on your screen. The patent is yet another example of Rossi's strange behavior and what looks like faulty judgement to most people. The trade secrets and patents worry me far more than the allegations that Rossi has been involved in questionable business deals, mysterious fires, or that he claims a degree from a fake university. In the big picture, that stuff makes no difference. If Rossi is right, not only will he get dozens of honorary degrees, they will name a university after him. No one will care that he was a scoundrel -- or at least, a scamp -- before he became famous. Many famous people have disreputable pasts. You can read about that in obscure biographies, but no one gives a hoot. Nor should anyone care, since the good Rossi may do will outweigh the bad by a huge margin. I say the good he *may* do. So far he has not accomplished anything of practical use, and because he seems infected with the inventor's disease, he may never accomplish anything, and this breakthrough may yet be lost forever. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will report on Rossi soon
Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I think all those involved in any way with this demo are keenly aware of the consequences... it would be career suicide and ridicule if they failed. After what happened to FP, I highly doubt any of them would take that kind of chance with their own careers. They have done this experiment many times and they are sure of their results. The people who designed the calorimetry and particle detection are distinguished experts in those fields, as I said. You do not have to speak Italian to see that the press conference was conducted like any other physics seminar. No one is keyed up or worried about their careers. You can also see that these are senior professors who have been around for decades and they are not worried about their reputations. To be brutal, their careers are almost done anyway. One of them has already served as president of the Italian Chemical Society, just as Fleischmann had already been the president of the Electrochemistry Society and was already a FRS in 1989. Such people do not fret about being attacked in Wikipedia. On the other hand, Fleischmann and his wife both told me that the mass media attacks do upset him a great deal. They irk him. It isn't as if he feels chastened or humbled. One thing I will say about scientists, which has been driven home to me again in the last few days . . . They are not like engineers, or computer programmers, or even product support technicians. When you ask an engineer what did you do? she will tell you from start to finish what instruments and materials she used, what the procedures were, and what the results were. Bing, bang, bong -- a logical discourse that follows events in chronological order. The only cold fusion researchers I know who do that are Pam Boss, Melvin Miles, Mike McKubre and Ed Storms. The others tend talk round and round the mulberry bush. It is frustrating! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Thank you Jones! However may I have a few simple questions to you: 0) have you really read about *wicked problems* in the Wikipedia? (they are not what we say in the usual language- see Rittel et al) a) who is focusing now on replication? How can you replicate without reverse engineering and copying? b) have you read all the patents and papers, and have you an idea what means to replicate the results of 15 years of hard work, with soo many critical parameters? c) have you accepted my idea that a *process patent* is missing the critical facts and know how, has a lot of false data, and is in no way sufficient to replication? Or not and do you believe that story with those skilled enough...? d) not question- the last thing Rossi or an other inventor wants is that somebody should replicate the generator- they don't want confirmation- they want to sell and make money, they sell 10 units- thse work well OK, then 100 and so on. if they don't work- finita la commedia! e) are you absolutely sure that your friend has spoken to Focardi and not to Levi? f) and he spoke to Focardi, why should Focardi tell him a trade secret? g) In my understanding naive is an euphemism for stupid- OK, I have to admit that I am not infailible- but where exactly is my naivete manifest? h) in case we have both forgotten, I repeat my questions -who wants to replicate, and why should Rossi at co be happy for the replication of their precious process? I have worked 40 years in the industrial practice, many times we have bought a process have read the patents - and then after we havae payed- have learned the know-how, have discovered some things, got experience, made errors, corrected them and have used the process trying constantly to improve it. Best wishes, Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Everyone now seems to be looking ahead and focusing on replication. Good. If anyone thinks that replication of this device is a “wicked problem” now, or in an abstract way, then they will learn soon that it becomes diabolical … why? The device only works with a secret catalyst, together with the nickel. Rossi say this himself. My colleague asked Focardi directly “do you know what the catalyst is?” He said without hesitation that he did not know, and that no one except Rossi knows. How can the device be replicated successfully without that detail, and do you really want to see a lot of null results ? The patent rejection notice from the WIPO for the original filing states that he must disclose the catalyst or drop the reference to it, yet in his revised filing he did not disclose. This indicates that it will remain a “trade secret” and that the patent is essentially worthless except as an threat of litigation. I think Peter’s wishful solution to the wicked problem is therefore naïve. Who will attempt a meaningful replication without disclosure of relevant details? Rossi (LTI) cannot have it both ways; and he is free to keep the catalyst a “trade secret” or to patent it, but replication could be impossible without that detail. More likely, the risk to Rossi is that someone in an attempted replication will discover it, or find a better one, and they will patent it. Jones *From:* Peter Gluck Dear Jed, You are right. I am working out- in the frame of my blog a system for real life problem solving. The painful puzzle of CF's bad reproducibility seemed to be a *wicked problem (*see Wikipedia etc- it is an fundamental concept) Now it has one solution.
Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
At 11:06 AM 1/16/2011, the disingenuous, censoring Jed Rothwell wrote: Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote: [several examples of Rothwell being inconsistent and untruthful all deleted for bandwidth] At 10:25 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Swartz: If yes, was it a vertical flow calorimetric system? Rothwell: Me: Yes. Corroborating this, only a desperate sophomore would honestly think they could claim to have sampled the cell, applied the FLOW EQUATION (which itself is an approximation) and have it as a non-flow configuration. In this case, Rothwell knew it was a flow system. === 2A. The Pressure Head Fell When Rothwell diverted the flow into a cup two more errors appeared. First, the pressure head was decreased, as Mitchell Jones correctly previously pointed out . . . Rothwell: The flow rate would have to change by a factor of 50 to 100 (at different times during the run). We could see and hear the water falling back into the reservoir. The flow did not change by a factor of 50. We would have noticed that. When say we I mean myself and the others who watched me do the tests, including Patterson, Cravens, George Miley and others. These other people agreed that the method works, and that it confirmed Cravens' flow calorimetry. Swartz is not only calling me incompetent, he is saying that George Miley et al. are incompetent. Rothwell is quite mistaken again. Profs. Miley and Cravens do exceptional good work. The late Dr. Patterson did exceptionally good work. Based upon the rants posted, no one but Rothwell is incompetent. The Evidence speaks for itself. == Rothwell: I am sorry to keep harping on this, but it is a prime example of the way some cold fusion researchers attack research by others in this field, for irrational reasons. Swartz, Arata and others are often as bad as the worst skeptics. I expect that many cold fusion researchers will soon be attacking Rossi for similar irrational reasons. Swartz may attack Rossi for the same reason he attacks Patterson Cravens: because Rossi also uses vertical flow calorimetry during the the liquid phase. For that matter, so do the people at SRI, Energetics Technologies and elsewhere. I have not noted that Swartz attacks McKubre, but I wouldn't put it past him. In any case, I am in good company with the likes of Miley and McKubre. I am confident that they are right, and Swartz is wrong. I shall say no more about this. Jed Rothwell was exposed in this thread falsely purporting that Dr. Arata and myself posted to Wikipedia about him. That never happened. Just like before Rothwell confabulated and posted paranoid nonsense. For the record: The ONLY one attacking cold fusion pioneers has been Jed Rothwell, often behind their backs, from the beginning in 1989 to the present. Mitchell Swartz - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: e) are you absolutely sure that your friend has spoken to Focardi and not to Levi? f) and he spoke to Focardi, why should Focardi tell him a trade secret? I do not think Focardi would lie, or dissemble. He would just say I can't tell you; it is a trade secret. Or he would say I don't want to tell you. These people have no compunction about keeping secrets. They feel no obligation to reveal anything. I confirm that their primary, immediate goal is to make commercial products. I do not know if that is because they want to make money, or they feel that is the best way to convince the world they are right. I think there are better ways to accomplish both goals without going to the trouble of making a working power reactor. If they would heed my advice, I think they could make billions of dollars, whereas they may only make hundreds of millions. But it is not my decision, and what they are doing is fine with me. I will be thrilled if they demonstrate a 1 MWh reactor. (MWh = megawatt-heat. I do not know the projected electric power output.) Their plans are much better than the development plans of many other researchers, such as Patterson. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
