Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
So, you admit to having NOT read CE web site and a more thorough explanation of his theory. So, you do not really understand what his theory is; YET, you mouth off as if you're the expert. Your verbal diarrhea is full of irrelevancy and useless comments that make you feel you know it know. Shallow waters are indeed noisy. You know, you may learn a little insight and wisdom if you heed the following ancient (and modern) wisdom. He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. - Solomon Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance. -Albert Einstein There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer You claim to be a man of science and yet you act like the quintessential bigot. The audacity you carry and use to condemn a new idea is mind-boggling. Are we supposed to be impressed that you studied Physics under Feynman? Yes, I am impressed with Feynman, but am I supposed to be impressed by you? Tell us, do you even have a Physics degree; undergraduate or otherwise? Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:23 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus At 10:37 AM 8/16/2012, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: RE: ChemEng's hypothesis, Abd, at least he backs up his hypothesis with a list of references... all *191* of them! So he is probably MORE current on the scientific underpinnings of his hypothesis than you, so I'd suggest you visit his website and read his well-referenced explanation BEFORE commenting on it, else you'll just look like an arrogant know-it-all... oh, too late. I don't know beans about his hypothesis, only that he's been having a lot of fun with it. Gremlins. I actually think it's a great name. Some LENR researchers were not amused. What I write is generally most useful -- or most entertaining -- for by people who have some detachment, who aren't stuck on right and wrong and other fantasies. I've assumed that Chemical Engineer is in that category. I'm not at all motivated to read the web site at this point. If Chemical Engineer asks me some specific question about it, that would be another matter. Of course I'm an arrogant know-it-all. Or, since I *don't* know it all, perhaps I'm merely arrogant. Comes with the territory, my story is that if you had the childhood I had, you'd be arrogant, too. Of course, it's just a story. I made it up. The test scores I did not make up.
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
Meanwhile, Back in the Florida swamps LENR pioneer http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.i-b-r.org/NeutronSynthesis.pdfsa=Uei=nv4tUKGVHKSgywHMqYHQDwved=0CBkQFjACsig2=2jnJ7E68bs8RTEvQ80nLXAusg=AFQjCNHrasQAwAaBEkfYm1IQ61UuUIym_g gets rich via NASDAQ http://magnegas.com/announcing-the-purchase-of-manufacturing-facilities (Price Quote: $3.08 Aug. 16, 2012 Market Closed) Winners earn a living, take risks, scrimp and get their hands dirty while losers idle time away rattling a tin cup for a few bob and breaking wind with verbal diarrhea without self support. Each to its own. If the shoe fits, wear it. The spoiled baby boomer remains a baby, needing to put someone down in vain attempts to bolster themselves. Judgmental forays are worshiped as a commandment. However, take care! Noble Gas Engine stock also offered at about $3. Sounds like a Variation on a Theme of Rossi. Easy, easy ... Chung --- On Thu, 8/16/12, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thursday, August 16, 2012, 6:48 PM Like most predictions of string theory; super-symmetric particles, micro black holes, no one (AKA CERN) has detected them yet at any energy. CERN is way beyond any energy the cold fusion can reach or hot fusion for that matter. The prospects are grim. The string people are disappointed. Stringologists produce theory by the ton and none has been experimentally verified. Don’t stake your theories on strings. Strings are fringe science. Cheers:Axil On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Stewart Simonson cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Always slept well at night On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: OK, you are right, it did wake me up at night. Did you start having these dreams before or after you first read about quantum singularities? harry On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: No, I am not making it up and it was not a dream Physics is ultimately a work of the imagination. Over time some of those imaginings are retained and studied while others are dismissed or forgotten for lack of evidence and other times for reasons of fashion or politics and religion. Physics is not out there, it lives in you. Harry A charged black hole is a black hole that possesses electric charge. Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature. A charged black hole is one of three possible types of black holes that could exist in the theory of gravitation called general relativity. Black holes can be characterized by three (and only three) quantities, its mass M (called a Schwarzschild black hole if it has no angular momentum and no electric charge), angular momentum J (called a Kerr black hole if it has no charge), and electric charge Q (charged black hole or Reissner-Nordström black hole if the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr-Newman black hole if it has both angular momentum and electric charge). A special, mathematically-oriented article describes the Reissner-Nordström metric for a charged, non-rotating black hole. The solutions of Einstein's field equation for the gravitational field of an electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty space was obtained in 1918 by Hans Reissner andGunnar Nordström, not long after Karl Schwarzschild found the Schwarzschild metric as a solution for a point mass without electric charge and angular momentum. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they evaporate they emit charged particles. This can have a direct effect on the conductivity of a metal. ah... so you are hypothesizing a particle with a set of special properties. Sometimes you refer to this particle by the name 'singularity' and other times you refer to it by the name 'gremlin'. Harry harry
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
Yes, Looks like http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg69031.html says it all. I detect the wisdom of Gulinski theories in this enlightened atmosphere. Love, Candy - Original Message - From: Te Chung Sent: 08/17/12 04:14 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus Meanwhile, Back in the Florida swamps LENR pioneer http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.i-b-r.org/NeutronSynthesis.pdfsa=Uei=nv4tUKGVHKSgywHMqYHQDwved=0CBkQFjACsig2=2jnJ7E68bs8RTEvQ80nLXAusg=AFQjCNHrasQAwAaBEkfYm1IQ61UuUIym_g gets rich via NASDAQ http://magnegas.com/announcing-the-purchase-of-manufacturing-facilities (Price Quote: $3.08 Aug. 16, 2012 Market Closed) Winners earn a living, take risks, scrimp and get their hands dirty while losers idle time away rattling a tin cup for a few bob and breaking wind with verbal diarrhea without self support. Each to its own. If the shoe fits, wear it. The spoiled baby boomer remains a baby, needing to put someone down in vain attempts to bolster themselves. Judgmental forays are worshiped as a commandment. However, take care! Noble Gas Engine stock also offered at about $3. Sounds like a Variation on a Theme of Rossi. Easy, easy ... Chung --- On *Thu, 8/16/12, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thursday, August 16, 2012, 6:48 PM Like most predictions of string theory; super-symmetric particles, micro black holes, no one (AKA CERN) has detected them yet at any energy. CERN is way beyond any energy the cold fusion can reach or hot fusion for that matter. The prospects are grim. The string people are disappointed. Stringologists produce theory by the ton and none has been experimentally verified. Don’t stake your theories on strings. Strings are fringe science. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Stewart Simonson cheme...