date:20120614

This is a 110 MW concentrating solar power (CSP) project in Nevada, with a
central tower, on 1,600 acres of land. The tower approach is more efficient
and cheaper than the troughs that were common 20 years ago. They recently
finished erecting the tower. See:

http://www.tonopahsolar.com/pdfs/FactSheet_CrescentDunes.pdf

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/06/u-s-solar-industry-posts-solid-q1-with-506-mw-installed

1.1 GW of CSP plants are now under construction. I think the nameplate
versus actual ratio is better than wind, so this represents roughly half of
an average nuclear plant (which is 0.9 GW).

Solar availability and peak power are much better than solar in the
southwest because the peak coincides with the highest demand, mainly for
airconditioning. Demand at night is always much lower anyway. CSP does not
drop when there is temporary cloud cover. It will be able to store the
energy, even for use at night. That is a big advantage of CSP over PV
solar. The working fluid is molten salt at 1050 deg F = 566 deg C.

- Jed

[Vo]:FYI: Electrons moving in certain solids can behave as if they are a thousand times more massive than free electrons.

2012-06-14 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

FYI:

 

Electrons moving in certain solids can behave as if they are a thousand
times more massive than free electrons.

 

Popular article here:

Got mass? Scientists observe electrons become both heavy and speedy

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-mass-scientists-electrons-heavy-speedy.html

 

Abstract here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7402/full/nature11204.html

 

Is mainstream science finally catching up to LENR???  

Would this enhance electron capture in hydrogen-loaded metal lattices?

-Mark Iverson

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

I meant to say: Solar availability and peak power are much better than WIND
in the southwest because the peak coincides with the highest demand . . .


In some parts of Europe, you get a lot of wind at night, when you least
need electricity.

You cannot store wind, coal or nuclear energy, except a small amount with
batteries. You can store water or CSP. Earlier CSP installations with
stored fluid had natural gas heating for days without sunlight. This one
does not.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Some Piantelli news from Roy Virgilio

2012-06-14 Thread Akira Shirakawa

On 2012-06-13 23:00, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Hello Group,

I asked Roy Virgilio to provide some clarifications on certain passages
of his previous forum post, managing to obtain some more information. I
will translate his new message below (thanks again Google Translate):

http://www.energeticambiente.it/sistemi-idrogeno-nikel/14742857-novit%C3%A0-cella-piantelli-7.html#post119337343

Here I see there's need to clarify a point. Piantelli NOT HAVE A READY PRODUCT
yet. He does not have a box to sell. He is not Rossi. Please change your point
of view.
The fundraising is done to finance the CONSTRUCTION of the prototype. We are in
the RESEARCH phase. We do not sell anything.

This is about betting, risking.
Metalenergy, a subsidiary of Nichenergy (a company directly created by
Piantelli and and a few other close associates), is the company which has the
European exclusive for the sale of FUTURE generators between 101 watts and 7
kW. Or sale of licenses.

Nichenergy is only the company, closed to everybody, which manages the
laboratory and the development of the [Ni-H] discovery. It does the research.
Once this research will have borne fruit, the enjoyment of these will come
through Metalenergy. Who is in Metalenergy will at that point enjoy direct
earnings and the royalties derived from the sale of products throughout Europe.

CURRENTLY who enters Metalenergy, actually finances Nichenergy, allowing it to
complete the research and development.

To summarize, the fundraiser we're going to open soon will be to fund the
research and development of a prototype, and if all goes well, only then it
will be possible to see the results deriving from the sale of products that
DEPEND on research today.

So, who wants to put some money on this, will have to consider it almost as a
donation or, more realistically, as a medium / high risk investment.
But there is this to consider: the association will purchase a share of
Metalenergy worth today, say, 10 euros.
This share in a few months or a year (as the work progresses and the goal
becomes closer) could be worth say 20, because in the meantime the risk
that the work ends up with nothing will have decreased drastically.

So who will come at a later time, risking less, will have to pay double or take
half the shares, and so on. Also, and this is an important thing for me, he
will not have contributed on this historical adventure, and the advent of a new
era where energy is clean and plentiful.

I hope that the picture is now clearer. However, all these things we will be
more clearly explained on a few documents we're currently preparing.

We, I'm saying this again and then I'm out, we do not want to sell you
anything, we do not want to cheat you. This is only about actively
participating in the financing and completion of the research and development
of a product that can improve our lives. Those who believe in it, can
participate; those who prefer purchasing a black box that MAYBE works... do
that IF you can.

Roy

Roy Virgilio was gracious enough to provide more answers and
clarifications in an additional post:

http://www.energeticambiente.it/sistemi-idrogeno-nikel/14742857-novit%C3%A0-cella-piantelli-7.html#post119337412

@ Shirakawa: If Piantelli convinced the scientific community (which,
unfortunately, made recently a petition against piezonuclear reactions) that
LENR are a reality, then investments would not be a problem anymore...

