Re: [Vo]:Google insights seem to show waning interest for NET and W-L

[Bastiaan Bergman]

Cool! The first time they talked about me was 1810. ;-)

Not a fan of NET, but this seems to give a different view on it:
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/newenergytimes.com/



On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
> google's Ngram analyzes all digitized material.
>
> Interstingly the term 'cold fusion' actually goes back to the 1700s.
> he references  identify a particular metalsmithing process.
>
> http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=cold+fusion&year_start=1750&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3
>
>
> Harry
>

Re: [Vo]:Prediction on Antarctica's buried Lake

[Bastiaan Bergman]

Jones,

Haven't been following long enough yet.

> it is said that RM never actively pursues - or
> mentions the so-called "deuterino" (reduced orbital deuterium species)
> relates to potential weaponization.

How can Deuterino's be weaponized? And why Deuterino's specifically?
And why would one who gets convinced about the existence of Hydrino's
not make the step to Deuterino's?

Thnx,
Bastiaan.


On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Terry Blanton
>
>> Then again, maybe the Ruskies are looking to weaponize the bugs.
>
> Funny you should mention that. But this thread might be more appropriate for
> the "above top secret" forum (if you don't mind being added to the list of
> those who are guaranteed a full body search on every airline flight).
>
> Anyone having followed Mills/BLP through the years- is probably aware that
> of one of the reasons it is said that RM never actively pursues - or
> mentions the so-called "deuterino" (reduced orbital deuterium species)
> relates to potential weaponization.
>
> IOW - It is rather obvious to anyone who thinks about the repercussions of
> having "deuterinos" at all, especially if they are mass-produced by a new
> kind of lifeform in tonnage (instead of the micrograms Mills has collected)
> that there is a strong military angle.
>
> Coulomb repulsion is the prime limitation on D+D fusion, and it is inverse
> square. Power laws are an amazing thing. A supply of deuterinos at deep
> redundancy - wow - that could drastically reduce the implosion energy
> necessary for fusion, on paper. This could push it into the level of
> triggering by conventional chemistry - especially if the stable hydride
> (extra electron) is included in a fraction of the mix, or especially if a
> nano-thermite is employed.
>
> Let's don't go there.
>
> In this case, the lesser of two evils for Lake Vostok is likely to be "The
> Stuff" ... :) mummm ... pass the Vanilla.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:Including nuclear degrees of freedom in a lattice Hamiltonian, PL Hagelstein, IU Chaudhary 2012.01.20: Rich Murray 2012.02.09

[Rich Murray]

Including nuclear degrees of freedom in a lattice Hamiltonian, PL
Hagelstein, IU Chaudhary 2012.01.20: Rich Murray 2012.02.09

[ Rich Murray: the end of the beginning for cold fusion -- rapid
transition to normal science? ]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.4377.pdf

arXiv:1201.4377v1 [physics.gen-ph] 20 Jan 2012
24 pages  43 references

Including nuclear degrees of freedom in a lattice
Hamiltonian
P L Hagelstein 1, I U Chaudhary 2
1 Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139,USA
E-mail: p...@mit.edu
2 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Engineering and
Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
E-mail: irf...@mit.edu

Abstract.

Motivated by many observations of anomalies in condensed matter
systems, we consider a new fundamental Hamiltonian in which condensed
matter and nuclear systems are described initially on the same
footing.
Since it may be possible that the lattice will respond to the mass
change associated with a excited nuclear state, we adopt a
relativistic description throughout based on a many-particle Dirac
formalism.
This approach has not been used in the past, perhaps due to the
difficulty in separating the center of mass and relative degrees of
freedom of the nuclear system, or perhaps due to an absence of
applications for such a model.
We recently found a way to separate the center of mass and relative
contributions to the Hamiltonian for the many-particle Dirac model,
which leads to somewhat different expressions for the kinematic mass,
Newton mass, and deBroglie mass of the many-particle Dirac composite.
It is not clear at this time whether such a difference is reflected in
experiment.
This separation allows us to reduce the condensed matter and nuclear
Hamiltonian into a more manageable form.
In the resulting model, there appears a new term in which nuclear
transitions are coupled to lattice vibrations.


Rich Murray
Feb 7 (2 days ago)

to vortex-l, bcc: michael

A scientific layman's quick assessment:

a gifted theoretical physicist and colleague have been working
steadily for years with experimenters --

they carefully studied and rejected many theoretical dead ends for
various anomalous phenomena --

finally they started to apply standard theoretical routes, while
starting fresh with a comprehensive overview that held the nuclear
level and the electronic level together on an equal basis --

finding new subtleties that indicate transactions between nuclear and
electronic levels that so far seem may turn out to fit the puzzling
experimental data --

publishing results quickly in many papers, thus inviting public
critical examination by their peers --

thus, all the hallmarks of mature scientific breakthrough...