@gmail.com /mc/compose?to=cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Always slept well at night On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com /mc/compose?to=hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com /mc/compose?to=cheme...@gmail.com wrote: OK, you are right, it did wake me up at night. Did you start having these dreams before or after you first read about quantum singularities? harry On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com /mc/compose?to=hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com /mc/compose?to=cheme...@gmail.com wrote: No, I am not making it up and it was not a dream Physics is ultimately a work of the imagination. Over time some of those imaginings are retained and studied while others are dismissed or forgotten for lack of evidence and other times for reasons of fashion or politics and religion. Physics is not out there, it lives in you. Harry A charged black hole is a black hole that possesses electric charge. Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature. A charged black hole is one of three possible types of black holes that could exist in the theory of gravitation called general relativity. Black holes can be characterized by three (and only three) quantities, its mass M (called a Schwarzschild black hole if it has no angular momentum and no electric charge), angular momentum J (called a Kerr black hole if it has no charge), and electric charge Q (charged black hole or Reissner-Nordström black hole if the angular momentum is zero or a Kerr-Newman black hole if it has both angular momentum and electric charge). A special, mathematically-oriented article describes the Reissner-Nordström metric for a charged, non-rotating black hole. The solutions of Einstein's field equation for the gravitational field of an electrically charged point mass (with zero angular momentum) in empty space was obtained in 1918 by Hans Reissner andGunnar Nordström, not long after Karl Schwarzschild found the Schwarzschild metric as a solution for a point mass without electric charge and angular momentum. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com /mc/compose?to=hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com /mc/compose?to=cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Conductivity inversion effects in a metal wire/lattice. It is well understood that a singularity carries charge, angular momentum and radius like any other particle. It is also understood that when they
Re: [Vo]:A123 Systems rescued by China's Wanxiang
Technically, not a LED: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED seems to meet your description 'cept for the intensity. T
Re: [Vo]:The Magic of Xenon
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On the left is a reservoir at ambient temperature and pressure which is connected to a vacuum chamber on the right through a nozzle hole. The gases expand into the chamber through this hole and during this expansion all the random kinetic energy (translational, rotational and vibrational) gets converted Cite?
[Vo]:Re: CMNS: Life Imitating Science
Brian, I agree with most of that statement. I believe Nature keeps them as far away from life as possible, locked into large black holes in the vacuum of space, possibly within stars corona's and on earth gravity should act on them over time as they make their way to the core. These are all safe places away from life as we know it. While they generate heat that allows life, they are also uncertain for life. Maybe collapsed matter is a better definition? There are recent theories that they do not evaporate completely. Thanks On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:56 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: All, I have updated my blog, sounds like some are interested, some are not and that is fine. I am up to 22 predictions from my theory, some of which may be a stretch but are relevant from my set of QM goggles. Prediction No. 22 is particularly interesting and relates to the foundation of quantum mechanics so I will list it below and it might explain the delays of cold fusion products hitting the market: The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa. --Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927 Uncertainty. Based upon Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principal the creation of singularities, which are a pure quantum mechanical construct, will create uncertainty in their surroundings. It is therefore theorized that any location in the universe that has a large mass of these micro singularities either residing or being created will have an increase in uncertainty within their surroundings. Within a piece of equipment this uncertainty will manifest itself as equipment failures and reliability issues as the singularities created over time take up residence in the structure of the equipment and gradually destroy it from low level Hawking radiation, Fission, Fusion and Chemical Reactions. This might be seen as short circuits in wiring, plug failure, vessel failure, brittleness, extreme energy events, etc. If these singularities escape the device they may take up space in biological organisms. Although they may instantly find a stable state, over time as they are excited by outside radiation, they may become unstable and trigger radiation, fission, fusion and chemical reactions within an organism. Due to gravity, they should find their way over long periods of time to the earths core where nature isolates them. http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 Godspeed -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CMNS group. To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en.
Re: [Vo]:The Magic of Xenon
http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/December2009/p1210-1222.pdf Molecule Matters van derWaalsMolecules See: page 1214 4.1 Supersonic Molecular Beams Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:07 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On the left is a reservoir at ambient temperature and pressure which is connected to a vacuum chamber on the right through a nozzle hole. The gases expand into the chamber through this hole and during this expansion all the random kinetic energy (translational, rotational and vibrational) gets converted Cite?
[Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Slide 16 Takahashi and Kitamura (thanks Akira, Jed et al) https://decibel.ni.com/content/servlet/JiveServlet/download/23750-1-51320/TS 9240%20Status%20of%20CMN%20CF%20LENR%20Research.pdf Summary: Ni-Cu on zirconia support, long period of gain, hydrogen and deuterium compared for gain. 1) Far better results with hydrogen than deuterium 2) Up to 2 watts per gram max, compared to Celani's technique which is ten times more 3) Long run showing no sign of drop-off (other than P-in being turned off) 4) Strange Theory of operation involving 4 units Brian Ahern sent them one of his early materials (which they mentioned) and told Takahashi about the copper-nickel on zirconia support (which they did not mention) - and which they had fabricated by a local company, and it was by far their best results. However, Ahern had even better results with another sample (much better than with the copper-nickel on zirconia support (teaser)... and Celani gets much more energy per gram. Lesson: the door is wide open for improvement, but these guys add further credibility to Ahern/Celani/etc ... but the most interesting thing - which has not been well-documented in the past is the side-by-side comparison of hydrogen with deuterium. IMPLICATION - there are 20 years of experiments with palladium-deuterium, most of them using hydrogen as a control. Hydrogen does not work in pure palladium. Deuterium only seems to work in palladium, and surprisingly is much poorer in side-by-side with hydrogen, in Ni-Cu (but still gainful). Most interesting! THERE IS A LESSON HERE ... but damn, I'm not sure exactly what it is ! Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Celani is gives up to 70W/g... 2012/8/17 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Slide 16 Takahashi and Kitamura (thanks Akira, Jed et al) https://decibel.ni.com/content/servlet/JiveServlet/download/23750-1-51320/TS 9240%20Status%20of%20CMN%20CF%20LENR%20Research.pdf Summary: Ni-Cu on zirconia support, long period of gain, hydrogen and deuterium compared for gain. 1) Far better results with hydrogen than deuterium 2) Up to 2 watts per gram max, compared to Celani's technique which is ten times more 3) Long run showing no sign of drop-off (other than P-in being turned off) 4) Strange Theory of operation involving 4 units Brian Ahern sent them one of his early materials (which they mentioned) and told Takahashi about the copper-nickel on zirconia support (which they did not mention) - and which they had fabricated by a local company, and it was by far their best results. However, Ahern had even better results with another sample (much better than with the copper-nickel on zirconia support (teaser)... and Celani gets much more energy per gram. Lesson: the door is wide open for improvement, but these guys add further credibility to Ahern/Celani/etc ... but the most interesting thing - which has not been well-documented in the past is the side-by-side comparison of hydrogen with deuterium. IMPLICATION - there are 20 years of experiments with palladium-deuterium, most of them using hydrogen as a control. Hydrogen does not work in pure palladium. Deuterium only seems to work in palladium, and surprisingly is much poorer in side-by-side with hydrogen, in Ni-Cu (but still gainful). Most interesting! THERE IS A LESSON HERE ... but damn, I'm not sure exactly what it is ! Jones -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Does this discovery lend credibility to Rossi with his Hydrogen Nickel (and apparently some Copper) reactor? Jojo - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:29 PM Subject: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova Slide 16 Takahashi and Kitamura (thanks Akira, Jed et al) https://decibel.ni.com/content/servlet/JiveServlet/download/23750-1-51320/TS 9240%20Status%20of%20CMN%20CF%20LENR%20Research.pdf Summary: Ni-Cu on zirconia support, long period of gain, hydrogen and deuterium compared for gain. 1) Far better results with hydrogen than deuterium 2) Up to 2 watts per gram max, compared to Celani's technique which is ten times more 3) Long run showing no sign of drop-off (other than P-in being turned off) 4) Strange Theory of operation involving 4 units Brian Ahern sent them one of his early materials (which they mentioned) and told Takahashi about the copper-nickel on zirconia support (which they did not mention) - and which they had fabricated by a local company, and it was by far their best results. However, Ahern had even better results with another sample (much better than with the copper-nickel on zirconia support (teaser)... and Celani gets much more energy per gram. Lesson: the door is wide open for improvement, but these guys add further credibility to Ahern/Celani/etc ... but the most interesting thing - which has not been well-documented in the past is the side-by-side comparison of hydrogen with deuterium. IMPLICATION - there are 20 years of experiments with palladium-deuterium, most of them using hydrogen as a control. Hydrogen does not work in pure palladium. Deuterium only seems to work in palladium, and surprisingly is much poorer in side-by-side with hydrogen, in Ni-Cu (but still gainful). Most interesting! THERE IS A LESSON HERE ... but damn, I'm not sure exactly what it is ! Jones
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
According to Piantelli and to Defkalion. Ni does not work at all with deuterium, Why it works (?) here is a good/bad question. Peter On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Slide 16 Takahashi and Kitamura (thanks Akira, Jed et al) https://decibel.ni.com/content/servlet/JiveServlet/download/23750-1-51320/TS 9240%20Status%20of%20CMN%20CF%20LENR%20Research.pdf Summary: Ni-Cu on zirconia support, long period of gain, hydrogen and deuterium compared for gain. 1) Far better results with hydrogen than deuterium 2) Up to 2 watts per gram max, compared to Celani's technique which is ten times more 3) Long run showing no sign of drop-off (other than P-in being turned off) 4) Strange Theory of operation involving 4 units Brian Ahern sent them one of his early materials (which they mentioned) and told Takahashi about the copper-nickel on zirconia support (which they did not mention) - and which they had fabricated by a local company, and it was by far their best results. However, Ahern had even better results with another sample (much better than with the copper-nickel on zirconia support (teaser)... and Celani gets much more energy per gram. Lesson: the door is wide open for improvement, but these guys add further credibility to Ahern/Celani/etc ... but the most interesting thing - which has not been well-documented in the past is the side-by-side comparison of hydrogen with deuterium. IMPLICATION - there are 20 years of experiments with palladium-deuterium, most of them using hydrogen as a control. Hydrogen does not work in pure palladium. Deuterium only seems to work in palladium, and surprisingly is much poorer in side-by-side with hydrogen, in Ni-Cu (but still gainful). Most interesting! THERE IS A LESSON HERE ... but damn, I'm not sure exactly what it is ! Jones -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
On 2012-08-17 16:43, Peter Gluck wrote: According to Piantelli and to Defkalion. Ni does not work at all with deuterium, Why it works (?) here is a good/bad question. Celani reported strange results with Deuterium too (with his treated nanostructured ISOTAN44 wires). It works, but poorly compared to Hydrogen. See here, slide 45: http://www.22passi.it/downloads/Celani_ICCF17_Trasp3.pdf His observations on Deuterium use: 21) After D2 intake, we increased, as usual, the temperature by power to the inert wire. The absorption was really of small amount. 22) We observed, for the first time in our experimentation with such kind of materials, some X (and/or gamma emission), coming-out from the reactor during the increasing of the temperature from about 100°C to 160°C. We used a NaI(Tl) detector, energy range 25-2000keV used as counter (safety purposes), not as spectrometer. Total time of such emission was about 600s and clearly detectable, burst like. 23) About thermal anomalies, we observed, very surprising, that the response was endothermic, not eso-thermic. The second day the system crossed the zero line and later become clearly eso-thermic. Similar effects were reported also by A. Takahashi and A. Kitamura. 24) After about 35s from the beginning of D2 intake the temperature abruptly increased and the wire was broken. We observed that the pressure decreased, because some problems to the reactor gas tight, but at times of 8s before. The SEM observations showed fusion of a large piece of wire. The shape was like a ball. Further analyses are in progress. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:The Magic of Xenon
OK, so if I understand you correctly, since (as your cite states) this supersonic cooling occurs in all gasses (not just xenon), the magic of xenon really boils down to two things: 1) The way it ionizes. 2) Its tendency to form van der Waals molecules. Is that correct? Another question: You discuss radio frequency effects to create coherent motion, as an alternative to nozzles, but I didn't see that discussed in your cite. Did I miss something? On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/December2009/p1210-1222.pdf Molecule Matters van derWaalsMolecules See: page 1214 4.1 Supersonic Molecular Beams Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:07 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On the left is a reservoir at ambient temperature and pressure which is connected to a vacuum chamber on the right through a nozzle hole. The gases expand into the chamber through this hole and during this expansion all the random kinetic energy (translational, rotational and vibrational) gets converted Cite?
RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
-Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro Does this discovery lend credibility to Rossi with his Hydrogen Nickel (and apparently some Copper) reactor? Has Rossi ever admitted to using copper as an alloy in his design ? Apparently, in the sample tested by the Swedes, AR's ploy was to let them show that copper was there via transmutation. That would have been great, and such a showing would have bolstered the contention of Focardi and Rossi about the operation of the reactor. It would have made Rossi and instant hero - but the scheme completely backfired! Catch-22 - unknown to AR the Swedes went further - and tested the isotope balance and found it to be natural ! Thus their testing completely disproves AR's contention of Ni-Cu transmutation and more importantly raised serious questions about attempted manipulation of science. Consequently, we must conclude that the copper which was in there at about 10% and which is indeed close to but not exactly a good Romanowski alloy range - had to be added at some point in time as natural copper. Was it added later, or prior, to the run which was sent to the Swedes? Who can know? For this and many other reasons, I stopped paying attention to Rossi some time ago, due to this propensity for dishonesty and trickery. He is not helping to push the field forward, and has given no independent proof of gain, anyway. I think AR has seen minor gain perhaps COP=2, and that he used copper to get it, perhaps inadvertently from the copper-alloy plumbing. But that is a guess. We should apologize to Krivit on this point. Steve is/was correct about Rossi's basic dishonesty. (but he was not correct about W-L). Jones
RE: [Vo]:A123 Systems rescued by China's Wanxiang
Terry, What about being able to change the color (frequency) of the emitted photons after the chip has been made? I need to clear this up, but the inventor said that the color could be changed, from IR, thru the visible and into the UV by just reprogramming. I scanned the OLED wiki but did not catch any statement about changing wavelength or frequency. Did I miss it? -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 6:21 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A123 Systems rescued by China's Wanxiang Technically, not a LED: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED seems to meet your description 'cept for the intensity. T
RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
I think AR is smarter than this. He said Ni+p - Cu when it knew it was not the case. With this statement, he was sure that Cu will not be taken as a potential catalyst and only a by-product. I think also that Cu isn't the only catalyst for the reaction. There is still some more to be discovered. With Celani, the experiment shown at ICCF-17 reaches around 3W/cm² which is very good in itself but not enough for a commercial product. AR is a step further. Moreover, he claims 1200°C, how can it with Cu catalyser? The Cu will smelt immediately or there is something I didn't catch up. Soon I will test Celani's recipe. But I'm still missing the last modification of Constantan preparation. (See changes from June2012) -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: vendredi 17 août 2012 17:14 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro Does this discovery lend credibility to Rossi with his Hydrogen Nickel (and apparently some Copper) reactor? Has Rossi ever admitted to using copper as an alloy in his design ? Apparently, in the sample tested by the Swedes, AR's ploy was to let them show that copper was there via transmutation. That would have been great, and such a showing would have bolstered the contention of Focardi and Rossi about the operation of the reactor. It would have made Rossi and instant hero - but the scheme completely backfired! Catch-22 - unknown to AR the Swedes went further - and tested the isotope balance and found it to be natural ! Thus their testing completely disproves AR's contention of Ni-Cu transmutation and more importantly raised serious questions about attempted manipulation of science. Consequently, we must conclude that the copper which was in there at about 10% and which is indeed close to but not exactly a good Romanowski alloy range - had to be added at some point in time as natural copper. Was it added later, or prior, to the run which was sent to the Swedes? Who can know? For this and many other reasons, I stopped paying attention to Rossi some time ago, due to this propensity for dishonesty and trickery. He is not helping to push the field forward, and has given no independent proof of gain, anyway. I think AR has seen minor gain perhaps COP=2, and that he used copper to get it, perhaps inadvertently from the copper-alloy plumbing. But that is a guess. We should apologize to Krivit on this point. Steve is/was correct about Rossi's basic dishonesty. (but he was not correct about W-L). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Thanks for interperting this for me. I can follow only a small part of that presentation. How I wish I had a wordy interpretation for each slide. - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 7:29 AM Subject: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova Slide 16 Takahashi and Kitamura (thanks Akira, Jed et al) https://decibel.ni.com/content/servlet/JiveServlet/download/23750-1-51320/TS 9240%20Status%20of%20CMN%20CF%20LENR%20Research.pdf
RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
-Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck With Celani, the experiment shown at ICCF-17 reaches around 3W/cm² which is very good in itself but not enough for a commercial product. Why do you say that 3W/cm² is not enough for a commercial product ? We are talking about an alloy that costs only $20/kg (US) in large volume lots.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
You should think about the total volume (area is a rule of a thumb anyway...) because it should be possible to roll all that. It gives around 450W/cm3. Also, that gives an average of 50W/g, using his wires. So, 20Kg should give you 1MW of extra heat... 2012/8/17 Kelley Trezise ktrez2...@ssvecnet.com Thanks for interperting this for me. I can follow only a small part of that presentation. How I wish I had a wordy interpretation for each slide. - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 7:29 AM Subject: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova Slide 16 Takahashi and Kitamura (thanks Akira, Jed et al) https://decibel.ni.com/**content/servlet/JiveServlet/** download/23750-1-51320/TShttps://decibel.ni.com/content/servlet/JiveServlet/download/23750-1-51320/TS 9240%20Status%20of%20CMN%20CF%**20LENR%20Research.pdf -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
On 2012-08-17 17:14, Jones Beene wrote: gain, anyway. I think AR has seen minor gain perhaps COP=2, and that he used copper to get it, perhaps inadvertently from the copper-alloy plumbing. But that is a guess. If Rossi's magic powder works as Celani's treated ISOTAN44 wires (positive feedback with temperature), there's little reason to doubt that his gain could be higher. Just increase the amount of active material and you can immediately have useful amounts of energy, although this might be expensive and/or impractical. In fact, I think this is exactly what Rossi did in is earlier public tests to scale up the effect. Celani, with 70 W/g (data by Daniel Rocha), would just need 150g of active material to reach about 10 kW of low temperature excess heat and a quite high COP, if he wanted (he would need a proper reactor vessel first, however). Incidentally this is about the same amount of material reportedly used by Rossi in his early 2011 demos. I guess it would be relatively expensive to set up such a demonstrative reactor for Celani, but it's not undoable, although it would be scientifically useless. 70 W/g is a low starting point as a specific power for the active material too. I imagine this could be vastly improved with funds and good engineering. According to Cures (Domenico Fioravanti - the colonel engineer who tested Rossi's half-megawatt plant in October 2011 and used to post anonymously on a public forum, if you trust him), calculated the specific power for Rossi's powder to range between 480-3300 W/g [1] - so apparently there's plenty of room for improvement. Combine this with cheap scaling up methods (add more material) and you can see why Rossi might be worried about competition, especially Celani's. Cheers, S.A. [1] http://www.cobraf.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=5747reply_id=123482813#123482813