This is the path prof. Piantelli is going through lately. There are good
chances that soon there will be fundamental data which could break down the
brickwall once and for all (hopefully). If this finding is confirmed (the prof
is ultra precise in these matters and the experiment will be repeated until
there is no doubt that the result is not an artifact) well, then the reaction
will no longer be denied by anyone.

@ Shirakawa: you're reporting for example, that the Professor could take up to
a year to collect the remaining funds needed for research

Not really... in the sense that the fundraising is to achieve only 1% of the
shares that Metalenergy is estimated being worth TODAY, which is around one
million euros. The other stocks are traded to medium-large companies or
investors of a certain level. This is just to make sure that everybody can
contribute with something, and have in the future (but not in 10 years!) a fair
profit. And this without having to ruin your life other than maybe giving up to
10 lottery tickets and investing just 100 euros for a certainly more noble
cause.

@ Maxwell61: there must at least be some cells that produce more than they
consume must be, otherwise I suppose there would be no reason to do research

[Yes,] There are such cells.

@ Maxwell61: I think that here we are just asking to have 2 numbers: input power and
output power ... and if making these measurements are part of the future
research after the fundrasing or if it will be

Re: [Vo]:Some Piantelli news from Roy Virgilio

Thanks for the update.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Some Piantelli news from Roy Virgilio

2012-06-14 Thread Daniel Rocha

It looks like they are hitting a dead end like Black Light...

2012/6/14 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com

On 2012-06-13 23:00, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Hello Group,

I asked Roy Virgilio to provide some clarifications on certain passages of
his previous forum post, managing to obtain some more information. I will
translate his new message below (thanks again Google Translate):

http://www.energeticambiente.**it/sistemi-idrogeno-nikel/**
14742857-novit%C3%A0-cella-**piantelli-7.html#post119337343http://www.energeticambiente.it/sistemi-idrogeno-nikel/14742857-novit%C3%A0-cella-piantelli-7.html#post119337343

Here I see there's need to clarify a point. Piantelli NOT HAVE A READY
PRODUCT yet. He does not have a box to sell. He is not Rossi. Please change
your point of view.
The fundraising is done to finance the CONSTRUCTION of the prototype. We
are in the RESEARCH phase. We do not sell anything.

This is about betting, risking.
Metalenergy, a subsidiary of Nichenergy (a company directly created by
Piantelli and and a few other close associates), is the company which has
the European exclusive for the sale of FUTURE generators between 101 watts
and 7 kW. Or sale of licenses.

Nichenergy is only the company, closed to everybody, which manages the
laboratory and the development of the [Ni-H] discovery. It does the
research.
Once this research will have borne fruit, the enjoyment of these will
come through Metalenergy. Who is in Metalenergy will at that point enjoy
direct earnings and the royalties derived from the sale of products
throughout Europe.

CURRENTLY who enters Metalenergy, actually finances Nichenergy, allowing
it to complete the research and development.

So, who wants to put some money on this, will have to consider it almost
as a donation or, more realistically, as a medium / high risk investment.
But there is this to consider: the association will purchase a share of
Metalenergy worth today, say, 10 euros.
This share in a few months or a year (as the work progresses and the goal
becomes closer) could be worth say 20, because in the meantime the risk
that the work ends up with nothing will have decreased drastically.

So who will come at a later time, risking less, will have to pay double
or take half the shares, and so on. Also, and this is an important thing
for me, he will not have contributed on this historical adventure, and the
advent of a new era where energy is clean and plentiful.

I hope that the picture is now clearer. However, all these things we will
be more clearly explained on a few documents we're currently preparing.

We, I'm saying this again and then I'm out, we do not want to sell you
anything, we do not want to cheat you. This is only about actively
participating in the financing and completion of the research and
development of a product that can improve our lives. Those who believe in
it, can participate; those who prefer purchasing a black box that MAYBE
works... do that IF you can.

Roy

Roy Virgilio was gracious enough to provide more answers and
clarifications in an additional post:

http://www.energeticambiente.**it/sistemi-idrogeno-nikel/**
14742857-novit%C3%A0-cella-**piantelli-7.html#post119337412http://www.energeticambiente.it/sistemi-idrogeno-nikel/14742857-novit%C3%A0-cella-piantelli-7.html#post119337412

@ Shirakawa: If Piantelli convinced the scientific community (which,
unfortunately, made recently a petition against piezonuclear reactions)
that LENR are a reality, then investments would not be a problem anymore...

This is the path prof. Piantelli is going through lately. There are good
chances that soon there will be fundamental data which could break down the
brickwall once and for all (hopefully). If this finding is confirmed (the
prof is ultra precise in these matters and the experiment will be repeated
until there is no doubt that the result is not an artifact) well, then the
reaction will no longer be denied by anyone.

