Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
I think the explanation offered by Jeff is pretty good. As long as a significant electric field is within the cell conductive region charged ions will be driven by that field in such a manner as to eliminate it. This concentrates the electric field so that it appears across the non conductive plastic. The final system has 3000 volts across each of the two plastic insulators with a drive of 6000. This assumes that there is a balanced system with equal insulators. Dave -Original Message- From: Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 3, 2012 11:40 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 I think your assessment is spot on Jeff. The only question in my mind is whether or not the mixing of the electrolyte caused by the evolution of gas at the working electrode might generate a varying electric field by redistributing the ions in solution. Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 23:17:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 From: hcarb...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Here are my two cents from reading up on dielectrics: With the 6000 V capacitor isolated from the electrolyte by the plastic, the electrolyte acts as a dielectric which reduces the E field in the electrolyte almost to zero in the middle but increases the the capacitance of the capacitor. If there is zero ionic current then I assume there has to be zero E field in the center of the electrolyte. As soon as the 6000 V is applied, there is a momentary current in the electrolyte and a polarization of the dielectric electrolyte. After that there is zero current assuming the plastic is an infinite insulator. So the positive ends of the water molecules are facing the negative plate of the capacitor and the negative ends of the water molecules are facing the positive plate of the capacitor. Initially, positive ions travel towards the negative plate and vice versa. But as the positive ions build up near the negative plate, they start to repel any newly arriving positive ions and therefore there must be an increasing positive ion concentration with decreasing distance from the negative plate at steady state. I'm not an electrochemist so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or not quite correct. you can see some details on dielectrics here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/dielec.html http://www.physics.sjsu.edu/becker/physics51/capacitors.htm I assume the water molecules nearest the electrodes feel the strongest orientating E field compared to the center of the electrolyte. I'm in the process of trying to replicate Randell Mills electricity generating CIHT device which has a Lithium Bromide, Lithium Hydride electrolyte. Somehow Mills is creating electricity during the production of hydrinos. Should have it up and running in 2 months. Details here: http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=620 Jeff On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 07:26 PM 7/3/2012, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: There was one figure which shows the visual manifestations photographed from the experiments, with the theoretical model of the E-flds (on the right). It was very clear that fields were present in the electrolyte, as one could see the manifestations of the field-lines in the photographs taken of the area above the electrodes. Electrolyte concentrations varied from 0.02 to 0.08M KCl. I believe LENR typically uses 0.1M, so just slightly more conductive than this reference. Now, this experiment was done using AC, 100Hz to 1 Hz. First of all, the work being criticized uses a DC field. AC is considerably more complicated. AC will, for example, effectively pass right through the acrylic wall. If this was 6000 V AC, at 10,000 Hz, and if it actually had some available current, the thing would blow up! Secondly, there is no question that electric fields exist in the electrolyte. But not fields of a few thousand volts per cm, produced by the external field. The external DC field has, essentially, no effect on the fields in the electrolyte, which are, in this experiment, produced entirely by the electrolytic voltage.
Re: [Vo]:Electron Stimulated Luminescence (ESL)
Axil, the way I understand it from your posts is that: the 1-dimensional nanotube would capture electrons in the plasma that will then accumulate charge that will screen the coulomb barrier on any atom that may happen to be nearby. When coulomb barrier is screened, fusion occurs, or fission occurs due to the destablilizing effect of the absorbed electron, proton or neutron. If I understood this correctly, how does spraying a nickel nano-powder coated surface with electrons induce this kind of LENR reaction, since these sprayed electrons would not be coherent? I don't believe just hitting a nickel nucleus with electrons will induce LENR. Shouldn't there be a coherence of all the electrons first to provide charge screening? Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 1:48 PM Subject: [Vo]:Electron Stimulated Luminescence (ESL) Electron Stimulated Luminescence (ESL) http://phys.org/news172341986.html In December 2011, Lowes will begin carrying a new cathodoluminescence or Electron Stimulated Luminescence (ESL) R30 light bulb by Vu1 Corporation. The flood light is expected to retail for $14.98. Cold cathode technology has come to the foreground with the discovery of carbon nanotubes – nature’s ideal cathode technology. ESL technology works by firing electrons at phosphor, which then glows. As Vu1 explains, the technology is similar to that used in cathode ray tubes and TVs. However, the bulbs have several improvements, such as in uniform electron distribution, energy efficiency, phosphor performance and manufacturing costs. “CRT and TV technology is based on delivering an electron ‘beam’ and then turning pixels on and off very quickly,” the company explains on its website. “ESL technology is based on uniformly delivering a ’spray’ of electrons that illuminate a large surface very energy efficiently over a long lifetime.” From the time, carbon nanotubes have been discovered; cold cathode technology has come to the forefront, which the company wants to utilize for attaining better efficiency, highly accurate turn on times, simpler electronics and lower cost. I am very lazy, why reinvent the wheel when all the work has already been done for us. It is a pain in the butt to build our own nanotubes for our cold fusion reactor. It might be possible to repurpose an existing device to do what we want. At $15 it won’t cost us much to try. The cold cathode technology uses a nanotube based electron emitter to stimulate a phosphorous screen. We might be able replace the phosphorous screen with a thin layer of nickel nano-powder. Then use this nanotube based cold cathode to push electrons onto nickel nano powder that is enclosed in a high pressure hydrogen envelope. This is the kind of thing NASA (and maybe the Navy?) is doing on their chip. Some info I looked at as follows: http://www.google.com/patents?id=JPX3AQAAEBAJpg=PA1dq=Drawings+8,035,293hl=ensa=Xei=fdXzT_ytH6Xi0gHCudzFBgved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepageq=Drawings%208%2C035%2C293f=false http://lighting.com/vu1-moves-forward/ Cheers: Axil
[Vo]:First photo of shadow of single atom...
First photo of shadow of single atom http://phys.org/news/2012-07-photo-shadow-atom.html Excerpts: = Holding an atom still long enough to take its photo, while remarkable in itself, is not new technology; the atom is isolated within a chamber and held in free space by electrical forces. Professor Kielpinski and his colleagues trapped single atomic ions of the element ytterbium and exposed them to a specific frequency of light. Under this light the atom's shadow was cast onto a detector, and a digital camera was then able to capture the image. By using the ultra hi-res microscope we were able to concentrate the image down to a smaller area than has been achieved before, creating a darker image which is easier to see, Professor Kielpinski said. The precision involved in this process is almost beyond imagining. If we change the frequency of the light we shine on the atom by just one part in a billion, the image can no longer be seen, Professor Kielpinski said. === RE: the statement, . the atom is isolated within a chamber and held in free space by electrical forces. Well it's about time! I proposed this exact process years ago, except using the simplest atom, hydrogen, in order to better elucidate what exactly is going on. All you need is a way to 'hold' a single atom in free space, and then a strobe light, which would be attosecond laser pulses, and the ability to slowly vary the phase of the attosecond pulses, and one will discover what the electron REALLY is; you will be able to stop-action its motions, and by varying the phase and frequency of the pulses, see the electron's exact trajectory. Oh, one might also need a static magnetic field to help keep the atom in a constant physical orientation relative to your strobe light and your imaging device. Sounds simple enough... J -Mark
[Vo]:Some other interesting science news...
