Re: [Vo]:Name that tune

[David Roberson]

Good question Peter.  I have asked a number of questions on the DGT forum in 
the past but they do not answer consistently.  The Vortex has a number of 
excellent members with a great deal of knowledge about many subjects.  A 
question such as the ones that I have presented are much more likely to fall 
upon fertile ground here.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Peter Gluck 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 12:19 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Name that tune


"The question illuminates, not the answer" (Eugene Ionesco)
Why you are not asking on the DGT forum?
Peter


On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:15 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

I have always assumed that the heating elements within the Rossi ECAT are using 
AC.  The frequency of the current is assumed to be 60 or 50 hertz, but I do not 
recall anyone measuring it.  One interesting possibility to consider is that 
the large AC magnetic field associated with this current contained within the 
core might be strong enough to agitate the nickel due to its magnetic 
properties at modest temperatures.  Also, do we know how electrically 
conductive the core materials are?  I wonder if the core net resistive value is 
consistent enough to carry current for heating power?
 
What if the extra spike that we observe in the waveform can be triggered by the 
large magnetic field or current that flows within the core region?
 
A lot of questions and few answers.  Maybe some of them will cause a light to 
shine within one of our collective minds.
 
Dave  




-Original Message-
From: francis 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 9:56 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Name that tune



Why does everyone assume the heater elements use DC? A transformer would be the 
easiest way to adjust the voltage or current to larger rms values and would 
explain the isolation transformer. The blue control box then might simply gate 
this AC power through the transformer for longer or shorter durations. This 
wouldn’t be called an RFG but it would have the same effect while 
simultaneously heating the reactor elements.
Fran
 
 
Jones Beene
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:09:19 -0800
Mine too, and now ... the real reason for this inquiry - why do you need
one?
 
Coincidentally, as you mentioned in the preceding message, they claim NOT to
use an RFG. 
 
Which technically does not mean they do not have a fair amount of RF noise
in the reactor, does it? It means only that they have no dedicated RF
generator.
 
There are other reasons for having an isolation transformer than to protect
your Variac and other instruments and computers from a source of disruptive
electrical spikes, so it's not a smoking gun - but is there a good reason
not to suspect either a spark gap or glow discharge arrangement inside the
reactor somewhere?
 
After all, if we were talking about resistance heating elements (ala AR)
being your thermal input and your P-in, then an isolation transformer would
not be needed, correct ?
 
 








-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Name that tune

[Peter Gluck]

"The question illuminates, not the answer" (Eugene Ionesco)
Why you are not asking on the DGT forum?
Peter

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:15 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I have always assumed that the heating elements within the Rossi ECAT are
> using AC.  The frequency of the current is assumed to be 60 or 50 hertz,
> but I do not recall anyone measuring it.  One interesting possibility to
> consider is that the large AC magnetic field associated with this current
> contained within the core might be strong enough to agitate the nickel due
> to its magnetic properties at modest temperatures.  Also, do we know how
> electrically conductive the core materials are?  I wonder if the core
> net resistive value is consistent enough to carry current for heating power?
>
> What if the extra spike that we observe in the waveform can be triggered
> by the large magnetic field or current that flows within the core region?
>
> A lot of questions and few answers.  Maybe some of them will cause a light
> to shine within one of our collective minds.
>
> Dave
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: francis 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 9:56 pm
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Name that tune
>
>  Why does everyone assume the heater elements use DC? A transformer would
> be the easiest way to adjust the voltage or current to larger rms values
> and would explain the isolation transformer. The blue control box then
> might simply gate this AC power through the transformer for longer or
> shorter durations. This wouldn’t be called an RFG but it would have the
> same effect while simultaneously heating the reactor elements.
> Fran
>
>
> *Jones Beene*
> Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:09:19 -0800
> Mine too, and now ... the real reason for this inquiry - why do you need
> one?
>
> Coincidentally, as you mentioned in the preceding message, they claim NOT
> to
> use an RFG.
>
> Which technically does not mean they do not have a fair amount of RF noise
> in the reactor, does it? It means only that they have no dedicated RF
> generator.
>
> There are other reasons for having an isolation transformer than to protect
> your Variac and other instruments and computers from a source of disruptive
> electrical spikes, so it's not a smoking gun - but is there a good reason
> not to suspect either a spark gap or glow discharge arrangement inside the
> reactor somewhere?
>
> After all, if we were talking about resistance heating elements (ala AR)
> being your thermal input and your P-in, then an isolation transformer would
> not be needed, correct ?
>
>
>



-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Mark,
You are welcome, it is actually fun. Hopefully I don't say too silly things.
My field is gravitational waves so I'm rusty in atomic, nuclear physics but
this is an opportunity to review/learn interesting physics.
But away WL theory sound pretty sound to me so far.
Anybody knows of any serious criticism of this?
Giovanni



On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint <
zeropo...@charter.net> wrote:

> Giovanni/Daniel:
>
> I just want to thank you both for taking time to analyze carefully the W-L
> paper…
>
> We could use more theoretical types in the ‘Collective’…
>
> -Mark
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:06 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:W&L
>
> ** **
>
> Ok,
>
> Daniel you are right.
>
> The order of magnitude of a field at the Bohr radius from a proton is
> 10^11 V/m. It seems also that the interpretation of the paper describes
> this situation where the electron sphere is the size of an average atom. I
> misunderstood what the paper was discussing.
>
> ** **
>
> Gigi, did you use cgs units to do your calculation? Otherwise if you want
> to use mks you have to add the coulomb constant to the Coulomb equation in
> the Srivastava paper. I think this where you error was. 
>
> Giovanni
>
> ** **
>

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Gigi,
The criticism in the link you gave doesn't seem very strong to me. The main
point was that the fields involved are two strong to be realistic. I maybe
missing something but the field density implied in the paper is about 1
electron per Bohr atom. It is true that to have such density in throughout
the material you would have to have atoms basically touching each other but
given we are talking about a metal I don't see this as a problem.

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
wrote:

> Ok,
> Daniel you are right.
> The order of magnitude of a field at the Bohr radius from a proton is
> 10^11 V/m. It seems also that the interpretation of the paper describes
> this situation where the electron sphere is the size of an average atom. I
> misunderstood what the paper was discussing.
> Gigi, did you use cgs units to do your calculation? Otherwise if you want
> to use mks you have to add the coulomb constant to the Coulomb equation in
> the Srivastava paper. I think this where you error was.
> Giovanni
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> Well, 10^11 - 10^12 seems to be the right order of magnitude for the
>> electric field to trap a surface electron. At the classical proton radius,
>> ~2fm, it should be around 10^(~-22)V/M.
>>
>>
>> 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi 
>>
>>> Ok, let me read the paper and reply. I need to understand it better. But
>>> what I said before it is right in terms of using 25) to define a. To make
>>> sense of the numbers then a has to be on the order of a nucleus.
>>> Giovanni
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>>
 Absorption, in WL, happens because of a mysterious collective
 oscillation of surface plasmons which cause some of the electrons to be
 tunnel into a proton, it's like thousands of plasmons together pushing 1
 electron inside a 1 proton. The order of magnitude of plasmons is bound by
 the workfunction, otherwise, the electron would be removed from the metal.


 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi 

> We can analyze the paper together, but what is discussed in that
> section is what happens when an electron is absorbed inside a proton. The
> proton would oscillate because of the presence of the electric field
> distributed over the volume of the proton. So the relevant scale is the
> size of a proton.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>
>> Well, the electric field makes sense if that 10^12V/m has the size of
>> an atom bohr, not of a proton. Just scale that field for that of bohr 
>> atom,
>> r~5*10^-11m, which gives 2V/bohr atom. That's not far away from a typical
>> working function of a metal.
>>
>>
>> 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi 
>>
>>> I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to
>>> learn more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and
>>> understand their main content.
>>>
>>> I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are
>>> describing in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is 
>>> immersed
>>> in a electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small 
>>> displacement
>>> u.
>>>
>>> The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a
>>> distance on the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 
>>> as
>>> a definition of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this
>>> quantity is used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio
>>> between small displacement and this a.
>>>
>>> So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if
>>> the small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on).
>>> Nothing wrong in the equation.
>>>
>>> Giovanni
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
>>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius.
 That seems correct.
 Giovanni



 On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda <
 alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe
> the author.
> maybe is there a typo in the formulas,
> is it corrected in a newer version?
>
> i confirm the computation
>
> beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway.
>
> the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9...
> maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted
>
>
> in
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf
> in(89) I see the same huge "looking like a mistake" (I compute
>>

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Giovanni/Daniel:

I just want to thank you both for taking time to analyze carefully the W-L
paper.

We could use more theoretical types in the 'Collective'.

-Mark

 

From: Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:W&L

 

Ok,

Daniel you are right.

The order of magnitude of a field at the Bohr radius from a proton is 10^11
V/m. It seems also that the interpretation of the paper describes this
situation where the electron sphere is the size of an average atom. I
misunderstood what the paper was discussing.

 

Gigi, did you use cgs units to do your calculation? Otherwise if you want to
use mks you have to add the coulomb constant to the Coulomb equation in the
Srivastava paper. I think this where you error was. 

Giovanni

 

Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power

[Randy Wuller]

As someone who has watched Vortex since last February, I agree with your 
assessment that many on Vortex have raised valid objections to many of Rossi's 
demos and his business strategy.  I would certainly not characterize the vortex 
as a Rossi investor clubhouse, far from it. And of course because most of you 
have shown reasonable skepticism concerning various issues, the posts which 
caused the bannings were very irratating, even to an outsider like me. 
Notwithstanding, some of MY's points are valid, not conclusive but valid. The 
problem with MY, once a point is made we get it, people don't need someone 
clubing them over the head ad naseaum.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:25 PM, zer tte  wrote:

> Randy, i respect your wish to see george response published here, however 
> unlike the vortex, george is not banned from the internet as far as i know.
> So i don't really see the point for him to request that you become his voice, 
> unless being a lawyer makes you the perfect target for a proxy to talk 
> through maybe ?
> Still there is one thing i kind of disagree with in your statement about the 
> "MY does make valid points" part, those points where already known and 
> established by jed, david, daniel, horace, bob and many others and i hope 
> this is clear because it seems to be often forgotten in the flood.
> 
> I don't know why but it seems to me some people felt like the vortex became 
> Rossi's investors clubhouse, or DGT etc ... i believe this is not.

RE: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

So MaryYugo was still using HIS female-sounding pseudonym instead of HIS
real name???

HE must think we're really stupid. is HE not aware of the fact that HIS
identity has been clearly established???

 

Randy, send me HIS response and I'll look it over. 

-Mark 

 

From: Randy Wuller [mailto:rwul...@freeark.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power

 

Jed:

 

This post prompted a reply from Maryugo.  Since MY is banned here and at the
Defkalion site and since I converse with MY (by email) occasionally, she
sent me her reply to Bill Beaty which I presume he received and did not
elect to post.  She has requested that I post her reply and I hesitate
principally because this site has a right in my opinion to censor and a
right to ban and if Bill has decided to both ban and censor MY, I conclude
that I too would be in violation of his censor and ban on this occasion if I
without authority posted her response.

