Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?
When two like charged participles are cooper paired together, do they still have charge? They may not. Their charge may be delocalized and exist at a location that is far distant from the spin part of them. If they both had the same charge, how could they stick together? A quasi-neutron… just a thought… Cheers: Axil On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *It isn't clear to me why a cooper pair of protons would be of nuclear dimensions, nor why they would be able to surmount the Coulomb barrier.* Essentially, there exists no Coulomb barrier at the point of charge concentration if that concentration is dense enough. These days, I am interested in concentration of electron charge in a small volume. This is how the Chin reaction works. Rossi’s reaction is inferior in my opinion as hard to control. In the Chin reaction, this negative electric charge concentration on a nano tube will induce a large number of positive charge holes of equal by opposite charge. Now See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric-field_screening *Electric-field screening* The main point here is that as long as there are many positive ions between two positive charges; say a proton and a nucleus, their interaction is *screened* strongly, simply because these many positive charge carriers can terminate electric field lines. So a free ion attracts ions of opposite sign, making a little `counter ion cloud' which neutralizes its charge, and therefore by Gauss's law, basically eliminates the electric field. The size of this `cloud' is roughly the screening length yD, the parameter that determines when the exponential `cuts off' the Coulomb interaction in U(r). A useful formula for yD is due to Debye, which comes from a certain relatively-easy-to-solve limiting case of interaction of charges with free ions present where the sum over j is over *all* the ions, and where j counts the number of ions. As you can see, as you add more and more positve charges, because the induced charges enter squared, the screening length goes down, down, down. See the function for the Debye-Hückel length where Zj = Qj/C is the integer charge numberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_numberthat relates the charge on the j-th ionic species to the elementary chargehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_length *Debye length*** ** This formula is often called the *Debye screening length*, and provides a good first estimate of the distance beyond which Coulomb interactions can be essentially ignored, as well as the size of the region near a point charge where opposite-charge counter ions can be found. On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:08 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 22 May 2012 21:44:13 -0400: Hi, [snip] The cooper pair of protons speculation It isn't clear to me why a cooper pair of protons would be of nuclear dimensions, nor why they would be able to surmount the Coulomb barrier. (They only have a reasonable chance of tunneling through it if they get close enough). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Lewis Larsen, weak force LENR for Gold from Tungsten, 2012.05.19 slides 33-39 of 66, text only: Rich Murray 2012.05.24
Lewis Larsen, weak force LENR for Gold from Tungsten, 2012.05.19 slides 33-39 of 66, text only: Rich Murray 2012.05.24 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-lenr-transmutation-networks-can-produce-goldmay-19-2012 33. Commercializing a next-generation source of valuable stable elements Lattice Energy LLC Cirillo Iorio also produced Gold from Tungsten ca. 2004 Modern Italian work is ~theoretically equivalent to Nagaoka’s Electric discharge with 74W180-186 cathode in alkaline H2O instead of CnH2n+2 + Hg Unaware of Nagaoka’s much earlier work, ca. 2003 - 2004 D. Cirillo and E. Iorio in Italy inadvertently designed and constructed an LENR experimental system involving electric discharges and Tungsten electrodes that, from a WLT perspective, was ~theoretically equivalent to Nagaoka’s 1920s experimental set-up; they subsequently observed and reported transmutation products that were consistent with Nagaoka's results reported in Nature and operation of the 74W180-seed transmutation network that is described herein Cirillo Iorio’s modern set-up utilized an “aqueous electrolyte plasma glow-discharge cell” From an abstract broad-brush theoretical viewpoint, main differences between their new experimental system and Nagaoka’s set-up of 80 years earlier was that: (1) in Cirillo Iorio’s experiments the protons needed to produce LENR neutrons came from hydrogen atoms in water (H2O) instead of in transformer oil (CnH2n+2); and (2) no Mercury (Hg) was initially present in their system, so 80Hg196 + n → 80Hg197 → 79Au197 electron-capture reaction can clearly be excluded as potential source of surface Gold they observed with SEM-EDX In a section following this one, we will speculatively discuss intriguing