Some other interesting science news: New method knocks out stubborn electron problem http://phys.org/news/2012-07-method-stubborn-electron-problem.html Excerpt: Molecules have anywhere from tens to thousands of electrons, and the computational complexity of simulating their behavior grows exponentially with the number of strongly correlated electrons, those whose motions are statistically linked to the motions of other electrons. Mazziotti's goal was to find a way to calculate the properties of many-electron systems via a two-electron technique, where the two electrons represent the other electrons in the system. The two-electron models provide a platform for exploring a whole range of chemistry and physics, Mazziotti said. Physicists identify new quantum state allowing three -- but not two -- atoms to stick together http://phys.org/news/2012-07-strength-physicists-quantum-state-.html -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Electron Stimulated Luminescence (ESL)
As a preface, it is not known what kind of nanotubes Vu1 is using. If they are using SWNT, then the electrons will be entangled and coherent. I have not looked at the patent is detail, but I doubt that this sort of detail will be provided by Au1. In any case. their nanotubes will be well made and uniform whatever they are. The hydrogen envelop also complicates the situation because the bulb operates in a vacuum. There is a class of devices that operate through electron field emission. This produce is one of them. Indeed, CNTs are characterized by high emission electronic properties due to their good electron conductivity and a specific one dimensional geometry, resulting in a drastic amplification of the electrical field strength in the vicinity of the nanotube tip. The goal is to develop a high electric field around the nickel powder. I don’t know yet how that can be done in detail. Reduce the anode bias. Then place nano-powder on the cathode emitter itself; right on top of these tips? On the plus side they have dimmer capability which means that the emissionfield is variable. I will work on it. On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Axil, the way I understand it from your posts is that: the 1-dimensional nanotube would capture electrons in the plasma that will then accumulate charge that will screen the coulomb barrier on any atom that may happen to be nearby. When coulomb barrier is screened, fusion occurs, or fission occurs due to the destablilizing effect of the absorbed electron, proton or neutron. If I understood this correctly, how does spraying a nickel nano-powder coated surface with electrons induce this kind of LENR reaction, since these sprayed electrons would not be coherent? I don't believe just hitting a nickel nucleus with electrons will induce LENR. Shouldn't there be a coherence of all the electrons first to provide charge screening? Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, July 04, 2012 1:48 PM *Subject:* [Vo]:Electron Stimulated Luminescence (ESL) Electron Stimulated Luminescence (ESL) http://phys.org/news172341986.html In December 2011, Lowes will begin carrying a new cathodoluminescence or Electron Stimulated Luminescence (ESL) R30 light bulb by Vu1 Corporation. The flood light is expected to retail for $14.98. Cold cathode technology has come to the foreground with the discovery of carbon nanotubes – nature’s ideal cathode technology. ESL technology works by firing electrons at phosphor, which then glows. As Vu1 explains, the technology is similar to that used in cathode ray tubes and TVs. However, the bulbs have several improvements, such as in uniform electron distribution, energy efficiency, phosphor performance and manufacturing costs. “CRT and TV technology is based on delivering an electron ‘beam’ and then turning pixels on and off very quickly,” the company explains on its website. “ESL technology is based on uniformly delivering a ’spray’ of electrons that illuminate a large surface very energy efficiently over a long lifetime.” From the time, carbon nanotubes have been discovered; cold cathode technology has come to the forefront, which the company wants to utilize for attaining better efficiency, highly accurate turn on times, simpler electronics and lower cost. I am very lazy, why reinvent the wheel when all the work has already been done for us. It is a pain in the butt to build our own nanotubes for our cold fusion reactor. It might be possible to repurpose an existing device to do what we want. At $15 it won’t cost us much to try. The cold cathode technology uses a nanotube based electron emitter to stimulate a phosphorous screen. We might be able replace the phosphorous screen with a thin layer of nickel nano-powder. Then use this nanotube based cold cathode to push electrons onto nickel nano powder that is enclosed in a high pressure hydrogen envelope. This is the kind of thing NASA (and maybe the Navy?) is doing on their chip. Some info I looked at as follows: http://www.google.com/patents?id=JPX3AQAAEBAJpg=PA1dq=Drawings+8,035,293hl=ensa=Xei=fdXzT_ytH6Xi0gHCudzFBgved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepageq=Drawings%208%2C035%2C293f=false http://lighting.com/vu1-moves-forward/ Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]:First photo of shadow of single atom...
Amazing. The atom looks like it might be composed of concentric shells. Anyways, haven't we been able to visualize better resolution than this with electron microscopy? Jojo BTW, how do you resolve a electron with light? Isn't an electron smaller than the smallest wavelength of visible light? - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 3:07 PM Subject: [Vo]:First photo of shadow of single atom... First photo of shadow of single atom http://phys.org/news/2012-07-photo-shadow-atom.html Excerpts: = Holding an atom still long enough to take its photo, while remarkable in itself, is not new technology; the atom is isolated within a chamber and held in free space by electrical forces. Professor Kielpinski and his colleagues trapped single atomic ions of the element ytterbium and exposed them to a specific frequency of light. Under this light the atom's shadow was cast onto a detector, and a digital camera was then able to capture the image. By using the ultra hi-res microscope we were able to concentrate the image down to a smaller area than has been achieved before, creating a darker image which is easier to see, Professor Kielpinski said. The precision involved in this process is almost beyond imagining. If we change the frequency of the light we shine on the atom by just one part in a billion, the image can no longer be seen, Professor Kielpinski said. === RE: the statement, . the atom is isolated within a chamber and held in free space by electrical forces. Well it's about time! I proposed this exact process years ago, except using the simplest atom, hydrogen, in order to better elucidate what exactly is going on. All you need is a way to 'hold' a single atom in free space, and then a strobe light, which would be attosecond laser pulses, and the ability to slowly vary the phase of the attosecond pulses, and one will discover what the electron REALLY is; you will be able to stop-action its motions, and by varying the phase and frequency of the pulses, see the electron's exact trajectory. Oh, one might also need a static magnetic field to help keep the atom in a constant physical orientation relative to your strobe light and your imaging device. Sounds simple enough... J -Mark
[Vo]:Christos Stremmenos' rebuttal to Peter Gluck's DGTG interview
Hello group, A long post by Christos Stremmenos just got posted on JONP. It appears to have been written in both English and Italian: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=645cpage=4#comment-269793 For convenience, here it is, in its entirety: Christos Stremmenos July 4th, 2012 at 4:36 AM Dear Andrea “ΠΟΛΛΑΚΙΣ ΕΞΑΜΑΡΤΕΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΑΝΔΡΟΣ ΣΟΦΟΥ ….!!”, ….. “cadere ripetutamente in peccato, non è da uomo saggio” ….. !! ….UN CONSGLIO PER DGT/PRAXEN I USUALLY DO NOT RESPOND TO STATEMENTS OF QUESTIONABLE RELIABILITY LIKE THE FOLLOWING ONES, WHICH APPEAR IN “EGO OUT” IN AN INTERVIEW BY PETER GLUCK: Interview. I’m doing it for two reasons. The first is in defense of the dignity of LENR or COLD FUSION, AN ISSUE TO WHICH I HAVE DEDICATED 20 YEARS AND MORE OF MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE, AND WHICH IS, ONCE AGAIN, AT RISK OF BEING DISPARAGED. THIS TIME, THE ATTACK IS NOT CONDUCTED ON THE (PSEUDO-?) SCIENTIFIC LEVEL, LIKE AT MIT IN 1989, BUT IN A GENERAL PERSPECTIVE OF SPECULATION, on the part of characters, who, though incompetent, are usually opportunists in the economic and entrepreneurial field. The groundlessness of their statements — due to the fact that up to now nothing substantial has been publicly demonstrated by them — constitutes a serious threat in terms of further defamation for LENR-related work. Sweeping generalizations — drawing into the maelstrom of media misinformation even those who, with their hard work and competence, are seriously intent on promoting the new energy era (a fact to which I have been eyewitness on numerous public occasions) — are in my opinion unfair, and come at the expense of the enormous value that this issue has for the future of humanity and of the planet. The second reason, which places me under the moral obligation to bear witness (…even in a courtroom…), is the first question put forth by PETER GLUCK TO THE (ANONYMOUS?) MANAGEMENT OF DGTG: “WHEN WAS YOUR COMPANY ESTABLISHED AND WITH WHAT PURPOSE?”. Allow me, in order to fit my reply within a proper sequence of events, to refer to a Party conference on energy held in Athens in 2004, in the course of which I presented my old friend G[eorge]. A[ndreas]. Papandreou (future Prime Minister of Greece) with a report on my research work in Bologna on Cold Fusion (Pd/D and Ni/H), emphasizing that such research was not only scientifically extremely promising, but, in my opinion, interesting on the political and environmental level as well, with possible important economic implications especially in the development of a Green Economy. We parted with the promise of bringing each other up to date periodically, as he also felt that that the issue was of utmost importance. Going a step further back in time to the early nineteen-nineties in Bologna, and in the wake of Fleischmann [1] and Pons’s [2] experience, we were striving, together with other colleagues of the University including Prof. Focardi, to conduct parallel research on Cold Fusion. We would exchange opinions, materials, instruments … optimism and trust… a veritable and atypical independent collaboration which continued for quite some time, convinced as we were, on the basis of the experimental results obtained, that the phenomenon of Cold Fusion was real. It was Focardi who, four years ago, informed me of the formidable QUANTITY leap which had been achieved through the initiative, suggestions and participation of Dr. A. Rossi, in a series of experiments in which the amount of excess heat leapt from watts to Kilowatts. I rejoiced at the news, because it was clear that the usual experimental phase of 4-5 watts in excess that we had obtained, working doggedly and for a long time without resources or moral incentives, was over. It was a victory for all of us …! But, as I believed then and still believe now, it was a victory for mankind. After meeting Andrea Rossi on his return from the USA, we agreed with and shared the idea of launching the European level of the new energy technology in Greece — for cultural as well as economic reasons (especially in view of the current critical contingency) — and, specifically, “with exclusive rights for Greece and the Balkans”. With this informal agreement, I went to Athens to inform G. Papandreou, who had by then become Prime Minister of the Greek Government. Papandreou called for an ad hoc meeting to plan the development of this energy innovation. Present at the meeting, presided over by the Prime Minister, were the Secretary General for Research and Technology, Prof. Mitsòs, the Deputy CEO of the State Energy Agency (DEH), Dr. Baratsis, and other collaborators to the Prime Minister, as well as myself. After ample information and discussion, the Greek Government expressed its intention to proceed with a feasibility plan, extending to the industrial level, of Rossi’s technology. Allow me to omit the subsequent behind-the-scenes scenarios, in terms of denigration of this
RE: [Vo]:Some other interesting science news...