 

However, I am sympathetic with the rights of someone to defend themselves
(being a lawyer) and it seems to me that if members of this site continue to
post about MY, maybe she should be given a limited right to respond.
Further, while I deem MY to be annoyingly repetitive, had she only
occasionally pointed out the problem with the current state of Mr. Rossi's
affairs, I for one would not have been troubled.  MY does make valid points,
it is just after reading the same point about 1,000 times, one has to say
ENOUGH.

 

I hesitated to join the Vortex because I see it as a what if site dedicated
to discussing the possible science behind "Cold Fusion" (I like that Moniker
better then LENR) and I am not really qualified (as a lawyer) to add much.
However, even before joining I reviewed to posts almost daily and really
enjoy the dialogue which has improved since the banning.  I think site works
best assuming Cold Fusion is real and dialoguing about why it works.

 

Anyway, I leave it to Bill and the other members of Vortex as to whether I
post MY's reply.  If the answer is NO, I have it available for anyone
interested.

 

Ransom

- Original Message - 

From: Jed Rothwell   

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:20 PM

Subject: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power

 

At the denouement of the recent kerfuffle here, Bill Beaty wrote a message
to Mary Yugo that described the situation perfectly. It is a sort of pocket
history of the cold fusion dispute. A haiku history, if you will. It was
quoted in the Defkalion forum. It is here:

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg62237.html 

 

He nailed it. I could not agree more.

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:Name that tune

[David Roberson]

I have always assumed that the heating elements within the Rossi ECAT are using 
AC.  The frequency of the current is assumed to be 60 or 50 hertz, but I do not 
recall anyone measuring it.  One interesting possibility to consider is that 
the large AC magnetic field associated with this current contained within the 
core might be strong enough to agitate the nickel due to its magnetic 
properties at modest temperatures.  Also, do we know how electrically 
conductive the core materials are?  I wonder if the core net resistive value is 
consistent enough to carry current for heating power?

What if the extra spike that we observe in the waveform can be triggered by the 
large magnetic field or current that flows within the core region?

A lot of questions and few answers.  Maybe some of them will cause a light to 
shine within one of our collective minds.

Dave  



-Original Message-
From: francis 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 9:56 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Name that tune



Why does everyone assume the heater elements use DC? A transformer would be the 
easiest way to adjust the voltage or current to larger rms values and would 
explain the isolation transformer. The blue control box then might simply gate 
this AC power through the transformer for longer or shorter durations. This 
wouldn’t be called an RFG but it would have the same effect while 
simultaneously heating the reactor elements.
Fran
 
 
Jones Beene
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:09:19 -0800
Mine too, and now ... the real reason for this inquiry - why do you need
one?
 
Coincidentally, as you mentioned in the preceding message, they claim NOT to
use an RFG. 
 
Which technically does not mean they do not have a fair amount of RF noise
in the reactor, does it? It means only that they have no dedicated RF
generator.
 
There are other reasons for having an isolation transformer than to protect
your Variac and other instruments and computers from a source of disruptive
electrical spikes, so it's not a smoking gun - but is there a good reason
not to suspect either a spark gap or glow discharge arrangement inside the
reactor somewhere?
 
After all, if we were talking about resistance heating elements (ala AR)
being your thermal input and your P-in, then an isolation transformer would
not be needed, correct ?
 
 

Re: [Vo]:"The Antagonists" - Documentary about CF History.

[James Bowery]

To place any sort of mailing list purge in the same context as the
purge of rational scientific discourse that occurred within 40 days
and 40 nights of the cold fusion announcement by Fleischmann and Pons
is making a galaxy out of a mole hill.

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> What about a sequel called "the Agonists" ... a documentary about the drama
> of ditto-skepticism on the vortex forum... up to the infamous "Purge of
> 2012" ...
>
> "Agony" being the operative word and 'Agonism' being the political doctrine
> of embracing conflict and acknowledging the positive value of inherent
> discord, including bloody debates, nasty name-calling, and class warfare...
> or better yet, what about a hairy tragedy: "Vortex Agonistes" :-)
>
> The punage being a nod to Milton's "Samson Agonistes" known in Lit circles
> as a "closet drama". No kidding - the term "tragic closet drama" it is apt
> for the times, no? ... at least it is pretty clear that we were never
> intended to perform onstage.
>
> On the brighter side, Milton's classic was followed by "Paradise Regained"
> ... and just as we are enacting the Last Temptation of Rossi... In forty
> days we will know if the Snake wins, or the new chosen-one is to be with us
> in these final days ...
>
>
> From: James Bowery
>
> "The Antagonists" is a better-directed epithet.  Although "pseudo-skeptics"
> does capture an important dimension of the crime against humanity, it
> doesn't get as close to the heart of the matter.  Perhaps a phrase involving
> "establishment" would be even better.  "The Inquisitors" might be better
> than "The Antagonists".
> Harry Veeder wrote:
> http://www.137films.org/NewsDetailPage/Work-in-progress-screening.
>
>> "The Believers" test screening February 11
>
>> Work-in-Progress Screening of The Believers at The Gene Siskel Film Center
>>  If you've been waiting to see our new film, The Believers, now is
>> your chance! The Chicago Council on Science and Technology is
>> presenting a work-in-progress screening of The Believers on Saturday,
>> February 11 at noon at the Gene Siskel Film Center, and filmmakers
>> Monica Ross and Clayton Brown will be in attendance for a Q & A
>> session after the film.
>>
>> You can attend for free by becoming a 137 Films Backer.  Click here
>> for information on how to do it.
>>
>> We hope to see you on February 11!
>> ---
>>
>> Harry
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:Name that tune

[francis]

Why does everyone assume the heater elements use DC? A transformer would be
the easiest way to adjust the voltage or current to larger rms values and
would explain the isolation transformer. The blue control box then might
simply gate this AC power through the transformer for longer or shorter
durations. This wouldn't be called an RFG but it would have the same effect
while simultaneously heating the reactor elements.

Fran

 

 

Jones Beene
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:09:19 -0800

Mine too, and now ... the real reason for this inquiry - why do you need

one?

 

Coincidentally, as you mentioned in the preceding message, they claim NOT to

use an RFG. 

 

Which technically does not mean they do not have a fair amount of RF noise

in the reactor, does it? It means only that they have no dedicated RF

generator.

 

There are other reasons for having an isolation transformer than to protect

your Variac and other instruments and computers from a source of disruptive

electrical spikes, so it's not a smoking gun - but is there a good reason

not to suspect either a spark gap or glow discharge arrangement inside the

reactor somewhere?

 

After all, if we were talking about resistance heating elements (ala AR)

being your thermal input and your P-in, then an isolation transformer would

not be needed, correct ?

 

 

Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power

[zer tte]

Randy, i respect your wish to see george response published here, however 
unlike the vortex, george is not banned from the internet as far as i know.

So i don't really see the point for him to request that you become his voice, 
unless being a lawyer makes you the perfect target for a proxy to talk through 
maybe ?

Still there is one thing i kind of disagree with in your statement about the 
"MY does make valid points" part, those points where already known and 
established by jed, david, daniel, horace, bob and many others and i hope this 
is clear because it seems to be often forgotten in the flood.


I don't know why but it seems to me some people felt like the vortex became 
Rossi's investors clubhouse, or DGT etc ... i believe this is not.

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Ok,
Daniel you are right.
The order of magnitude of a field at the Bohr radius from a proton is 10^11
V/m. It seems also that the interpretation of the paper describes this
situation where the electron sphere is the size of an average atom. I
misunderstood what the paper was discussing.
Gigi, did you use cgs units to do your calculation? Otherwise if you want
to use mks you have to add the coulomb constant to the Coulomb equation in
the Srivastava paper. I think this where you error was.
Giovanni


On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Well, 10^11 - 10^12 seems to be the right order of magnitude for the
> electric field to trap a surface electron. At the classical proton radius,
> ~2fm, it should be around 10^(~-22)V/M.
>
>
> 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi 
>
>> Ok, let me read the paper and reply. I need to understand it better. But
>> what I said before it is right in terms of using 25) to define a. To make
>> sense of the numbers then a has to be on the order of a nucleus.
>> Giovanni
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>
>>> Absorption, in WL, happens because of a mysterious collective
>>> oscillation of surface plasmons which cause some of the electrons to be
>>> tunnel into a proton, it's like thousands of plasmons together pushing 1
>>> electron inside a 1 proton. The order of magnitude of plasmons is bound by
>>> the workfunction, otherwise, the electron would be removed from the metal.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi 
>>>
 We can analyze the paper together, but what is discussed in that
 section is what happens when an electron is absorbed inside a proton. The
 proton would oscillate because of the presence of the electric field
 distributed over the volume of the proton. So the relevant scale is the
 size of a proton.

 Giovanni


 On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

> Well, the electric field makes sense if that 10^12V/m has the size of
> an atom bohr, not of a proton. Just scale that field for that of bohr 
> atom,
> r~5*10^-11m, which gives 2V/bohr atom. That's not far away from a typical
> working function of a metal.
>
>
> 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi 
>
>> I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to
>> learn more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and
>> understand their main content.
>>
>> I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are
>> describing in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed
>> in a electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small 
>> displacement
>> u.
>>
>> The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a
>> distance on the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 
>> as
>> a definition of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this
>> quantity is used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio
>> between small displacement and this a.
>>
>> So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if
>> the small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on).
>> Nothing wrong in the equation.
>>
>> Giovanni
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius.
>>> That seems correct.
>>> Giovanni
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda <
>>> alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>

 can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe
 the author.
 maybe is there a typo in the formulas,
 is it corrected in a newer version?

 i confirm the computation

 beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway.

 the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9...
 maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted


 in
 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf
 in(89) I see the same huge "looking like a mistake" (I compute
 4.55V/m)
 and same for 87

 maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine,
 and I could not check units coherency
 it is a key point, and I hope they check it.
 it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed.

 note that in
 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf
 I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge
 diameter (8.8e-16m)
 while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m  officially

 so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem...
 his computation are 

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Daniel Rocha]

Well, 10^11 - 10^12 seems to be the right order of magnitude for the
electric field to trap a surface electron. At the classical proton radius,
~2fm, it should be around 10^(~-22)V/M.

2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi 

> Ok, let me read the paper and reply. I need to understand it better. But
> what I said before it is right in terms of using 25) to define a. To make
> sense of the numbers then a has to be on the order of a nucleus.
> Giovanni
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> Absorption, in WL, happens because of a mysterious collective oscillation
>> of surface plasmons which cause some of the electrons to be tunnel into a
>> proton, it's like thousands of plasmons together pushing 1 electron inside
>> a 1 proton. The order of magnitude of plasmons is bound by the
>> workfunction, otherwise, the electron would be removed from the metal.
>>
>>
>> 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi 
>>
>>> We can analyze the paper together, but what is discussed in that section
>>> is what happens when an electron is absorbed inside a proton. The proton
>>> would oscillate because of the presence of the electric field distributed
>>> over the volume of the proton. So the relevant scale is the size of a
>>> proton.
>>>
>>> Giovanni
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>>
 Well, the electric field makes sense if that 10^12V/m has the size of
 an atom bohr, not of a proton. Just scale that field for that of bohr atom,
 r~5*10^-11m, which gives 2V/bohr atom. That's not far away from a typical
 working function of a metal.