experimental evidence that certain bacteria could be involved with 74W180-seed network out in Nature May 19, 2012 Copyright 2012, Lattice Energy LLC All Rights Reserved 33 34. Commercializing a next-generation source of valuable stable elements Lattice Energy LLC Cirillo Iorio also produced Gold from Tungsten ca. 2004 Schematic overview of Cirillo Iorio’s LENR experimental apparatus [ Source of Graphic: Nature, 445, January 4, 2007 ] Comment: this LENR experiment involves formation of a dense plasma in a double-layer confined to the surface of Tungsten (W) cathode (-) by a liquid electrolyte Comment on their experimental data: Unbeknownst to the experimenters, they may have had either Barium (Ba) titanate and/or Dysprosium (Dy) as component(s) in the composition of the dielectric ceramic sleeve that was partially covering the cathode immersed in the electrolyte; Ba and/or Dy are commonly present in such ceramics. Under the stated experimental conditions, Ba and Dy could easily 'leach-out' from the _ + surface of the ceramic into the electrolyte, creating yet another 'target' element that could migrate onto the surface of their Tungsten (W) cathode. Since none of the potential intermediate transmutation products such as Nd (Neodymium), Sm (Samarium), and Gd (Gadolinium) were observed, it is possible that there may have been LENR ULM neutron captures starting with Dy → Er (Erbium) → Tm (Thulium) → Yb (Ytterbium), LENR transmutation products that were also observed in these experiments May 19, 2012 Copyright 2012, Lattice Energy LLC All Rights Reserved 34 35. Commercializing a next-generation source of valuable stable elements Lattice Energy LLC Cirillo Iorio also produced Gold from Tungsten ca. 2004 Used SEM-EDX to detect intermediate products of 74W180-seed network Paper (conference presentation - not peer- reviewed) D. Cirillo and V. Iorio, “Transmutation of metal at low energy in a confined plasma in water pp. 492-504 in “Condensed Matter Nuclear Science – Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Cold Fusion,” J-P. Biberian, ed. World Scientific (2006) Free copy of paper available at: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CirilloDtransmutat.pdf Quoting: “… electrodes are cylindrical rods with a: diameter of 2.45 mm, and a length of 17.5 cm … both are made of pure Tungsten [W] … cathode is partially covered with a ceramic sleeve, which allows … control [of] the dimensions of … exposed cathode surface submerged in … solution.” In their experiments, Rhenium (Re), Osmium (Os), and Gold (Au) were observed post-experimentally as nuclear transmutation products on the Tungsten (W) cathode surface; other LENR transmutation products were also observed (please see our Comment on previous Slide) According to WLT, operation of the 74W180-seed LENR transmutation network could in theory produce a nucleosynthetic pathway of W → Re → Os → Ir → Pt → Au ; in fact, Re, Os, and Au were claimed to have been observed by Cirillo Iorio in these modern experiments Theoretically similar to Nagaoka’s experiments in 1920s: LENR transmutation products were observed, Gold (Au) in particular, that can be explained with neutron captures were shown and
Re: [Vo]:Featured speakers at ICCF17
According to infinite energy magazine Defkalion Green Technologies and Brillouin Energy have agreed to participate. so we'll be seeing some new younger faces too. On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://iccf17.org/sub04_03.php I gotta say it . . . What a collection of old farts! - Jed
[Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
Hello group, This is via ecatnews [1] / NASA Langley RC YouTube Channel [2] Joe Zawodny informally speaks again about his group's recent developments on LENR and future applications/implications. Widom-Larsen theory cited, new very small scale test device shown. This video appears to have been uploaded yesterday. Enjoy: NASA LaRC | Abundant Clean/Green Energy http://youtu.be/42hrCRx1JJY Cheers, S.A. [1] http://ecatnews.com/?p=2212 [2] http://www.youtube.com/user/NASAinnovation?feature=watch
RE: [Vo]:Featured speakers at ICCF17
From: Moab According to infinite energy magazine Defkalion Green Technologies and Brillouin Energy have agreed to participate. so we'll be seeing some new younger faces too. I gather Rossi was either not invited or he declined to participate. Too bad. Too bad. It would have been interesting to have had the poster child, of sorts, included in the frey. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:An e-cat site in Swedish
See: http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/
Re: [Vo]:An e-cat site in Swedish
It seems to be a bit retarded, in the best sense of this word. Peter On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Srinivsan describes his 1994 work at SRI