Rothwell: I am sorry to keep harping on this, but it is a prime example of One more issue. Rothwell's ad hominem are not, and have never been, a substitute for his failure to calibrate, his failure to maintain a pressure head, and his failure to use anything close to an adequate sampling rate. In the case at issue, Rothwell reported a sampling rate of only 2 to 4 times per day!!! At 10:25 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: How many times did you remove 250cc from the flow circuit to test the temperature? Rothwell: With the large CETI cell, about a dozen times over three days. With our cells, twice a day This implies that Rothwell has no credibility on this matter, either. It cannot be stressed enough: Real experimentalists use sampling rates closer to 1 Hertz (sometimes more, sometimes less, but not 2 times per day), and they use many controls -- including joule controls. Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Dear Jed, Let's see first if if was Focardi. So much is lost in translations! This is the reason for which- working in research I have learned the important European languages- German, Russian, French, Italian- a bit of Spanish. This was very useful for my work. I have envied you for reading, speaking Japanese- I couldn't however my former secretary, a very intelligent lady has learned it at a high level. And says it has a wonderful logic. Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: e) are you absolutely sure that your friend has spoken to Focardi and not to Levi? f) and he spoke to Focardi, why should Focardi tell him a trade secret? I do not think Focardi would lie, or dissemble. He would just say I can't tell you; it is a trade secret. Or he would say I don't want to tell you. These people have no compunction about keeping secrets. They feel no obligation to reveal anything. I confirm that their primary, immediate goal is to make commercial products. I do not know if that is because they want to make money, or they feel that is the best way to convince the world they are right. I think there are better ways to accomplish both goals without going to the trouble of making a working power reactor. If they would heed my advice, I think they could make billions of dollars, whereas they may only make hundreds of millions. But it is not my decision, and what they are doing is fine with me. I will be thrilled if they demonstrate a 1 MWh reactor. (MWh = megawatt-heat. I do not know the projected electric power output.) Their plans are much better than the development plans of many other researchers, such as Patterson. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Yes - definitely Focardi. They have been in touch previously by telephone, so there was no mistake in identity. There is NO hedging on this point. This catalyst is a trade secret. As to the identity of the catalyst being known only to Rossi, that may not be literally true, since this work was first performed in conjunction with Leonardo Technologies in New Hampshire USA, and there was a small staff involved. Jones From: Peter Gluck Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem Dear Jed, Let's see first if was Focardi. So much is lost in translations!
RE: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
Swartz, its pretty clear whose 'ranting' here... Shoo... you're wasting bandwidth. -Mark _ From: Mitchell Swartz [mailto:m...@theworld.com] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 9:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW Rothwell: I am sorry to keep harping on this, but it is a prime example of One more issue. Rothwell's ad hominem are not, and have never been, a substitute for his failure to calibrate, his failure to maintain a pressure head, and his failure to use anything close to an adequate sampling rate. In the case at issue, Rothwell reported a sampling rate of only 2 to 4 times per day!!! At 10:25 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: How many times did you remove 250cc from the flow circuit to test the temperature? Rothwell: With the large CETI cell, about a dozen times over three days. With our cells, twice a day This implies that Rothwell has no credibility on this matter, either. It cannot be stressed enough: Real experimentalists use sampling rates closer to 1 Hertz (sometimes more, sometimes less, but not 2 times per day), and they use many controls -- including joule controls. Mitchell Swartz
RE: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
At 12:42 PM 1/16/2011, you wrote: Swartz, its pretty clear whose 'ranting' here... Shoo... you're wasting bandwidth Interesting anniversary. You had this same issue thrown back to you exactly one year ago today. Terry Blanton had it spot on. == from Vortex 16 Jan 2010 === On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: If you armchair skeptics spent as much time reading the Steorn forum or Overunity.com, Terry Blanton : I read and post on both plus the VofB. I read all post here and if YOU kept up you would know Many of us are also experimentalists and speak from experience, Mr. Zeropoint. Looks like you never recovered, Mr. Zeropoint.
RE: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
From: Peter Gluck have you read all the patents and papers, and have you an idea what means to replicate the results of 15 years of hard work, with so many critical parameters? I have certainly read everything in the public record, and much that is not public. And with all due respect, let me suggest that your comments lead to a conclusion that you are misinformed on the precise history of this present effort, Peter. This is NOT about Focardi in any relevant way. Of course, he would like to take as much credit as others will give him, why not? The effort that led to the presentation is barely three years old. I have nothing against anyone being a cheerleader for the LENR field - and you are quite good at that - keep up the good work, but please do not cloud the general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians. The motivation for including them now is not what you think. Certainly Focardi and the others have been at similar work for a long time, over 15 years in fact, and with limited success and terrible reproducibility. That failure to reproduce is what has drawn them to Rossi, who is a complete newcomer, but did stumble on two key things and they are probably the same two of Arata - nickel nanopowder and a spillover catalyst. Arata used palladium since deuterium only works with palladium. Rossi has found something that works equally well with hydrogen. It is that simple. Rossi has only recently got involved - and understanding how he got involved - with LTI and DARPA and as an outgrowth of the TEG project is absolutely critical to understanding the present situation. Surely, you have noticed that this is not an equal effort, and that Focardi is not, and never was, a full partner in Rossi's project. His contribution is merely lending the credibility of his name to the real inventor. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
The catalyst may be several elements that operate to block, bind, impede, or remove the many impurities that necessitate thorough repeated cleaning to allow the initial reaction to happen -- likely the reaction itself produces harmful impurities, so that the catalysts are needed to allow the reaction to continue. If this is so, then it should be fairly obvious how to proceed to identify various impurities and test antidotes that plausibly might treat them. I suspect the stakes are so high for world security and progress that a clandestine operation will seize a working reactor and reverse engineer it. Logically, all facets of the Rossi network may have been under intensive surveillance for years, including moles. The reaction may well be straightforward new physics, just like fission in 1939, in which case it will apply to many elements and setups, and inevitably found and elucidated by the inevitable exponential expansion of science and technology. I suggest looking into the enormous body of research on metal hydrides, formed in diamond anvil ultrapressure tabletop experiments, up to the million bar level, the pressures at the center of Earth. Anomalous elements and heat may already have been found, but simply not cognized properly, in many experiments. Geology of minerals from the depths may also offer much of interest, as well as studies on minerals and melting from the early solar system. Laser implosion facilities should test tiny Ni balls full of H... Even small chemical explosion implosion experiments... Another avenue would be high current Z-pinch high current and voltage spark tests on tiny Ni tubes full of H, and then also combined with implosion from cylindrical symmetry chemical explosions. The facts about a possible new generation of simple, cheap nuclear weapons have to be kept in full view of all world citizens.
Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
Mitchell Swartz: I think your problem is that you think Jed's report on the Patterson cell was presented by Jed as a scientific assesment of the exact heat generated. If that had been so then all of your frequently repeated objections would have some validity. Instead, what Jed saw and reported on was a ballpark measurement that very significant quantities of heat were being generated in a short space of time. Hyper accurate calorimetry was absolutely not needed to show that a lot of heat was being generated. There is a type of scientist who delights in finding and measuring tiny signals, often analysed from such a mountain of noise that a casual observer would not notice anything happening out of the usual. What Jed, and many others here are interested in, is any new physical phenomenon that is large enough to generate power to run our civilisation. Messing about with tiny optimal operating point signals is academically interesting but doesn't cut the mustard if the goal is to replace fossil fuels or conventional nukes. Knowledge is valuable but engineering solutions is what we need. That is what Jed was trying to ascertain and, to any reasonable person, he succeeded. Patterson's beads looked promising for further development. So, once and for all, stop ranting on about Bernard instability in vertical flow calorimetry. Such small fractional watt distorting effects can, as you say, magnify a tiny signal mixed in with the environmental noise but are insignificant if you are looking to verify a kickass kilowatt. Nick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Rossi HNi nuclear fusion catalysts may be elements that block poisoning by impurities: Rich Murray 2010.11.16
Rossi HNi nuclear fusion catalysts may be elements that block poisoning by impurities: Rich Murray 2010.11.16 The catalyst may be several elements that operate to block, bind, impede, or remove the many impurities that necessitate thorough repeated cleaning to allow the initial reaction to happen -- likely the reaction itself produces harmful impurities, so that the catalysts are needed to allow the reaction to continue. If this is so, then it should be fairly obvious how to proceed to identify various impurities and test antidotes that plausibly might treat them. I suspect the stakes are so high for world security and progress that a clandestine operation will seize a working reactor and reverse engineer it. Logically, all facets of the Rossi network may have been under intensive surveillance for years, including moles. The reaction may well be straightforward new physics, just like fission in 1939, in which case it will apply to many elements and setups, and inevitably found and elucidated by the inevitable exponential expansion of science and technology. I suggest looking into the enormous body of research on metal hydrides, formed in diamond anvil ultrapressure tabletop experiments, up to the million bar level, the pressures at the center of Earth. Anomalous elements and heat may already have been found, but simply not cognized properly, in many experiments. Geology of minerals from the depths may also offer much of interest, as well as studies on minerals and melting from the early solar system. Laser implosion facilities should test tiny Ni balls full of H... Even small chemical explosion implosion experiments... Another avenue would be high current Z-pinch high current and voltage spark tests on tiny Ni tubes full of H, and then also combined with implosion from cylindrical symmetry chemical explosions. The facts about a possible new generation of simple, cheap nuclear weapons have to be kept in full view of all world citizens.
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Dear Jones, I like your scenario -if I understand correctly- Rossi is a real inventor who succeeded to transform a non-, or badly working device in this fine, functional generator? OK, do you have real information about that? However I would ask you to explain or to retract what you have said re *general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians* This sound very offending and I do not see any justification for it. Better let's discuss about patents, if... Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Peter Gluck have you read all the patents and papers, and have you an idea what means to replicate the results of 15 years of hard work, with so many critical parameters? I have certainly read everything in the public record, and much that is not public. And with all due respect, let me suggest that your comments lead to a conclusion that you are misinformed on the precise history of this present effort, Peter. This is NOT about Focardi in any relevant way. Of course, he would like to take as much credit as others will give him, why not? The effort that led to the presentation is barely three years old. I have nothing against anyone being a cheerleader for the LENR field – and you are quite good at that – keep up the good work, but please do not cloud the general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians. The motivation for including them now is not what you think. Certainly Focardi and the others have been at similar work for a long time, over 15 years in fact, and with limited success and terrible reproducibility. That failure to reproduce is what has drawn them to Rossi, who is a complete newcomer, but did stumble on two key things and they are probably the same two of Arata – nickel nanopowder and a spillover catalyst. Arata used palladium since deuterium only works with palladium. Rossi has found something that works equally well with hydrogen. It is that simple. Rossi has only recently got involved - and understanding how he got involved – with LTI and DARPA and as an outgrowth of the TEG project is absolutely critical to understanding the present situation. Surely, you have noticed that this is not an equal effort, and that Focardi is not, and never was, a full partner in Rossi’s project. His contribution is merely lending the credibility of his name to the real inventor. Jones
RE: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Rich, There is plenty of room for disagreement with all of this recent emphasis on impurities. This could be a giant red herring that first appeared in a couple of Japanese papers, and seems to have gone viral. I had to laugh when it showed up in the recent Rossi USPTO application, as it looked like a cut and paste from one of Arata's papers. Rossi clearly has followed the Japanese work. The jury is still out on whether the impurity issue is relevant or not, but in unpublished work I know of, impurities which were later identified, are actually the root cause of massive improvement, and without them the experiment could have failed. The cynic might argue that the inventor is sneaking that kind of red herring in to actually limit any chance of finding a better spillover catalyst by others, since indeed this kind of catalyst seems to work best in low percentage. Jones -Original Message- From: Rich Murray The catalyst may be several elements that operate to block, bind, impede, or remove the many impurities that necessitate thorough repeated cleaning to allow the initial reaction to happen -- likely the reaction itself produces harmful impurities, so that the catalysts are needed to allow the reaction to continue. If this is so, then it should be fairly obvious how to proceed to identify various impurities and test antidotes that plausibly might treat them. I suspect the stakes are so high for world security and progress that a clandestine operation will seize a working reactor and reverse engineer it. Logically, all facets of the Rossi network may have been under intensive surveillance for years, including moles. The reaction may well be straightforward new physics, just like fission in 1939, in which case it will apply to many elements and setups, and inevitably found and elucidated by the inevitable exponential expansion of science and technology. I suggest looking into the enormous body of research on metal hydrides, formed in diamond anvil ultrapressure tabletop experiments, up to the million bar level, the pressures at the center of Earth. Anomalous elements and heat may already have been found, but simply not cognized properly, in many experiments. Geology of minerals from the depths may also offer much of interest, as well as studies on minerals and melting from the early solar system. Laser implosion facilities should test tiny Ni balls full of H... Even small chemical explosion implosion experiments... Another avenue would be high current Z-pinch high current and voltage spark tests on tiny Ni tubes full of H, and then also combined with implosion from cylindrical symmetry chemical explosions. The facts about a possible new generation of simple, cheap nuclear weapons have to be kept in full view of all world citizens.
Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
At 01:37 PM 1/16/2011, Nick Palmer ni...@wynterwood.co.uk wrote: Mitchell Swartz: I think your problem is that you think Jed's report on the Patterson cell was presented by Jed as a scientific assesment of the exact heat generated. If that had been so then all of your frequently repeated objections would have some validity. Instead, what Jed saw and reported on was a ballpark measurement that very significant quantities of heat were being generated in a short space of time. Hyper accurate calorimetry was absolutely not needed to show that a lot of heat was being generated. There is a type of scientist who delights in finding and measuring tiny signals, often analysed from such a mountain of noise that a casual observer would not notice anything happening out of the usual. What Jed, and many others here are interested in, is any new physical phenomenon that is large enough to generate power to run our civilisation. Messing about with tiny optimal operating point signals is academically interesting but doesn't cut the mustard if the goal is to replace fossil fuels or conventional nukes. Knowledge is valuable but engineering solutions is what we need. That is what Jed was trying to ascertain and, to any reasonable person, he succeeded. Patterson's beads looked promising for further development. So, once and for all, stop ranting on about Bernard instability in vertical flow calorimetry. Such small fractional watt distorting effects can, as you say, magnify a tiny signal mixed in with the environmental noise but are insignificant if you are looking to verify a kickass kilowatt. Nick Palmer Nick, Thank you for the thoughtful response. First, optimal operating points are not signals, nor are they small. And they control the type(s) of reactions which occur in LANR/CF. OOP manifold operation is a bit like understanding a truck has different gears. If you try to start it in a very high gear from first, you won't get it moving. OOP operation is not a signal but a matter of control, and in the case of cold fusion (LANR) it gives quite a bit of gain, sort of like a yagi antenna compared to conventional dipole operation. Second, I went over this specific gain issue in this particular experiment at that particular time with Dennis Cravens who was doing it, and the direction effected the output from watts to kilowatts. Rothwell chose to use the direction that magnified the effect. Third, Bernard instability, like all things that can give false positives to CF/LANR, is always a good thing to consider. And in low flow systems it is relevant when the flow is vertical (which is easy to avoid). Like joule controls, and checks by waveform reconstruction, and redundant calorimetry, it is important. Fourth, I did not bring this up. Jed did. Finally, fifth, in kickass kilowatts there are real, observable changes in the materials and plastics, which were not seen in the cited demo. Thank you so much for reminding me of that, too. Best regards, Mitchell Swartz --- p.s. BTW if you want to learn how to generate power to run our civilization, keep in touch with the COLD FUSION TIMES web site. http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
RE: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Dear Peter, There must be a language problem - no offense was intended. The point is that the genesis of Rossi's work did not have any remote connection to Focardi, nor even to LENR. LENR was NOT Rossi's field of interest, until recently. This began with a DARPA grant for an improved thermoelectric generator. Rossi, along with LTI, and researchers at the University of New Hampshire built a model that seemed to be a 400% improvement over anything else ever made. It used nano-nickel as the main component. The material turned out to be extremely energetic, and two lab fires resulted. The program was abandoned. But not the material! There was zero connection to the Italian LENR program until this point in time, about 4 years ago - and all of the advances came later with one further huge coincidence - it was all at about the same time as the Arata/Zhang experiments were making a major impact in the science News. Rossi is no fool. He can add 2+2 and get four. He immediately saw the connection, and then soon after found out about the Italian efforts, going back to the early 1990s. This is when it all came together with Focardi. The 800 pound gorilla in the closet is LTI. Essentially they will claim to own all rights to the invention, and since it was done through DARPA, who knows where it will end up? Jones From: Peter Gluck Dear Jones, I like your scenario -if I understand correctly- Rossi is a real inventor who succeeded to transform a non-, or badly working device in this fine, functional generator? OK, do you have real information about that? However I would ask you to explain or to retract what you have said re general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians This sound very offending and I do not see any justification for it. Better let's discuss about patents, if... Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Peter Gluck have you read all the patents and papers, and have you an idea what means to replicate the results of 15 years of hard work, with so many critical parameters? I have certainly read everything in the public record, and much that is not public. And with all due respect, let me suggest that your comments lead to a conclusion that you are misinformed on the precise history of this present effort, Peter. This is NOT about Focardi in any relevant way. Of course, he would like to take as much credit as others will give him, why not? The effort that led to the presentation is barely three years old. I have nothing against anyone being a cheerleader for the LENR field - and you are quite good at that - keep up the good work, but please do not cloud the general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians. The motivation for including them now is not what you think. Certainly Focardi and the others have been at similar work for a long time, over 15 years in fact, and with limited success and terrible reproducibility. That failure to reproduce is what has drawn them to Rossi, who is a complete newcomer, but did stumble on two key things and they are probably the same two of Arata - nickel nanopowder and a spillover catalyst. Arata used palladium since deuterium only works with palladium. Rossi has found something that works equally well with hydrogen. It is that simple. Rossi has only recently got involved - and understanding how he got involved - with LTI and DARPA and as an outgrowth of the TEG project is absolutely critical to understanding the present situation. Surely, you have noticed that this is not an equal effort, and that Focardi is not, and never was, a full partner in Rossi's project. His contribution is merely lending the credibility of his name to the real inventor. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
For your information, Swartz, I have led very significant, hands-on research on noninvasive glucose measurement via RF/microwaves (up to 20 GHz), and a biometric application of RF as well. I am on one or two patents from the 90s and several more patent applications in the works due to our recent efforts; also a patent or two from a 7 year stint in the gaming industry. So you are completely ignorant about my background, and have made the erroneous assumption that just because I don't contribute to LENR technical discussions, that I'm not an experimentalist... you are clearly wrong. The RF technologies, especially the glucose measurement, required something in the range of microwatt (not heat, but RF power) repeatability in order to get down to 10mg/dL resolution. Once we took over control from the bozos that were running the company, we made excellent progress on a very limited budget. I have done my share of hands-on experimentation with VERY sensitive measurements... just not in LENR. And I don't, and have never, claimed to be an expert with LENR research. So, sorry to disappoint you, but my accomplishments speak for themselves as far as my technical competence. I work in the business environment, not academia. I'd suggest that you spend your time doing experiments instead of searching for purportedly supportive statements to your rants... if you had, perhaps your efforts would have solved the CF/LENR repeatability problems by now... As to whether I've 'recovered'... I'm more than happy to let the reader judge now that I've chosen to disclose some of my 'qualifications'. -Mark _ From: Mitchell Swartz [mailto:m...@theworld.com] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 10:07 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW At 12:42 PM 1/16/2011, you wrote: Swartz, its pretty clear whose 'ranting' here... Shoo... you're wasting bandwidth Interesting anniversary. You had this same issue thrown back to you exactly one year ago today. Terry Blanton had it spot on. == from Vortex 16 Jan 2010 === On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: If you armchair skeptics spent as much time reading the Steorn forum or Overunity.com, Terry Blanton : I read and post on both plus the VofB. I read all post here and if YOU kept up you would know Many of us are also experimentalists and speak from experience, Mr. Zeropoint. Looks like you never recovered, Mr. Zeropoint.