 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi 

> I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to
> learn more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and
> understand their main content.
>
> I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are
> describing in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed
> in a electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small displacement
> u.
>
> The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a distance
> on the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 as a
> definition of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this
> quantity is used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio
> between small displacement and this a.
>
> So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if
> the small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on).
> Nothing wrong in the equation.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius.
>> That seems correct.
>> Giovanni
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda > > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the
>>> author.
>>> maybe is there a typo in the formulas,
>>> is it corrected in a newer version?
>>>
>>> i confirm the computation
>>>
>>> beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway.
>>>
>>> the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9...
>>> maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted
>>>
>>>
>>> in
>>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf
>>> in(89) I see the same huge "looking like a mistake" (I compute
>>> 4.55V/m)
>>> and same for 87
>>>
>>> maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine,
>>> and I could not check units coherency
>>> it is a key point, and I hope they check it.
>>> it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed.
>>>
>>> note that in
>>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf
>>> I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge
>>> diameter (8.8e-16m)
>>> while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m  officially
>>>
>>> so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem...
>>> his computation are more simple, so I think it is a
>>> misunderstanding...
>>>
>>> have to find a professionnal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco 
>>>
 I've a problem with the W&L theory. I read carefully their
 published paper


 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf

 and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw.
 I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check.
 It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics.

 My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field
 around one million of millions V/m appears.
 Too 

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Ok, let me read the paper and reply. I need to understand it better. But
what I said before it is right in terms of using 25) to define a. To make
sense of the numbers then a has to be on the order of a nucleus.
Giovanni


On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Absorption, in WL, happens because of a mysterious collective oscillation
> of surface plasmons which cause some of the electrons to be tunnel into a
> proton, it's like thousands of plasmons together pushing 1 electron inside
> a 1 proton. The order of magnitude of plasmons is bound by the
> workfunction, otherwise, the electron would be removed from the metal.
>
>
> 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi 
>
>> We can analyze the paper together, but what is discussed in that section
>> is what happens when an electron is absorbed inside a proton. The proton
>> would oscillate because of the presence of the electric field distributed
>> over the volume of the proton. So the relevant scale is the size of a
>> proton.
>>
>> Giovanni
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>
>>> Well, the electric field makes sense if that 10^12V/m has the size of an
>>> atom bohr, not of a proton. Just scale that field for that of bohr atom,
>>> r~5*10^-11m, which gives 2V/bohr atom. That's not far away from a typical
>>> working function of a metal.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi 
>>>
 I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to
 learn more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and
 understand their main content.

 I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are
 describing in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed
 in a electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small displacement
 u.

 The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a distance
 on the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 as a
 definition of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this
 quantity is used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio
 between small displacement and this a.

 So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if
 the small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on).
 Nothing wrong in the equation.

 Giovanni







 On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
 gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:

> They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius.
> That seems correct.
> Giovanni
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the
>> author.
>> maybe is there a typo in the formulas,
>> is it corrected in a newer version?
>>
>> i confirm the computation
>>
>> beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway.
>>
>> the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9...
>> maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted
>>
>>
>> in
>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf
>> in(89) I see the same huge "looking like a mistake" (I compute
>> 4.55V/m)
>> and same for 87
>>
>> maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine,
>> and I could not check units coherency
>> it is a key point, and I hope they check it.
>> it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed.
>>
>> note that in
>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf
>> I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge
>> diameter (8.8e-16m)
>> while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m  officially
>>
>> so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem...
>> his computation are more simple, so I think it is a
>> misunderstanding...
>>
>> have to find a professionnal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco 
>>
>>> I've a problem with the W&L theory. I read carefully their published
>>> paper
>>>
>>>
>>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf
>>>
>>> and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw.
>>> I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check.
>>> It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics.
>>>
>>> My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around
>>> one million of millions V/m appears.
>>> Too much, I told myself.
>>> As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr
>>> distance is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude
>>> less.
>>>
>>> So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the
>>> electric field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr 
>>> distan

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Daniel Rocha]

Absorption, in WL, happens because of a mysterious collective oscillation
of surface plasmons which cause some of the electrons to be tunnel into a
proton, it's like thousands of plasmons together pushing 1 electron inside
a 1 proton. The order of magnitude of plasmons is bound by the
workfunction, otherwise, the electron would be removed from the metal.

2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi 

> We can analyze the paper together, but what is discussed in that section
> is what happens when an electron is absorbed inside a proton. The proton
> would oscillate because of the presence of the electric field distributed
> over the volume of the proton. So the relevant scale is the size of a
> proton.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> Well, the electric field makes sense if that 10^12V/m has the size of an
>> atom bohr, not of a proton. Just scale that field for that of bohr atom,
>> r~5*10^-11m, which gives 2V/bohr atom. That's not far away from a typical
>> working function of a metal.
>>
>>
>> 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi 
>>
>>> I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to
>>> learn more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and
>>> understand their main content.
>>>
>>> I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are
>>> describing in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed
>>> in a electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small displacement
>>> u.
>>>
>>> The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a distance
>>> on the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 as a
>>> definition of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this
>>> quantity is used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio
>>> between small displacement and this a.
>>>
>>> So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if the
>>> small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on).
>>> Nothing wrong in the equation.
>>>
>>> Giovanni
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
>>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius.
 That seems correct.
 Giovanni



 On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda 
 wrote:

>
> can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the
> author.
> maybe is there a typo in the formulas,
> is it corrected in a newer version?
>
> i confirm the computation
>
> beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway.
>
> the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9...
> maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted
>
>
> in
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf
> in(89) I see the same huge "looking like a mistake" (I compute 4.55V/m)
> and same for 87
>
> maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine,
> and I could not check units coherency
> it is a key point, and I hope they check it.
> it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed.
>
> note that in
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf
> I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge
> diameter (8.8e-16m)
> while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m  officially
>
> so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem...
> his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding...
>
> have to find a professionnal
>
>
>
>
>
> 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco 
>
>> I've a problem with the W&L theory. I read carefully their published
>> paper
>>
>>
>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf
>>
>> and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw.
>> I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check.
>> It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics.
>>
>> My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around
>> one million of millions V/m appears.
>> Too much, I told myself.
>> As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr
>> distance is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude
>> less.
>>
>> So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the
>> electric field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance 
>> to
>> the third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that
>> represents the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion.
>> In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under
>> the square root.
>> So the term to be evaluated reads:
>>
>> 4 |e| / 3 a^2
>>
>> This term provides us with a numerical value equal to  7.63 V/m, that
>> is 11 orders of

RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot

[Peter B]

Hi Brad 
Ive been able to purchase most of the instruments to do  my own experiments on 
Ni H Because (as usual) money is tight  , Im  struggling to find a reasonable 
priced  "Element"  thatproduces 400 to 600 C , has hot zone of 100 mm  and 
can handle a very high psi 
Can you recomend any products or companies that might fit the bill 
Thanks for you help 
Pete 


> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:48:34 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot
> From: ecatbuil...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
> >> Ta-Da ... yes it is argon. It is a Mills catalyst, and we know they use it.
> >
> 
> Hold the champagne.. Piantelli says argon stops the nuclear process...
> http://www.rexresearch.com/piantelli/piantelli.htm
> 
> In the pictures the yellow tubing appears to be for vacuum. But later
> in the video a tube goes into the T and out up towards the ceiling..
> which hints towards venting.. not the addition of a secret gas
> ingredient.
> 
> 
> At 0:21 there is a picture of a lead going into the center of the
> reactor? Almost looks like a spark plug lead. High voltage? If I'm not
> mistaken, the variac goes into a big (blue with yellow stripe)
> transformer. (variac also appears to be on "max").
> 
> - Brad
> 
  

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Giovanni Santostasi]

We can analyze the paper together, but what is discussed in that section is
what happens when an electron is absorbed inside a proton. The proton would
oscillate because of the presence of the electric field distributed over
the volume of the proton. So the relevant scale is the size of a proton.

Giovanni


On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Well, the electric field makes sense if that 10^12V/m has the size of an
> atom bohr, not of a proton. Just scale that field for that of bohr atom,
> r~5*10^-11m, which gives 2V/bohr atom. That's not far away from a typical
> working function of a metal.
>
>
> 2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi 
>
>> I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to learn
>> more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and understand
>> their main content.
>>
>> I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are
>> describing in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed
>> in a electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small displacement
>> u.
>>
>> The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a distance on
>> the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 as a definition
>> of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this quantity is
>> used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio between small
>> displacement and this a.
>>
>> So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if the
>> small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on).
>> Nothing wrong in the equation.
>>
>> Giovanni
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius.
>>> That seems correct.
>>> Giovanni
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>>>

 can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the
 author.
 maybe is there a typo in the formulas,
 is it corrected in a newer version?

 i confirm the computation

 beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway.

 the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9...
 maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted


 in
 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf
 in(89) I see the same huge "looking like a mistake" (I compute 4.55V/m)
 and same for 87

 maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine,
 and I could not check units coherency
 it is a key point, and I hope they check it.
 it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed.

 note that in
 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf
 I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge
 diameter (8.8e-16m)
 while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m  officially

 so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem...
 his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding...

 have to find a professionnal





 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco 

> I've a problem with the W&L theory. I read carefully their published
> paper
>
>
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf
>
> and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw.
> I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check.
> It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics.
>
> My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around
> one million of millions V/m appears.
> Too much, I told myself.
> As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance
> is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less.
>
> So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the
> electric field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance 
> to
> the third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that
> represents the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion.
> In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the
> square root.
> So the term to be evaluated reads:
>
> 4 |e| / 3 a^2
>
> This term provides us with a numerical value equal to  7.63 V/m, that
> is 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper.
>
> That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the
> threshold criteria for electron capture  Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more
> satisfied by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus
> neutrino pair can not be produced.
>
> Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations?
>
>
> Best regards
>
> GDM
>
>
>

>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Alain Sepeda]

for srivastava paper, equation (25) is not clear about a value

but for the 2006 w-l papers (25) they preted a value of a which does nor
match the result...
a=50nm (about bohr radius), but the computation seemes to use around a
femtometer (proton size).
anyway now all the papers, seems coherent if a=~1fm (the charge size of a
proton)

anyway, this does not seems to hurt critics, who moans on other subjects
(
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/critique/GrabiakCritique-Widom-LarsenFeb4-2010.pdf...)