Mark, Physicists identify new quantum state allowing three -- but not two -- atoms to stick together http://phys.org/news/2012-07-strength-physicists-quantum-state-.html Not sure it is really 'new' since we have talked about Efimov three-body states before here, and in the important context of Borromean rings but it is certainly intriguing in the way it could apply to LENR. Here is a short vid of the simplified locking arrangement of interest, but a visualization involving atoms is trickier except that the bosonic state allows superstition, no? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1CDKzJ7d7Y One detail that perhaps did not come up before in the context of f/H in particular, is the applicability of the bosonic state. If Efimov/ Borromean rings require boson statistics in order to form, then this is another point of investigation wrt Ni-H and triplets. One does not have to subscribe to Mills' CQM per se, as there are other versions of dense hydrogen clusters, based on Rydberg energy transitions. Notably - f/H is bosonic (composite atomic boson) while the deuteron is a nuclear boson but monatomic deuterium is NOT an composite atomic boson, since it has non-integer spin. Thus three deuterium atoms could not form this structure but three atoms of hydrogen could presumably do so. This would be important for locking, and the eventual secondary reactions - if we want to find a neutral particle that is compact and reacts that way. It might serve to explain why hydrogen reactions in nickel can be described as more energetic than deuterium reactions; and why the early emphasis on Pd-D may have suffered when using hydrogen as a control. I have no idea now what LENR reactions would be favored by three atoms of f/H operating as a locked triad bosonic isomer. But that lack of speculation for now is mainly because the espresso machine is not fired up yet... ...set you spam filter accordingly J attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
after some thinking I realized I made a few wrong statements - see below On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 2:18 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I think the explanation offered by Jeff is pretty good. As long as a significant electric field is within the cell conductive region charged ions will be driven by that field in such a manner as to eliminate it. This concentrates the electric field so that it appears across the non conductive plastic. The final system has 3000 volts across each of the two plastic insulators with a drive of 6000. This assumes that there is a balanced system with equal insulators. Dave -Original Message- From: Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 3, 2012 11:40 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 I think your assessment is spot on Jeff. The only question in my mind is whether or not the mixing of the electrolyte caused by the evolution of gas at the working electrode might generate a varying electric field by redistributing the ions in solution. Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 23:17:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 From: hcarb...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Here are my two cents from reading up on dielectrics: With the 6000 V capacitor isolated from the electrolyte by the plastic, the electrolyte acts as a dielectric which reduces the E field in the electrolyte almost to zero in the middle but increases the the capacitance of the capacitor. I am not an electrochemist but this is my speculation. There are two mechanisms which decrease the E field in the middle of the electrolyte. The E field is reduced by the dielectric properties of the electrolyte and by charged species (ions) that move towards the plates. The water is a dielectric because the water molecule is a dipole with a positive and a negative end. After (1) the water molecules align with the electric field and (2) after the ions travel towards the plates, there is no further current due to the 6000 V. But what if the water was replaced with a nonpolar fluid and had zero charged species (ions)? Then there would be an E field in the middle of the electrolyte - approaching the same E field as in a vacuum when the electrolyte approaches a dielectric constant of 1 (same as a vacuum). Benzene is a liquid and has a dielectric constant of 2.2 while water has a high dielectric constant at 80. So fill the SPAWAR cell with benzene and the E field in the center of SPAWAR's cell will be much higher. Also, at steady state, there will be zero current in the electrodes that are physically in the electrolyte (i.e. touching) due to the 6000 V capacitor outside the cell (i.e. not touching). If I call the electrodes in the solution plates A and B, then plate B will become more positively charged than A and any charged species (ion) traveling from the center of the electrolyte towards plate A is trying to reach the 6000 V plates, the ion is not trying to complete the circuit between plates A and B. Not sure what this means for the issues Duncan is raising since I'm trying not to get bogged down in details and I'm trying to focus on my experiment replicating Mills's CIHT. from Wikipedia: -- Solvent classifications Solvents can be broadly classified into two categories: polar and non-polar. Generally, the dielectric constant of the solvent provides a rough measure of a solvent's polarity. The strong polarity of water is indicated, at 20 °C, by a dielectric constant of 80.10;[citation needed]. Solvents with a dielectric constant of less than 15 are generally considered to be nonpolar.[4] Technically, the dielectric constant measures the solvent's ability to reduce the field strength of the electric field surrounding a charged particle immersed in it. This reduction is then compared to the field strength of the charged particle in a vacuum.[4] In layman's terms, dielectric constant of a solvent can be thought of as its ability to reduce the solute's internal charge. If there is zero ionic current then I assume there has to be zero E field in the center of the electrolyte. As soon as the 6000 V is applied, there is a momentary current in the electrolyte and a polarization of the dielectric electrolyte. After that there is zero current assuming the plastic is an infinite insulator. So the positive ends of the water molecules are facing the negative plate of the capacitor and the negative ends of the water molecules are facing the positive plate of the capacitor. Initially, positive ions travel towards the negative plate and vice versa. But as the positive ions build up near
RE: [Vo]:Some other interesting science news...