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
I just came upon Rossi at the blog of my friend Steve Krivit and his variant is like yours. The situation is interesting, how would you define it in a septoe? I would say: It was a triumph, real not ideal Real has many meanings, not all very positive. Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Dear Peter, There must be a language problem – no offense was intended. The point is that the genesis of Rossi’s work did not have any remote connection to Focardi, nor even to LENR. LENR was NOT Rossi’s field of interest, until recently. This began with a DARPA grant for an improved thermoelectric generator. Rossi, along with LTI, and researchers at the University of New Hampshire built a model that seemed to be a 400% improvement over anything else ever made. It used nano-nickel as the main component. The material turned out to be extremely energetic, and two lab fires resulted. The program was abandoned. But not the material! There was zero connection to the Italian LENR program until this point in time, about 4 years ago - and all of the advances came later with one further huge coincidence – it was all at about the same time as the Arata/Zhang experiments were making a major impact in the science News. Rossi is no fool. He can add 2+2 and get four. He immediately saw the connection, and then soon after found out about the Italian efforts, going back to the early 1990s. This is when it all came together with Focardi. The 800 pound gorilla in the closet is LTI. Essentially they will claim to own all rights to the invention, and since it was done through DARPA, who knows where it will end up? Jones *From:* Peter Gluck Dear Jones, I like your scenario -if I understand correctly- Rossi is a real inventor who succeeded to transform a non-, or badly working device in this fine, functional generator? OK, do you have real information about that? However I would ask you to explain or to retract what you have said re *general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians* This sound very offending and I do not see any justification for it. Better let's discuss about patents, if... Peter On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Peter Gluck have you read all the patents and papers, and have you an idea what means to replicate the results of 15 years of hard work, with so many critical parameters? I have certainly read everything in the public record, and much that is not public. And with all due respect, let me suggest that your comments lead to a conclusion that you are misinformed on the precise history of this present effort, Peter. This is NOT about Focardi in any relevant way. Of course, he would like to take as much credit as others will give him, why not? The effort that led to the presentation is barely three years old. I have nothing against anyone being a cheerleader for the LENR field – and you are quite good at that – keep up the good work, but please do not cloud the general argument with extraneous disinformation about Focardi and the Italians. The motivation for including them now is not what you think. Certainly Focardi and the others have been at similar work for a long time, over 15 years in fact, and with limited success and terrible reproducibility. That failure to reproduce is what has drawn them to Rossi, who is a complete newcomer, but did stumble on two key things and they are probably the same two of Arata – nickel nanopowder and a spillover catalyst. Arata used palladium since deuterium only works with palladium. Rossi has found something that works equally well with hydrogen. It is that simple. Rossi has only recently got involved - and understanding how he got involved – with LTI and DARPA and as an outgrowth of the TEG project is absolutely critical to understanding the present situation. Surely, you have noticed that this is not an equal effort, and that Focardi is not, and never was, a full partner in Rossi’s project. His contribution is merely lending the credibility of his name to the real inventor. Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
So then it seems unlikely that Rossi will release any experimental ash for analysis. The results would likely expose any spillover supports, transmuted elements and ratios thereof that would expose the pathways. Perhaps the catalyst is radioactive -acting as a trigger? Rich Murray Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:34:02 -0800 The catalyst may be several elements that operate to block, bind, impede, or remove the many impurities that necessitate thorough repeated cleaning to allow the initial reaction to happen -- likely the reaction itself produces harmful impurities, so that the catalysts are needed to allow the reaction to continue. If this is so, then it should be fairly obvious how to proceed to identify various impurities and test antidotes that plausibly might treat them. I suspect the stakes are so high for world security and progress that a clandestine operation will seize a working reactor and reverse engineer it. Logically, all facets of the Rossi network may have been under intensive surveillance for years, including moles. The reaction may well be straightforward new physics, just like fission in 1939, in which case it will apply to many elements and setups, and inevitably found and elucidated by the inevitable exponential expansion of science and technology. I suggest looking into the enormous body of research on metal hydrides, formed in diamond anvil ultrapressure tabletop experiments, up to the million bar level, the pressures at the center of Earth. Anomalous elements and heat may already have been found, but simply not cognized properly, in many experiments. Geology of minerals from the depths may also offer much of interest, as well as studies on minerals and melting from the early solar system. Laser implosion facilities should test tiny Ni balls full of H... Even small chemical explosion implosion experiments... Another avenue would be high current Z-pinch high current and voltage spark tests on tiny Ni tubes full of H, and then also combined with implosion from cylindrical symmetry chemical explosions. The facts about a possible new generation of simple, cheap nuclear weapons have to be kept in full view of all world citizens.
Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote: Jed Rothwell was exposed in this thread falsely purporting that Dr. Arata and myself posted to Wikipedia about him. Oh for goodness sake, I meant other people at Wikipedia attack me. I said: I have been reading ad hominem attacks against Fleischmann, Pons, McKubre and the others for 22 years. On Wikipedia they even attack me! These attacks are often made by jealous rivals such as Arata and Swartz. Nowhere does that indicate you or Arata post to Wikipedia. Get a grip! - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
Fran, Yes, there is little chance of getting hold of ash, same as with Mills/BLP. Anyone who looks into this deeply, and understands the Lawandy paper, can probably guess the kinds of catalysts which should work. Tests are already underway to verify the most likely possibility; and yes it is slightly radioactive, but not enough to account for the results claimed. BTW - many of the so-called Mills' catalysts are slightly radioactive, but that is probably irrelevant to the main way they are claimed to operate. Potassium is the prime example - a billion year half-life makes it tolerable to even ingest, in bananas, for instance. The big unknown, which is never mentioned by anyone else that I am aware of, is: does even slight radioactivity make a ZPE pathway more likely? I am convinced that it does, for reasons too complicated to elaborate now. From: francis So then it seems unlikely that Rossi will release any experimental ash for analysis. The results would likely expose any spillover supports, transmuted elements and ratios thereof that would expose the pathways. Perhaps the catalyst is radioactive -acting as a trigger?
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: After all we vorticians are not only pro bono but de Bono You too? or Edward R? It would seem to me that the hydrogen molecule must first be dissociated before being robbed of it's atom's electron by Ni. Could this catalyst assist in dissociation? If so, could it be Pd? If not dissociation, what is the function of the catalyst? Some intermediate energy state a la Mills? That doesn't seem right since we are trying to ionize the hydrogen. T
Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
This wouldn't be Vortex if we didn't have a Rothwell/Swartz swirl ever so often. Ah, the comfort of familiarity. T
Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
At 03:21 PM 1/16/2011, Jed Rothwell falsely wrote: Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote: Jed Rothwell was exposed in this thread falsely purporting that Dr. Arata and myself posted to Wikipedia about him. Oh for goodness sake, I meant other people at Wikipedia attack me. Nowhere does that indicate you or Arata post to Wikipedia. Get a grip! - Jed Rothwell -- who brought this all up to begin with -- is mistaken, and proven indelibly inaccurate by his own posts just in the last 72 hours. It says exactly that in clear English. These, especially #1, easily demonstrate that he is confabulating again. EXAMPLE #1: Rothwell (projecting, falsely stating): Beware also of the personal attacks (blah blah blah) On Wikipedia they even attack me! These attacks are often made by jealous rivals such as Arata and Swartz. Don't fall for them. ...(blah blah blah) [Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:39:04; Subject: Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW] EXAMPLE #2: Rothwell (projecting, falsely stating): I am sorry to keep harping on this, but it is a prime example of the way some cold fusion researchers attack research by others in this field, for irrational reasons. Swartz, Arata and others are often as bad as the worst skeptics. [Sun, 16 Jan 2011 08:06:24; Subject: Re: [Vo]: Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW] Q.E.D. Conclusion #1: These posts by Rothwell reflect delusional projections of Jed Rothwell's mind which in reality are untrue, unfounded. This is sadly typical of his repertoire which is when researchers do not agree with Rothwell, he targets them with his vitriol. Conclusion #2: After putting on educational Colloquia on Cold Fusion for almost two decades, these attacks by Jed Rothwell are scurrilous. .