As I reported here, I sent Srinivasan a short message asking him to clarify his thoughts about the Ni-H experiments at BARC and SRI. I wrote to him: I was talking to Jones Beene about you said regarding your work at SRI. You tried to replicate Mills. As I recall, you said you got some indications of heat, but mostly null results, and even the positive results were marginal. In ICCF3, p. 123 you reported much stronger results: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IkegamiHthirdinter.pdf Jones described this: As for Srinivasan, Rothwell reported that he has directly contradicted, in verbal discussions, some of his own prior paper’s conclusions . . . He responded with the message below. Then he sent me a memo which he and Mike McKubre published in Infinite Energy, in 1994, while the tests were underway. I will try to copy the memo text here. It is 8,400 characters so it may be too long for this forum. In that case I will upload it. Anyway, the text from his e-mail is below. It is more or less as I recalled from the lecture. The excess heat results could not be replicated at SRI. He thinks they are probably from recombination. He still thinks the tritium results were valid. The next message in this thread will be my attempt to copy the memo. I might break it into pieces. It is mostly text without a lot of formatting. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . Jones is right. At ICCF 3 we did report excess heat from many Ni-H cells. At SRI (Sept 93 to Mar 94) Mike encouraged me to reproduce those results. These were open cells. The excess heat was reported wrt to (V-1.52) * I and not V*I. There was suspicion that there might be some recombination taking place within the open cells. So at SRI we placed the open beaker on a digital balance. The weight loss could be continuously monitored and recorded. I also collected the off gases in a separate vessel where there was a recombination catalyst. We could measure the exact amount of water that left the open electrolysis cell as a function of time. The apparent excess heat produced could be nicely correlated with the amount of recombination taking place. These results were reported as a short Technical Note in an issue of Gene Mallove's Cold Fusion magazine some time in 1995 I think! I had to concede that the excess heat reported at Nagoya could (must?) have been due to recombination. After this experience I decided never to try measure excess heat in open cells. ButI still held on to Tritum production in Ni-H cells. Although the cells at SRI did not yield T, the repeat measurements done at BARC later and reported in FT confirmed low level tritium production in Ni-H cells. Thanks for the interest shown in our Ancient work! Chino
Re: [Vo]:Srinivsan describes his 1994 work at SRI
Good grief. I spelled his name wrong in the heading. How embarrassing! Anyway, here is the memo text. Let me try to append the whole thing. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *Two-Balance Method of Faraday Efficiency Measurement with External Open Cell Calorimetry for Identifying Origin of Excess Heat in** **Ni-H2O** **Electrolytic Cells* *By M. Srinivasan and M.C.H. McKubre, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA 94025* *(Reprinted from Issue 1 (Vol. 1, May 1994) of Cold Fusion Magazine)* It is now three years since the first reports of observation of excess heat by Randell Mills and his collaborators[1] during the electrolysis of light water solution of K2C03 in an open cell using nickel as cathode and platinum as anode. Since then, at least seven other groups [2-8] claim they have confirmed the generation of excess power in such Ni-H2O cells. Most of these groups also have employed open cell calorimetry similar to that of Mills et al [1]. Bush and Eagleton [3] are perhaps the only group to have carried out extensive closed cell experiments which appear to confirm excess heat generation in such systems. Noteworthy features of the Ni-H2O cells, as described by those who have experimented with them, are: (a) they have very short initiation times, i.e., the excess power, if present, appears within the first day of electrolysis and (b) the success rate of observing excess power is high compared to Pd-D20 systems. On the whole, the system appears to be much more robust and easily amenable to experimental investigation. Despite these favorable features, however, it is rather surprising that more groups have not undertaken study of such cells. This is probably because the majority of active researchers continue to look upon excess power claims in light water cells with skepticism, dismissing them as a chemical effect of the nickel/carbonate system, most probably due to recombination of H2 and O2 within the cell. Indeed, some unpublished studies of Faraday efficiency measurements in open Ni-H2O cells carried out simultaneously with calorimetry suggest that the apparent excess power at modest levels (=30%) in their cells could be attributed to recombination effects, or to an incorrect estimate of the system thermoneutral voltage due to electrochemical processes other than the electrolysis of water. On the other hand, the originators of this concept, namely Mills et al, have presented [9] details of their Faraday efficiency measurements in a heat-producing cell, which clearly rules out recombination effects as the source of excess power, at least in their cells. The wide disparity of claims and counter-claims has naturally given rise to confusion in the minds of those scientists who are earnestly attempting to interpret these experimental findings. A factor in resolving the question of whether the excess heat in Ni-H2O cells is genuine, or due to an experimental artifact, is the existence of two diverse theories put forward to explain excess heat in these systems. As is well known, Mills el. [1] claim that excess heat is due to the formation of compact hydrogen atoms (or dihydrino molecules as they describe it), while Robert Bush [3] has proposed that it is due to nuclear transmutation reactions involving a proton (from the hydrogen of H2O) and alkali metals. But the important point to be noted here is that according to Mills, [9] dihydrino molecules do not combine with oxygen to form water. To shed more light on these questions, we propose a simple experiment which could possibly resolve most of the issues. The basic objective of the experiment is to measure simultaneously the mass of water lost from a cell due to electrolysis (Faraday efficiency), as well as mass of water formed in a neighboring flask containing a large area Pt catalyst, into which the electrolytic gases are directed through flexible tubing. These two masses are to be measured while open cell calorimetry is performed. The output of the recombiner flask is connected to ambient atmosphere via a water bubbler. The electrolysis cell and recombiner flask (along with attached bubbler) are placed separately on two independent electronic balances reading to an accuracy of 0.01g. The interconnecting gas tubing between the electrolytic cell and recombiner flask is strung over a sturdy stand in such a way that it does not load the balances and result in erroneous balance readings. It is advisable to ensure that the tubing forms a smooth arc so that no condensed water can accumulate. After inserting the usual temperature sensors and electrode connection leads via the top plug of the electrolytic cell, all gas leakage paths are sealed. The water bubbler serves additionally as an on-line manometer monitoring system pressure, thereby confirming gas tightness. There are four possible outcomes of such an experiment: (a) Mass of water lost from cell equals mass of water formed in recombiner, and both correspond to the Faraday value.
[Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
This may be too open-ended and nebulous to present at this juncture - but the evidence for small amounts of tritium in Ni-H LERN is substantial. Thanks to Ed Storms and Jed Rothwell from bringing this detail clearly into focus recently - because for one overriding consideration- given the rarity of background 3H - this occurrence of it where it should not be seen ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEES THE REALITY OF LENR. But all of us knew that, and need no reminder... at least on this forum. Should we attempt to rub it in elsewhere? As mentioned, this is partly a function of being able to locate and precisely identify extremely small amounts of the isotope - but that is not a minus... if it were not being made in some quantity, it would not show up at all. What are the implications of the following ? 1) Tritium appearance is absolutely not in question in the reaction, but does not always occur, so what is the key to it being there? 2) No necessity for excess heat to find tritium. In fact many reports find T with no heat. 3) In some cases, what can be called anomalous cooling is seen (as in Ahern's experiments) 4) When excess heat is clearly present, tritium formation can be somewhere around 10^5 times too low to account for it. What is the highest correlation? 5) Claytor sees tritium with lithium, which is easier to explain but most reports are with potassium carbonate. Why K2CO3 instead of KOH? 6) No public evidence that the rate of tritium production can be commercialized, even if a price of $1000,000 per gram is guaranteed. Your input on other implications of this will be duly noted - and reported in a separate post. We can pretty much state that the main common denominator for all of the above is Quantum Mechanics - in the sense of low probability tunneling. Which means that QM tunneling has allowed some small amount of tritium to form but is it new physics? IOW - There is no guarantee that it is not a new kind of tritium reaction (not necessarily D+D - T+p). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