I have no idea now what LENR reactions would be favored by three atoms of f/H operating as a locked triad bosonic isomer. But that lack of speculation for now is mainly because the espresso machine is not fired up yet... ...set you spam filter accordingly You were warned. Here is one potential LENR reaction that would be favored for its explanatory value - but only if lithium were to be found in the ash of Ni-H. As far as I know, lithium is not found; but there is a dearth of good data, and if the Swedes ever publish more, then it may show up. We all agree that experiment rules over theory. Anyway, my emphasis has been on the heavy isotope 64Ni from the perspective of anomalies. 64Ni is a neutron anomaly, a near-singularity in fact - since, aside from deuterium, it is the heaviest stable isotope in the periodic table, in terms of the criterion of percent of atomic mass (a.m.u) in excess of the most abundant natural isotope. That could be nothing more than trivia, or not. It does indicate neutrons to spare if you are in the camp that thinks that Ni-H involves some new-physics kind of gamma-less nuclear reaction with no subsequent decay. For nickel, the most abundant natural isotope is 58Ni, which is over 2/3 of all nickel. 64Ni is over 10% heavier and can give up 3 or 4 neutrons and still be heavier than 58Ni, and still be a stable isotope (arguably). This is relevant in the context of finding 3 or 4 neutrons in order that the putative hydrogen Efimov triad, which having three protons in the same quantum space, can become lithium with the neutron swap. At least it can happen in a way that is at least arguable, if you overlook the small fact that there is absolutely no precedent for this kind of odd reaction involving 3 bound protons, in all of mainstream physics. OTOH there is no precedent for ANY kind of new and energetic gamma-less nuclear reaction (with no subsequent decay) in all of mainstream physics. If we are going to invent new physics, where does it end? (hopefully, with good proof) Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
At 11:46 PM 7/3/2012, Finlay MacNab wrote: Sorry, I fail to see why the voltage drop is 3kv across the acrylic layer. Why is that exactly? There are three regions involved, between the plates that are connected to a high voltage supply, 6 KV. There is the first cell wall, 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) thick, made of acrylic plastic. Call this R1. There is about an inch (25 mm) of electrolyte, which is not pure water, but which has an electrolyte dissolved in it, lithium chloride. Call this R2. There is the opposite cell wall, the same as the first. Call this R3. The resistances of R1 and R3 are roughly 1.6 x 10^14 ohms each. That's a roughly calculated value from the properties of acrylic. The resistance of the electrolyte, R2, is on the order of 100 ohms. Easy to measure, routinely measured, voltages and currents are known. Consider these three resistances in series, with 6 KV across the assembly. Use Ohm's law to calculate the voltage across each resistance. You will find that the voltage is equally divided between the two plates, at about 3 KV per plate. The voltage across the electrolyte is low. The current would be 6000/(3.2 x 10^14) or about 2 x 10^-11 amps, that's 20 picoamps. The voltage across R2 would be 2 nanovolts. To measure this if there were no other activity in the system would be quite difficult. Microvolts are bad enough. But maybe you could do it. However, there is electrolytic current added to the electrolyte by the experiment. It might be a current at initial plating on the order of a milliamp, the voltage would be under two volts at first. The noise in the power supply would be well above the level of voltage from the HV source. Current flow through an electrolyte is complex, as you know. But we don't need to go into that complexity. At steady state, DC, the electrolyte will behave as a somewhat noisy resistor. (And at this stage of electrolysis, the noise would be low, it gets noisier, later, when deuterium gas is being evolved.) There is a parallel capacitance, but it has practically no effect. Bottom line: in his basic thesis, Rich is correct. The external plates with a high voltage on them can be expected to have no effect on the electrolytic activity. It looks like the SPAWAR team simply overlooked this consideration, we could do a whole study on the psychology of cold fusion; suffice it to say that this was a human error, and an understandable one. What is surprising is that this made it past peer review. If the claimed experimental result were verified, we'd have to start to look for some flaw in this argument. However, reading the paper, I don't see that the result is clearly established even in the paper. It's asserted without showing the basis of the analysis. It appears to be subjective. Now, these researchers had looked at a lot of cathodes. Variation in cathode appearance can be great, depending on very subtle conditions that are difficult to control. This is the big problem with the electrochemical approach to cold fusion, it's extraordinarily difficult to control the conditions. However, how important is Rich's objection? In another post today, Rich speculates about all kinds of fantastic phenomena that he thinks might happen if the high voltage leaks through the plastic. I suspect that he links this in his mind to some of the reported phenomena, but he's made a huge error himself. He thinks, it seems, that the use of an external high voltage field is common, such that it could explain effects reported. No, that was pretty much an isolated experiment. SPAWAR did not continue to use an HV field. This published paper was simply a report of something that seemed anomalous to them, an effect of an external electric field on codeposition morphology. It's a hiccup in an avalanche of findings. There is no leakage through the plastic. This plastic is not riddled with ionized radiation tracks. (It would be murky, not clear, and those tracks would not stay ionized, Rich has confused the ionization which is caused by charged particle passage, which disrupts the plastic structure, with some sort of permanent ionization which would facilitate current flow. No, that doesn't happen. The ionization will resolve itself rapidly; after all, the plastic does conduct. What is left is simply disrupted plastic. Same material as before. Same resistance. (Rich is talking about background radiation ionization, accumulated after the polymerization of the plastic. This would accumulate very slowly, so even if it takes days or weeks for ionization to resolve (which I doubt), it would nevertheless resolve. Experimental fact: acrylic is an excellent insulator, and it stays that way for a long time. You can bet your life on it, and these experimenters did, every time they touched any part of that cell with the HV turned on. They may have avoided that, and it is *this* effect that might explain a morphological difference in
Re: [Vo]:Big ice crystals and curved ice rods around volcano in Antarctica
Nice pictures. A breeze might cause water to form curving icicles as it freezes. harry On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:51 AM, David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi How can ice crystals grow to ths big size? Image is from around the volcano Mount Erebus at Antarctica http://lh5.ggpht.com/-EVQxlm4Fp1w/TB6EkSJ9NmI/Bw4/MOncMvTzN0Y/2009-12-3011.JPG?imgmax=800 More images of big crystals can be seen here http://erebus.nmt.edu/index.php/icecaves I also want an explanation to how ice rods can be curved as can be seen on several pictures http://lh3.ggpht.com/-2Bw7mgY461o/TB6EhYunyXI/Bws/QWXUvOFL3vg/2009-12-31103548.JPG?imgmax=800 http://lh3.ggpht.com/-XR5B_UJY8Ts/TB6EdzjddaI/BwQ/MhSMX9ETNfg/2009-12-31101131.JPG?imgmax=800 http://lh3.ggpht.com/-HvrH_hFFn1E/TB6EeWS3ZII/BwU/XLtFGnKQMBg/2009-12-31101441.JPG?imgmax=800 I have never sen this in Sweden. Please explain the processes involved in determining crystal size. Hälsningar David
[Vo]: European commission recommends funding for LENR research
The European Commission - Directorate-General for Research and Innovation has published a report in which they recommend funding research in LENR. http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/emerging-materials-report_en.pdf Does this mean that the topic will finally get mainstream recognition ?