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: It would seem to me that the hydrogen molecule must first be dissociated before being robbed of it's atom's electron by Ni. Could this catalyst assist in dissociation? If so, could it be Pd? If not dissociation, what is the function of the catalyst? Some intermediate energy state a la Mills? That doesn't seem right since we are trying to ionize the hydrogen. I mention this because the temperature and pressure limits mentioned in Rossi's writings do not seem sufficient to dissociate hydrogen. T
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 16 Jan 2011 08:14:07 -0800: Hi, Everyone now seems to be looking ahead and focusing on replication. Good. If anyone thinks that replication of this device is a wicked problem now, or in an abstract way, then they will learn soon that it becomes diabolical why? The device only works with a secret catalyst, together with the nickel. Rossi say this himself. My colleague asked Focardi directly do you know what the catalyst is? He said without hesitation that he did not know, and that no one except Rossi knows. [snip] I suspect it's one of Mills' recent molecular catalysts. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 16 Jan 2011 12:25:56 -0800: Hi, [snip] The big unknown, which is never mentioned by anyone else that I am aware of, is: does even slight radioactivity make a ZPE pathway more likely? I am convinced that it does, for reasons too complicated to elaborate now. [snip] Radioactivity produces fast particles which can trigger an avalanche Hydrino creation mechanism that rapidly converts local H into Hydrinos of whatever size was originally at hand. If these are small enough to result in fusion/fission reactions, then these reactions can in turn create more fast particles. The process stops when the local micro supply of H is consumed, and the net result is an extremely hot spot resulting in melting of the immediate material, hence Mizuno's craters, and Rossi's zones. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
Ah, the first mass media notice, from a radio station. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:11:33 -0500: Hi, [snip] On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: After all we vorticians are not only pro bono but de Bono You too? or Edward R? It would seem to me that the hydrogen molecule must first be dissociated before being robbed of it's atom's electron by Ni. Could this catalyst assist in dissociation? If so, could it be Pd? If not dissociation, what is the function of the catalyst? Some intermediate energy state a la Mills? That doesn't seem right since we are trying to ionize the hydrogen. Who says you are trying to ionize the Hydrogen? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
[Vo]:Please double-check energy required to vaporize water
I am anxious not to make a mistake in this Rossi summary. I would appreciate it if a few people would double-check the following: Heat capacity of water (4.2 kJ/kgK) Heat of vaporization of water (2260 kJ/kg): To vaporize 1 kg of water starting at 13°C Temperature change 87°C Energy to bring water to 100°C: 87°C*4.2*1 kg = 365 kJ Energy to vaporize water: 2260*1 = 2,260 kJ Total: 2,625 kJ I realize that is approximate. The heat capacity changes with higher temperatures. A steam table would probably give a somewhat different answer, in Btu. Use 2.2 lbs. For steam-table mavens, in the Rossi experiment steam is at 1 atm, temperature measured at 101°C, and it is dry. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 5:42 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Who says you are trying to ionize the Hydrogen? Not exactly accurate. If the electron capture concept is correct, then only dissociation is necessary. Further reading on my part shows that dissociation can occur on metal surfaces. I think Horace wrote on this. I'm looking over his stuff. Normally, we would have heard from Horace. I hope he is okay. T
Re: [Vo]:Please double-check energy required to vaporize water
I agree. T
Re: [Vo]:Please double-check energy required to vaporize water
1 atm and 101deg. C are sufficient to produce only or mostly dry steam? Harry From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, January 16, 2011 5:49:09 PM Subject: [Vo]:Please double-check energy required to vaporize water I am anxious not to make a mistake in this Rossi summary. I would appreciate it if a few people would double-check the following: Heat capacity of water (4.2 kJ/kgK) Heat of vaporization of water (2260 kJ/kg): To vaporize 1 kg of water starting at 13°C Temperature change 87°C Energy to bring water to 100°C: 87°C*4.2*1 kg = 365 kJ Energy to vaporize water: 2260*1 = 2,260 kJ Total: 2,625 kJ I realize that is approximate. The heat capacity changes with higher temperatures. A steam table would probably give a somewhat different answer, in Btu. Use 2.2 lbs. For steam-table mavens, in the Rossi experiment steam is at 1 atm, temperature measured at 101°C, and it is dry. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Please double-check energy required to vaporize water
I had one of my employees check and he said you are high by 3 kJ but he did not show his work. I suppose he knew he was not being paid for this one. :-) T On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I agree. T
RE: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
Apparently, a reporter from the NY Times was there... -Mark _ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era? Ah, the first mass media notice, from a radio station. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Wicked Problem
In reply to Robin's message of Sun, 16 Jan 2011 14:19 Hi [snip]Radioactivity produces fast particles which can trigger an avalanche Hydrino creation mechanism that rapidly converts local H into Hydrinos of whatever size was originally at hand. If these are small enough to result in fusion/fission reactions, then these reactions can in turn create more fast particles. The process stops when the local micro supply of H is consumed, and the net result is an extremely hot spot resulting in melting of the immediate material, hence Mizuno's craters, and Rossi's zones. [/snip] I think the radioactive catalyst may also form a gas that works inside the cavity where the relativistic environment has already resulted in dihydrinos - the alpha emissions could disassociate fractional h2 while it is discounted due to changes in Casimir force before the opposition to the h2 bond can translate into a physical repulsion. this would be a runaway ashless oscillation that could quickly melt the geometry into whiskers relieving the stiction forces. This would multiply the radioactive effect because of time dilation similar to reports where half lives are reversibly accelerated inside a catalyst. Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:Please double-check energy required to vaporize water
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I had one of my employees check and he said you are high by 3 kJ but he did not show his work. He probably did it the right way, with steam tables. Thanks! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Apparently, a reporter from the NY Times was there... Really? Where did you hear that? - Jed
[Vo]:Rossi Responds
Three pages of questions and answers at his weblog: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=3#comments including: Daniel G. Zavela January 15th, 2011 at 4:28 AM Greetings from California and congratulations on your successful work! Can you simply state what the Watts IN are versus Watts OUT? Can you turn off the input current? Does the reaction become self-sustaining? Andrea Rossi January 15th, 2011 at 5:05 AM Dear Mr Daniel Zavela: Watts in: 400 wh/h Watts out: 15,000 wh/h Yes, we can turn off the input current, but we prefer to maintain a drive and the reasons are very difficult to explain without violating my confidentiality restraints. The reaction becomes self sustaining. Warm Regards, A.R. end COP = 37.5 T
RE: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
LOL. Class ! quiz time ! ... would you categorize these answers as: 1) Not exactly forthcoming 2) Deceptive 3) Complete crock 4) Genuinely helpful Jones From: Terry Blanton Three pages of questions and answers at his weblog: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=3#comments
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
As I said before, their strategy is to manufacture and sell reactors. Here is one of Rossi's responses making that clear. I like the part about mental masturbations. This is what he has been saying all along. As I said, I would not go about this quite the same way. I would recommend more academic verification tests at universities, like the Jan. 14 test. But hey, I'm not complaining! Quoting Rossi: 3- We have passed already the phase to convince somebody. We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market. In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing. You are not convinced? It is not my problem. My problem is make my reactors work. I think that the reason for which I arrived to a working reactor is that I bellieved in my work, therefore, instead of chattering and play the big genius with mental masturbations, spent all my money, without help and financing from anywhere, to make thousands of reactors that didn’t work, until I made the right one, following my theories that may be are wrong, but in any case gave me the result I wanted. If somebody is convinced he has a good idea, he has not to convince anybody by chattering, he has to make something that works and sell it to a Customer who decides to buy because can see a product which works. If a Customer wants not my product no problem, I go to another, without chattering or giving away free technology. What I made is not a “Holy Graal”, as you ironically say, is just a product. My Customers know it works, this is why they bought it,that’s enough for me. We are investing to make thousands of reactors and is totally irrilevant for us if somebody or manybodies make negative chatterings about our work. To ask us to give away as a gift our technology, in which I invested my life, to convince somebody or morebodies that my reactors work is contrary to the foundamental rules of the economy. To convince the World of our product we have just to sell products which work well, not to chatter. If somebody is convinced to have invented something better or equal to our product, he has not to chatter, he has to make a product better or equal to ours and sell it. - Jed