@ Shirakawa: you're reporting for example, that the Professor could take
up to a year to collect the remaining funds needed for research

Not really... in the sense that the fundraising is to achieve only 1% of
the shares that Metalenergy is estimated being worth TODAY, which is around
one million euros. The other stocks are traded to medium-large companies or
investors of a certain level. This is just to make sure that everybody can
contribute with something, and have in the future (but not in 10 years!) a
fair profit. And this without having to ruin your life other than maybe
giving up to 10 lottery tickets and investing just 100 euros for a
certainly more noble cause.

@ Maxwell61: there

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

Jed,

Your problem is that you believe everything you read off those green energy
blogs/flyers and believe it is true.

The original Solar One and Solar Two Power Towers were moth-balled 20 years
ago. Solar one used steam/water, Solar Two used molten salt.

$1.6B/$2.2 Billion of government taxpayer money for 392 MW @ Ivanpah is a
horrendous amount of capital for that much generation, only part of the
day. $56M went to RELOCATE 150 TORTOISES!

Hundreds of thousands of clunky, motor driven heliostats/mirrors in the
desert are going to be a maintenance headache as well as operational
nightmare washing mirrors. Wind deflection and airborne dust is also a
problem trying to point mirrors and hit a target 1/4 mile away.

BrightSource was Luz2 the reincarnation of Luz1 that went bankrupt in the
late 80's when the government cut their funding back then.

These guys spend more in Washington Lobbyists than RD

The only operating power tower is Gemasolar in Spain generating ~ 10 MW's
of electricity and cost @$200M, an absurd amount.

Brightsource's working fluid is water/steam with a steam boiler sitting
500' in the air. Ivanpah does not have thermal salt storage. Also, CSP
uses standard Rankine cycle so 65% of your heat collected goes back out the
air-cooled condenser.

You can install a PV field in one tenth the time it takes to install a CSP
tower, foundation, turbine, power plant, etc. Alstom likes the CSP
technology because they still get to sell their power equipment.

Also, placing these things in the middle of the desert, although the sun is
bright, creates a huge transmission cost/problem. Distributed PV is alot
more cost effective.

Let's wait until these things are completed and running before spending one
more cent of taxpayer money.

Other than that I agree with everything you are saying...

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

This is a 110 MW concentrating solar power (CSP) project in Nevada, with a
central tower, on 1,600 acres of land. The tower approach is more efficient
and cheaper than the troughs that were common 20 years ago. They recently
finished erecting the tower. See:

http://www.tonopahsolar.com/pdfs/FactSheet_CrescentDunes.pdf

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/06/u-s-solar-industry-posts-solid-q1-with-506-mw-installed

1.1 GW of CSP plants are now under construction. I think the nameplate
versus actual ratio is better than wind, so this represents roughly half of
an average nuclear plant (which is 0.9 GW).

Solar availability and peak power are much better than solar in the
southwest because the peak coincides with the highest demand, mainly for
airconditioning. Demand at night is always much lower anyway. CSP does not
drop when there is temporary cloud cover. It will be able to store the
energy, even for use at night. That is a big advantage of CSP over PV
solar. The working fluid is molten salt at 1050 deg F = 566 deg C.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:


 Your problem is that you believe everything you read off those green
 energy blogs/flyers and believe it is true.

 The original Solar One and Solar Two Power Towers were moth-balled 20
 years ago.


Yes. Things often go wrong with cutting edge technology. Ask Boeing.



 BrightSource was Luz2 the reincarnation of Luz1 that went bankrupt in the
 late 80's when the government cut their funding back then.


They were driven out of business by political machinations of the power
companies and the coal industry. They were forced to build installations
that every study showed would be too small. They could have built them 5
times larger and made a profit, but the power companies refused. It was a
ploy.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

2012-06-14 Thread Robert Lynn

I was involved in a CSP project a few years back, and as much as I enjoyed
the tech side of it I have to agree with you. Large scale CSP is probably
cheaper than large scale PV, but after you factor in maintenance, fighting
BANANAs ( Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) and particularly
grid connection and distribution costs CSP just can't compete with roof-top
PV or small local PV installations supplemented by other power sources to
deal with lack of sun at night.

Assuming no LENR there is no chance of CSP being competitive with natural
gas in the next few decades. And it will not compete with nuclear in the
long term either (China already does nuclear for about $0.03-04/kWh, the
west will eventually get the price down as well on the back of China's
learning curve). May as well let CSP die.

On 14 June 2012 19:40, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

Jed,

Your problem is that you believe everything you read off those green
energy blogs/flyers and believe it is true.

The original Solar One and Solar Two Power Towers were moth-balled 20
years ago. Solar one used steam/water, Solar Two used molten salt.

$1.6B/$2.2 Billion of government taxpayer money for 392 MW @ Ivanpah is a
horrendous amount of capital for that much generation, only part of the
day. $56M went to RELOCATE 150 TORTOISES!

BrightSource was Luz2 the reincarnation of Luz1 that went bankrupt in the
late 80's when the government cut their funding back then.

These guys spend more in Washington Lobbyists than RD

The only operating power tower is Gemasolar in Spain generating ~ 10 MW's
of electricity and cost @$200M, an absurd amount.