Re: [Vo]:Christos Stremmenos' rebuttal to Peter Gluck's DGTG interview
Thanks! He is right, my first question had to be formulated differently from the point of view of management science. I will answer on my Blog, JONP does not accept my messages. Peter On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: Hello group, A long post by Christos Stremmenos just got posted on JONP. It appears to have been written in both English and Italian: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-**physics.com/?p=645cpage=4#** comment-269793http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=645cpage=4#comment-269793 For convenience, here it is, in its entirety: Christos Stremmenos July 4th, 2012 at 4:36 AM Dear Andrea “ΠΟΛΛΑΚΙΣ ΕΞΑΜΑΡΤΕΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΑΝΔΡΟΣ ΣΟΦΟΥ ….!!”, ….. “cadere ripetutamente in peccato, non è da uomo saggio” ….. !! ….UN CONSGLIO PER DGT/PRAXEN I USUALLY DO NOT RESPOND TO STATEMENTS OF QUESTIONABLE RELIABILITY LIKE THE FOLLOWING ONES, WHICH APPEAR IN “EGO OUT” IN AN INTERVIEW BY PETER GLUCK: Interview. I’m doing it for two reasons. The first is in defense of the dignity of LENR or COLD FUSION, AN ISSUE TO WHICH I HAVE DEDICATED 20 YEARS AND MORE OF MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE, AND WHICH IS, ONCE AGAIN, AT RISK OF BEING DISPARAGED. THIS TIME, THE ATTACK IS NOT CONDUCTED ON THE (PSEUDO-?) SCIENTIFIC LEVEL, LIKE AT MIT IN 1989, BUT IN A GENERAL PERSPECTIVE OF SPECULATION, on the part of characters, who, though incompetent, are usually opportunists in the economic and entrepreneurial field. The groundlessness of their statements — due to the fact that up to now nothing substantial has been publicly demonstrated by them — constitutes a serious threat in terms of further defamation for LENR-related work. Sweeping generalizations — drawing into the maelstrom of media misinformation even those who, with their hard work and competence, are seriously intent on promoting the new energy era (a fact to which I have been eyewitness on numerous public occasions) — are in my opinion unfair, and come at the expense of the enormous value that this issue has for the future of humanity and of the planet. The second reason, which places me under the moral obligation to bear witness (…even in a courtroom…), is the first question put forth by PETER GLUCK TO THE (ANONYMOUS?) MANAGEMENT OF DGTG: “WHEN WAS YOUR COMPANY ESTABLISHED AND WITH WHAT PURPOSE?”. Allow me, in order to fit my reply within a proper sequence of events, to refer to a Party conference on energy held in Athens in 2004, in the course of which I presented my old friend G[eorge]. A[ndreas]. Papandreou (future Prime Minister of Greece) with a report on my research work in Bologna on Cold Fusion (Pd/D and Ni/H), emphasizing that such research was not only scientifically extremely promising, but, in my opinion, interesting on the political and environmental level as well, with possible important economic implications especially in the development of a Green Economy. We parted with the promise of bringing each other up to date periodically, as he also felt that that the issue was of utmost importance. Going a step further back in time to the early nineteen-nineties in Bologna, and in the wake of Fleischmann [1] and Pons’s [2] experience, we were striving, together with other colleagues of the University including Prof. Focardi, to conduct parallel research on Cold Fusion. We would exchange opinions, materials, instruments … optimism and trust… a veritable and atypical independent collaboration which continued for quite some time, convinced as we were, on the basis of the experimental results obtained, that the phenomenon of Cold Fusion was real. It was Focardi who, four years ago, informed me of the formidable QUANTITY leap which had been achieved through the initiative, suggestions and participation of Dr. A. Rossi, in a series of experiments in which the amount of excess heat leapt from watts to Kilowatts. I rejoiced at the news, because it was clear that the usual experimental phase of 4-5 watts in excess that we had obtained, working doggedly and for a long time without resources or moral incentives, was over. It was a victory for all of us …! But, as I believed then and still believe now, it was a victory for mankind. After meeting Andrea Rossi on his return from the USA, we agreed with and shared the idea of launching the European level of the new energy technology in Greece — for cultural as well as economic reasons (especially in view of the current critical contingency) — and, specifically, “with exclusive rights for Greece and the Balkans”. With this informal agreement, I went to Athens to inform G. Papandreou, who had by then become Prime Minister of the Greek Government. Papandreou called for an ad hoc meeting to plan the development of this energy innovation. Present at the meeting, presided over by the Prime Minister, were the Secretary General for Research and Technology, Prof. Mitsòs, the Deputy CEO of the State Energy Agency
Re: [Vo]: European commission recommends funding for LENR research
I haven't read the report myself, but I learned from a facebook group that it contains a recommendation by some contributing professionals for research into LENR which is not the same as an official recommendation by the commission. harry On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote: The European Commission - Directorate-General for Research and Innovation has published a report in which they recommend funding research in LENR. http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/emerging-materials-report_en.pdf Does this mean that the topic will finally get mainstream recognition ?
RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
Your argument assumes that the there is no air gap between the dielectric and the charged plates. It also assumes that the electrolyte behaves like a regular 100ohm resistor. In this case, where the movement of ions in electrolyte is dominated by diffusion and mixing from the gas bubbles generated by redox reactions at the two, in solution, electrodes the electrolyte does not behave like a 100ohm resistor. Your treatment of the system as two dielectrics sandwiched between three metal plates is not sufficient to describe the system. You don't know if mixing and diffusion within the electrolyte and the extremely low mobility of solvated ions would allow an external electric field to exist within the electrolyte and allow electrophoretic and other field induced effects to influence the near surface of the Pd film. Finally, the only mention of the strength of the electric field in the paper: the cell placement in an electric field (2500–3000 V cm-1) refers to the entire cell, it does not refer to the field within the electrolyte. The authors never assert that the field strength is 3000 V/cm within the electrolyte. Your assertion that the authors claim that the effects result from high fields is not born out by their treatment of the electrolyte, interphase region, and bulk Pd regions of the cell. Thus your assertion that the authors' manuscript contains a shocking analytical error is not accurate. Your comment that a retraction of the paper would be useful and that the paper is an example of subjective judgements is highly inflammatory and unjustified. These comments, being insufficiently supported, are incredibly insulting to the authors of the paper and to the entire SPAWAR group. Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 11:12:02 -0500 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com From: a...@lomaxdesign.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 At 11:46 PM 7/3/2012, Finlay MacNab wrote: Sorry, I fail to see why the voltage drop is 3kv across the acrylic layer. Why is that exactly? There are three regions involved, between the plates that are connected to a high voltage supply, 6 KV. There is the first cell wall, 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) thick, made of acrylic plastic. Call this R1. There is about an inch (25 mm) of electrolyte, which is not pure water, but which has an electrolyte dissolved in it, lithium chloride. Call this R2. There is the opposite cell wall, the same as the first. Call this R3. The resistances of R1 and R3 are roughly 1.6 x 10^14 ohms each. That's a roughly calculated value from the properties of acrylic. The resistance of the electrolyte, R2, is on the order of 100 ohms. Easy to measure, routinely measured, voltages and currents are known. Consider these three resistances in series, with 6 KV across the assembly. Use Ohm's law to calculate the voltage across each resistance. You will find that the voltage is equally divided between the two plates, at about 3 KV per plate. The voltage across the electrolyte is low. The current would be 6000/(3.2 x 10^14) or about 2 x 10^-11 amps, that's 20 picoamps. The voltage across R2 would be 2 nanovolts. To measure this if there were no other activity in the system would be quite difficult. Microvolts are bad enough. But maybe you could do it. However, there is electrolytic current added to the electrolyte by the experiment. It might be a current at initial plating on the order of a milliamp, the voltage would be under two volts at first. The noise in the power supply would be well above the level of voltage from the HV source. Current flow through an electrolyte is complex, as you know. But we don't need to go into that complexity. At steady state, DC, the electrolyte will behave as a somewhat noisy resistor. (And at this stage of electrolysis, the noise would be low, it gets noisier, later, when deuterium gas is being evolved.) There is a parallel capacitance, but it has practically no effect. Bottom line: in his basic thesis, Rich is correct. The external plates with a high voltage on them can be expected to have no effect on the electrolytic activity. It looks like the SPAWAR team simply overlooked this consideration, we could do a whole study on the psychology of cold fusion; suffice it to say that this was a human error, and an understandable one. What is surprising is that this made it past peer review. If the claimed experimental result were verified, we'd have to start to look for some flaw in this argument. However, reading the paper, I don't see that the result is clearly established even in the paper. It's asserted without showing the basis of the analysis. It appears to be subjective. Now, these researchers had looked at a lot of cathodes. Variation in cathode
Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, if one presumes that it means anything. At 12:11 AM 7/4/2012, Rich Murray wrote: I'm glad to see my post has ignited a local hot spot in Vortex-L... Some good will come out of it. I do intend to take this to the original authors for comment, privately, suggesting some sort of public comment that will resolve this issue. It's really irrelevant to any important findings in cold fusion, an external electric field may have been used in a handful of experiments, at most, out of many, many thousands. Maybe a hundred thousand. Lomax: Um, very highly unlikely. The plastic walls are intact, or electrolyte would leak out. They have high dielectric resistance. If this is acrylic, it's about 1/16 inch thick. Current will be very, very low. If there is leakage current, the current will create a voltage drop. It will not create sporadic local heat. Basically, that field does nothing. If Rich wants to assert that it does something, well, that kind of contradicts his thesis, eh? Murray: that's a pretty thin film of plastic to put 6 kv on -- local radioactivity and cosmic rays will leave subtle ionized paths across the plastic, without making tunnels that could leak the electrolyte, while then the high voltages would tend to penetrate these paths and increase the local ionization, always finding and expanding paths until routes evolve right across the film -- very thin, complex routes with all kinds of weird chemistry and physics as the 6 kv potential is brought to bear on micro and nano size structures within the walls -- still without creating routes wide enough for liquids to flow through -- so the vision becomes available for a multitude of strange processes, constantly evolving and varying as time marches on, creating anomalies -- there need to be research on whether micro and nano currents are indeed flowing along the surfaces and within the conductors and electrolyte inside these small cells -- and whether they are creating chaotic corrosion on the micro and nano scales, releasing complex chemicals and gases into the electrolyte... And hordes of scientists are misled by the results, wasting decades of research following paths that were caused by such a simple mistake, and, as a result, the real physics is missed, the entire future of humanity is lost as we all die from global warming, but a few hardy souls survive underground, building tunnels and living a new kind of life. And the mind can make up anything it likes. Doesn't make it real. Basically, acrylic is an excellent insulator. I would not advise using it in the presence of massive charged particle radiation, which will, indeed, break down the plastic. Don't use it in the presence of methylene chloride either. Don't use it above its melting point, or even close to it. Rich, you made all this up. The plastic is unaffected by that voltage, the breakdown voltage for acrylic is conservatively specified -- for safety purposes -- at 17 KV/mm. So this conservatively would be 27 KV for that thin film of plastic. It's not a thin film, this is the side of a commercial plastic box, I have a hundred of these exact boxes sitting in my lab. It's clear acrylic, used for jewelry boxes and other display. Sure, ionizing radiation will leave ionization tracks. However, those paths would remain ionized only for a very short time. Two things happen to such ionization tracks: the ionization does not remain, what remains is the disruption caused by local ionization caused by charged particle passage. Those tracks do not remain as available to conduct electricity, not for long. In order to create a path all the way through the plastic, a charged particle would have to have very high energy. And the problem with this is that as the particle energy increases above a threshold, the energy left behind *decreases*, until a very energetic particle leaves no track at all. Basically, a particle that can penetrate the plastic will not leave a track. This is why insulators like acrylic don't routinely break down from scattered cosmic rays. (there would be other effects, even if a path should open, there would be a current burst *within the acrylic wall* as the charged plastic capacitor discharges through itself. Given that the *other* piece of acrylic would not discharge at the same time, there would be no high current through the electrolyte, no overall leakage current beyond a doubling of the normal tiny current. Because this would be high-frequency, it might be detectable, if it does happen. My guess is, no. It doesn't happen. Ever.) Rich is correct about one thing: if a discharge pathway like that opened up, it would not leak electrolyte, unless and until it became a gross pathway, from a *lot* of current passage. Look at Widom-Larsen descriptions of water tree breakdown in 40 kv high voltage DC power cables with centimeters of high density polyethylene insulation over weeks and
[Vo]:My answer to Prof. Stremmenos re the Interview
My dear friends, My Interview with Defkalion Green Technologies Global has generated a reaction of negative enthusiasm from Professor Christos Stremmenos who seems to be a convinced Rossiphile. (So am I within some limits.) I have answered to Stremmenos' critics on my blog: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/07/my-answer-to-prof-christos-stremmenos.html Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Some other interesting science news...
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: That could be nothing more than trivia, or not. It does indicate neutrons to spare if you are in the camp that thinks that Ni-H involves some new-physics kind of gamma-less nuclear reaction with no subsequent decay. What is your thinking on the neutrons? I've been thinking more and more lately that there's an unexplained selection of branches towards proton-driven reactions; e.g., in a palladium system: p + D - 3He + gamma p + T - 4H3 + gamma and away from: D + D - 3He + n D + D - T + p D + D -4He + gamma D + T - 4He + n Has someone put together a comprehensive catalog of the branches that would need to be considered, including ones involving neutrons, either for palladium or nickel, for the kinds of energy ranges we're talking about? This would be very helpful. I find EXFOR hard to work with; it may be that I'm just not using it correctly. Eric
[Vo]:Japanese researcher publishes 172 fake papers
So much for the peer-review system. See: slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/07/03/japanese_anesthesiologist_clinches_world_record_for_retractions_publishing_172_fabricated_papers.html
Re: [Vo]:Japanese researcher publishes 172 fake papers
Without the peer review system, there wouldn't be fake papers. 2012/7/4 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com So much for the peer-review system. See: slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/07/03/japanese_anesthesiologist_clinches_world_record_for_retractions_publishing_172_fabricated_papers.html -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Japanese researcher publishes 172 fake papers
The peer review system is as marriage or democracy- creates many problems but nothing better was invented yet. Peter On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Without the peer review system, there wouldn't be fake papers. 2012/7/4 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com So much for the peer-review system. See: slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/07/03/japanese_anesthesiologist_clinches_world_record_for_retractions_publishing_172_fabricated_papers.html -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Japanese researcher publishes 172 fake papers
I was sarcastic... 2012/7/4 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com The peer review system is as marriage or democracy- creates many problems but nothing better was invented yet. Peter On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Without the peer review system, there wouldn't be fake papers. 2012/7/4 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com So much for the peer-review system. See: slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/07/03/japanese_anesthesiologist_clinches_world_record_for_retractions_publishing_172_fabricated_papers.html -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Christos Stremmenos' rebuttal to Peter Gluck's DGTG interview
Stremmenos' speaking out is definitely important. Us observers of the scene know about this unpleasant dispute grosso modo. Let me summarize: 1) Stremmenos definitely, firmly believes in LENR, not as a weak phenomenon, but as a strong one. Not only he BELIEVES, but he claims to KNOW from first hand experience! 2) He has intimate knowledge of the Rossi-DGT- relationship. 2a) From this he accuses DGT of being contractually unreliable/unsound and basically stealing Rossi's technology. 3) Stremmenos has since Aug-2011 NO contact to DGT. 4) He considers Rossi competent and hardworking. ...Respect is due to what, through hard work, competence, and less communication Rossi is striving to accomplish…! Now viewed from the outside: 1) Rossi appears as a problematic character, both personally and through his presentation of his technology. 2) DGT seems to have a business plan with some flaws. 3) It is unclear whether DGT LEGALLY stole some IP from Rossi. Reminds of Bell and his competitors wrt the telephone. 4) Rossi seems to aspire to trump DGTs claims by jumping ahead with his 600degC e-cat, versus the 400-450degC Hyperion, with higher cost. This could potentially seriously harm DGTs business-model, which rests on cashing of license fees. So this appears being a business-war. Whether Stremmenos is an impartial observer remains unclear. Is he aligned with Rossi? 4a) both (Rossi/DGT) appear to be quite some steps ahead of the rest of the crowd. 4b) both present up to now only CLAIMS with no substantial evidence. 5) the patent issue (even much less: the IP-issue) seems to be completely unresolved. Especially considering the 'fathers' of the technology like Focardi et al. - My personal statement: a) There is a rush to the troughs, which is in itself extremely unpleasant, and could get considerably worse, considering the importance of the issue. b) The safety and theoretical aspects are dangerously neglected, which is probably the next 'war-theater', and give the American groups an advantage to catch up in a race they almost lo We will see. On the other hand, the difficult patent/IP issue may have a positive side-effect for us all: i.e. having an open technology. THIS SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT MONEY! There seem to be quite a lot of EGOs involved. But this is a bit idealistic, right? Guenter Von: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 18:46 Mittwoch, 4.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Christos Stremmenos' rebuttal to Peter Gluck's DGTG interview Thanks! He is right, my first question had to be formulated differently from the point of view of management science. I will answer on my Blog, JONP does not accept my messages. Peter On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Hello group,
RE: [Vo]:My answer to Prof. Stremmenos re the Interview
Well. it's still a few months before the day of Atonement, but it looks like you are being made into a convenient scapegoat, Peter. He clearly got himself into an allegiance bind months ago, and then failed to make an early choice of teams - so he became almost a nobody . losing favor with both sides. Now, in a ploy to return to someone, or anyone's good graces, he makes a choice that is looking all the more foolish - not by failing to make an adequate case for silly allegations, but by picking the team that will hurt Greece, if successful . and at a time the homeland need all the help possible. Hey - speaking of special days for carnage . anyone up for barbequed goat? From: Peter Gluck My Interview with Defkalion Green Technologies Global has generated a reaction of negative enthusiasm from Professor Christos Stremmenos .