[Vo]:Steam calculator
http://www.spiraxsarco.com/resources/steam-tables/superheated-steam.asp Harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
Note that he says Prof. Levi hopes to distribute a report describing the Jan. 14 test in about a week. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
It is sad, like Mills he recognizes without the correct theory his patent will only allow him a brief window of opportunity before the theory is understood and a far simpler and more efficient embodiment can be produced. Jed Rothwell Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:12:45 -0800 As I said before, their strategy is to manufacture and sell reactors. Here is one of Rossi's responses making that clear. I like the part about mental masturbations. This is what he has been saying all along. As I said, I would not go about this quite the same way. I would recommend more academic verification tests at universities, like the Jan. 14 test. But hey, I'm not complaining! Quoting Rossi: 3- We have passed already the phase to convince somebody. We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market. In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing. You are not convinced? It is not my problem. My problem is make my reactors work. I think that the reason for which I arrived to a working reactor is that I bellieved in my work, therefore, instead of chattering and play the big genius with mental masturbations, spent all my money, without help and financing from anywhere, to make thousands of reactors that didn't work, until I made the right one, following my theories that may be are wrong, but in any case gave me the result I wanted. If somebody is convinced he has a good idea, he has not to convince anybody by chattering, he has to make something that works and sell it to a Customer who decides to buy because can see a product which works. If a Customer wants not my product no problem, I go to another, without chattering or giving away free technology. What I made is not a Holy Graal, as you ironically say, is just a product. My Customers know it works, this is why they bought it,that's enough for me. We are investing to make thousands of reactors and is totally irrilevant for us if somebody or manybodies make negative chatterings about our work. To ask us to give away as a gift our technology, in which I invested my life, to convince somebody or morebodies that my reactors work is contrary to the foundamental rules of the economy. To convince the World of our product we have just to sell products which work well, not to chatter. If somebody is convinced to have invented something better or equal to our product, he has not to chatter, he has to make a product better or equal to ours and sell it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steam calculator
Thanks. Enter 1 atm and 101 deg C and this table shows the specific enthalpy of superheated steam to be 2677.8 kJ/kg I calculated 2625 kJ/kg. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
Sell reactors to who? A lead-shielded reactor producing enough radioactivity to measure is NOT going to sold in the USA or Europe to the anyone in the public, PERIOD, and perhaps not even to other researchers without proper licensing which could take years. He should be looking for a partner in Russia :-) Besides, it appears that LTI owns this IP, as far as I can tell. There is no indication that he has even been authorized to show it publicly. His only hope, if he is trying to force a clean break with LTI, as it appears- could be to get the attention of the a rogue nation ... . shades of Gerald Bull. No bull. Jones From: francis Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds It is sad, like Mills he recognizes without the correct theory his patent will only allow him a brief window of opportunity before the theory is understood and a far simpler and more efficient embodiment can be produced. Jed Rothwell Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:12:45 -0800 As I said before, their strategy is to manufacture and sell reactors. Here is one of Rossi's responses making that clear. I like the part about mental masturbations. This is what he has been saying all along. As I said, I would not go about this quite the same way. I would recommend more academic verification tests at universities, like the Jan. 14 test. But hey, I'm not complaining! Quoting Rossi: 3- We have passed already the phase to convince somebody. We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market. In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing. You are not convinced? It is not my problem. My problem is make my reactors work. I think that the reason for which I arrived to a working reactor is that I bellieved in my work, therefore, instead of chattering and play the big genius with mental masturbations, spent all my money, without help and financing from anywhere, to make thousands of reactors that didn't work, until I made the right one, following my theories that may be are wrong, but in any case gave me the result I wanted. If somebody is convinced he has a good idea, he has not to convince anybody by chattering, he has to make something that works and sell it to a Customer who decides to buy because can see a product which works. If a Customer wants not my product no problem, I go to another, without chattering or giving away free technology. What I made is not a Holy Graal, as you ironically say, is just a product. My Customers know it works, this is why they bought it,that's enough for me. We are investing to make thousands of reactors and is totally irrilevant for us if somebody or manybodies make negative chatterings about our work. To ask us to give away as a gift our technology, in which I invested my life, to convince somebody or morebodies that my reactors work is contrary to the foundamental rules of the economy. To convince the World of our product we have just to sell products which work well, not to chatter. If somebody is convinced to have invented something better or equal to our product, he has not to chatter, he has to make a product better or equal to ours and sell it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Steam calculator
also look at the wet steam calculator: http://www.spiraxsarco.com/resources/steam-tables/wet-steam.asp Does Rossi measure the dryness of the steam? Simply saying it is dry steam and ignoring what percentage is wet steam might provide a very inaccurate estimate the output energy. harry From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, January 16, 2011 8:36:32 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steam calculator Thanks. Enter 1 atm and 101 deg C and this table shows the specific enthalpy of superheated steam to be 2677.8 kJ/kg I calculated 2625 kJ/kg. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
It was in a transcript from someone who attended... can't remember which website. if you really need it I can go thru my History and try to find it... -Mark _ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 4:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era? Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Apparently, a reporter from the NY Times was there... Really? Where did you hear that? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Responds
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Sell reactors to who? Iran? Stuxnet free. T
Re: [Vo]:method and apparatus for carrying out nickel and hydrogen exothermal reaction, Andrea Rossi USA patent application 2011.01.13: role of impurities: future developments: Rich Murray 2011.01.15
This is an application which I suppose means it has not been granted yet. Right? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:method and apparatus for carrying out nickel and hydrogen exothermal reaction, Andrea Rossi USA patent application 2011.01.13: role of impurities: future developments: Rich Murray 2011.01.15
Yep -- starts a process of back and forth negotiation that may last two years before a judgement is rendered -- like Soloman in the Old Testament, cut the baby in half? Rossi plans to agree to include the catalyst info at the last moment -- the global process should have this baby delivered and in college long before then... It's truly unprecedented for 115 often cogent questions to be answered in two days... Glancing at the few HNi reports on your archive shows plenty of tantalizing leads... We have to start with guessing that H fusion may occur with any element with the same atomic mass as Ni62 or less -- from Fe to Bismuth, the H fusions soak up energy, while heavier may fission, according to chrismb on the JNP blog question at 6:36 AM Saturday January 15. Rich On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This is an application which I suppose means it has not been granted yet. Right? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The dawn of a new era?