I should credit Eric Walker's persistence, as well, in this mini tritium revival - especially in digging up old papers from the early nineties where the isotope is mentioned. There are many other papers as well, some of them not available on LENR/CANR. Fusion Technology is a good resource for good papers from this era which are not easily available otherwise. In retrospect, this is the one major point that should have been hammered into the skeptical mentality: you cannot explain away LENR unless you can explain away the tritium - even if it only occurs in a few instances. Maybe we missed a golden opportunity by failing to emphasize this point ad nauseum. Tritium is so extremely rare and unexpected, and its detection is so certain and reliable - that even its occasional appearance overrides EVERY AND ALL of the skeptics objections which are mostly all associated with low reproducibility. _ From: Jones Beene This may be too open-ended and nebulous to present at this juncture - but the evidence for small amounts of tritium in Ni-H LERN is substantial. Thanks to Ed Storms and Jed Rothwell from bringing this detail clearly into focus recently - because for one overriding consideration- given the rarity of background 3H - this occurrence of it where it should not be seen ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEES THE REALITY OF LENR. But all of us knew that, and need no reminder... at least on this forum. Should we attempt to rub it in elsewhere? As mentioned, this is partly a function of being able to locate and precisely identify extremely small amounts of the isotope - but that is not a minus... if it were not being made in some quantity, it would not show up at all. What are the implications of the following ? 1) Tritium appearance is absolutely not in question in the reaction, but does not always occur, so what is the key to it being there? 2) No necessity for excess heat to find tritium. In fact many reports find T with no heat. 3) In some cases, what can be called anomalous cooling is seen (as in Ahern's experiments) 4) When excess heat is clearly present, tritium formation can be somewhere around 10^5 times too low to account for it. What is the highest correlation? 5) Claytor sees tritium with lithium, which is easier to explain but most reports are with potassium carbonate. Why K2CO3 instead of KOH? 6) No public evidence that the rate of tritium production can be commercialized, even if a price of $1000,000 per gram is guaranteed. Your input on other implications of this will be duly noted - and reported in a separate post. We can pretty much state that the main common denominator for all of the above is Quantum Mechanics - in the sense of low probability tunneling. Which means that QM tunneling has allowed some small amount of tritium to form but is it new physics? IOW - There is no guarantee that it is not a new kind of tritium reaction (not necessarily D+D - T+p). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?
As another way to over come the coloumb barrier, I vaguely recall a paper proposing that the range of the strong force may reach further under some circumstances. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Tritium is so extremely rare and unexpected, and its detection is so certain and reliable - that even its occasional appearance overrides EVERY AND ALL of the skeptics objections which are mostly all associated with low reproducibility. I have often said this, but the skeptics disagree. They find reasons to doubt the results. Tritium has another advantage over heat. Some of the calorimetry in this field has been dubious, with amateur do-it-yourself instruments. Whereas I think most of the tritium studies were done by experts at BARC, Los Alamos and TAMU. They use professional grade off-the-shelf instruments. I suppose there is no such thing as a do-it-yourself tritium detector. In discussions with skeptics I have sometimes pointed out that the people in the BARC Safety Division who detected tritium must be good at their jobs because, as they themselves said: if we could not detect we would be dead. I have also pointed out that the people who detected tritium at Los Alamos are also impressive, such as Jalbert. See p. 13.3: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf QUOTE: Roland A. Jalbert *25 years working with tritium and tritium detection *involved in the development, design, and implementation of tritium instrumentation for 15 years *for 12 years he has had prime responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintainance of all tritium instrumentation at a major fusion technology development facility (Tritium Systems Test Assembly ). *Consultant on tritium instrumentation to other fusion energy facilities for 10 years (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princton) After I describe the people at BARC and Jalbert, the discussion ends. I do not recall any instances in which the skeptics responded. However, in other venues and discussions they continue to say they do not believe the tritium results. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: After I describe the people at BARC and Jalbert, the discussion ends. I do not recall any instances in which the skeptics responded. However, in other venues and discussions they continue to say they do not believe the tritium results. Safety in numbers.