February 9 note:  Somehow, this reminds me of the paradigm of duality
in superstring theory -- that the physics on the surface of a volume
takes forms that are complimentary to the mathematical forms that
appear in the higher dimensional space of the volume, thus allowing
different mathematical tools to be applied to a single problem,
approached as a surface or as a volume -- so there may be a similar
"geometric" duality for the physics at the electronic lattice level vs
the nuclear strong force level -- in the case of black holes, the
surface vs volume duality was found via thermodynamic considerations
about their temperature and entropy.

[Vo]:Energy sucking antennas don't not exist, energy creation does

[John Berry]

I have posted this to Vortex due to the closeness of this to Bill's page on
energy sucking antennas which I now see is a misunderstanding of what this
post covers.

http://amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html

Ok, I know few people are willing to propose that energy can be created,
but really that comes down to a philosophical debate similar to the number
of angels that can fit on the head on a pin.

Energy can be converted from one type to another, but does that not involve
energy creation in one place in one form and destruction in another in
another form?
Also if a device appears to create energy we can never know that an
equivalent amount of energy is not being extracted from the vacuum of space
or lost from somewhere else or everywhere else.
Therefore let's keep faith and philosophy out of this and stick to logic,
whatever you believe with respect to energy creation this does not have any
impact on the possibility of this to work.

*What I promise in reading this email is that you will see a very
convincing way to create energy*, we may never know if this creation is
balanced by some destruction somewhere else.

So, say you have a DC generator, as you turn the rotor it outputs DC from
cutting the magnetic line of force from the stator, this generates a
voltage which induces a current in the rotor.  This current produces a
force that opposes the rotation.

So what would happen now if we were to increase the gap between the stator
magnets and the rotor?
The induced voltage would be reduced and the current would therefore be
reduced and there would be less drag as you attempt to turn the generator
at a given speed.

Now there are clearly many ways we could increase the electrical energy
produced despite the large gap, one of these is interesting however.
We know that electrical power put simply is amps x volts and that it is
inducing a given voltage say now only 2 volts, what if we increase the
current flowing through the rotor by (for instance) adding a source of
current in series with the rotor.

If this source of current is putting say 10 amps through the rotor where
before there was only 1, then the 5 volts is now 5v x 10amps making for
50watts induced .vs 5v x 1A making 5 watts.

Alas this is not free energy, by putting more current through the rotor
windings the magnetic motoring force that opposes the applied rotation is
also increased, Lenz Law.
I think this is very easy for anyone to understand, the drag from driving a
normal DC generator is dependent on the current and resultant magnetic
forces created by the rotor.

So no free energy yet, but we see that even if we must add a source of
electrical power to provide the increased amps, by doing so you can
increase the energy produced by a given electromotive force (voltage).

If that were somehow not so then we just invented an energy destruction
device above because there will definitively be more drag

What if we had an AC generator?

Turns out we could do the same thing, we could do it by actively pumping
correctly phased AC current through the generator coils.

Trying to short the generator coils however reduces the loading on the
generator (unlike the DC generator) often causing them to speed up, this is
because the impedance (self inductance) of the generator coils move then to
almost 180 degrees out of phase with the rotor magnets, the generator coils
do such a good job of resisting changes in the magnetic field they end up
creating an almost opposite EMF.

A generator with low resistance windings and high core losses can be easily
made to speed up by shorting the generator coils, this is not free energy
though.

But there is a low tech way to do it, if we select a well chosen capacitor
to form a resonant tank circuit with the generator coils then the phase
will not be 180 degrees and the magnetic field from the generator coils
will never cancel the field created by the rotor even if they have
thousands of amps flowing through them creating a magnetic field 100's of
times stronger.
Another feature is that the current is built up just like pushing a child
on a swing.

Eventually though a real circuit will encounter losses that stop the growth
of current.
We also need to apply a well matched load that doesn't reduce too much of
the built up current.

Also apparent is that by increasing the current through the generator coils
it will increase the drag, we will again need to apply more kinetic energy
as the repulsion as the magnet approaches will be increased as will the
attraction as it tries to leave. (at 180 degrees it is repulsion on both
sides which balances out to zero, almost no drag)

We can use this same principle in a transformer using a resonant tank
circuit on the secondary, actually a Tesla Coil is meant to be just such a
resonant transformer.
But instead of physical drag, with a transformer you can readily observe
that the secondary will create a voltage in the primary that opposes the
current we are inputting, this will require increa

[Vo]:ARPA-E answers questions about fullfilling their mission

[Mark Goldes]

Several of you may find this of interest.

Mark

Mark Goldes
Co-founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute
301A North Main Street
Sebastopol, CA 95472

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

_
From: Cold Fusion Now [donotre...@wordpress.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 4:45 PM
To: Mark Goldes
Subject: [New post] ARPA-E answers questions about fullfilling their mission

New post on Cold Fusion Now
   
by Ruby Carat

The House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology's Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight held a hearing on January 24, 2012 to review the 
efforts of the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E), a 
Department of Energy (DOE) agency tasked with funding cutting-edge energy 
research “in areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake because 
of technical and financial uncertainty.”