2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi 

> I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to learn
> more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and understand
> their main content.
>
> I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are describing
> in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed in a
> electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small displacement u.
>
> The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a distance on
> the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 as a definition
> of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this quantity is
> used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio between small
> displacement and this a.
>
> So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if the
> small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on).
> Nothing wrong in the equation.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius.
>> That seems correct.
>> Giovanni
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the
>>> author.
>>> maybe is there a typo in the formulas,
>>> is it corrected in a newer version?
>>>
>>> i confirm the computation
>>>
>>> beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway.
>>>
>>> the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9...
>>> maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted
>>>
>>>
>>> in
>>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf
>>> in(89) I see the same huge "looking like a mistake" (I compute 4.55V/m)
>>> and same for 87
>>>
>>> maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine,
>>> and I could not check units coherency
>>> it is a key point, and I hope they check it.
>>> it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed.
>>>
>>> note that in
>>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf
>>> I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge
>>> diameter (8.8e-16m)
>>> while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m  officially
>>>
>>> so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem...
>>> his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding...
>>>
>>> have to find a professionnal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco 
>>>
 I've a problem with the W&L theory. I read carefully their published
 paper


 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf

 and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw.
 I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check.
 It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics.

 My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around
 one million of millions V/m appears.
 Too much, I told myself.
 As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance
 is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less.

 So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric
 field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the
 third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents
 the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion.
 In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the
 square root.
 So the term to be evaluated reads:

 4 |e| / 3 a^2

 This term provides us with a numerical value equal to  7.63 V/m, that
 is 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper.

 That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the
 threshold criteria for electron capture  Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more
 satisfied by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus
 neutrino pair can not be produced.

 Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations?


 Best regards

 GDM



>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power

[Daniel Rocha]

NO, for goodness sake!

2012/1/31 Randy Wuller 

> **
> Jed:
>
> This post prompted a reply from Maryugo.  Since MY is banned here and at
> the Defkalion site and since I converse with MY (by email) occasionally,
> she sent me her reply to Bill Beaty which I presume he received and did not
> elect to post.  She has requested that I post her reply and I hesitate
> principally because this site has a right in my opinion to censor and a
> right to ban and if Bill has decided to both ban and censor MY, I conclude
> that I too would be in violation of his censor and ban on this occasion if
> I without authority posted her response.
>
> However, I am sympathetic with the rights of someone to defend themselves
> (being a lawyer) and it seems to me that if members of this site continue
> to post about MY, maybe she should be given a limited right to respond.
> Further, while I deem MY to be annoyingly repetitive, had she only
> occasionally pointed out the problem with the current state of Mr. Rossi's
> affairs, I for one would not have been troubled.  MY does make valid
> points, it is just after reading the same point about 1,000 times, one has
> to say ENOUGH.
>
> I hesitated to join the Vortex because I see it as a what if site
> dedicated to discussing the possible science behind "Cold Fusion" (I like
> that Moniker better then LENR) and I am not really qualified (as a lawyer)
> to add much.  However, even before joining I reviewed to posts almost daily
> and really enjoy the dialogue which has improved since the banning.  I
> think site works best assuming Cold Fusion is real and dialoguing about why
> it works.
>
> Anyway, I leave it to Bill and the other members of Vortex as to whether I
> post MY's reply.  If the answer is NO, I have it available for anyone
> interested.
>
> Ransom
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:20 PM
> *Subject:* [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power
>
> At the denouement of the recent kerfuffle here, Bill Beaty wrote a message
> to Mary Yugo that described the situation perfectly. It is a sort of pocket
> history of the cold fusion dispute. A haiku history, if you will. It was
> quoted in the Defkalion forum. It is here:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg62237.html
>
> He nailed it. I could not agree more.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Daniel Rocha]

Well, the electric field makes sense if that 10^12V/m has the size of an
atom bohr, not of a proton. Just scale that field for that of bohr atom,
r~5*10^-11m, which gives 2V/bohr atom. That's not far away from a typical
working function of a metal.

2012/1/31 Giovanni Santostasi 

> I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to learn
> more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and understand
> their main content.
>
> I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are describing
> in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed in a
> electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small displacement u.
>
> The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a distance on
> the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 as a definition
> of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this quantity is
> used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio between small
> displacement and this a.
>
> So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if the
> small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on).
> Nothing wrong in the equation.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius.
>> That seems correct.
>> Giovanni
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the
>>> author.
>>> maybe is there a typo in the formulas,
>>> is it corrected in a newer version?
>>>
>>> i confirm the computation
>>>
>>> beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway.
>>>
>>> the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9...
>>> maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted
>>>
>>>
>>> in
>>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf
>>> in(89) I see the same huge "looking like a mistake" (I compute 4.55V/m)
>>> and same for 87
>>>
>>> maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine,
>>> and I could not check units coherency
>>> it is a key point, and I hope they check it.
>>> it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed.
>>>
>>> note that in
>>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf
>>> I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge
>>> diameter (8.8e-16m)
>>> while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m  officially
>>>
>>> so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem...
>>> his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding...
>>>
>>> have to find a professionnal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco 
>>>
 I've a problem with the W&L theory. I read carefully their published
 paper


 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf

 and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw.
 I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check.
 It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics.

 My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around
 one million of millions V/m appears.
 Too much, I told myself.
 As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance
 is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less.

 So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric
 field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the
 third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents
 the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion.
 In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the
 square root.
 So the term to be evaluated reads:

 4 |e| / 3 a^2

 This term provides us with a numerical value equal to  7.63 V/m, that
 is 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper.

 That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the
 threshold criteria for electron capture  Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more
 satisfied by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus
 neutrino pair can not be produced.

 Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations?


 Best regards

 GDM



>>>
>>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling

[Axil Axil]

Some excitant caused a temperature spike, and a temperature based
excitation would be very gradual and not quenched.

This leads to the assumption that the excitant is fast acting an  easily
quenched; one that can be turned off and on quickly.

The excitant most probably is a electrical based one, magnetic,
electrostatic, spark discharge, photonic or the like. I still think that
the FR is a possibility.

What one person in an organization said yesterday does not apply to what
another one may be doing today.


On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> > The purpose of this DGT experiment may well be to see how responsively
> the
> > NiH reaction can follow adjustments in the frequency generators output in
> > terms of increased frequency output.
>
> But, they claim they use no RFG and none was evident in the video.
>
> T
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Name that tune

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Mine too, and now ... the real reason for this inquiry - why do you need
> one?

You normally use an isolation transformer to avoid earthing the load.
That way you avoid ground loops.

Why they use it could be as you surmise; but, variacs are fairly
rugged.  Yes, there could be a lot of RF noise in the reactor.  I'll
ask them.

T

RE: [Vo]:Name that tune

[Jones Beene]

Mine too, and now ... the real reason for this inquiry - why do you need
one?

Coincidentally, as you mentioned in the preceding message, they claim NOT to
use an RFG. 

Which technically does not mean they do not have a fair amount of RF noise
in the reactor, does it? It means only that they have no dedicated RF
generator.

There are other reasons for having an isolation transformer than to protect
your Variac and other instruments and computers from a source of disruptive
electrical spikes, so it's not a smoking gun - but is there a good reason
not to suspect either a spark gap or glow discharge arrangement inside the
reactor somewhere?

After all, if we were talking about resistance heating elements (ala AR)
being your thermal input and your P-in, then an isolation transformer would
not be needed, correct ?


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

> At 1:23 in the DGT video - there is seen a blue and yellow block on the
> floor with wires going to the variac. What is it?

An isolation (1:1) transformer is my guess.

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Giovanni Santostasi]

I have a PhD in Physics even if this is not my field, I'm trying to learn
more about it. But usually I can read most physics papers and understand
their main content.

I will read the paper more carefully but it seems that they are describing
in section 3, the harmonic motion of a proton that is immersed in a
electric field and displaced from equilibrium by a small displacement u.

The a in equation 25 is not well explained but I believe is a distance on
the order of the size of a proton. In fact you could use 25 as a definition
of a=5.1x10^11V/m/e. It is arbitrary at this point and this quantity is
used to parameterize the field in terms of a distance ratio between small
displacement and this a.

So for example, the field would be E^2=16/9 * (5.1x10^11V/m)^2 *4 if the
small displacement u is 2a (9 if displacement is 3a and so on).
Nothing wrong in the equation.

Giovanni







On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
wrote:

> They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius.
> That seems correct.
> Giovanni
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
>>
>> can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the
>> author.
>> maybe is there a typo in the formulas,
>> is it corrected in a newer version?
>>
>> i confirm the computation
>>
>> beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway.
>>
>> the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9...
>> maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted
>>
>>
>> in
>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf
>> in(89) I see the same huge "looking like a mistake" (I compute 4.55V/m)
>> and same for 87
>>
>> maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine,
>> and I could not check units coherency
>> it is a key point, and I hope they check it.
>> it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed.
>>
>> note that in
>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf
>> I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge
>> diameter (8.8e-16m)
>> while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m  officially
>>
>> so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem...
>> his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding...
>>
>> have to find a professionnal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco 
>>
>>> I've a problem with the W&L theory. I read carefully their published
>>> paper
>>>
>>>
>>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf
>>>
>>> and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw.
>>> I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check.
>>> It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics.
>>>
>>> My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one
>>> million of millions V/m appears.
>>> Too much, I told myself.
>>> As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance
>>> is only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less.
>>>
>>> So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric
>>> field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the
>>> third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents
>>> the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion.
>>> In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the
>>> square root.
>>> So the term to be evaluated reads:
>>>
>>> 4 |e| / 3 a^2
>>>
>>> This term provides us with a numerical value equal to  7.63 V/m, that is
>>> 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper.
>>>
>>> That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold
>>> criteria for electron capture  Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied
>>> by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can
>>> not be produced.
>>>
>>> Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations?
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> GDM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Giovanni Santostasi]

They are using a about the size of a proton not the Bohr radius.
That seems correct.
Giovanni



On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

>
> can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the
> author.
> maybe is there a typo in the formulas,
> is it corrected in a newer version?
>
> i confirm the computation
>
> beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway.
>
> the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9...
> maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted
>
>
> in
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf
> in(89) I see the same huge "looking like a mistake" (I compute 4.55V/m)
> and same for 87
>
> maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine,
> and I could not check units coherency
> it is a key point, and I hope they check it.
> it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed.
>
> note that in
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf
> I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge diameter
> (8.8e-16m)
> while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m  officially
>
> so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem...
> his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding...
>
> have to find a professionnal
>
>
>
>
>
> 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco 
>
>> I've a problem with the W&L theory. I read carefully their published
>> paper
>>
>>
>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf
>>
>> and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw.
>> I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check.
>> It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics.
>>
>> My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one
>> million of millions V/m appears.
>> Too much, I told myself.
>> As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is
>> only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less.
>>
>> So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric
>> field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the
>> third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents
>> the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion.
>> In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the
>> square root.
>> So the term to be evaluated reads:
>>
>> 4 |e| / 3 a^2
>>
>> This term provides us with a numerical value equal to  7.63 V/m, that is
>> 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper.
>>
>> That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold
>> criteria for electron capture  Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied
>> by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can
>> not be produced.
>>
>> Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations?
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> GDM
>>
>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:"The Antagonists" - Documentary about CF History.

[Jones Beene]

What about a sequel called "the Agonists" ... a documentary about the drama
of ditto-skepticism on the vortex forum... up to the infamous "Purge of
2012" ...