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
I wrote: I have often said this, but the skeptics disagree. They find reasons to doubt the results. There is a legitimate reason to doubt results with heavy water. Some heavy water does have tritium in it to start with. This can be concentrated by electrolysis. Experts such as Storms know that, and took it into account, as you see in their papers. There is no significant tritium in ordinary water. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
On 2012-05-24 12:57, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Hello group, Here's a related blog post by Dennis Bushnell (Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center). I don't know exactly how recent this is, but I've never seen it linked before: http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
The Page Info states - Modified: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:36:53 PM I am not sure if that means it was uploaded at that time. On 2012-05-24 12:57, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Hello group, Here's a related blog post by Dennis Bushnell (Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center). I don't know exactly how recent this is, but I've never seen it linked before: http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
The device shown in the video is depicted in slides 20,21,22 of Zawodny's pdf presentation that NET obtained through the FOI request. The experiment is significant because it elegantly allows the direct observation of cold fusion without complicated calorimetry or controls. The Zawodny slides imply that direct measurements by IR camera have been made of terahertz radiation induced cold fusion with insitu control tiles directly adjacent to active tiles. If that is indeed what Zawodny has achieved it is a slam-dunk experiment that is extremely difficult to refute. I wish more details of his observations were available. Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 12:57:56 +0200 From: shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video Hello group, This is via ecatnews [1] / NASA Langley RC YouTube Channel [2] Joe Zawodny informally speaks again about his group's recent developments on LENR and future applications/implications. Widom-Larsen theory cited, new very small scale test device shown. This video appears to have been uploaded yesterday. Enjoy: NASA LaRC | Abundant Clean/Green Energy http://youtu.be/42hrCRx1JJY Cheers, S.A. [1] http://ecatnews.com/?p=2212 [2] http://www.youtube.com/user/NASAinnovation?feature=watch
Re: [Vo]:Zawodny on LENR in a recently uploaded NASA LaRC YouTube video
To avoid being laughed at and eventually fired, the people at NASA need a politically correct theory to legitimate their interest in cold fusion. High energy and plasma physics and its conceptual spawn, the standard model all say that the coulomb barrier is inviolate. So how can NASA embrace the possibility of cold fusion and still be on the right side of standard science? Well, just place credence and lip service into a “weak force” based theoretical alternative to cover their interest and their butt ends in a plausible conceptual framework. Let us hope that NASA does not become myopic and self-delusional in their blind adherence to this theory. The best course for them would be to develop diagnostic tools in an open minded quest to see what is really happening on the surface of the nickel lattice. On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 6:57 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: Hello group, This is via ecatnews [1] / NASA Langley RC YouTube Channel [2] Joe Zawodny informally speaks again about his group's recent developments on LENR and future applications/implications. Widom-Larsen theory cited, new very small scale test device shown. This video appears to have been uploaded yesterday. Enjoy: NASA LaRC | Abundant Clean/Green Energy http://youtu.be/42hrCRx1JJY Cheers, S.A. [1] http://ecatnews.com/?p=2212 [2] http://www.youtube.com/user/**NASAinnovation?feature=watchhttp://www.youtube.com/user/NASAinnovation?feature=watch
Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?