According to the Subcommittee press 
release,
 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department of Energy 
Inspector General's (IG) office both issued reports that found ARPA-E funding 
practices and procedures appearing to veer from this mission.

In particular, the GAO's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Could Benefit 
from Information on Applicants’ Prior Funding reported that

12 of the 18 companies it identified as having received private sector funding 
prior to their ARPA-E award planned to use ARPA-E funding to either advance or 
accelerate prior-funded work. Further, Chairman Broun noted, “Similarly, a 
review of GAO work papers and publicly available information indicates numerous 
instances of overlap and duplication between ARPA-E and both public and private 
sector funding.”

In addition, DOE’s Office of the Inspector General (IG) released its own audit 
in August 2011 that focused on “whether ARPA-E implemented safeguards necessary 
to achieve its goals and objectives and to effectively deploy associated 
Recovery Act resources.”

Two of the three awards examined in detail by the IG had questionable costs of 
$280,387. Included among these costs were “meetings with bankers to raise 
capital” and a “fee to appear on a local television show.” Despite concerns 
regarding these uses of taxpayer dollars, the DOE IG noted in its report that 
such activities were cited as an allowable cost by ARPA-E under its Technology 
Transfer and Outreach policy.

[http://coldfusionnow.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/arun-maj-012412_arpe-13.jpg?w=150&h=112]

ARPA-E, DOE IG, and GAO each testified.

Testifying were Dr. Arun Majumdar, Director, Advanced Research Projects Agency 
– Energy, U.S., Gregory Friedman, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Energy 
and Mr. Frank Rusco, Director, Energy and Science Issues, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office.

[http://coldfusionnow.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/roscoe-bartlett-012412_arpe-18.jpg?w=150&h=112]

Roscoe Bartlett

[http://coldfusionnow.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/dana-rohrabaher-012412_arpe-19_0.jpg?w=150&h=112]

Dana Rohrabacher

This particular Sub-committee has members such as Representatives Roscoe 
Bartlett, who has championed the Peak Oil issue in the House for years, though 
to deaf ears, and Dana Rohrabacher, who spoke out in support of Drs. 
Fleischmann and 
Pons
 twenty-three years ago.

The Chairman of the Subcommittee, Paul Broun said in his statement that

“while it is clear many ARPA-E projects are pursuing high-quality, potentially 
transformative research that is too risky for private investment, reviews of 
GAO work papers and publicly available information reveal many exceptions to 
this practice, and raise questions regarding ARPA-E’s commitment to ‘carefully 
structure its projects to avoid any overlap with public and private sources of 
funding.’”

Specifically, the reports detail information showing that:

Numerous awardees indicated to GAO they would use ARPA-E funding to accelerate 
work they were already pursuing.

Numerous awardees’ proposals overlap and even duplicate efforts supported 
elsewhere in DOE and other Federal agencies.

The Administration touted ARPA-E awardees that received private sector funding 
after their ARPA-E award as proof that ARPA-E is working and successful; 
however, ten of these eleven recipients had also received significant private 
sector funding prior to receiving their award, raising questions regarding the 
degree to which the ARPA-E award itself was the driver of the follow-on funding.

Of the 44 identified small- and medium-size companies that received ARPA-E 
awards, a review of USASpending.gov shows that 26, or 59 percent, of t

RE: [Vo]:World's best H2 catalyst?

[Alan J Fletcher]

I think I solved the aluminum supply problem.

Just feed your beer cans into a shredder at the top of the device, p*ss
into it, and you get  
... a self-powered drunk-driving machine !

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat 511 kev gamma

[Axil Axil]

In reference to the following:

Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSevidenceof.pdf

In an experimental series performed by Piantelli, he observed the
production of either heat or gamma radiation but not both at the same time.

In these experiments, the variable that seems to matter is the rate in
which the hydrogen was loaded into the nickel lattice.

Slow loading of hydrogen produces radiation, fast loading produced heat.
Some additional insights can be drawn from what we know about Rossi’s
reactor development path.

When Rossi was early in this development, he saw gamma radiation including
the 511 kev gamma ray footprint of radioactive decay residuals from copper
fusion.

>From the demo of the first one liter Rossi reactor during the time at
startup when the lattice was cold, a massive radiation burst appeared for a
second or two. From this, I deduce that the energy production mechanism
will generate large amounts of radiation if the lattice is cold and the
phonons present in the lattice are not energetic enough and/or the nickel
has not yet reached the Curie temperature demagnetization threshold of
nickel.


One often reported problem of that early design stage was the generation of
bursts of radiation during startup and shutdown. I assume that the lattice
was cold or cooling at those times.
Rossi was greatly concerned by these radiation bursts since this behavior
would surely block commercialization of his reactor.
He changed his design so that an external heater warmed the nickel lattice
before the reaction was allowed to begin.

This tells me strongly that there is a second quantum mechanical reaction
that converts the radiation generated in the metal atom’s nucleus to
thermal energy within the lattice.

The lack of radioactive decay products after the Rossi reactor is shut down
also speaks to a radiation thermalization and suppression mechanism.