Re: [Vo]:Japanese researcher publishes 172 fake papers
If you follow the papers of roland benabou on collective delusion, group think, one conclusion is thare there should be ex-ante measures to protect dissenters. like the free speech in US. peer review is like democracy, without a constitution to block dangerous votes, it became dictatorship of majority, or of what the majority think of what is the majority (everybody agree it is stupid but don' wan't to look heretic)... one old technic was to have various independent island of science, connected loosely with books, but not with standards of quality, official theories, religions... in ana article some said that europe technology explosion was parly because of the wars and politic diversity, compared to more advanced but too centralized china. 2012/7/4 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com I was sarcastic... 2012/7/4 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com The peer review system is as marriage or democracy- creates many problems but nothing better was invented yet. Peter On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Without the peer review system, there wouldn't be fake papers. 2012/7/4 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com So much for the peer-review system. See: slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/07/03/japanese_anesthesiologist_clinches_world_record_for_retractions_publishing_172_fabricated_papers.html -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:ILENRS-12 at WM
I attended the International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Symposium (ILENRS-12) at The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. I just got back. The website for the conference is here: http://www.cvent.com/events/international-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-symposium-ilenrs-12/event-summary-2afdc5aee9fe479ca69ff752477cbd25.aspx I do not know why it is #12 or where the other 11 have been. Anyway, it was one of better cold fusion conferences I have been to lately. Reasons: New people. There were ~50 participants and I have never met about half of them. Many of them are spring chickens, in their 40s and 50s. One was an actual undergraduate! Interesting presentations and informal discussions, particularly by Rob Duncan, the people from NASA and the people from WM who are just getting started in the field. As I have said before, you gotta love NASA people. A high level of enthusiasm. Progress has been made lately, and -- equally important -- there seems to be a lot of funding by the standards of cold fusion. People are getting equipment and permissions to do research. Peter Hagelstein presented a comprehensive version of his latest theory. I do not understand it but people who do were impressed. He calls this a complete theory compared to the toy theories he has presented in the past. He has gone through dozens of iterations. Rob Duncan described various projects now underway at U. Missouri. They want to be certain of the results before they announce them, but it is apparent that they are doing a lot of solid fundamental research in cooperation with the ENEA and others. Energetics Technologies has relocated from Israel to the U. Missouri commercial incubator where they are doing commercial-type RD less open to discussion, more targeted to getting patents. As has been the case for the last few years, Rossi was the great absent influence. I think it is only a matter of time before various people replicate him. Piantelli has been more cooperative with various scientists in recent years, I suppose because of his rivalry with Rossi. As McKubre says, we all took a long hard look at Ni-H results thanks to Rossi, and that includes results from both Rossi and Piantelli. The proceedings from this conference will be made available at various web sites including LENR-CANR.org. The organizers are pushing the participants to submit papers quickly, within a few weeks. I think that is a good idea. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Actual experimental results are more toward double, the value, over 40 MeV/He-4, which very likely reflects the difficulty in capturing all the helium (if helium is not captured and measured, particularly if it remains trapped in the palladium), then there is less helium reported, and the value of heat/helium goes up proportionally. Abd, I find this a very interesting result. What is the variability here? How reliable is the 40 MeV figure? Assuming for the moment that the 40 MeV/4He result is solid and can be reliably replicated, and going with helium as a predominant non-radiative byproduct, what does this say about the reactions involved? Does it mean that there would need to be more than helium generation, or is there a way to work out helium generation that produces this level of energy? Eric
Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
I wrote: Assuming for the moment that the 40 MeV/4He result is solid and can be reliably replicated, and going with helium as a predominant non-radiative byproduct, what does this say about the reactions involved? Does it mean that there would need to be more than helium generation, or is there a way to work out helium generation that produces this level of energy? To answer my own question (using what you've already hinted at): One way to get at this figure would be to allow a large amount of the helium to escape. Then it would seem like the residue was responsible for the entire balance of the heat, when in fact some of it resulted from escaped helium. Eric
Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
Well, there's a saying in Zen about swallowing the Niagara Falls in one gulp -- perhaps a tsunami of verbal arguments by Lomax may float visions that are plausibly contrary to the visions aired by Murray -- but the possiblities of micro and nano level storage and release of chemical energy by bubbles on the Pd surface, increasingly rough, complex and chaotic with time, need to be tested, not just persuasively discussed. Returning to, ahem, discussion... I'm assuming that minute bubbles of O2 would adhere to the Pd by normal molecular attraction, the Van der Waals quantum interaction of outer electrons between O2 and Pd, just like bubbles in soda pop or a glass of water, sticking to surfaces, perhaps forming a hemisphere, while the ignition would occur very quickly, since rough Pd is a catalyst -- now, many here can estimate the speed of burning roughly by invoking the nonequilibrium velocity distribution at the burning temperature in complex fast-moving nonlinear combustion next to or on a surface within electrolyte -- too fast for heat dissipation via conduction or convection -- A sphere stuck to a surface has radial symmetry, pointing at the surface -- so my hunch was that a jet or bipolar jet might ensue -- heat transfer would be by radiation and then by kinetic impact of new H2O molecules moving at many km/sec, the speed inside the fierce burning in H2-O2 liquid rocket engines -- so one bubble would vaporize at least it own volume of Pd surface, releasing the H stored at 1 to 1 loading ratio, which would make a momentary enriched environment for the next O2 bubble -- need data for how crowded these bubbles can actually get in the electrolyte next to the cathode, especially if they are positively charged, and thus attracted to the cathode -- so Murray's logic is, if the micro craters are via chemical energy, then therefore a lot of the O2 micro bubbles are positively charged -- time for a quick micro experiment... only experiment can find the distribution of H2 and O2 micro and nano scale bubbles, and survey complex, unpredictable corrosion effects -- recall that acoustic cavitation can erode ship propellers. I suggest that experiments should be as tiny as possible, looking to view the details of events real-time, one by one, as has been so fruitful in nuclear physics since Rutherford looked at the distribution of flashes on a fluorescent screen for hours from alpha particle bombardment of a thin metal film in 1911, proving the incrediby small size and huge density of the nucleus, as well as of the alpha (helium nucleus) particle. Methinks Storms, Rothwell, and Lomax proclaim too much re the heat-helium correlation. Especially, is there any device in the world today that is generating unexplained excess heat? publicly, reliably ? If not now, how recently? Time will tell, 23 years after 1989...
Re: [Vo]:Some other interesting science news...