"Agony" being the operative word and 'Agonism' being the political doctrine
of embracing conflict and acknowledging the positive value of inherent
discord, including bloody debates, nasty name-calling, and class warfare...
or better yet, what about a hairy tragedy: "Vortex Agonistes" :-) 

The punage being a nod to Milton's "Samson Agonistes" known in Lit circles
as a "closet drama". No kidding - the term "tragic closet drama" it is apt
for the times, no? ... at least it is pretty clear that we were never
intended to perform onstage.

On the brighter side, Milton's classic was followed by "Paradise Regained"
... and just as we are enacting the Last Temptation of Rossi... In forty
days we will know if the Snake wins, or the new chosen-one is to be with us
in these final days ...


From: James Bowery 

"The Antagonists" is a better-directed epithet.  Although "pseudo-skeptics"
does capture an important dimension of the crime against humanity, it
doesn't get as close to the heart of the matter.  Perhaps a phrase involving
"establishment" would be even better.  "The Inquisitors" might be better
than "The Antagonists".
Harry Veeder wrote:
http://www.137films.org/NewsDetailPage/Work-in-progress-screening.

> "The Believers" test screening February 11

> Work-in-Progress Screening of The Believers at The Gene Siskel Film Center
>  If you've been waiting to see our new film, The Believers, now is
> your chance! The Chicago Council on Science and Technology is
> presenting a work-in-progress screening of The Believers on Saturday,
> February 11 at noon at the Gene Siskel Film Center, and filmmakers
> Monica Ross and Clayton Brown will be in attendance for a Q & A
> session after the film.
>
> You can attend for free by becoming a 137 Films Backer.  Click here
> for information on how to do it.
>
> We hope to see you on February 11!
> ---
>
> Harry
>

<>

Re: [Vo]:Name that tune

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> At 1:23 in the DGT video - there is seen a blue and yellow block on the
> floor with wires going to the variac. What is it?

An isolation (1:1) transformer is my guess.

T

Re: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The purpose of this DGT experiment may well be to see how responsively the
> NiH reaction can follow adjustments in the frequency generators output in
> terms of increased frequency output.

But, they claim they use no RFG and none was evident in the video.

T

Re: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power

[Randy Wuller]

Jed:

This post prompted a reply from Maryugo.  Since MY is banned here and at the 
Defkalion site and since I converse with MY (by email) occasionally, she sent 
me her reply to Bill Beaty which I presume he received and did not elect to 
post.  She has requested that I post her reply and I hesitate principally 
because this site has a right in my opinion to censor and a right to ban and if 
Bill has decided to both ban and censor MY, I conclude that I too would be in 
violation of his censor and ban on this occasion if I without authority posted 
her response.

However, I am sympathetic with the rights of someone to defend themselves 
(being a lawyer) and it seems to me that if members of this site continue to 
post about MY, maybe she should be given a limited right to respond.  Further, 
while I deem MY to be annoyingly repetitive, had she only occasionally pointed 
out the problem with the current state of Mr. Rossi's affairs, I for one would 
not have been troubled.  MY does make valid points, it is just after reading 
the same point about 1,000 times, one has to say ENOUGH.

I hesitated to join the Vortex because I see it as a what if site dedicated to 
discussing the possible science behind "Cold Fusion" (I like that Moniker 
better then LENR) and I am not really qualified (as a lawyer) to add much.  
However, even before joining I reviewed to posts almost daily and really enjoy 
the dialogue which has improved since the banning.  I think site works best 
assuming Cold Fusion is real and dialoguing about why it works.

Anyway, I leave it to Bill and the other members of Vortex as to whether I post 
MY's reply.  If the answer is NO, I have it available for anyone interested.

Ransom
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:20 PM
  Subject: [Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power


  At the denouement of the recent kerfuffle here, Bill Beaty wrote a message to 
Mary Yugo that described the situation perfectly. It is a sort of pocket 
history of the cold fusion dispute. A haiku history, if you will. It was quoted 
in the Defkalion forum. It is here:


  http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg62237.html 


  He nailed it. I could not agree more.


  - Jed

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Alain Sepeda]

can someone contact a physicist that could check, and even maybe the author.
maybe is there a typo in the formulas,
is it corrected in a newer version?

i confirm the computation

beware of the cm unit instead of meter... I find 76V/m anyway.

the ratio of the mistake seems to be 9*10^9...
maybe one of the formula is wrong, or wrongly interpreted


in
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006WidomLarsen-TheoreticalStandard-V2.pdf
in(89) I see the same huge "looking like a mistake" (I compute 4.55V/m)
and same for 87

maybe is the notation very different from what we imagine,
and I could not check units coherency
it is a key point, and I hope they check it.
it could make W-L theory out, if confirmed.

note that in
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010Srivastava-Primer.pdf
I can infer from (25) that a=5.48e-16m, which is about the charge diameter
(8.8e-16m)
while bohr radius is 5.3e-11m  officially

so srivastava did not notice the problem, or it is not a problem...
his computation are more simple, so I think it is a misunderstanding...

have to find a professionnal




2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco 

> I've a problem with the W&L theory. I read carefully their published paper
>
>
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf
>
> and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw.
> I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check.
> It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics.
>
> My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one
> million of millions V/m appears.
> Too much, I told myself.
> As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is
> only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less.
>
> So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric
> field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the
> third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents
> the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion.
> In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the
> square root.
> So the term to be evaluated reads:
>
> 4 |e| / 3 a^2
>
> This term provides us with a numerical value equal to  7.63 V/m, that is
> 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper.
>
> That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold
> criteria for electron capture  Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied
> by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can
> not be produced.
>
> Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations?
>
>
> Best regards
>
> GDM
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Information on Defkalion

[David ledin]

Who run the  Defkalion SA?

George Sortikos CEO

Engineer. . Former banker and industrialist (ceramic high tech).
Former Chairman of State Bank ETVA (Greek Bank of Industrial
Development) ’80-’90 and founder of Omega Bank ’90. . He was also
chairman of the TIF (International Fair of Thessaloniki).

David Christian Aurel CEO

Swiss Banker with extensive experience in project finance and
logistics. Former president of Bank of Montenegro.
———–
Alexander Xanthoulis Board Member

Economist (Macroeconomics). Greek-Canadian. Former official of the EU
heads the Energy and Financial Reconstruction of the EU delegation in
Central Asia (90).

Chris Stremmenos Board Member

Chemical Engineer. Professor (retired) at the University of Bologna,
Italy, former ambassador of Greece to Italy.

John Hatzichristos Board Member

Mathematician. Extensive experience in software development,
Management Information Systems and Project Management. From 1992 to
1999 he served as CEO of computer systems Telemedia SA, while from
1991 to 1992 general manager of software systems Cibar AU. From 1990
to 1991 he worked at Marketing & Sales Intrasoft SA as a responsible
banking sector.
-
Mouafak Saouachni Board Member

Doctor Ophthalmologist. Greek-Israeli. Former member of the National
Council of PASOK.
-
Andreas Drougas Board Member

Mathematics / Computer Systems. Former Executive Director in LARCO
(Greek nickel mining company, now owned by the State), wide experience
as a consultant on business management and information technology.
Larco is a leading producer of ferronickel o in Europe and one of the
five largest producers worldwide. The Larco explores, extracts,
produces and sells its product worldwide.


On 2/1/12, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> From the forum, here is a document in Greek:
>
> http://www.metaphysics.gr/metaforum/viewtopic.php?t=675&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10
>
> Google does a good translation.
>
> - Jed
>

[Vo]:Name that tune

[Jones Beene]

At 1:23 in the DGT video - there is seen a blue and yellow block on the
floor with wires going to the variac. What is it? 

Re: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling

[Axil Axil]

In the context of the theory we are discussing and as a speculation, the
temperature of the proton pairs is directly proportional to the rate of
fusion with nickel.



Accordingly, the temperature (Brownian vibration frequency) of the proton
pairs can be adjusted using an increased (higher) frequency output from the
frequency generator.



An upward adjustment of this frequency will produce an increased
probability of tunneling and an associated increase in the fusion rate.



The purpose of this DGT experiment may well be to see how responsively the
NiH reaction can follow adjustments in the frequency generators output in
terms of increased frequency output.



This is important to quantify as it is an important input to the
computerized control system software setup.




On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> How would you explain the double pulse in the DGT video?
>
> T
>
>

[Vo]:Information on Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

>From the forum, here is a document in Greek:

http://www.metaphysics.gr/metaforum/viewtopic.php?t=675&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10

Google does a good translation.

- Jed

[Vo]:What Bill B. said, to the second power

[Jed Rothwell]

At the denouement of the recent kerfuffle here, Bill Beaty wrote a message
to Mary Yugo that described the situation perfectly. It is a sort of pocket
history of the cold fusion dispute. A haiku history, if you will. It was
quoted in the Defkalion forum. It is here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg62237.html

He nailed it. I could not agree more.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling

[Terry Blanton]

How would you explain the double pulse in the DGT video?

T

Re: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling

[Axil Axil]

A few more items if you please…



Rossi said that once his reaction was going out of control, Levi injected
Nitrogen to stop the reaction. Piantelli used deuterium and later Nitrogen.
I think Argon will serve this function as well.



The reason these gases will stop the reaction is because they short circuit
and destroy the coherence of the proton pairs.



Also, this is the reason why DGT must flush the hydrogen envelop
periodically. Nitrogen, oxygen, argon and other trace amount of gases will
eventually poison the reaction by suppressing the proton pair formation
process.



In the DGT maintenance procedure, the powder also must be cleaned by
vacuum cleaned
of trace gases regularly to keep the powder fresh in terms of quantum
mechanical proton pair coherence formation capability.