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
On 2012-08-17 17:43, Jones Beene wrote: Why do you say that 3W/cm² is not enough for a commercial product ? We are talking about an alloy that costs only $20/kg (US) in large volume lots. The treatment (not known in detail yet - but Celani said a paper about it is in preparation) to create deep nano/micro structures needed for the reaction to occur might increase costs significantly, however. At the moment, all we know at the moment is that treated ISOTAN44 wires cost him less than pure palladium. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Beware that the extra heat/g. And that's the up limit. Generally, it's around 40W/g and 50/g. You'd have to use some complicated scheme to get an electrical feedback and self sustain. 2012/8/17 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com On 2012-08-17 17:14, Jones Beene wrote: gain, anyway. I think AR has seen minor gain perhaps COP=2, and that he used copper to get it, perhaps inadvertently from the copper-alloy plumbing. But that is a guess. If Rossi's magic powder works as Celani's treated ISOTAN44 wires (positive feedback with temperature), there's little reason to doubt that his gain could be higher. Just increase the amount of active material and you can immediately have useful amounts of energy, although this might be expensive and/or impractical. In fact, I think this is exactly what Rossi did in is earlier public tests to scale up the effect. Celani, with 70 W/g (data by Daniel Rocha), would just need 150g of active material to reach about 10 kW of low temperature excess heat and a quite high COP, if he wanted (he would need a proper reactor vessel first, however). Incidentally this is about the same amount of material reportedly used by Rossi in his early 2011 demos. I guess it would be relatively expensive to set up such a demonstrative reactor for Celani, but it's not undoable, although it would be scientifically useless. 70 W/g is a low starting point as a specific power for the active material too. I imagine this could be vastly improved with funds and good engineering. According to Cures (Domenico Fioravanti - the colonel engineer who tested Rossi's half-megawatt plant in October 2011 and used to post anonymously on a public forum, if you trust him), calculated the specific power for Rossi's powder to range between 480-3300 W/g [1] - so apparently there's plenty of room for improvement. Combine this with cheap scaling up methods (add more material) and you can see why Rossi might be worried about competition, especially Celani's. Cheers, S.A. [1] http://www.cobraf.com/forum/**topic.php?topic_id=5747reply_** id=123482813#123482813http://www.cobraf.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=5747reply_id=123482813#123482813 -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The Magic of Xenon
--- On Fri, 8/17/12, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Magic of Xenon To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Friday, August 17, 2012, 10:26 AM http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/December2009/p1210-1222.pdfMolecule Matters van derWaalsMoleculesSee: page 12144.1 Supersonic Molecular Beams Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:07 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On the left is a reservoir at ambient temperature and pressure which is connected to a vacuum chamber on the right through a nozzle hole. The gases expand into the chamber through this hole and during this expansion all the random kinetic energy (translational, rotational and vibrational) gets converted Cite? What about the actual straight line movement of the molecules after exiting the pressurized state, would this not be considered a translational movement? Would it be more proper to state that the random translational movement is converted to a uniform one? Otherwise we might be left questioning that since it is converted what does it get converted to? Could the above principles be applied to refrigeration since it seems obvious that a temperature loss should take place. Does the conventional equation PV=nRT apply here? HDN
Re: [Vo]:Inspiration
Nickel cited previously several times. Example: AnonymousDecember 18, 2011 12:42 PM http://opensourcenuclearfuel.blogspot.com/2011/11/possible-activator-for-gas-loaded-lenr.html?showComment=1324240950625#c4302940741857909284 Used LiH from http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=enN4=201049|ALDRICHN5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO|BRAND_KEYF=SPEC nano-nickel-copper from http://www.canfuo.com/NanoNi-Cu.html LiBH4 from http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=enN4=222356|ALDRICHN5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO|BRAND_KEYF=SPEC and Fe powder from http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?N4=267953|ALDRICHN5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO|BRAND_KEYF=SPEC mixed in unequal proportions (Proprietary). Using glove box with previously suggested barbecue propane bleed the mix was loaded into 8lengths of Cu tube welded shut on bottom. Vice pinched and welded closed at the top, 4 tubes were loaded into a Chan oil bath with resistant heater and pumped with an RFG. The temperature rose as expected at a steady rate until 80 C where a strong acceleration of rate showed on the computer screen associated with the thermocouple. I Immediately cut all power. It kept rising. Maximum oil circulation through radiator was not able to control it. I circulated cold water through a copper emergency coil previously placed in the oil bath. This finally worked. To control and contain this untamed LENR I will now switch to the Chan oil dispersion technique which should provide greater control and safer operation. I understand this experimenter died in an explosion during his experimentation. Regards, Reliable
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
On 2012-08-17 18:03, Daniel Rocha wrote: Beware that the extra heat/g. And that's the up limit. Generally, it's around 40W/g and 50/g. You'd have to use some complicated scheme to get an electrical feedback and self sustain. True, actual average values for Celani are smaller at the moment. My point still holds however. Cheaply scaling up excess heat and gain would not be hard. I don't think a complex electrical feedback is really needed for that. Celani showed that his treated wires generate excess heat when heated *indirectly*. If he only cared about generating heat, he could even use a band heater as Rossi does/used to do to drive the reaction, with a simple control system to keep it within safe temperatures. Of course, this is in the ideal case all works as expected. Complications might arise when scaling things up. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