It is wise for the NiH reactor builder to heat the nickel lattice up to
operating temperature before hydrogen is pumped into it.
An interesting experiment would be to load radioactive potassium or cesium
with hydrogen and heat in into the 400C range to determine if baseline
radiation levels are reduced as a function of hydrogen pressure and
temperature.


Regards:  Axil


On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Mark Goldes  wrote:

> Rossi has consistently refused to provide details of what is going on
> inside the E-Cat reactor, but he has mentioned that gamma rays have been
> detected. Recently in a video interview when asked about whether the E-Cat
> was a ‘cold fusion’ technology he said, “we have found traces of fusion
> because we have found 511 kev gamma rays at the output, which is the
> emission of a positron and an electron, and a positron is the product of a
> proton turning into a neutron, so we have some kind of fusion inside, but I
> do not think this is the main energy source.” E-Cat World 2-9-12
>
> This may be old news, but in case not...
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Goldes
> Co-founder, Chava Energy
> CEO, Aesop Institute
> 301A North Main Street
> Sebastopol, CA 95472
>
> www.chavaenergy.com
> www.aesopinstitute.org
>
>

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat 511 kev gamma

[Alain Sepeda]

the production of positron is also possible with beta+ disintegration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay#.CE.B2.2B_decay
beta+ decay is not common, but can happens
wikipedia talk of Fredeic&Irene Joliot Curie experiment of bombardment of
Al27 by He4, witch lean to n+P30, wich decay with beta+
and here they list the isotopes that decay beta+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission

however looking for proposed widom-larsen network of transmutation
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llctechnical-overviewcarbon-seed-lenr-networkssept-3-2009
one see that no positron-decaying isotope is produced (normal they are
neutron rich)

He4 bombardment is happening in Widom-Larsen model,
so one can expect few alpha absorption by some nucleus...
the proposed reaction for Al27 (stable, found in WL Chain from C)  is
absorption of He4 except a neutron, and then positron beta decay...
and since the zone is full of heavy electrons.
maybe similar reaction


another possibility is a reaction of conversion from hypothetical
heavy-proton to neutron+positron+neutrino...
but if heavy electrons are a credible hypothesis, heavy protons is an
hypothesis to be checked by a physicist




2012/2/9 Mark Goldes 

> Rossi has consistently refused to provide details of what is going on
> inside the E-Cat reactor, but he has mentioned that gamma rays have been
> detected. Recently in a video interview when asked about whether the E-Cat
> was a ‘cold fusion’ technology he said, “we have found traces of fusion
> because we have found 511 kev gamma rays at the output, which is the
> emission of a positron and an electron, and a positron is the product of a
> proton turning into a neutron, so we have some kind of fusion inside, but I
> do not think this is the main energy source.” E-Cat World 2-9-12
>
> This may be old news, but in case not...
>
> Mark
>
> Mark Goldes
> Co-founder, Chava Energy
> CEO, Aesop Institute
> 301A North Main Street
> Sebastopol, CA 95472
>
> www.chavaenergy.com
> www.aesopinstitute.org
>
>

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat 511 kev gamma

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 11:00 AM 2/9/2012, Mark Goldes wrote:
Rossi has consistently refused to provide details of what is going 
on inside the E-Cat reactor, but he has mentioned that gamma rays 
have been detected. Recently in a video interview when asked about 
whether the E-Cat was a 'cold fusion' technology he said, "we have 
found traces of fusion because we have found 511 kev gamma rays at 
the output, which is the emission of a positron and an electron, and 
a positron is the product of a proton turning into a neutron, so we 
have some kind of fusion inside, but I do not think this is the main 
energy source." E-Cat World 2-9-12


This may be old news, but in case not...


One of the mysteries of the Jan 2011 experiment was that 511 kEV 
gamma inside the lead shielding was NOT detected:


http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/18/rossi-and-focardi-lenr-device-celani-report/

They also had a twin gamma ray detector assembled in order to detect 
e+e- annihilation. In this run, almost no such results were detected.


Focardi was confident that they were going to get large amounts of 
such signal, as in previous experiments. This time, the counts were 
close to background for coincidences, and only some uncorrelated 
signal was over background.


- - - -

The twin-gamma setup was never repeated. 

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat 511 kev gamma

[Guenter Wildgruber]

 Von: Mark Goldes 
An: "vortex-l@eskimo.com"  
Gesendet: 20:00 Donnerstag, 9.Februar 2012
Betreff: [Vo]:E-Cat  511 kev gamma
 
>Rossi has consistently refused to provide details of what is going on inside 
>the E-Cat reactor, but he has mentioned that gamma >rays have been detected. 
>Recently...

--
Mark,

currently we are in a situation of general reasoning.
a) we have a lack of theory ( or too many theories)
b) we have spurious evidence about this and that from a pool of experimenters
c) then personalities (eg Rossi) and institutions (eg MIT/NASA) who give a very 
ambivalent picture of the field.
d) then we have interests of diverse groups

Re the gamma-bursts it could very well be, that there are short bursts of 
gamma-radiation, if one eg accepts a burst-like characteristic of the process.
So there would be gamma-bursts for a short time, and none most of the time.
So there is no logical contradiction here.