On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>  Wow, this is a provocative paper Axil - but can it be relevant to Ni-H,
> given the energies involved?
>
>
> The paper we are discussing indicates to me that superconductive processes
> exist even at many millions of degrees in temperature. IOW, Quantum
> mechanical tunneling can exist in super-hot places.
>
> This tunneling process may even exist inside the sun where it makes
> nuclear reactions that should not happen…proceed with great vigor.
>
>
>
> LENR may well be a kind of superconductivity, where proton pair formation
> and associated tunneling is a key causative agent.
>
>
>
> If tunneling through the coulomb barrier happens at extreme temperatures,
> then it is logical to suspect that this superconductive quantum mechanical
> process will become even more productive and probable as the temperatures
> fall.
>
>
>
> In a nutshell, quantum theory tells us that two entangled particles behave
> as a single physical object, no matter how far apart they are.
>
>
>
> This effect leads to quantum nonlocality. To make a long story short, it
> is as if quantum particles live outside space-time – and experiments
> confirm this.
>
>
> It seems to me that the ability of entangled protons to tunnel is
> increased in proportion as the numbers of pairs join an increasingly huge
> and growing macro-entangled assemblage.
>
>
> This does not happen at extreme temperatures but will happen at “Rossi
> reactor operating temperatures”
>
>
>
> This new theory informs us about how some perplexing and puzzling
> processes happen in a NiH reactor.
>
>
>
> In my mind, one of the important and mysterious unanswered questions in
> the behavior of the NiH reactor is how a NiH reactor meltdown occurs.
>
>
>
> More specifically this story may well go as follows: the increased power
> produced in a Ni-H reaction as the temperature increases beyond a critical
> limit even to and beyond the meltdown threshold may well be caused by the
> increase in collision speed between the given proton pair and the
> increasing blackbody vibrational speed of the nickel atom confined in the
> lattice.
>
>
>
> There may well be a large reservoir of entangled proton pairs formed by
> the micro powder that will cause a high temperature reaction beyond the
> melting point of nickel.
>
>
>
> In other words, the micro powder creates a supply of proton pairs stored
> in an abundant backlog to such an extended  level that once ignited will
> cause the destruction of the powder that produced it.
>
>
>
> This example illustrates what may happen. First a billion proton pairs are
> formed in and around the micro-powder. In steady state operation, the
> Brownian motion in the nickel lattice produces a steady state fusion level
> in which the NiH reactor produces power at a constant rate.
>
>
> For some reason...say operator error, a temperature rise increases the
> collision rate between the proton pairs and the nickel atoms in the
> lattice. The reaction reinforces itself because more heat begets more
> collision based fusions which produce even more heat. The powder will melt,
> at 700C but the reaction does not depend on the powder to continue; it uses
> the backlog of proton pairs that have built up over time. The reaction
> continues up to the melting point of bulk nickel and continues until the
> backlog of proton pairs are reduced below the reaction threshold.
>
>
> So the job of the Micro powder is to produce proton pairs in abundance and
> not to cause the fusion reaction. This temperature based reaction will
> happen even when the nickel is reduced to the bulk state.
>
>
>
> In addition, the effect of the Radio frequency generator may well be to
> magnetically stabilize the vibrational rate of the proton pair ensemble
> whose constant EM frequency affects a steadying of the rate of fusion
> reactions thus discouraging a meltdown runaway.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Wow, this is a provocative paper Axil - but can it be relevant to Ni-H,
>> given the energies involved?
>>
>> That is the $64 question. In short, do oxygen atoms accelerated to 10s of
>> MeV indicate tha

[Vo]:Rama Found?

[Terry Blanton]

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/28/world/europe/swedish-shipwreck-hunters/index.html

 eep down on the bottom of the Baltic Sea, Swedish treasure hunters
think they have made the find of a lifetime.  The problem is, they're
not exactly sure what it is they've uncovered. Out searching for
shipwrecks at a secret location between Sweden and Finland, the
deep-sea salvage company Ocean Explorer captured an incredible image
more than 80 meters below the water's surface.

At first glance, team leader and commercial diver Peter Lindberg joked
that his crew had just discovered an unidentified flying object, or
UFO.

"I have been doing this for nearly 20 years so I have a seen a few
objects on the bottom, but nothing like this," said Lindberg.  "We had
been out for nine days and we were quite tired and we were on our way
home, but we made a final run with a sonar fish and suddenly this
thing turned up," he continued.

Using side-scan sonar, the team found a 60-meter diameter
cylinder-shaped object, with a rigid tail 400 meters long.

The imaging technique involves pulling a sonar "towfish" -- that
essentially looks sideways underwater - behind a boat, where it
creates sound echoes to map the sea floor below.

On another pass over the object, the sonar showed a second disc-like
shape 200 meters away.

Re: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling

[Axil Axil]

Wow, this is a provocative paper Axil - but can it be relevant to Ni-H,
given the energies involved?


The paper we are discussing indicates to me that superconductive processes
exist even at many millions of degrees in temperature. IOW, Quantum
mechanical tunneling can exist in super-hot places.

This tunneling process may even exist inside the sun where it makes nuclear
reactions that should not happen…proceed with great vigor.



LENR may well be a kind of superconductivity, where proton pair formation
and associated tunneling is a key causative agent.



If tunneling through the coulomb barrier happens at extreme temperatures,
then it is logical to suspect that this superconductive quantum mechanical
process will become even more productive and probable as the temperatures
fall.



In a nutshell, quantum theory tells us that two entangled particles behave
as a single physical object, no matter how far apart they are.



This effect leads to quantum nonlocality. To make a long story short, it is
as if quantum particles live outside space-time – and experiments confirm
this.


It seems to me that the ability of entangled protons to tunnel is increased
in proportion as the numbers of pairs join an increasingly huge and growing
macro-entangled assemblage.


This does not happen at extreme temperatures but will happen at “Rossi
reactor operating temperatures”



This new theory informs us about how some perplexing and puzzling processes
happen in a NiH reactor.



In my mind, one of the important and mysterious unanswered questions in the
behavior of the NiH reactor is how a NiH reactor meltdown occurs.



More specifically this story may well go as follows: the increased power
produced in a Ni-H reaction as the temperature increases beyond a critical
limit even to and beyond the meltdown threshold may well be caused by the
increase in collision speed between the given proton pair and the
increasing blackbody vibrational speed of the nickel atom confined in the
lattice.



There may well be a large reservoir of entangled proton pairs formed by the
micro powder that will cause a high temperature reaction beyond the melting
point of nickel.



In other words, the micro powder creates a supply of proton pairs stored in
an abundant backlog to such an extended  level that once ignited will cause
the destruction of the powder that produced it.



This example illustrates what may happen. First a billion proton pairs are
formed in and around the micro-powder. In steady state operation, the
Brownian motion in the nickel lattice produces a steady state fusion level
in which the NiH reactor produces power at a constant rate.


For some reason...say operator error, a temperature rise increases the
collision rate between the proton pairs and the nickel atoms in the
lattice. The reaction reinforces itself because more heat begets more
collision based fusions which produce even more heat. The powder will melt,
at 700C but the reaction does not depend on the powder to continue; it uses
the backlog of proton pairs that have built up over time. The reaction
continues up to the melting point of bulk nickel and continues until the
backlog of proton pairs are reduced below the reaction threshold.


So the job of the Micro powder is to produce proton pairs in abundance and
not to cause the fusion reaction. This temperature based reaction will
happen even when the nickel is reduced to the bulk state.



In addition, the effect of the Radio frequency generator may well be to
magnetically stabilize the vibrational rate of the proton pair ensemble
whose constant EM frequency affects a steadying of the rate of fusion
reactions thus discouraging a meltdown runaway.








On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Wow, this is a provocative paper Axil - but can it be relevant to Ni-H,
> given the energies involved?
>
> That is the $64 question. In short, do oxygen atoms accelerated to 10s of
> MeV indicate that anything similar will happen when 10 million times less
> energy is employed, such as in LENR?
>
> In this paper - the beam used is almost 80 MeV which is considered "low
> energy" in accelerator physics, but is a factor of 10^8 more than the
> 'thermal triggering' of Rossi in the 350C range. That is one problem of
> quoting the authors mention of the phrase "low energy" out of context.
>
> Surprisingly, the answer could still be yes - in the sense that QM is
> "probability driven" as opposed to thermodynamically driven. Yet, it is not
> black-and-white comparison in this case, since there is only the one paper
> standing on its own. But still, enhanced tunneling of nuclear pairs is a
> most intriguing hypothesis, and moreover, is more easily falsifiable in
> LENR, than in hot physics.
>
> However, another relevance to a nickel-based reactor, found in this
> particular paper - where oxygen is the active reactant - could involve
> oxygen pairing in nickel-oxide instead of, or in addition to, proton
> pairing
> !
>

RE: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling

[Roarty, Francis X]

Jones,
I still share some of  Piantelli's fear of oxidizing the reactants 
instead of oscillating back and forth between molecular and atomic forms of 
hydrogen like Moller and Lyne proscribe.  I can understand that other endless 
reactions including oxygen may be possible that still harness  these same 
changes in geometry and dispersion forces. If the reaction is clean and 
reversible without adversely affecting the surrounding geometry or Casimir 
quality factor then I can accept oxygen as beneficial to the process. The fear 
was that the oxides would plate out as a solid and not be able to migrate as a 
gas  between changing values of geometry to reverse the reaction.

[snip] who would have thought that paired protons tunnel far easier than 
alphas?[/snip]  I never went so far as to suggest that hydrinos  are entangled  
but my relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect [based on Naudts paper on 
the hydrino as relativistic hydrogen] did lead me to suggest that the 
fractional orbits were displaced on the time axis and that the columb barrier 
might be reduced between hydrogen with different fractional values. I suspect 
that the molecular bond of fractional h2 can temporarily maintain the 
fractional value of h2 even when the  relativistic value induced by the local 
Ni geometry changes. This then would allow for a fractional h1 that translates 
instantly to reflect the local geometry to collide with a fractional h2 of a 
different fractional value [a temporal axis displacement]. It is this temporal 
displacement that I believe allowed Naudts to use math normally reserved for 
photons that can occupy the same state because from our perspective they occupy 
the same spatial coordinates only displaced on the time axis. This time axis 
displacement is also what I posit reduces the columb barrier where the protons 
displacement beach other is both spatial and temporal allowing the spatial 
displacement to fall much lower than normal without opposition.

Regards
Fran

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 9:41 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling


Wow, this is a provocative paper Axil - but can it be relevant to Ni-H, given 
the energies involved?

That is the $64 question. In short, do oxygen atoms accelerated to 10s of MeV 
indicate that anything similar will happen when 10 million times less energy is 
employed, such as in LENR?

In this paper - the beam used is almost 80 MeV which is considered "low energy" 
in accelerator physics, but is a factor of 10^8 more than the 'thermal 
triggering' of Rossi in the 350C range. That is one problem of quoting the 
authors mention of the phrase "low energy" out of context.

Surprisingly, the answer could still be yes - in the sense that QM is 
"probability driven" as opposed to thermodynamically driven. Yet, it is not 
black-and-white comparison in this case, since there is only the one paper 
standing on its own. But still, enhanced tunneling of nuclear pairs is a most 
intriguing hypothesis, and moreover, is more easily falsifiable in LENR, than 
in hot physics.

However, another relevance to a nickel-based reactor, found in this particular 
paper - where oxygen is the active reactant - could involve oxygen pairing in 
nickel-oxide instead of, or in addition to, proton pairing !

There is a double relevance, and that part too is falsifiable. But the larger 
problem is that there is little indication that Rossi (or DGT) use NiO 
"nanometric" powder (as opposed to Ni unoxidized). And Piantelli - who is 
inaccurate about his pronouncements on so many issues (like argon), says over 
and over oxygen in a no-no! He could NOT BE MORE WRONG!

In fact, several of us have read the soon-to-be published report - mentioned by 
Brian Ahern to another group - where NiO nanopowder, which is commercially 
available at 10 nm (from QSI) is extraordinarily active for thermal gain. In 
fact it is the most active nanopowder ever tested in this line of R&D !

But caveat: it is far from Rossi's claimed results in terms of watts-per-gram 
of reactant. And yet Piantelli, who is going sideways on many issues, says that 
the reactor must be thorough purged many times to get rid of nickel oxide! IOW 
- he wants to eliminate the most active ingredient.

What does it all mean? Do we see a hint of entanglement of one species (proton 
pairs) bleeding over into entanglement of another (oxygen pairs)? That is most 
provocative!