Akira, According to my theory, at the moment the hydrogen collapses in a void or crack (singularity), you should get an instant burst of low level Hawking Radiation(full spectrum) since quantum singularities are very hot to start with and they will immediately evaporate matter down near local steady state thermodynamic and spatial equilibrium conditions within a void or crack in the lattice. If/once it settles down within a void it then will start slowly consuming hydrogen gas that it pulls gas matter into the void from outside and will continue emitting very low levels of radiation and heat. According to theory, some of this radiation is quarks and gluons and I am not sure these will register on your devices. Over time, the Hawking radiation and or collapse of nearby matter will create local/brittleness within the lattice at which point any internal collapse will create another immediate and local instability and burst of energy at which point it will come to a new thermodynamic equilibrium point. This will go one until a point at which enough matter is consumed that their is a complete collapse of the wire. Singularities can create temperature inversions as their surface area changes and they consume more/gas matter than they evaporate. Over time this should balance out at the end of the universe. These singularities will act as a quantum heat pump, pulling in matter from hydrogen or the lattice (or any other matter) and rewarding you with heat and radiation, much of it as heat. The Rohner/Papp video that shows a coil sucking gas from a reactor vessel and balloon is the same effect. The singularities have built up on the inside surface of the coil (he mentions that the surface has changed and sticks to the cyclinder) with a voltage and are acting as a quantum heat pump pulling in gas matter and liberating heat trying to achieve equilibrium in their environment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlgiwB8V4sc According to my theory, collapsed matter generates radiation and appear to exists in nature within cracks and voids of metals and rocks of the earth and is probably concentrated in the earth at the core, away from life. I believe it is the singularity(s) themselves that are more dangerous than the low level radiation. As you can see it is devouring the lattice with primary collapse, hawking radiation and some fission and fusion events as well as probably some chemical events from the heat release. Be careful of getting a singularity on/in you which will be hard to do since they are invisible. According to theory a singularity might be as small as 22 micro grams at planck length, about like a grain of sand but will be completely invisible. They might even be smaller based upon actual quantum gravity effects. Gravity wants to take it to the earth and dispose of it at the center where it safetly produces heat for the earth. Stewart On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-08-17 16:43, Peter Gluck wrote: According to Piantelli and to Defkalion. Ni does not work at all with deuterium, Why it works (?) here is a good/bad question. Celani reported strange results with Deuterium too (with his treated nanostructured ISOTAN44 wires). It works, but poorly compared to Hydrogen. See here, slide 45: http://www.22passi.it/**downloads/Celani_ICCF17_**Trasp3.pdfhttp://www.22passi.it/downloads/Celani_ICCF17_Trasp3.pdf His observations on Deuterium use: 21) After D2 intake, we increased, as usual, the temperature by power to the inert wire. The absorption was really of small amount. 22) We observed, for the first time in our experimentation with such kind of materials, some X (and/or gamma emission), coming-out from the reactor during the increasing of the temperature from about 100°C to 160°C. We used a NaI(Tl) detector, energy range 25-2000keV used as counter (safety purposes), not as spectrometer. Total time of such emission was about 600s and clearly detectable, burst like. 23) About thermal anomalies, we observed, very surprising, that the response was endothermic, not eso-thermic. The second day the system crossed the zero line and later become clearly eso-thermic. Similar effects were reported also by A. Takahashi and A. Kitamura. 24) After about 35s from the beginning of D2 intake the temperature abruptly increased and the wire was broken. We observed that the pressure decreased, because some problems to the reactor gas tight, but at times of 8s before. The SEM observations showed fusion of a large piece of wire. The shape was like a ball. Further analyses are in progress. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
I didn't mean electric circuit, but feedback scheme in general. Maybe heating only won't work... 2012/8/17 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com I don't think a complex electrical feedback is really needed for that. Celani showed that his treated wires generate excess heat when heated *indirectly*. If he only cared about generating heat, he could even use a band heater as Rossi does/used to do to drive the reaction, with a simple control system to keep it within safe temperatures. Cheers, S.A. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:RE: Stunning slide from Technova
Further on this point (with some rewording): IMPLICATION - there are 20+ years of positive experiments with palladium-deuterium, most of them using hydrogen as a control. Hydrogen does not seem to work at all in pure palladium. If H worked at all, then the thermal gain with D is even more than we realize, since it is used as a control. BUT deuterium seems to work better than hydrogen ONLY in palladium (possibly better in Titanium but that is less clear). Surprisingly D is much poorer in side-by-side comparison in Ni-Cu (but is still gainful). Most interesting, since much faith has been put in the 'boson connection' prior to recently! THERE IS A LESSON HERE ... but damn, I'm not sure exactly what it is ! Among the possibilities are nuclear, magnetic and/or quantum properties. Here are a few. 1) The deuteron has spin +1 and is a nuclear boson, but two bound protons is also a composite boson 2) The NMR frequency of deuterium is significantly different from hydrogen and nuclear magnetic moment is vastly less. NMR sensitivity is two orders of magnitude less for D. 3) Nickel, as a host is ferromagnetic, so NMR or another magnetic property may play a major role in defining the difference. 4) OTOH - Palladium is a paramagnetic but local ferromagnetism has been documented in Pd! (could this relate to why these systems seem to be less reliable than Ni-H ? (i.e. itinerate ferromagnetism) 5) Helium ash is often seen with Pd-D but no helium is seen with Ni-H. In short, it could be possible that deuterium reactions are fundamentally different, and always result in nuclear ash, whereas Ni-H reactions, if they are nuclear at all - depend on direct transfers of nuclear mass from the proton to supply excess energy, resulting in no transmutation. However, both systems depend on some kind of magnetic coupling to the host metal lattice - and that coupling defines which metals or alloys work and which do not work. This opens the possibility that the known mass of the proton is an average, and the population of hydrogen which is heavier than average can give up slight mass in some form - and still retain nuclear stability. Note that QCD was presaged by 50 years (1962) when Fermi discovered that soft pion emissions could result from an electromagnetic interaction. Who knows - stranger things have happened than protons shedding slight mass and still retaining identity. Thankfully - this last possibility is FALSIFIABLE with Ni-H since large continuous gains are possible, allowing average mass of hydrogen reactant to be tested before and after via highest precision mass spectrometry. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Life Imitating Science
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:56 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Uncertainty. My mind is obviously filled with singularities. T
RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova
For 1 MW, the surface needed shall be 33 cm² ... 33 m². With a thickness of 100 µm, we arrive at 3.3 dm³. It's not costly indeed for the benefit it has. I'm more worried about structural body, loss heat, and control it will imply with such lower power density. That's engineering. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: vendredi 17 août 2012 17:44 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Stunning slide from Technova -Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck With Celani, the experiment shown at ICCF-17 reaches around 3W/cm² which is very good in itself but not enough for a commercial product. Why do you say that 3W/cm² is not enough for a commercial product ? We are talking about an alloy that costs only $20/kg (US) in large volume lots.