This conflation of (fuzzy) evidence should give the theoreticians some food for 
thought, provided that the experimenters are no charlatans or plain idiots.

Which it does'nt. Only a small percentage of theoreticians is willing and able 
to engage in such a delicate matter.

Re (c),(d)  there seems to be no big interest to clear the waters, because the 
societial/economic impact would be immense.

In combination, this is quite unique.
Maybe comparable to Galileo , where all those factors were at work.

Our current situation is not comparable to Glaileo's, for obvious reasons, 
informationwise etc.
We expect daily news.
Back then it was decades.

It is unclear to me, whether this is a good thing.
Short time-frames generate a lot of noise.

[Vo]:E-Cat 511 kev gamma

[Mark Goldes]

Rossi has consistently refused to provide details of what is going on inside 
the E-Cat reactor, but he has mentioned that gamma rays have been detected. 
Recently in a video interview when asked about whether the E-Cat was a ‘cold 
fusion’ technology he said, “we have found traces of fusion because we have 
found 511 kev gamma rays at the output, which is the emission of a positron and 
an electron, and a positron is the product of a proton turning into a neutron, 
so we have some kind of fusion inside, but I do not think this is the main 
energy source.” E-Cat World 2-9-12

This may be old news, but in case not...

Mark

Mark Goldes
Co-founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute
301A North Main Street
Sebastopol, CA 95472

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

[Vo]:Magnifier Action

[Harvey Norris]

http://youtu.be/ho-SUqBTrpk
Uploaded by harvich on Dec 16, 2010

Video Records from 10/21/10: This video shows the fourth coil vibration used to 
show the flux capacitor principle being in excess of its source of vibration 
from the 3rd coil system that has its electric field's obtained from series 
resonance encased in the volume of the fourth extra coils magnetic field, where 
this MAGNIFICATION of the vibration is shown once the neon load is removed. The 
sequence of adding the interphasal resonances is shown. At 8:26 in video ending 
we see that 1.86 ma from the sender causes 2.41 ma on the receiver.

Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Re: [Vo]:Re: FYI: CERN Recognizes LENRs, Widom-Larsen Theory

[Harry Veeder]

This was added today "Please note that this event will be available
live via the Webcast Service."



Harry


On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:
> found the entry at CERN
> http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=177379
>
> 2012/2/8 Alain Sepeda 
>>
>>
>> http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/02/08/cern-recognizes-lenrs-widom-larsen-theory/
>>
>> ...
>> A general colloquium, “Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress
>> in Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR),”
>> will take place at CERN on March 22, from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. in the
>> council chamber.
>> ...
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Excess heat due to proton pairing in metal hydrides?

[Jones Beene]

Nigel and all,

The proton pairing seems to be an extremely relevant issue - but it could be
a mistake to think that it relates only to sequential oscillation
(see-sawing) between the paired state and the singlet within the Ni matrix.

The paper cited earlier by Axil along with the implications of JS Brown
suggests that there is a significant advantage to fermion pairing of protons
wrt QM tunneling - i.e. there is a counterintuitive advantage for pairs,
compared to singlets. Pairs are favored for a complex rationale that I
cannot recite from memory, but let's assume it is correct.

However, from there on - it would be a mistake to imagine that this means
the pair tunnels all the way into a nucleus to create a nuclear reaction.
That is most unlikely. And the see-sawing is not asymmetric, unless we are
invoking the Lamb Shift, which is low energy. But maybe the asymmetry is
just enough energy to bootstrap "something else", such as the proverbial
"proton slingshot". That would be at a much lower energy level, which does
not really involve the overcoming Coulomb repulsion at the nucleus. Are you
with me so far?

In fact, if you look at nickel standard reduction potentials of its valence
electrons, then the IP4 of nickel sits at a potential of 54.9 eV.
Consequently, there could be no need to tunnel deeper than the valence
shell, if we borrow a bit from JS Brown and a bit from Mills (and reject the
rest).

This IP4 level sits at very close to the 4* Ry (Rydberg) value of 54.4 eV.
That value would otherwise invoke Mills CQM, but actually it would not help
us much if we were using a strict interpretation of Mills. This is because
the Ni would need to shed 4 electrons and recover the first 3 in order to
provide that level "hole" (as he calls it); and this would seldom happen in
metal matrix at 400 C. Plus the hydrogen must be atomic. So, a strict
interpretation of Mills is not applicable to this situation.

However, there is a similar, or Millsean-like possibility that I have never
heard mentioned before, and that would be that the bound PP tunnels into the
IP4 level, benefiting from electrostatics. That is where the pair breaks up,
leaving one proton with the borrowed valence electron of the correct Rydberg
energy - while ejecting the other proton. 