I wrote: Has someone put together a comprehensive catalog of the branches that would need to be considered, including ones involving neutrons, either for palladium or nickel, for the kinds of energy ranges we're talking about? This would be very helpful. I find EXFOR hard to work with; it may be that I'm just not using it correctly. By palladium and nickel, I do not mean solely reactions with palladium or nickel. I have in mind the Pd-D and Ni-H systems; e.g., all the kinds of reactions that could go on in them at the energies of interest, including but certainly not limited to (secondary) reactions with the substrate. Eric
Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
I also agree that it must be the escape of helium that causes the mismatch, and I notice that the numbers are definitely pointing in that direction. The amount of energy released per reaction should be well defined and equal to the mass deficit if the end product is helium with hydrogen as the source. As you are suggesting, reliable data must be available to support the conclusions. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jul 4, 2012 5:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02 I wrote: Assuming for the moment that the 40 MeV/4He result is solid and can be reliably replicated, and going with helium as a predominant non-radiative byproduct, what does this say about the reactions involved? Does it mean that there would need to be more than helium generation, or is there a way to work out helium generation that produces this level of energy? To answer my own question (using what you've already hinted at): One way to get at this figure would be to allow a large amount of the helium to escape. Then it would seem like the residue was responsible for the entire balance of the heat, when in fact some of it resulted from escaped helium. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Big ice crystals and curved ice rods around volcano in Antarctica
Impurities can lower (or increase) the freezing point of one side of the flowing water allowing it to freeze while the other side is still flowing, thereby creating a curved icicle. Breeze will not explain why the curve changes direction but impurities can. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Jonsson To: vortex-l Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 10:51 PM Subject: [Vo]:Big ice crystals and curved ice rods around volcano in Antarctica Hi How can ice crystals grow to ths big size? Image is from around the volcano Mount Erebus at Antarctica http://lh5.ggpht.com/-EVQxlm4Fp1w/TB6EkSJ9NmI/Bw4/MOncMvTzN0Y/2009-12-3011.JPG?imgmax=800 More images of big crystals can be seen here http://erebus.nmt.edu/index.php/icecaves I also want an explanation to how ice rods can be curved as can be seen on several pictures http://lh3.ggpht.com/-2Bw7mgY461o/TB6EhYunyXI/Bws/QWXUvOFL3vg/2009-12-31103548.JPG?imgmax=800 http://lh3.ggpht.com/-XR5B_UJY8Ts/TB6EdzjddaI/BwQ/MhSMX9ETNfg/2009-12-31101131.JPG?imgmax=800 http://lh3.ggpht.com/-HvrH_hFFn1E/TB6EeWS3ZII/BwU/XLtFGnKQMBg/2009-12-31101441.JPG?imgmax=800 I have never sen this in Sweden. Please explain the processes involved in determining crystal size. Hälsningar David
Re: [Vo]:My answer to Prof. Stremmenos re the Interview
Nothing unpleasant, my friend! I have a very deep experience in disputes, scientific and technical; that includes discusiions for quality standards- verbal fights, negotiations with potential partners..The arguments of S. are weak. Politically he is a personality a Greek patriot, cold fusion is a different, complex issue. My opinion is that it is very easy to re-discover Rossi's secret however the next stage- engineering is a Herculean task- to remain in Greece metaphorically. Peter On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Well… it’s still a few months before the day of Atonement, but it looks like you are being made into a convenient scapegoat, Peter. ** ** He clearly got himself into an allegiance bind months ago, and then failed to make an early choice of teams – so he became almost a nobody … losing favor with both sides. ** ** Now, in a ploy to return to someone, or anyone’s good graces, he makes a choice that is looking all the more foolish – not by failing to make an adequate case for silly allegations, but by picking the team that will hurt Greece, if successful … and at a time the homeland need all the help possible. ** ** Hey – speaking of special days for carnage … anyone up for barbequed goat? ** ** *From:* Peter Gluck ** ** My Interview with Defkalion Green Technologies Global has generated a reaction of negative enthusiasm from Professor Christos Stremmenos … ** ** -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:SPAWAR has yet to respond re simple error in claims of effects of external high voltage dc fields inside a conducting electrolyte: Rich Murray 2012.03.01 2012.07.02
At 12:00 PM 7/4/2012, Finlay MacNab wrote: Your argument assumes that the there is no air gap between the dielectric and the charged plates. It also assumes that the electrolyte behaves like a regular 100ohm resistor. The plates are against the cell walls. Sure, you can make up an air gap. It would be small and have almost no effect on the analysis. Yes. The electrolyte, within bounds, behaves somewhat like a resistor. In fact, the resistance changes under real conditions, it's noisy, as I mentioned. Noisy resistor, and there is capacitance in parallel and in series with the resistor, if you want a more complete model. The details are completely swamped by the magnitude of the problem. The effect on the electrolyte and all that is immersed in it is minute. And I seriously doubt the competence of anyone who asserts otherwise, after seeing the problem. I very much doubt that anyone from SPAWAR will defend that paper, and I do think it likely that we will see some comment. It was just an error, and it does not impeach the vast bulk of their work. In this case, where the movement of ions in electrolyte is dominated by diffusion and mixing from the gas bubbles generated by redox reactions at the two, in solution, electrodes the electrolyte does not behave like a 100ohm resistor. Your treatment of the system as two dielectrics sandwiched between three metal plates is not sufficient to describe the system. That isn't my description of the system. It is two dielectrics between two metal plates, not three, and between the two dielecrics (acrylic) is an electrolyte, that is, water with a substance dissolved so that it will conduct a substantial current with a modest voltage. Absolutely, modeling the electrolyte with a resistor is primitive. But the difference in the behavior of the electrolyte, due to error in this model, with respect to the division of the high voltage across the three regions, will be insignificant. You don't know if mixing and diffusion within the electrolyte and the extremely low mobility of solvated ions would allow an external electric field to exist within the electrolyte and allow electrophoretic and other field induced effects to influence the near surface of the Pd film. I know that an equipotential surface exists inside the cell that will totally screen any effects on this cell from what is beyond that. The current from the high voltage supply, through the electrolyte, will be in the picoamp range, that is completely necessary, because the only conduction path is through two plates with very high resistance. This current is totally swamped by noise from many sources. Likewise the voltage experienced by the electrolyte stemming from the high voltage supply. Finlay, don't immolate yourself on trying to be right. You know enough to get into trouble, to make up complex explanations that ignore the obvious. The electrolyte is a decent conductor, the LiCl salt has been added for that purpose, and that purpose alone. Ohms law still applies with current, voltage, and resistance through an electrolyte. Power dissipation is still current times voltage. Kirchoff's Law still applies with electrolytes. Finally, the only mention of the strength of the electric field in the paper: the cell placement in an electric field (25003000 V cm-1) refers to the entire cell, it does not refer to the field within the electrolyte. The authors never assert that the field strength is 3000 V/cm within the electrolyte. The cell is placed in an electric field with that strength before the cell is placed in it. In fact, with the cell in place, loaded with electrolyte, the field strength becomes much quite a bit higher, within the acrylic, and far, far lower within the electrolyte. They imply that the field within the cell would be substantial enough to affect cell chemistry, when the field within the cell is actually truly miniscule, swamped by noise in the other sources of voltage, specifically the electrolytic power supply, as well as the electrochemical phenomena taking place. Basically, there is a region about an inch wide. It is between two plates. The plates have 6 KV between them. The cell is placed in that space. The electric field is no longer uniform, as it was before the cell was placed. Specifying the electric field strength, instead of the total field, is pretty strange, except this is what they were thinking they were doing, they thought they were subjecting the cathode to an enhanced electric field. It's really pretty silly, I'm sure that there are some stories behind this. Frankly, if I didn't think this awfully unlikely coming from SPAWAR, I'd think the whole thing was a joke, a parody on cold fusion research. Your assertion that the authors claim that the effects result from high fields is not born out by their treatment of the electrolyte, interphase region, and bulk Pd regions of