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Fermi Acceleration
Pardon for this very late postscript, time is hard to find. I believe you assume a wave function totally confined in all 3-dimensions. This is probably not what was intended. It is easy to find papers describing crystal/lattice channel conduction of much higher energy particles (electrons, protons, ...). These are extended states - only confined in one or two dimensions. High energy particles do not necessarily break the lattice structure. -- LP mixent wrote: In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:54:29 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] Brillouin's lattice stimulation reverses the natural decay of neutrons to protons and Beta particles, catalyzing this endothermic step. Constraining a proton spatially in a lattice causes the lattice energy to be highly uncertain. With the Hamiltonian of the system reaching 782KeV for a proton or 3MeV for a deuteron the system may be capable of capturing an electron, forming an ultra-cold neutron or di-neutron system. If I understand this correctly, it would require an uncertainty in position of less than 2.7 fm (comparable in magnitude to the size of a nucleus) for a proton, and 1.3 fm for a deuteron. Note that the latter is less than the size of the deuteron itself. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A123 Systems rescued by China's Wanxiang
Color change is cutting edge: http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/researchers-pave-way-for-much-brighter-oleds/ T
Re: [Vo]:RE: Stunning slide from Technova
Or, they are two totally different, unrelated reactions. T
Re: [Vo]:Life Imitating Science
Are you certain or uncertain? On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:56 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Uncertainty. My mind is obviously filled with singularities. T
RE: [Vo]:A123 Systems rescued by China's Wanxiang
Thanks for finding that Terry... still seems as if color change for semiconductor-based light generation is still 'in the lab'. That's good news! -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A123 Systems rescued by China's Wanxiang Color change is cutting edge: http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/researchers-pave-way-for-much-brighte r-oleds/ T
[Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
Pardon if I missed this in the deluge of recent postings ICCF-17 Presentation - Surface Effect for Gas Loading Micrograin Palladium for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR - Heinrich Hora1, George H Miley, Mark Prelas, Kyu Jung Kim, Xiaoling Yang http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf (Slide 2) Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible It sounds like LENR appears in many guises. Does anyone have the accompanying paper? -- Lou Pagnucco
[Vo]:Re: CMNS: Papp Noble MisheGas Engine
According to my theory these devices magnify the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principal by design (the larger the singularities or the more of them are created, the more uncertainty there is). Which, as you said and I agree is not good for life. Actually it is probably more of a love/hate relationship, heat is good, singularities are bad. Nature wants to create certainty within life organisms and repeatable processes to sustain it, singularities go against the mechanisms that support that and can trigger malfunctions. We are witness to what they can do to a piece of wire and should apply that to the rest of the world. Papp died of colon cancer, Tom Rohner recently died of pancreatic cancer and Dr. Richard Feynman who was there when a Papp device exploded died of two rare forms of cancer (he also worked for Los Alamos, which may have had something to do with it...) The Papp device was always malfunctioning and the Plasma Popper malfunctioned during the demo with Mr. McKubre. Note I am not saying the device causes cancer. I am merely stating facts about how people died. I said these devices create singularities and you said singularities are bad in nature and we agree 100% on that. The rest is pure speculation by others. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Brian Ahern ahern_br...@msn.com wrote: Step aside and ask yourself why after 50 years there is no working two cylinder engine. They have the prototype seemingly finished. Why doesn' it run? The general answer is we need xxx,xxx Dollars and 6 months to get it running. Their excuse is actually much more rediculous. If we finish it will be stolen. That is an absurd explanation for failing to show even a video of a running papp engine. They should join the Rossi club and fade away. Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:41:09 -0500 To: c...@googlegroups.com; c...@googlegroups.com From: a...@lomaxdesign.com Subject: CMNS: Papp Noble MisheGas Engine Original subject: RE: CMNS: Grand Unification Theory of Cold Fusion At 03:09 PM 8/16/2012, Brian Ahern wrote: None of the five competing groups have a working engine. Their excuse is a classic. We do not want to have a working engine because the MEN IN BLACK will take it. They cannot even provide a video of one running at any time, but they want your investment money nonetheless ! This is a new page from the Rossi play book. This comment is, unfortunately, misleading. To establish the Papp Effect, an engine is not necessary. All that is necessary is a device (or even a complete, detailed report, enough for replication) that shows the effect, such that it can be independently verified. Of course, selling or making available such a device or report will reveal the secret. In a field like this, there is reluctance to reveal whatever secrets one has possession of, because then someone could, indeed, steal it. However, if one has protected the secret with a patent, this risk is routinely taken. One of the problems here is that the original Papp patents have expired. On the other hand, those patents were not adequate to allow anyone to build a working device. (An Inteligentry employee explains in a video referenced below that Papp included red herrings that flat out won't work.) So those patents were not valid anyway, it could be claimed. Or they could be treated as having placed everything in them into the public domain (John Rohner is claiming that). The comment from Brian lumps all of the five competing groups together as if they tell the same story. The history of the Papp engine is complex, and was heavily interwoven with Papp's paranoia. While it's possible that, at one point or other, each of the five groups or a principal in them gave the reason of avoiding theft of the property, the major secrecy seems to have been abandonded by Plasmerg, John Rohner's company, and a kit is being offered. The kit documents disclose the fuel formula, already (reportedly it is the same formula as in the original Papp patent). The kit apparently discloses everything one needs to build a popper, and it includes (essentially, it *is*) the electronics, which would automatically apply the stimulation protocol at the push of a button. That is not a working engine, but one could make an engine from one, two, or more of these. Measuring the work done by the piston in this would be trivial, and measuring the input energy, as well. (Actually, if the device assembled per kit instructions works, it's an engine. Just a single-stroke one. But, sure, we think of something designed for continuous running.) (If the kit is built out of plastic, it might not be able to withstand continuous running. The popper was designed and built to test gas mixtures and electronic protocols, which is just what would be done. Struggling with a full engine would be a very Bad Idea.) Because I don't know of
Re: [Vo]:Life Imitating Science
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:35 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Are you certain or uncertain? I can't decide.
Re: [Vo]:The Magic of Xenon
Specifically, RF causes excitation of the noble gas which increases the general polarization profile of the atoms of the noble gas. Polarization causes the dimmers to form as the noble gas atoms tend to stick together in response to increasing dipole-dipole interaction. In addition, increased levels of electromagnetically induced collisions among the various co-resident extra species gas atoms will transfer kinetic energy to these third party atoms which in turn cools the newly formed dimmers. The subsequent application of a spark will ionize the dimmers. This will start the formation of clusters which form around positively charged ions. These clusters are positively charged. Cluster formation will tend to favor magic numbers in their formation which are responsive to energetically favorable structures of the (charged) clusters. The positive charge polarization of these clusters can become very deep when driven by large spark voltages. See: http://web.physik.uni-rostock.de/cluster/students/fp3/HNT_E.pdf Aspects of the ionization of Van der Waals clusters Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:07 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: OK, so if I understand you correctly, since (as your cite states) this supersonic cooling occurs in all gasses (not just xenon), the magic of xenon really boils down to two things: 1) The way it ionizes. 2) Its tendency to form van der Waals molecules. Is that correct? Another question: You discuss radio frequency effects to create coherent motion, as an alternative to nozzles, but I didn't see that discussed in your cite. Did I miss something? On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/December2009/p1210-1222.pdf Molecule Matters van derWaalsMolecules See: page 1214 4.1 Supersonic Molecular Beams Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:07 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On the left is a reservoir at ambient temperature and pressure which is connected to a vacuum chamber on the right through a nozzle hole. The gases expand into the chamber through this hole and during this expansion all the random kinetic energy (translational, rotational and vibrational) gets converted Cite?