Note that Mills is very specific that the reaction only occurs with atomic
hydrogen and an energy hole - and NOT with the benefit of bound protons. We
are cherry-picking here. We are saying there is no energy hole at all, and
there is no atomic hydrogen, but instead we have the bound pair PP, which
can tunnel into a level where nature allows (encourages) one of the pair to
"steal" an electron. 

We would expect the typical (but truncated) Mössbauer cascade, following
this "theft", no? That cascade is your excess energy. 

But this does not explain the ultimate source of excess energy, which seems
to still be related to "expendable non-quantized proton mass". 

I will save the complete explanation of the process, down to the "gluino
color change" for another day. Set your spam filters accordingly, as it will
be a long posting.

Jones
<>

Re: [Vo]:Re: FYI: CERN Recognizes LENRs, Widom-Larsen Theory

[Alain Sepeda]

Rest in peace...

it remind me the quote of Max Planck

*A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die,
and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.*

...

however if a domain is plagued with young believers in a false truth, then
it will take many generation to find the truth.
One of the reason of that is that young researchers are much more dependent
on the establishment todays, for food, than in the previous century, so
they absorb the dayly consensus, instead of rebelling against...

funny (or sad) that today, it is old nearly-retired researchers that break
the consensus and denounce the collective-delusion.


2012/2/9 

>  Morrison died.
>
>
>  http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28437/2
>
>
>

[Vo]:I C U

[Terry Blanton]

An interesting article that posits explanations for why we know when
someone is staring at us (or a goat).

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=221951

excerpt:

"The postulation of information injection into an observed system by
the observer is pertinent in the sense that even mainstream physics
has reached the point of increasingly viewing the universe as a
holographic information processor.* Information is now viewed as even
more fundamental than energy. In this model information provides the
'bits' that combine to produce what we measure and experience as
energy. "

second excerpt:

"Don't think superluminal speeds are possible? Think again. Pioneering
Russian scientist Nikolai Kozyrev (1908–83) proved decades ago that
torsion fields travel at superluminal speeds, showing that a physical
vacuum/zero-point energy/aether must really exist.(21) His work in
astronomy revealed that by calculating the actual real-time position
of a star or other celestial object and aiming a telescope at where it
should be, his time-flow/torsion detector (built into the telescope)
would register a measurable signal—despite the fact that he shielded
the lens from EM energy and light, and despite the fact that the star
(or other body) was not yet visibly in that position (due to the large
amounts of time light takes to reach us on earth, we are always
looking out at a star's past location, not its present one )."



T

Re: [Vo]:Excess heat due to proton pairing in metal hydrides?

[David Roberson]

Is it possible that they refer to the free H2 gas molecules that are not inside 
the Ni initially?  First, these molecules must have their bonds broken, then 
the individual H atoms can enter the Ni metal.  After the reaction is completed 
the H atoms might leave the Ni and again form H2 molecules releasing a lot of 
energy.  Is this similar to the process that occurs with high temperature H 
welding?  If you start with bonded H atoms and end with them, no net energy is 
released or absorbed in this cycle.

The Cooper pair process would be different overall I suspect.

Dave  



-Original Message-
From: Alain Sepeda 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Feb 9, 2012 12:36 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Excess heat due to proton pairing in metal hydrides?


they seems to talk of a differente circle, more powerful :
the chemical (covalent link) cycle : H2-> H H -> H2

what the paper talk about is more a Cooper link


2012/2/9 Nigel Dyer 

Julian's Cooper pair proposal could result in a cooling after death.  If we 
assume that the reactor is cooling anyway, and that as a result protons are 
moving out of the Nickel lattice, which would require/result in the breaking of 
the cooper pairs which would take, rather than release energy, which is the 
energy that was originally released when the pairs formed.

This would serve to make calorimetry more difficult, but  Defkalion are right 
IMHO that any such endothermic-exothermic circle has no effect on the COP, 
although I am not convinced that 'chemical' would be the best description of 
this particular circle.

Nigel


On 08/02/2012 21:20, Alain Sepeda wrote:

in their answer on "Triggering" method,
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5983#p5983
Defkalion  have talk about
a well know "Heat after death" that is purely chemical


There is a predictable very limited "heat after death" phenomenon following

every long- period stop of a reactor/reaction. This is a well known and
well documented phenomenon related with the H2->  H1->  H2 circle (chemical,
non LENR energy), which is monitored by sensors and the Hyperion
safety/control electronics/software. The contribution of such
endothermic-exothermic circle to the COP of the total process is almost
zero.



2012/2/8 Nigel Dyer


He suggests that the pairing energy level is of the order of 1eV, which is
a chemical reaction sort of energy.

RE: [Vo]:Self charging ?