Also, placing these things in the middle of the desert, although the sun
is bright, creates a huge transmission cost/problem. Distributed PV is
alot more cost effective.

Let's wait until these things are completed and running before spending
one more cent of taxpayer money.

Other than that I agree with everything you are saying...

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

This is a 110 MW concentrating solar power (CSP) project in Nevada, with
a central tower, on 1,600 acres of land. The tower approach is more
efficient and cheaper than the troughs that were common 20 years ago. They
recently finished erecting the tower. See:

http://www.tonopahsolar.com/pdfs/FactSheet_CrescentDunes.pdf

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/06/u-s-solar-industry-posts-solid-q1-with-506-mw-installed

1.1 GW of CSP plants are now under construction. I think the nameplate
versus actual ratio is better than wind, so this represents roughly half of
an average nuclear plant (which is 0.9 GW).

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

You are right, the government should have given them 5 times as much money
to prove that something 5 times more expensive than current generating
technologies would cost 5 times as much to the consumer/taxpayer.

The market for CSP(none) drove them out of business not the government.
 LENR has the potential to up-end the current market and I am all for that.
 Let capital markets decide.

There was a government study done once that showed there is good money to
be made in government studies. The recent government/green spend program
has taken that concept to a new level.

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:


 Your problem is that you believe everything you read off those green
 energy blogs/flyers and believe it is true.

 The original Solar One and Solar Two Power Towers were moth-balled 20
 years ago.


 Yes. Things often go wrong with cutting edge technology. Ask Boeing.



 BrightSource was Luz2 the reincarnation of Luz1 that went bankrupt in the
 late 80's when the government cut their funding back then.


 They were driven out of business by political machinations of the power
 companies and the coal industry. They were forced to build installations
 that every study showed would be too small. They could have built them 5
 times larger and made a profit, but the power companies refused. It was a
 ploy.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

You are right, the government should have given them 5 times as much money
 to prove that something 5 times more expensive . . .


Luz did not use much government money, and their 300 MW plant has been
operating continuously at a profit since the 1980s, so I suppose they have
paid back in taxes by now. The government and the power company should have
licensed them to build a plant 5 times bigger. It would not have cost 5
times more. That's the whole point! See: economies of scale.


The market for CSP(none) drove them out of business not the government.


That is not the story I read, in a book, which I cannot find. It was a ploy
to destroy the industry. A squeeze play, not unlike GM's successful method
of destroying electric cars.



  LENR has the potential to up-end the current market and I am all for
 that.  Let capital markets decide.


Capital markets have never been able to introduce radically new technology.
As I have often pointed out here, in the last 300 years, just about every
large-scale technology has been brought to fruition with government help.
In many cases these technologies have been invented and implemented by
governments, such as nuclear power, computers, lasers, the GPS and human
genome reading technology.

Even technology that seems to be brought about by industry was not. Ford
invented the mass produced automobile, but that is only a small part of the
transportation system. It is an adjunct to the paved roads and highways,
which are all built by the government. Ford was taking advantage of a
government-provided technology. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were also
johnny-come-latelys who took advantage of microcomputer technology after
Uncle Sam paid something like ~80% of the money to develop it.

Industry gets the profits, but the taxpayers foot the bills. If cold fusion
succeeds it will be the same way.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

Jed,

Is 10 billion enough to prove it is not cost effective?

20 billion?  50?

I could have launched those tortoises into earth orbit for $56M in taxpayer
money spent at Ivanpah relocaiting them

I am not much for conspiracy theories although they are fun to read

On Thursday, June 14, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote:

 You are right, the government should have given them 5 times as much money
 to prove that something 5 times more expensive . . .


 Luz did not use much government money, and their 300 MW plant has been
 operating continuously at a profit since the 1980s, so I suppose they have
 paid back in taxes by now. The government and the power company should have
 licensed them to build a plant 5 times bigger. It would not have cost 5
 times more. That's the whole point! See: economies of scale.


 The market for CSP(none) drove them out of business not the government.


 That is not the story I read, in a book, which I cannot find. It was a
 ploy to destroy the industry. A squeeze play, not unlike GM's successful
 method of destroying electric cars.



  LENR has the potential to up-end the current market and I am all for
 that.  Let capital markets decide.


 Capital markets have never been able to introduce radically new
 technology. As I have often pointed out here, in the last 300 years, just
 about every large-scale technology has been brought to fruition with
 government help. In many cases these technologies have been invented and
 implemented by governments, such as nuclear power, computers, lasers, the
 GPS and human genome reading technology.

 Even technology that seems to be brought about by industry was not. Ford
 invented the mass produced automobile, but that is only a small part of the
 transportation system. It is an adjunct to the paved roads and highways,
 which are all built by the government. Ford was taking advantage of a
 government-provided technology. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were also
 johnny-come-latelys who took advantage of microcomputer technology after
 Uncle Sam paid something like ~80% of the money to develop it.