Side note, does that kind of double entanglement violate "conservation of 
miracles"? 

In fact, given the implications of a "QM probability field" affecting a spatial 
domain, it would seem at first like this kind of cross-entanglement is 
conceptually possible - although to be honest, a quick googling turns up 
nothing.

This is one more detail where a thorough isotopic analysis (from Sweden) would 
solve man

Re: [Vo]:LENR research posted at CERN

[Daniel Rocha]

CERN used to store preprint like the arxiv. Not anymore, as far as I know.
These are one of these old files. Nothing new too see here...

2012/1/31 Harry Veeder 

> searching "LENR"  on the CERN website
>
>
> http://cernsearch.web.cern.ch/cernsearch/Default.aspx?query=LENR&collections=WebPages|People|CDS|Indico|TwikiPages
>
> Harry
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]:LENR research posted at CERN

[Harry Veeder]

searching "LENR"  on the CERN website

http://cernsearch.web.cern.ch/cernsearch/Default.aspx?query=LENR&collections=WebPages|People|CDS|Indico|TwikiPages

Harry

[Vo]:Operation MiG-22 and Celani comments.

[Robert Leguillon]

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=www.greenstyle.it%2FFe-cat-greco-defkalion-mostra-in-video-lhyperion-in-funzione-7299.html
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://22passi.blogspot.com/2012/01/ancora-una-email-da-francesco-celani.html&usg=ALkJrhj8tEVWcuuMjkStbvpP7wKdHBRGBQ
 
In the first link, great information on Passerini fundraising for a visit to 
Defkalion, Celani's upcoming visit to CERN.
 
In the second link, Celani further discusses the negative temperature 
coefficient of resistivity: comparison's to Esaki's tunnel diodes.  

RE: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling

[Jones Beene]

Let me address one issue that is muddled from prior posting - the
significance of 18O ... (should it turn up in analysis) since the verbal
description was a bit confused (my apology as I get up very early and it
takes a while for the caffeine to take effect).

*   This is one more detail where a thorough isotopic analysis (from
Sweden) would solve many lingering issues. If nothing else, I hope that this
particular thread will convince Rossi that he can benefit from public
disclosure of this analysis ! Ask yourself this (Andrea, or Sven, or Hanno)
would you have recognized the significance of 18O if it should turns up in
your analysis? 

OK, First of all there is no indication that Rossi uses NiO at all, so it is
unlikely that 18O or 16O will be found in any analysis other than as an
assumed contaminant, and even then - before either isotope could be
characterized, the researcher must be aware that this is an issue and look
at the oxygen isotopes specifically. The natural assumption is that any
oxygen seen would be a contaminant so it would be ignored. 

If and when oxygen is analyzed: the natural ratio of 18O to16O is about ~2
parts per thousand, and if it were found to be significantly different in a
sample of used nickel - then it could indicate one of several possible
reactions. There is one reaction in particular that could leave little trace
in terms of radioactive ash. 

Specifically - and extrapolating from the paper in the previous thread, we
might find a scenario where paired oxygen ions tunnel into the nickel
electron cloud, and then towards the nucleus, via the Coulomb well of the
heavy 64Ni - and only one of the two oxygen nuclei gets a "slingshot boost"
towards a point where it can take away two neutrons from the anomalously
heavy nickel halo nucleus, leaving 62Ni and 18O. This is the only ash. It is
not radioactive. The reaction can be endothermic on paper and still produce
excess heat since the tunneling is "free" and mass is converted.

The reason that only 64Ni would work for this scenario is negation of some
of the normal Coulomb repulsion (positive charge) of the nucleus, in that
the near-field would be partially shielded due to the extra neutrons (two of
which are eventually shed). As mentioned, this particular isotope 64Ni is a
singularity in the periodic table, having the highest percentage of excess
neutron mass of any metal (using the criterion of ratio of excess mass of
the isotope, compared to the mass of the most stable isotope of that
element).

Yes, this reaction is "beyond bizarre", on the scale of things in hot
physics - and the probability of it happening is remote (to the mainstream).
You will not find it mentioned anywhere else. 

But the probability of this happening is not quite as remote as the
probability of achieving many month (or even days) of robust thermal gain
from an E-Cat... 

(not yet proved MY).

Jones

To answer a lingering question raised previously: No, the nucleus that is
tunneling (usually protons but here we mention oxygen nuclei) does not
"know" how to find the heavy nucleon (i.e. 64 Ni). In fact, sequential and
rapid (but unsuccessful) tunneling occurs in all isotopes, all the time.
Nuclear tunneling where any net gain or loss is noticed is extremely low
probability normally. Electron tunneling is commonplace. The two can work
together.

Tunneling of both varieties is a continuous background reaction; and it has
no net effect unless the reactant can "occasionally" get close enough for
QCD probabilities to materialize due to quark alignment. This only happens
with 64Ni (in this hypothesis) and no other nickel isotope, due to the
excess mass singularity.


<>

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Daniel Rocha]

I mean 50V/(bohr radius)

2012/1/31 Daniel Rocha 

> Right, the unit they are using is V/m, bohr darius is ~ 1/2*10^-10m. That
> gives  ~50V for the bohr radius. The ionization energy for the H atom is
> 13.6V. But I think the value you cited is a bit smaller.
>
>
> 2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco 
>
>> I've a problem with the W&L theory. I read carefully their published
>> paper
>>
>>
>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf
>>
>> and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw.
>> I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check.
>> It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics.
>>
>> My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one
>> million of millions V/m appears.
>> Too much, I told myself.
>> As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is
>> only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less.
>>
>> So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric
>> field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the
>> third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents
>> the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion.
>> In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the
>> square root.
>> So the term to be evaluated reads:
>>
>> 4 |e| / 3 a^2
>>
>> This term provides us with a numerical value equal to  7.63 V/m, that is
>> 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper.
>>
>> That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold
>> criteria for electron capture  Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied
>> by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can
>> not be produced.
>>
>> Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations?
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> GDM
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Daniel Rocha]

Right, the unit they are using is V/m, bohr darius is ~ 1/2*10^-10m. That
gives  ~50V for the bohr radius. The ionization energy for the H atom is
13.6V. But I think the value you cited is a bit smaller.

2012/1/31 Gigi DiMarco 

> I've a problem with the W&L theory. I read carefully their published paper
>
>
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf
>
> and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw.
> I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check.
> It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics.
>
> My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one
> million of millions V/m appears.
> Too much, I told myself.
> As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is
> only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less.
>
> So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric
> field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the
> third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents
> the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion.
> In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the
> square root.
> So the term to be evaluated reads:
>
> 4 |e| / 3 a^2
>
> This term provides us with a numerical value equal to  7.63 V/m, that is
> 11 orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper.
>
> That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold
> criteria for electron capture  Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied
> by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can
> not be produced.
>
> Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations?
>
>
> Best regards
>
> GDM
>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

vortex-l@eskimo.com

[Gigi DiMarco]

I've a problem with the W&L theory. I read carefully their published paper

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf

and I found what seems to me to be a major flaw.
I'm sure I'm totally wrong but I would ask you to check.
It is only arithmetics, no advanced physics.

My attention was catched by Eq. (25), where an electric field around one
million of millions V/m appears.
Too much, I told myself.
As a comparison the proton induced electrical field at a Bohr distance is
only about 10 to minus 7 V/m, that is 18 orders of magnitude less.

So I checked the calculations starting from Eq. (23) where the electric
field is 4 times proton charge divided by 3 times Bohr distance to the
third power, all multiplied by a term, under square root, that represents
the proton displacement during its oscillatory motion.
In Eq. (25) a term equal to the Bohr distance is transported under the
square root.
So the term to be evaluated reads:

4 |e| / 3 a^2

This term provides us with a numerical value equal to  7.63 V/m, that is 11
orders of magnitude less than the value appearing in the paper.

That turns out to be a huge problem for the authors, since the threshold
criteria for electron capture  Eq. (6) and Eq. (27) are no more satisfied
by a large amount and the ultra low momentum neutron plus neutrino pair can
not be produced.

Is anybody here that can confirm or disproof my calculations?


Best regards

GDM

Re: [Vo]:Ian Bryce's Agenda

[Jed Rothwell]

This is annoying stuff. Years ago I would have tried to answer him but I am
so tired of this nonsense I will not.

This is particularly annoying:

"Re the waste water running down the drain – all nuclear processes create a
long chain of isotopes, many of which have to be unstable and hence
radioactive. To produce 3000 W as claimed would require at least 10 to the
12 reactions per second – leaving gross radioactivity. Scientists measured
none above background."

He knows nothing about cold fusion, and not much about fission reactors.
The cooling water from the secondary loop at a nuclear plant is flushed
into the ocean in Japan, and into the atmosphere in the U.S. The cooling
water flowing through Rossi's device is comparable to the secondary cooling
water in a fission reactor. it goes around the outside of the cell and does
not touch the active material.

- Jed

[Vo]:Ian Bryce's Agenda

[Wolf Fischer]

Hi Vortex,

as it seems, Ian Bryce got hold of the possiblities of the Internet and 
tries to spread his word... He makes appearances in some of the 
Ecat-News-Site's comment sections as well as, e.g., on the Defkalion forum.
To be honest - i am a little bit surprised by the effort that he puts 
into of spreading his "prove" (or whatever you wanna call it). I am 
currently thinking about his motivation.


1. He is a philanthropist and wants to save people from wasting their money.
2. He is just what he claims to be: A skeptic and wants to spread the 
word...
3. He has some kind of hidden agenda...? Although I don't know what this 
might be... Perhaps he was mocked by some Ecat-fanboys...? ;)


I am just curious about the fact that he seemingly posts everywhere that 
he finds the opportunity to do so. Especially with the kind of "prove" 
that he got (there is nothing new, some of the things seem to be based 
on speculations and the rest is word of mouth). Details can be seen in 
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=956
Also I wonder how a person which claims to have lectured for 7 years and 
holds a "BSc (physics) and a BE (Hons)", bases his "prove" on claims and 
word of mouth instead of really doing his homework, looking at the 
numbers and facts and then, based on that, draw conclusions. But perhaps 
this is, what skepticism is all about today: If you cannot prove the 
definitive existence of the thing, you have to be against it absolutely. 
There is no room for for interpretation.


Wolf

[Vo]:"The Antagonists" - Documentary about CF History.

[James Bowery]

"The Antagonists" is a better-directed epithet.  Although "pseudo-skeptics"
does capture an important dimension of the crime against humanity, it
doesn't get as close to the heart of the matter.  Perhaps a phrase
involving "establishment" would be even better.  "The Inquisitors" might be
better than "The Antagonists".