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/focardi-and-rossi-lenr-cold-fusion-demo.html
[Vo]:2 reviews re HNi cold fusion, CE Stremmenos 2010: metal hydride research: Rich Murray 2011.01.16
2 reviews re HNi cold fusion, CE Stremmenos 2010: metal hydride research: Rich Murray 2011.01.16 Advisers The Journal will publish papers, in the areas of interest, without charge. All papers will be reviewed by our scientific council to ensure scientific rigor and compliance with copyright law. Publications will not be corrected and will be published “as received” in chronological order of receipt. The authors are solely responsible for the contents of their papers. BOARD OF ADVISERS: Prof. Sergio Focardi (INFN – University of Bologna – Italy) Prof. Michael Melich (DOD – USA) Prof. Alberto Carnera (INFM – University of Padova – Italy) Prof. Giuseppe Levi (INFN – University of Bologna – Italy) Prof. Pierluca Rossi (University of Bologna – Italy) Prof. Luciana Malferrari (University of Bologna – Italy) Prof. George Kelly (University of New Hampshire – USA) Prof. Christos E. Stremmenos (Athen University – Greece) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=185 Evaluations, ideas and proposal upon new energy sources by Prof. Christos E. Stremmenos* BACKGROUND The hostile attitude which cold fusion has been confronted with since 1989, but even long before, shown also by the bibliography related to the scientific papers of Focardi and Rossi, eventually led to general disinterest and oblivion of this subject. After several years of apparent inaction, the theme of cold fusion has been recently revitalized thanks to, among others, the work and the scientific publications of Focardi and Rossi, which has been conducted in silence, amidst ironical disinterest, without any funding or support. In fact, recently, practical and reliable results have been achieved based on a very promising apparatus invented by Andrea Rossi. Therefore I want to examine the possibility of further development of this technology, which I deem really important for our planet. INTRODUCTION I will start with patent no./2009/125444, registered by Dr. Ing. Andrea Rossi. This invention and its performance have been tested and verified in collaboration with Prof. Sergio Focardi, as reported in their paper, published in February 2010 in the Journal of Nuclear Physics [1]. In this scientific paper they have reported on the performance of an apparatus, which has produced for two years substantial amounts of energy in a reliable and repeatable mode and they have also offered a theoretical analysis for the interpretation of the underlying physical mechanism. In the history of Science, it is not the first time that a practical and reliable apparatus is working before its theoretical foundation has been completely understood! The photoelectric effect is the classic example in which the application has anticipated its full theoretical interpretation, developed by Einstein. Afterwards Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg, De Broglie, Schrödinger and others formulated the principles of Quantum Mechanics. For the interactive Nickel/Hydrogen system it would be now opportune to compile, in a way easily understood by the non expert the, relevant principles and concepts for the qualitative understanding of the phenomenon as well as possible future research activities. CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM PHYSICS CONCEPTS Starting with the behavior of electrically charged particles in vacuum, it is known that particles with opposite electric charge attract themselves and “fuse” producing an electrically neutral particle, even though this does not always happen, as for instance in the case of a hydrogen atom, where a proton and a electron although attract each other they do not “fuse” for reasons out of the scope of this paper. On the contrary, particles charged with same sign of electric charge always repel each other, and their repulsion tends to infinity when their distance tends to zero, which implies that in this case fusion is not possible (classical physics). On the contrary, according to Quantum mechanics for a system with a great number of particles of the same electric charge (polarity) it is possible that a few of them will fuse, as for instance, according to Focardi-Rossi, in the case of Nickel nuclei in crystal structure and hydrogen nuclei (protons) diffused within it. Although of the same polarity, a very small percentage of these nuclei manage to come so close to each other, at a distance of 10-14 m, where strong nuclear forces emerge and take over the Coulomb forces and thus form the nucleus of a new element, either stable or unstable. This mechanism, which is possible only in the atomic microcosm, is predictable by a quantum-mechanics model of a particle put in a closed box. According to classical physics no one would expect to find a particle out of the box, but in quantum mechanics the probability that a particle is found out of the box is not zero! This probability is the so called “tunneling effect”, which for systems with a very large number of particles, predicts that a small percentage of them lie outside the box, having penetrated
[Vo]:diamond anvil cells in 2006 reach 10- to 100-TPa (0.1–1 Gbar) pressure range with laser induced shock waves: Rich Murray 2011.01.17
Diamond anvil cells in 2006 reach 10- to 100-TPa (0.1–1 Gbar) pressure range with laser induced shock waves: Rich Murray 2011.01.17 http://www.pnas.org/content/104/22/9172.full free full text Achieving high-density states through shock-wave loading of precompressed samples Raymond Jeanloz * , † , ‡, Peter M. Celliers § , Gilbert W. Collins § , Jon H. Eggert § , Kanani K. M. Lee ¶ , R. Stewart McWilliams *, Stéphanie Brygoo ‖ , and Paul Loubeyre ‖ + Author Affiliations Departments of *Earth and Planetary Science and †Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; §Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550; ¶Department of Physics, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003; and ‖Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, 91680 Bruyères-le-Châtel, France Edited by Ho-kwang Mao, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC, and accepted March 7, 2007 (received for review September 19, 2006) Abstract Materials can be experimentally characterized to terapascal pressures by sending a laser-induced shock wave through a sample that is precompressed inside a diamond-anvil cell. This combination of static and dynamic compression methods has been experimentally demonstrated and ultimately provides access to the 10- to 100-TPa (0.1–1 Gbar) pressure range that is relevant to planetary science, testing first-principles theories of condensed matter, and experimentally studying a new regime of chemical bonding. high pressure planetary interiors diamond–anvil cell Hugoniot laser shock In nature, and specifically when considering planets, high pressures are clearly evident in two contexts: the conditions occurring deep inside large planetary bodies and the transient stresses caused by hypervelocity impact among planetary materials. In both cases, typical peak stresses are much larger than the crushing strength of minerals (up to ≈1–10 GPa, depending on material, strain rate, pressure, and temperature), so pressures can be evaluated by disregarding strength and treating the rock, metal, or ice as a fluid. Ignoring the effects of compression, the central (hydrostatic) pressure of a planet is therefore expected to scale roughly as the square of the planet's bulk density (ρ planet, assumed constant throughout the planet) and radius (R planet ): Here, the scaling factor is adjusted to match the central pressure of Jupiter-like planets (RJupiter and ρ Jupiter are the radius and bulk density of Jupiter, respectively), and the effects of compression and differentiation (segregation of dense materials toward the center of a planet) act to increase the central pressure for larger, denser, more compressed, or more differentiated planets relative to Eq. 1 . Consequently, peak pressures in the 1- to 10-TPa range exist inside large planets, with Earth's central pressure being 0.37 TPa and “supergiant” planets expected to have central pressures in the 10- to 100-TPa range. In addition to static considerations, impact (the key process associated with growth of planets and the initial heating that drives the geological evolution of planets) is also expected to generate TPa pressures. Impedance-matching considerations described below can be combined with Kepler's third law to deduce that peak impact pressures for planetary objects orbiting a star of mass M star at an orbital distance R orbit are of the order Scaling here is to the mass of the Sun, and the average density and orbit of Earth, the latter being in astronomical units (1 AU = 1.496 × 1011 m); also, the characteristic impact velocity (u 0) is taken as the average orbital velocity according to Kepler's law, u 0 = 2πR orbit /T orbit with T orbit being the orbital period, and Eq. 2 assumes a symmetric hypervelocity impact. While recognizing that materials have been characterized at such conditions through specialized experiments (e.g., shock-wave measurements to the 10- to 100-TPa range in the proximity of underground nuclear explosions and from impact of a foil driven by hohlraum-emitted x-rays) (1–3), laboratory experiments tend to achieve significantly lower pressures. As with planetary phenomena, both static (diamond-anvil cell) and dynamic (shock-wave) methods are available for studying macroscopic samples at high pressures, but these are normally limited to the 0.1- to 1-TPa range (4). Still, these pressures are of fundamental interest because the internal-energy change associated with compression to the 0.1-TPa (1 Mbar) level is roughly (5) with volume changes (ΔV) being ≈20% of the 5-cm3 typical molar volume of terrestrial-planet matter (here we consider a mole of atoms, or gram-formula weight, which is 3.5, 5, and 6 cm3 for diamond, MgO, and water, respectively, at ambient conditions). The work of compression thus corresponds to bonding energies (≈1 eV = 97 kJ per mole, characteristic of the outer, bonding electrons of atoms), meaning that the chemical bond is profoundly changed by pressures of 0.1 TPa. This expectation has been