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Harvey,

It is extremely daunting to see a post that is comprised of a single
paragraph that scrolls off into infinity. There is no way I am even going to
try to read a monolog of such lengths. It's too damned intimidating. I
realize no one is asking me for my advice on grammatical matters, but I
certainly would recommend trying to introduce a little more punctuation into
such posts in the future. It helps the reader collect their thoughts on what
you are trying to convey.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

> -Original Message-
> From: Harvey Norris 
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Self charging ?
> 
> Incorrect address on first sending, now resent
> Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
> 
> For years I was deluded on the subject since I wouldn't let the results
> speak for themselves. It took at least a year before I was able to
> control the runaway chain reaction. I see here that my results are out
> of context with what is seen on the video, but will still make comment.
> I did many studies, and are still involved with car alternator 3 phase
> circuits driven between 465 and 480 hz, where I first commenced
> research. At first I wondered over ten years ago, where this is
> probably archived on my teslafy yahoo group; whether we could use the
> pre-existant alternator output before the field is energized
> (erroneously assumed by the scientific community to be due to remanent
> magnetism of the field rotor) whether that output could be rectified
> and sent back to the field to actually energize the field in a self
> feedback loop. In my first experiments I concluded that it didn't work,
> and then later I realized why it initially didnt appear to work. About a
> year or so later I re-performed the experiment and was astounded by the
> observation, which was a runaway chain reaction made by the feedback
> loop, where as I have noted took another year or so where I was able to
> use water to control the chain reaction, as amuzing as that sounds. I
> was then able to control the output of this self regulated machine by
> simply immersing electrodes into the water for the lowest output, or
> raising the plates out of the water for higher output. Believe it or
> not, the field has a non-linear resistance, like water. But this
> nonlinear behavior only exists at the lowest levels of field
> excitation. This means at the lowest levels of DC amperage conduction
> to the field, it acts as a much higher resistance then its actual
> resistive value. In reality the revolving "electromagnetic" field must
> first equal or match the pre-existant "rotational" magnetic field before
> it begins to add further to the voltage and amperage load effects seen
> on the stator output. Generally speaking the voltage on the stator
> output for the unenergized field case is not high enough to cross the
> barrier presented by the non linear field resistance. Additionally we
> have to rely on diodes to convert the AC stator output back into DC for
> feedback loop back to the field. So when we test that circuit, at first
> it doesnt seem to work,(at the tested rpm). So the first time I tested
> it, it didnt work. But the second time I tested it, I left the
> connections of the feedback loop on for about 30 seconds, AND IT DID
> WORK, BUT IT RAN AS A RUNAWAY CHAIN REACTION ALMOST IMMEDIATELY THAT
> STARTED GROANING THE ALTERNATOR AS IT WAS FUNCTIONING IN OVERLOAD
> CONDITION AND WOULD QUICKLY OVERHEAT AND BURN ITSELF UP.  Yep I
> had created my own electrical frankenstein monster that for a year or
> so could not be controlled until the mechanisms for controlling it were
> learned. But what happened was that after thousands of cycles the
> voltage would gradually build up until it crossed the non-linear field
> resistance barrier and then once the effect took place it became a
> runaway self feedback loop. Yes technically machines that power their
> own source can be built, but the subsidiary problems to control the
> chain reaction will be self evident. I was actually thinking that I
> could apply for a patent on this form of regulation that I developed,
> and actually with the current circuits that I am working with, this
> could be tried in a different manner then before, but again the chief
> danger in those tests is the mentioned runaway circuit conditions,
> meaning that you just don't walk out of the room and come back with
> those things because when things go overload you need to shut things
> down right away. This actually happened to me in one instance where I
> used an overload output circuit that accidentally went open circuit and
> caused the machine to start outputing excessive voltages. In answer
> to your question then in this alternator context, yes a rotation can be
> used to charge itself, but there are complications involved with the
> applications. To show what can actually be done with  resonant
> alternator ci

Re: [Vo]:Re: FYI: CERN Recognizes LENRs, Widom-Larsen Theory

[fznidarsic]

Morrison died.




http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28437/2 

Re: [Vo]:Self charging ?

[Harvey Norris]

Incorrect address on first sending, now resent
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