 Industry gets the profits, but the taxpayers foot the bills. If cold
 fusion succeeds it will be the same way.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

Also,

CSP is not radically new it has been around for 30 years awaiting
government money, only the names have changed.

If SEGS was so profitable why did Luz go bankrupt?

On Thursday, June 14, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote:

 You are right, the government should have given them 5 times as much money
 to prove that something 5 times more expensive . . .


 Luz did not use much government money, and their 300 MW plant has been
 operating continuously at a profit since the 1980s, so I suppose they have
 paid back in taxes by now. The government and the power company should have
 licensed them to build a plant 5 times bigger. It would not have cost 5
 times more. That's the whole point! See: economies of scale.


 The market for CSP(none) drove them out of business not the government.


 That is not the story I read, in a book, which I cannot find. It was a
 ploy to destroy the industry. A squeeze play, not unlike GM's successful
 method of destroying electric cars.



  LENR has the potential to up-end the current market and I am all for
 that.  Let capital markets decide.


 Capital markets have never been able to introduce radically new
 technology. As I have often pointed out here, in the last 300 years, just
 about every large-scale technology has been brought to fruition with
 government help. In many cases these technologies have been invented and
 implemented by governments, such as nuclear power, computers, lasers, the
 GPS and human genome reading technology.

 Even technology that seems to be brought about by industry was not. Ford
 invented the mass produced automobile, but that is only a small part of the
 transportation system. It is an adjunct to the paved roads and highways,
 which are all built by the government. Ford was taking advantage of a
 government-provided technology. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were also
 johnny-come-latelys who took advantage of microcomputer technology after
 Uncle Sam paid something like ~80% of the money to develop it.

 Industry gets the profits, but the taxpayers foot the bills. If cold
 fusion succeeds it will be the same way.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Electrons moving in certain solids can behave as if they are a thousand times more massive than free electrons.

Entanglement is hard to understand.

Here is my take on what this article says.

When subatomic particles become entangled, they essentially share the same
matter wave form. It is like a group of people who decide to poll their
money in a bank in a joint account where any of these people can withdraw
this pool of money if they want to.


In this same way, these quantum particles(QP) can share all their quantum
properties, including mass, energy, charge, and spin.


I specify a QP instead of electrons because the proton can behave in the
same way since the laws of quantum mechanics makes no distinction among the
various types of subatomic particles.


Just like in a joint bank account that grows large as more depositors join
the account, the matter wave form is amplified by the number of particles
that donate their wealth into the joint kitty.


What the referenced article states is surprising.  One QP can stay at home
and live frugally taking very little energy out of the common account to
orbit an atom, but one of his twins is off zipping around using a large
amount of the joint energy account in going fast, living large, and getting
heavy.


In terms of LENR it can go the other way where the grope of quantum
depositors in the joint account can share in the windfall of a lucky
member.


An entangled QP( say a proton) can slip into a nucleus with its coulomb
barrier down in a cold fusion process and gain a large amount of energy.


But all of the members of the entangled group can spend that gamma ray
sized energy windfall in smaller chunks of x-ray photons.


If the number of members of the group is large, the energy is spent in
small thermal packets.


But sometimes thinks can get gummed up as follows:


“Adjusting the crystal composition or structure can be used to tune the
degree of entanglement and the heaviness of electrons. Make the electrons
too heavy and they freeze into a magnetized state, stuck at each atom in
the crystal while spinning in unison. But tweaking the crystal composition
so that the electrons have just the right amount of entanglement turns
these heavy electrons into superconductors when they are cooled.”


This also happens in LENR. When thing go wrong, and the crystal composition
is not right, the gamma rays produced by fusion are not transformed or
thermalized by QM entanglement.


This is why superconductivity and LENR act in similar ways and use the same
basic QM tricks.




Cheers:  Axil

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:56 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 FYI:

 ** **

 “Electrons moving in certain solids can behave as if they are a thousand
 times more massive than free electrons…”

 ** **

 Popular article here:

 “Got mass? Scientists observe electrons become both heavy and speedy”

 http://phys.org/news/2012-06-mass-scientists-electrons-heavy-speedy.html**
 **

 ** **

 Abstract here:

 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7402/full/nature11204.html

 ** **

 Is mainstream science finally catching up to LENR???  

 Would this enhance electron capture in hydrogen-loaded metal lattices?

 -Mark Iverson

 ** **

RE: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

2012-06-14 Thread Jones Beene


From: Robert Lynn 

Assuming no LENR there is no chance of CSP being competitive
with natural gas in the next few decades.  

Your bring up an interesting point, although it is not clear how you
intended it.

In fact, there could be synergy between CSP and LENR that goes beyond
baseload considerations. This could involve efficient P-in during day time
operation, and shared heat-storage for 24/7 operation.

Many observers are convinced that even if Mills' theory is incorrect in
major parts, the gain from LENR still originates in the EUV spectrum
(extreme ultraviolet) and via the Rydberg progression that Mills suggests.
This is the alternative to Hagelstein's magic phonon method of attenuation
and it makes a lot more sense.