I guess this is also Frank Znidarsic contention: If the range of the strong nuclear force increased beyond the electrostatic potential barrier a nucleon would feel the nuclear force before it was repelled by the electrostatic force. Under this situation nucleons would pass under the electrostatic barrier without producing any radiation. Could this author's original idea that electron condensations increase the range of the nuclear foces be correct? http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter4.html harry On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: As another way to over come the coloumb barrier, I vaguely recall a paper proposing that the range of the strong force may reach further under some circumstances. Harry
[Vo]:New WLT Transmutation : Tungsten (W) to Gold
And, if the calculations in the paper - ESTIMATION OF ENERGY RELEASE IN PROTON-21 EXPERIMENTS http://www.proton21.com.ua/publ/Proton21_Energy_EN.pdf - are correct, the process is exothermic. So it may not have energy costs if the energy generated can be recaptured. Alan J Fletcher on Tue, 22 May 2012 16:20:59 -0700 wrote: via Krivit Fascinating Reading: Larsen#146;s Latest on LENRs and Gold http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/05/21/fascinating-reading-larsens-latest -on-lenrs-and-gold/ http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-lenr -transmutation-networks-can-produce-goldmay-19-2012 # Once you've got those slow neutrons, transmutations are easy. Suggests it's been observed experimentally since the 1920's .. and in nature. Could be more profitable than gold-mining.
Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic?
This concept is most interesting. I would assume that the energy required to overcome the electrostatic barrier must still be supplied and it would most likely be stolen from the strong force presentations. The nucleus mass deficit is substantially larger when a neutron is absorbed (Ni58 + Neutron = Ni59) than when a proton is forced into the nucleus against the barrier (Ni58 + Proton = Cu59). This supports that hypothesis. An interesting secondary occurrence is that the subsequent beta plus decay of the Cu59 into Ni59 represents the expelling of the same amount of charge as was previously absorbed. This second process demonstrates a relatively large mass deficit. The end result of the complete process is a near parity energy performance when compared to direct neutron absorption. Why the coulomb barrier energy is not lost is still blocked within my mind. Apparently stars run out of steam when they try to fuse Ni56 with an alpha particle to form Zn60. My calculations suggest the same occurrence if I assume that the activation barrier energy is lost into the mass of the Zn60 nucleus. I guess I must have a mental barrier that is difficult to overcome! Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 24, 2012 4:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Proton Fusion Ni58 to Cu59 Endothermic? I guess this is also Frank Znidarsic contention: If the range of the strong nuclear force increased beyond the lectrostatic potential barrier a nucleon would feel the nuclear force efore it was repelled by the electrostatic force. Under this ituation nucleons would pass under the electrostatic barrier without roducing any radiation. Could this author's original idea that lectron condensations increase the range of the nuclear foces be orrect? http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter4.html harry On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: As another way to over come the coloumb barrier, I vaguely recall a paper proposing that the range of the strong force may reach further under some circumstances. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I should credit Eric Walker's persistence, as well, in this mini tritium revival - especially in digging up old papers from the early nineties where the isotope is mentioned. I failed to give Ed Storms credit for the references -- they're all from a single table in his Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. He and Jed and the original investigators did all the legwork for this thread. John Bockris almost lost his position at Texas AM on account of skepticism of tritium results that he and a graduate student reported (not in an Ni-H system, if I recall). That suggests that tritium is indeed a threatening result to people in the know. Gary Taubes wrote a piece for Science on the AM affair that strongly hinted at fraud. At one point Bockris had what he felt was ironclad evidence that tritium was evolving in a similar experiment that he wanted to show to some of his colleagues, but by then he had become a pariah of sorts, and nobody would take up his offer. I'm hardly an expert here, but tritium seems like a great demonstration that something weird is going on for the reasons you mention. The extent to which a person takes note of it is perhaps a measure of how interested he or she is in setting aside prior assumptions about nuclear physics and considering the possibility that something new might be happening. But when you bring together all of the weirdnesses -- the tritium, the helium, the transmutations, the excess heat, etc. -- there must be a cloying effect. No doubt there's some conditional probability for LENR given these things that can be provided by Bayesian statistics that is pretty high, such that it would be unscientific to discount its possibility. The main alternative explanation, that the people making the fuss are altogether delusional and are engaged in something akin to astrology appears to be easier for most scientists to start out with. Kuhn understood that scientists are emotional creatures, given to biases and fads of various kinds, and that this makes even the hard sciences an eminently social endeavor. Eric