For years I was deluded on the subject since I wouldn't let the results speak 
for themselves. It took at least a year before I was able to control the 
runaway chain reaction. I see here that my results are out of context with what 
is seen on the video, but will still make comment. I did many studies, and are 
still involved with car alternator 3 phase circuits driven between 465 and 480 
hz, where I first commenced research. At first I wondered over ten years ago, 
where this is probably archived on my teslafy yahoo group; whether we could use 
the pre-existant alternator output before the field is energized (erroneously 
assumed by the scientific community to be due to remanent magnetism of the 
field rotor) whether that output could be rectified and sent back to the field 
to actually energize the field in a self feedback loop. In my first experiments 
I concluded that it didn't work, and then later I realized why it initially 
didnt appear to work. About a
year or so later I re-performed the experiment and was astounded by the 
observation, which was a runaway chain reaction made by the feedback loop, 
where as I have noted took another year or so where I was able to use water to 
control the chain reaction, as amuzing as that sounds. I was then able to 
control the output of this self regulated machine by simply immersing 
electrodes into the water for the lowest output, or raising the plates out of 
the water for higher output. Believe it or not, the field has a non-linear 
resistance, like water. But this nonlinear behavior only exists at the lowest 
levels of field excitation. This means at the lowest levels of DC amperage 
conduction to the field, it acts as a much higher resistance then its actual 
resistive value. In reality the revolving "electromagnetic" field must first 
equal or match the pre-existant "rotational" magnetic field before it begins to 
add further to the voltage and amperage load effects seen
on the stator output. Generally speaking the voltage on the stator output for 
the unenergized field case is not high enough to cross the barrier presented by 
the non linear field resistance. Additionally we have to rely on diodes to 
convert the AC stator output back into DC for feedback loop back to the field. 
So when we test that circuit, at first it doesnt seem to work,(at the tested 
rpm). So the first time I tested it, it didnt work. But the second time I 
tested it, I left the connections of the feedback loop on for about 30 seconds, 
AND IT DID WORK, BUT IT RAN AS A RUNAWAY CHAIN REACTION ALMOST IMMEDIATELY THAT 
STARTED GROANING THE ALTERNATOR AS IT WAS FUNCTIONING IN OVERLOAD CONDITION AND 
WOULD QUICKLY OVERHEAT AND BURN ITSELF UP.  Yep I had created my own 
electrical frankenstein monster that for a year or so could not be controlled 
until the mechanisms for controlling it were learned. But what happened was 
that after thousands of cycles the
voltage would gradually build up until it crossed the non-linear field 
resistance barrier and then once the effect took place it became a runaway self 
feedback loop. Yes technically machines that power their own source can be 
built, but the subsidiary problems to control the chain reaction will be self 
evident. I was actually thinking that I could apply for a patent on this form 
of regulation that I developed, and actually with the current circuits that I 
am working with, this could be tried in a different manner then before, but 
again the chief danger in those tests is the mentioned runaway circuit 
conditions, meaning that you just don't walk out of the room and come back with 
those things because when things go overload you need to shut things down right 
away. This actually happened to me in one instance where I used an overload 
output circuit that accidentally went open circuit and caused the machine to 
start outputing excessive voltages. In answer
to your question then in this alternator context, yes a rotation can be used to 
charge itself, but there are complications involved with the applications. To 
show what can actually be done with  resonant alternator circuits the 
following video shows the unergized field being used to light a 500 volt neon 
bulb, but I have dropped all experimentations involved with instituting that 
mentioned field self feedback  loop. It is not enough to merely have a 
high voltage to use in the feedback loop, the circuit must also be able to 
supply the neccessary amperage for the fields usages. But amazingly in the 
shown circuit using the flux capacitor principle it acts as a "magnifier" in 
that when the neon load is removed, more vibration of amperage ensues 
then  what the equal size inductor that caused its vibration to begin with 
has. I noted this on one of my videos, perhaps I can find that item shown by 
actual experimentation and re

[Vo]:YES

[Rich Murray]

-- Forwarded message --
From: kyle paxton 
Date: Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:56 PM
Subject: FW: YES
To: richard t murray 

 --
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:16:54 -0800
From: sa1h...@yahoo.com
Subject: Fw: YES
To: k...@hotmail.com; surra...@msn.com; rush_211...@yahoo.com;
charles_ath...@hotmail.com; askrobarcz...@aol.com; txenergi...@aol.com;
over...@hotmail.com

Subject: Fw: YES

To:
Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2012, 11:13 AM

  - Forwarded Message -
**
*To:*
*Sent:* Thursday, February 2, 2012 10:15 PM
*Subject:* FW: YES




 yes, I can -- no problem at all!  It is amazing

   *If you can do this, pass it on to friends with the word YES in
the subject, but only if you can read this.*

   *A Short Neurological Test
**
**1- Find the C below..*
*Please do not use any cursor help.**
**
OOO
OOO
OOO
OOO
OOO
OOO
OOOCOOO
OOO
OOO
OOO
OOO

2- If you already found the C, now find the 6 below.

999
999
999
699
999
999

3 - Now find the N below. It's a little more difficult.

NMM
MMM
MMM
MMM
MMM

This is NOT a joke. If you were able to pass these 3 tests, you can cancel
your annual visit to your neurologist. Your brain is great and you're far
from having a close** **relationship with Alzheimer.**
**
Congratulations!*
*
**eonvrye that can raed this rsaie your hnad.*
 *To my 'selected' strange-minded friends:

If you can read the following paragraph, forward it on to your friends and
the person that sent it to you with 'yes' in the subject line.*
 *

**
**
**Only great minds can read this
This is weird, but interesting!
**
**If you can raed this, you have a sgtrane mnid too

Can you raed this? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

I cdnuolt blveiee that I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd what I was rdanieg. The
phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are, the
olny iproamtnt tihng is that the frsit and last ltteer be in the rghit
pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can still raed it whotuit a
pboerlm. This is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot
slpeling was ipmorantt! If you can raed this forwrad it

FORWARD ONLY IF YOU CAN READ IT*
*Forward it & put 'YES' in the Subject Line*