In short, Mills could be wrong on many details, since he denies a nuclear
origin of excess energy, but still he could be accurate in describing the
way that nuclear energy is removed without gammas in a novel (mass to
energy) conversion process - via EUV quanta in multiples of the Rydberg
value where 1 Ry = 13.6057 eV. 

Mills' theory, in fact does accurately explain how and why the solar corona
is not only hotter than the sun itself, which is true, and how it provides a
large fraction of energy received on earth (most of the 'light' received
begins as EUV in the corona and not as gamma radiation in the core).

Jones

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

From the LENR/gamma experiments of Piantelli, it seems to me that the way
gamma radiation is thermalized is provisional; sometimes gamma is
thermalized and other times it is not.



Rossi also had occasional gamma emission problems(at startup and shutdown)
before he cured this condition.



If Mills mechanism is an absolute law of nature like gravity, what in the
Mills theory explains why gamma radiation is not thermalized in every
possible case and kindly explain what that special situation works?




Cheers:  Axil

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


From: Robert Lynn

Assuming no LENR there is no chance of CSP being competitive
 with natural gas in the next few decades.

 Your bring up an interesting point, although it is not clear how you
 intended it.

 In fact, there could be synergy between CSP and LENR that goes beyond
 baseload considerations. This could involve efficient P-in during day time
 operation, and shared heat-storage for 24/7 operation.

 Many observers are convinced that even if Mills' theory is incorrect in
 major parts, the gain from LENR still originates in the EUV spectrum
 (extreme ultraviolet) and via the Rydberg progression that Mills suggests.
 This is the alternative to Hagelstein's magic phonon method of
 attenuation
 and it makes a lot more sense.

 In short, Mills could be wrong on many details, since he denies a nuclear
 origin of excess energy, but still he could be accurate in describing the
 way that nuclear energy is removed without gammas in a novel (mass to
 energy) conversion process - via EUV quanta in multiples of the Rydberg
 value where 1 Ry = 13.6057 eV.

 Mills' theory, in fact does accurately explain how and why the solar corona
 is not only hotter than the sun itself, which is true, and how it provides
 a
 large fraction of energy received on earth (most of the 'light' received
 begins as EUV in the corona and not as gamma radiation in the core).

 Jones

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:


 CSP is not radically new it has been around for 30 years awaiting
 government money, only the names have changed.

 If SEGS was so profitable why did Luz go bankrupt?


I told you: it was a squeeze play. The power company and coal companies
conspired to set up the conditions in a way that Luz could not make money.
Everyone knew they were backed into a corner. It was build something too
small at a loss, or you will not have the opportunity to build anything. I
think Luz hoped to cut a deal for a larger-scale profitable plant later,
since their technology was easily scaled up, but it was not to be. As I
recall the state Attorney General looked into an anti-trust charge, but
dropped it.

To exaggerate, it is as if you told Ford they can set up a manufacturing
plant as long as they restrict it to 5,000 cars a year. They might do it,
hoping a sane person will take over and let them make enough cars to make a
profit.

I sometimes think that energy production in California has produced more
graft, corporate malfeasance and obscene profits than the rest of U.S.
combined. Their laissez faire approach ended spectacularly with the Enron
burn baby burn episodes, with billions of dollars vanishing into thin
air. The lawsuits are probably continuing to the present day. As I recall,
California was able to claw back a lot of the loot.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

I wrote:


 [California's] Their laissez faire approach ended spectacularly with
 the Enron burn baby burn episodes, with billions of dollars vanishing
 into thin air.


By the way, I would not say that was the fault of capitalism. What Enron
and the legislators in California was not capitalism! It was a kleptocracy,
like Saddam Hussien's government. The state of California issued Enron a
license to steal.

You cannot have free market competition when one company is given carte
blanche access to write the legislation, the tax laws, and the regulations
in a way that benefits them and excludes the competition. Or, when there
are no rules, and you can burn down the competition's warehouses and
undersell them at a loss, the way the great Robber Barons of the 19th
century did. Capitalism only works when there is a strong government to
enforce things like anti-trust laws, and fair advertising laws.

Capitalism is a great way to develop existing technology but as I said, it
has never worked to develop radically new big ticket disruptive technology.
I do not know of any examples, and I have read a lot of books about the
history of technology. Capitalism does a wonderful job inventing and
perfecting incremental improvements to existing technology, such as the
hard disk (invented by IBM pretty much without Uncle Sam's help as I
recall).

Most technology is an incremental improvement on what exists already. That
is not an insult. Engineers generally prefer the tried and true technology,
rather than the radical new one. They have good reasons.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: TV The New Dallas Series The Ewings and Fear of Alt Energy (Rossi) !!!

2012-06-14 Thread Terry Blanton

First, it's not off topic.
Second, the Chinese will probably beat us to the draw.