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> sorry, the correct link is
> http://www.137films.org/NewsDetailPage/Work-in-progress-screening.aspx
>
> Harry
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Harry Veeder 
> wrote:
> > -
> > http://www.137films.org/NewsDetailPage/Work-in-progress-screening.
> >
> > "The Believers" test screening February 11
> >
> > Work-in-Progress Screening of The Believers at The Gene Siskel Film
> Center
> >  If you've been waiting to see our new film, The Believers, now is
> > your chance! The Chicago Council on Science and Technology is
> > presenting a work-in-progress screening of The Believers on Saturday,
> > February 11 at noon at the Gene Siskel Film Center, and filmmakers
> > Monica Ross and Clayton Brown will be in attendance for a Q & A
> > session after the film.
> >
> > You can attend for free by becoming a 137 Films Backer.  Click here
> > for information on how to do it.
> >
> > We hope to see you on February 11!
> > ---
> >
> > Harry
> >
>
>

RE: [Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling

[Jones Beene]

Wow, this is a provocative paper Axil - but can it be relevant to Ni-H,
given the energies involved? 

That is the $64 question. In short, do oxygen atoms accelerated to 10s of
MeV indicate that anything similar will happen when 10 million times less
energy is employed, such as in LENR? 

In this paper - the beam used is almost 80 MeV which is considered "low
energy" in accelerator physics, but is a factor of 10^8 more than the
'thermal triggering' of Rossi in the 350C range. That is one problem of
quoting the authors mention of the phrase "low energy" out of context.

Surprisingly, the answer could still be yes - in the sense that QM is
"probability driven" as opposed to thermodynamically driven. Yet, it is not
black-and-white comparison in this case, since there is only the one paper
standing on its own. But still, enhanced tunneling of nuclear pairs is a
most intriguing hypothesis, and moreover, is more easily falsifiable in
LENR, than in hot physics. 

However, another relevance to a nickel-based reactor, found in this
particular paper - where oxygen is the active reactant - could involve
oxygen pairing in nickel-oxide instead of, or in addition to, proton pairing
! 

There is a double relevance, and that part too is falsifiable. But the
larger problem is that there is little indication that Rossi (or DGT) use
NiO "nanometric" powder (as opposed to Ni unoxidized). And Piantelli - who
is inaccurate about his pronouncements on so many issues (like argon), says
over and over oxygen in a no-no! He could NOT BE MORE WRONG!

In fact, several of us have read the soon-to-be published report - mentioned
by Brian Ahern to another group - where NiO nanopowder, which is
commercially available at 10 nm (from QSI) is extraordinarily active for
thermal gain. In fact it is the most active nanopowder ever tested in this
line of R&D ! 

But caveat: it is far from Rossi's claimed results in terms of
watts-per-gram of reactant. And yet Piantelli, who is going sideways on many
issues, says that the reactor must be thorough purged many times to get rid
of nickel oxide! IOW - he wants to eliminate the most active ingredient. 

What does it all mean? Do we see a hint of entanglement of one species
(proton pairs) bleeding over into entanglement of another (oxygen pairs)?
That is most provocative! 

Side note, does that kind of double entanglement violate "conservation of
miracles"? 

In fact, given the implications of a "QM probability field" affecting a
spatial domain, it would seem at first like this kind of cross-entanglement
is conceptually possible - although to be honest, a quick googling turns up
nothing. 

This is one more detail where a thorough isotopic analysis (from Sweden)
would solve many lingering issues. If nothing else, I hope that this
particular thread will convince Rossi that he can benefit from public
disclosure of this analysis ! Ask yourself this (Andrea, or Sven, or Hanno)
would you have recognized the significance of 18O if it should turns up in
your analysis? 

I think not. Nor would anyone else prior to today likely notice of this
arcane detail, other than the few dozen specialist in Ivory-Towers somewhere
who have read the paper. It seems on its surface to have little relevance to
anything practical and who would have thought that paired protons tunnel far
easier than alphas? 

The bottom line: "None of us is as smart as all of us" and it is extremely
doubtful that this important connection to Rossi/DGT/Thermacore, if it does
turn up in a thorough isotopic analysis, would even have been noticed
without direct access to this paper. 

So thanks again Axil (even if you were right for the wrong reason :-))

Jones


From: Axil 

Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
element nucleus with high probability in collisions with energies well below
those required to breach this barrier? 
 
This curiosity has been observed is heavy low energy ion collision studies.
 
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1393.pdf
 
This letter presents evidence that (1) 2p transfer (and
not _-particle transfer) is the dominant transfer process
leading to _Z = 2 events in the reaction 16O+208Pb at
energies well below the fusion barrier, and (2) 2p transfer
is significantly enhanced compared to predictions assum-
ing the sequential transfer of uncorrelated protons, with
absolute probabilities as high as those of 1p transfer at
energies near the fusion barrier.
 
Measurements of transfer probabilities in various reac-
tions and at energies near the fusion barrier have there-
fore been utilized to investigate the role of pairing corre-
lations between the transferred nucleons. Pairing effects
are believed to lead to a significant enhancement of pair
and multi-pair transfer probabilities [2, 4{7]. Closely re-
lated to the phenomenon of pairing correlations is the
nuclear Josephson effect [8], which is understood as the
tunneling of nucleon pairs (i.e. nuclear Cooper-pairs)
through a time-dependent barrier at e

Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Chemical Engineer  wrote:
> So Ni micropowder mixed with a dielectric micropowder, hydrogen and argon
> mixture under elevated pressure and temperature and a Champion spark plug...

Plus, possibly, potassium.  (And alliteration and assonance.)

T

Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment

[Chemical Engineer]

So Ni micropowder mixed with a dielectric micropowder, hydrogen and argon
mixture under elevated pressure and temperature and a Champion spark plug...

I think i saw a big old ground wire connected to the reactor to prevent a
shocking discovery

On Monday, January 30, 2012, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> Ni62 and Ni64 enrichment is an assumption. I will now be pleased to offer
another possible reason for a catalyst change.
>
> My theory of operation regarding the Rossi reaction indicates that the
job of the catalyst is to produce Rydberg atoms so that they can be used as
feedstock in the production of H+; protons. Proton loading on or near the
micro powder surface must be as high as can be managed. Patch electrostatic
charge on the surface of the Micro powder strips the high orbiting electron
from the Rydberg H.
>
> Most elements will produce Rydberg atoms if properly excited but the way
that these elements are excited will differ based on their quantum
mechanical configurations. There are excellent indications that Rossi’s
catalyst uses heat as the excitant. The alkaline family having a electronic
low work function at its surface, heat excitation will produce Rydberg
atoms.
>
>
> But in contrast, other elements may be more appropriately excited by
radio frequency stimulation (another alkaline family member), or spark
electric discharge (argon, or anther noble gas), or laser irradiation
(calcium, nitrogen, beryllium, magnesium … a few among many).
>
>
>
> I have always through that heat was a poor choice for a Rydberg atom
stimulant because of the counterproductive feedback disadvantages heat
control provides. Some stimulant that can be turned off and on easily and
immediately without feedback disadvantage would be a better systems choice
overall especially if regulated in real time by a computerize control
system.
>
>
>
> Maybe now that the basic Rossi based system is well understood and ready
for production, it might be time to take the next design step in product
improvement with a more controllable and predictable systems design. The
people in R&D might need something new to hold their interest a while
longer.
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> Two problems with that assessment, Robert.
>
>
>
> First, look at fission reactors as metaphor. 235U is found in a similar
ratio to 64Ni in the natural metal (slightly less), and yet a fission
reactor using natural U will not work reliably over time, without heavy
water – or unless the U has been enriched to about triple its natural
abundance.
>
>
>
> It would take a few volumes of information to explain why this is the
case, employing random walks and Monte Carlo statistics and other boring
background – and yet, the situation is only metaphorical anyway. But this
is a very strong metaphor and the message for both kinds of reactors could
be the same:
>
>
>
> There is a minimum level of the active reactant needed for reliable
reaction rates to occur over time.
>
>
>
> The second possible error is to assume this minimum level (needed for
continuity) applies to the situation where 64Ni transmutes into 65Cu - as
is generally thought and promoted by Rossi and Focardi. That could be the
case, but OTOH it seems clearly false that any transmutation has occurred -
since the ash should be radioactive, and Rossi admits it is not. (and the
Swedes turned up no radioactivity either). No radioactive ash, no nickel to
copper transmutation.
>
>
>
> I have presented what I think is a strong case for “proton average mass
depletion” as the source of excess energy in Ni-H reactions - in past
postings. The connection of “proton mass depletion” to 64Ni would be that
this metal isotope is the heaviest in all of nature, compared to the most
common isotope. Since it is anomalously heavy, and the proton becomes
anomalous light after giving up some of its mass – is there a cross
connection there?
>
>
>
> It is a stretch for sure – but QCD can then be employed to explain
bosonic transfer and the depletion of one wrt the other. That is fodder for
another long posting.
>
>
>
> From: Robert Lynn
>
>

Re: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot

[Daniel Rocha]

You should not hold the champagne. Rossi said that once his reaction was
going out of control and Levi, I think it was him, injected Nitrogen to
stop the reaction. So, I don't think this is exclusive to Argon, rather, it
is by cutting off H and substituting it for something else.

2012/1/31 ecat builder 

> >> Ta-Da ... yes it is argon. It is a Mills catalyst, and we know they use
> it.
> >
>
> Hold the champagne.. Piantelli says argon stops the nuclear process...
> http://www.rexresearch.com/piantelli/piantelli.htm
>
> In the pictures the yellow tubing appears to be for vacuum. But later
> in the video a tube goes into the T and out up towards the ceiling..
> which hints towards venting.. not the addition of a secret gas
> ingredient.
>
>
> At 0:21 there is a picture of a lead going into the center of the
> reactor? Almost looks like a spark plug lead. High voltage? If I'm not
> mistaken, the variac goes into a big (blue with yellow stripe)
> transformer. (variac also appears to be on "max").
>
> - Brad
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]:entangled proton pairs show enhanced tunneling

[Axil Axil]

Why do entangled proton pairs pass through the coulomb barrier of a heavy
element nucleus with high probability in collisions with energies well
below those required to breach this barrier?


This curiosity has been observed is heavy low energy ion collision studies.


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1393.pdf


This letter presents evidence that (1) 2p transfer (and

not _-particle transfer) is the dominant transfer process

leading to _Z = 2 events in the reaction 16O+208Pb at

energies well below the fusion barrier, and (2) 2p transfer

is significantly enhanced compared to predictions assum-

ing the sequential transfer of uncorrelated protons, with

absolute probabilities as high as those of 1p transfer at

energies near the fusion barrier.



Measurements of transfer probabilities in various reac-

tions and at energies near the fusion barrier have there-

fore been utilized to investigate the role of pairing corre-

lations between the transferred nucleons. Pairing effects

are believed to lead to a significant enhancement of pair

and multi-pair transfer probabilities [2, 4{7]. Closely re-

lated to the phenomenon of pairing correlations is the

nuclear Josephson effect [8], which is understood as the

tunneling of nucleon pairs (i.e. nuclear Cooper-pairs)

through a time-dependent barrier at energies near but be-

low the fusion barrier. This effect is believed to be similar

to that of a supercurrent between two superconductors

separated by an insulator. An enhancement of the trans-

fer probability at sub-barrier energies is therefore com-

monly related to the tunneling of (multi-)Cooper-pairs

from one superfluid nucleus to the other [2].



NOTE: this experiment was done with both nuclei being doubly-magic with a
closed shell of protons and neutrons…just like nickel.