T

[Vo]:Got Mass? Scientists Observe Electrons Become Both Heavy and Speedy

2012-06-14 Thread Roarty, Francis X

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120613145418.htm

snip In a study to appear in the June 14 issue of the journal Nature, the 
Princeton-led team, which included scientists from Los Alamos National 
Laboratory (LANL) and the University of California-Irvine, used direct imaging 
of electron waves in a crystal. The researchers did so not only to watch the 
electrons gain mass but also to show that the heavy electrons are actually 
composite objects made of two entangled forms of the electron. This 
entanglement arises from the rules of quantum mechanics, which govern how very 
small particles behave and allow entangled particles to behave differently than 
untangled ones. Combining experiments and theoretical modeling, the study is 
the first to show how the heavy electrons emerge from such entanglement.

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Electrons moving in certain solids can behave as if they are a thousand times more massive than free electrons.

2012-06-14 Thread Eric Walker

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

“Electrons moving in certain solids can behave as if they are a thousand
 times more massive than free electrons…”


In the matter of Widom and Larsen, some fun numbers:

  mass proton: 938 MeV
  mass electron: 511 MeV
  mass muon: 105.6 MeV
  (mass proton) / (mass electron): 1836.153
  (mass proton) / (mass muon): 8.88
  (mass proton) / (1000 * mass electron): 1.84

From the Wikipedia article on muon-catalyzed fusion: If a muon replaces
one of the electrons in a hydrogen molecule, the nuclei are consequently
drawn 207 times closer together than in a normal molecule.  Maybe you
don't need neutron formation -- I wonder if one of these heavy neutrons
from the Nature article could replace an electron in a hydrogen atom and
remain heavy.  Would you then get something along the lines of
Hydrinos without them being Hydrinos?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Electrons moving in certain solids can behave as if they are a thousand times more massive than free electrons.

2012-06-14 Thread Eric Walker

Sorry -- mis-transcription.  That's 511 KeV for the electron.

Eric

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
 zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 “Electrons moving in certain solids can behave as if they are a thousand
 times more massive than free electrons…”


 In the matter of Widom and Larsen, some fun numbers:

   mass proton: 938 MeV
   mass electron: 511 MeV
   mass muon: 105.6 MeV
(mass proton) / (mass electron): 1836.153
   (mass proton) / (mass muon): 8.88
   (mass proton) / (1000 * mass electron): 1.84

 From the Wikipedia article on muon-catalyzed fusion: If a muon replaces
 one of the electrons in a hydrogen molecule, the nuclei are consequently
 drawn 207 times closer together than in a normal molecule.  Maybe you
 don't need neutron formation -- I wonder if one of these heavy neutrons
 from the Nature article could replace an electron in a hydrogen atom and
 remain heavy.  Would you then get something along the lines of
 Hydrinos without them being Hydrinos?

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

Jed,

I am an engineer and I like new technology as do many.  The entire CSP
market in California has been created from State Legislation, Federal
grants, loans and subsidies.  The market will dry up when those options go
away again with changing adminstrations just as it did 25+ years ago.  It
is just the same old girl in a new dress... I think it is a step backwards.
 Give me distributed PV, distributed LENR and some high capacity electrical
storage batteries such as that from http://lmbcorporation.com/ and hybrid
LENR/electric transportation and off we go.

On Thursday, June 14, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 I wrote:


 [California's] Their laissez faire approach ended spectacularly with
 the Enron burn baby burn episodes, with billions of dollars vanishing
 into thin air.


 By the way, I would not say that was the fault of capitalism. What Enron
 and the legislators in California was not capitalism! It was a kleptocracy,
 like Saddam Hussien's government. The state of California issued Enron a
 license to steal.

 You cannot have free market competition when one company is given carte
 blanche access to write the legislation, the tax laws, and the regulations
 in a way that benefits them and excludes the competition. Or, when there
 are no rules, and you can burn down the competition's warehouses and
 undersell them at a loss, the way the great Robber Barons of the 19th
 century did. Capitalism only works when there is a strong government to
 enforce things like anti-trust laws, and fair advertising laws.

 Capitalism is a great way to develop existing technology but as I said, it
 has never worked to develop radically new big ticket disruptive technology.
 I do not know of any examples, and I have read a lot of books about the
 history of technology. Capitalism does a wonderful job inventing and
 perfecting incremental improvements to existing technology, such as the
 hard disk (invented by IBM pretty much without Uncle Sam's help as I
 recall).

 Most technology is an incremental improvement on what exists already. That
 is not an insult. Engineers generally prefer the tried and true technology,
 rather than the radical new one. They have good reasons.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Electrons moving in certain solids can behave as if they are a thousand times more massive than free electrons.

2012-06-14 Thread Eric Walker

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

From the Wikipedia article on muon-catalyzed fusion: If a muon replaces
 one of the electrons in a hydrogen molecule, the nuclei are consequently
 drawn 207 times closer together than in a normal molecule.  Maybe you
 don't need neutron formation -- I wonder if one of these heavy neutrons
 from the Nature article could replace an electron in a hydrogen atom and
 remain heavy.  Would you then get something along the lines of
 Hydrinos without them being Hydrinos?


heavy electrons from the Nature article, obviously.  It's all tyops today.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:


 I am an engineer and I like new technology as do many.


Of course! But if you had to choose between a tried and true old method
that works as well as a new one, I'll bet you would go with the old one. It
is a safer choice. It is often a wistful choice . . .



  The entire CSP market in California has been created from State
 Legislation, Federal grants, loans and subsidies.


My point exactly! And in May 1844, the entire telegraph market was created
by fiat by Congress, which paid way to much to adventurous young Turks such
as Ezra Cornell so they could waste money learning many different wrong
ways of laying a telegraph line between Baltimore and Washington DC. A big
fat waste of the taxpayers' money it was -- everyone said so.

That is also what many people said about the government's subsidies for
steamships, and railroads, and canals before that, and later sewers and
other public health measures, public schools, land grant universities, the
NIS, the Panama Canal, air transport (heavily subsidized from 1914 to the
1930s) and countless other technologies.



  The market will dry up when those options go away again with changing
 adminstrations just as it did 25+ years ago.


Or not. The market for steamships, railroads, air transportation,
computers, integrated circuits and the Internet did not dry up after the
government privatized these things and let corporations reap the benefits.

These things always start out as a technology that could not survive
without government support. There are THOUSANDS of examples, big and small.
Of course there are failures, such as ethanol. But they are far outnumbered
by the successes.

There is no technical reason why CSP cannot become competitive with other
technologies, especially if you factor in the cost in lives, health, and
global warming from the alternatives such as coal and natural gas from
fracking. Of course it is not competitive now. If I had a cold fusion
generator right now, you can be darn sure it would be hundreds or perhaps
thousands of times more expensive per watt than any alternative. The first
100,000 cold fusion power reactors will be far more expensive than any
other kind. The first computers cost way more than mechanical calculating
machines. Some of the first transistors cost $17 and they
replaced vacuum tubes costing a nickel each. That comparison misses the
point. It was obvious that transistors would soon get cheaper. Granted, not
many people realized they would someday cost a millionth of of a penny, but
it was clear there was plenty of room at the bottom (Feynman).

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Electrons moving in certain solids can behave as if they are a thousand times more massive than free electrons.

It seems to me that the heavy or ---identically--- the speedy electrons
cannot be confined to orbit an atom; they need the wide open spaces of the
open lattice to show off their speed.



Only low energy electrons can orbit atoms. The referenced articles do not
talk about neutrons, just electrons.



In the spirit of the WL theory, I think that very low energy quantum
particles get involved with atoms and this would include gently easing into
nuclei during cold fusion.




Hot fusion means fast quantum particles; cold fusion means very slow
quantum particles.


Cheers:   Axil








On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote:

 From the Wikipedia article on muon-catalyzed fusion: If a muon replaces
 one of the electrons in a hydrogen molecule, the nuclei are consequently
 drawn 207 times closer together than in a normal molecule.  Maybe you
 don't need neutron formation -- I wonder if one of these heavy neutrons
 from the Nature article could replace an electron in a hydrogen atom and
 remain heavy.  Would you then get something along the lines of
 Hydrinos without them being Hydrinos?


 heavy electrons from the Nature article, obviously.  It's all tyops
 today.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Electrons moving in certain solids can behave as if they are a thousand times more massive than free electrons.

2012-06-14 Thread pagnucco

This is an interesting effect.  I believe the full text (daunting reading)
preprint is available at --

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1206/1206.3145.pdf

I am no expert on this, but my impression is that the heavy
quasi-particles described only exist at relatively low energies, and
probably dissipate quickly in high temperatures, and also are subject to
dynamical constraints.  I would be surprised if they could couple to a
proton and form anything analogous to muonic hydrogen.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Eric Walker wrote:
 Sorry -- mis-transcription.  That's 511 KeV for the electron.

 Eric

 On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint
 zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 âElectrons moving in certain solids can behave as if they are a
 thousand
 times more massive than free electronsâ¦â


 In the matter of Widom and Larsen, some fun numbers:

   mass proton: 938 MeV
   mass electron: 511 MeV
   mass muon: 105.6 MeV
(mass proton) / (mass electron): 1836.153
   (mass proton) / (mass muon): 8.88
   (mass proton) / (1000 * mass electron): 1.84

 From the Wikipedia article on muon-catalyzed fusion: If a muon replaces
 one of the electrons in a hydrogen molecule, the nuclei are consequently
 drawn 207 times closer together than in a normal molecule.  Maybe you
 don't need neutron formation -- I wonder if one of these heavy neutrons
 from the Nature article could replace an electron in a hydrogen atom and
 remain heavy.  Would you then get something along the lines of
 Hydrinos without them being Hydrinos?

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Electrons moving in certain solids can behave as if they are a thousand times more massive than free electrons.