Re: [Vo]:The Magic of Xenon
I believe that this is how helium is liquefied.* * ** Cheers: Axil ** On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On *Fri, 8/17/12, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com* wrote: From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Magic of Xenon To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Friday, August 17, 2012, 10:26 AM http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/December2009/p1210-1222.pdf Molecule Matters van derWaalsMolecules See: page 1214 4.1 Supersonic Molecular Beams Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:07 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comhttp://mc/compose?to=jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.comhttp://mc/compose?to=janap...@gmail.com wrote: On the left is a reservoir at ambient temperature and pressure which is connected to a vacuum chamber on the right through a nozzle hole. The gases expand into the chamber through this hole and during this expansion all the random kinetic energy (translational, rotational and vibrational) gets converted Cite? What about the actual straight line movement of the molecules after exiting the pressurized state, would this not be considered a translational movement? Would it be more proper to state that the random translational movement is converted to a uniform one? Otherwise we might be left questioning that since it is converted what does it get converted to? Could the above principles be applied to refrigeration since it seems obvious that a temperature loss should take place. Does the conventional equation PV=nRT apply here? HDN
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
At 10:24 PM 8/16/2012, you wrote: From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Jed just informed me that it's okay to open this one: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SOA7Z4aIGnT_HrshnzNF6vTsgj4PULTBceDyUINIZG8/edit They quietly endorse Widom-Larsen : A Hamiltonian with ⥠782keV can cause a proton to capture an electron to yield an ultra cold neutron. p + ⥠782KeV + e- » n + νe Unreadable for me. Krivit is making a Big Deal out of this presentation, and McKubre's co-authorship. I rather doubt that McKubre has reversed his position on neutrons. It is not clear at all that co-authorship represents endorsement of all of a presentation's conclusions or speculations.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
Any upset to the thermodynamic or spatial equilibrium of a micro singularity(collapsed matter), once formed, will trigger an instant response Once a singularity is present within matter, they take in matter and energy in and return radiation out. The collapse of matter and/or radiation can trigger a secondary fission or fusion event. They are a nuclear furnace. You can kick them, drop them, wave them around, yell at them, cool them, heat them, radiate them and they return radiation as well as expand and contract. Gremlins. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Pardon if I missed this in the deluge of recent postings ICCF-17 Presentation - Surface Effect for Gas Loading Micrograin Palladium for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR - Heinrich Hora1, George H Miley, Mark Prelas, Kyu Jung Kim, Xiaoling Yang http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf (Slide 2) Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible It sounds like LENR appears in many guises. Does anyone have the accompanying paper? -- Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
Can a cold neutron capture reaction create a temperature inversion like an inhaling singularity can? On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 10:24 PM 8/16/2012, you wrote: From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Jed just informed me that it's okay to open this one: https://docs.google.com/**presentation/d/1SOA7Z4aIGnT_** HrshnzNF6vTsgj4PULTBceDyUINIZG**8/edithttps://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SOA7Z4aIGnT_HrshnzNF6vTsgj4PULTBceDyUINIZG8/edit They quietly endorse Widom-Larsen : A Hamiltonian with ≥ 782keV can cause a proton to capture an electron to yield an ultra cold neutron. p + ≥ 782KeV + e- » n + νe Unreadable for me. Krivit is making a Big Deal out of this presentation, and McKubre's co-authorship. I rather doubt that McKubre has reversed his position on neutrons. It is not clear at all that co-authorship represents endorsement of all of a presentation's conclusions or speculations.
Re: [Vo]:Re: ProdEngAssemble.avi
At 11:17 PM 8/16/2012, Axil Axil wrote: I am putting two and two together here. The Papp engine ash was a brown powder. Thanks for letting us know that this was your speculation, not a conclusion from strong evidence. J Ronner talks about a two helium atom fusion process. And what J Rohner (I presume that was a mispelling) says about the process has as much -- or does it have more -- reliability than an angry monkey typiing would have? Rohner has said a lot that quite simply is not true when investigated. It starts with simple things, such as the availability of videos. But it continues with many examples of stuff that was, ah, a tad exaggerated. If we can call claiming to have a running test engines is an exaggeration if you only have test engines that may not have run at all. He's admitted to that whopper (last year, to PESN). Or claiming to have 2 MIT PhDs, but, when challenged, apparently, says they are secret and his resume now claims his education is irrelevant. Fine. It might be irrelevant, but why then did he claim the PhDs? Why did he claim the running test engines? He says why. He had to say *something* or investors would bail. That's called fraud. Saying what you think an investor wants to hear, when it isn't the truth, to induce them to maintain or make investments. Someone will nail him on this, I suspect, eventually. (However, he might be adequately covered by various agreements. We have to remember that it isn't illegal to lie, under some conditions. I'm just saying that we can't rely on what the man says for anything. If he says it's 3 PM, look at the clock before agreeing.) Basically, J Rohner's company, Inteligentry, is offering a popper kit, which, if it's real, would actually be an engine, albeit a single-stroke one. $350 for the electronics package, including coils and spark plugs, and the kit includes plans for the piston assembly, and the fuel formula (taken from the patent). He claims this device is what they used to test fuel and the electronic protocol to fire the thing, and that is sensible and believable. However, unlike the competing Bob Rohner, John hasn't shown even a single firing of the Popper. Caveat emptor. I consider that we would need to be aware of the possibility that the John Rohner kit is actually a Bob Rohner killer, aimed at discrediting his brother when the kit fails. Crazy? Sure. *But these people are crazy. At least John is, that's obvious. That has nothing to do with whether or not his various claims are true. Some of them might be. Indeed, he might be responding to long-standing family dysfunction. Lots of crazy people are. I still don't see any significant evidence for nuclear. The level of energy released is sometimes cited as evidence for nuclear, but really all that, if established, would show is not chemical. Some brown powder isn't evidence for nuclear unless we actually know what the powder is. Cold fusion was not actually established as nuclear until helium was identified as the predominant ash. Then we could say it was nuclear, and we could even go further because of the specific value of the correlation between anomalous heat and helium production. It was fusion. Because I'm being watched (they are under every rock), I'll point out that fusion does not just refer to d-d fusion, and the correlation value (estimated at 25+/-5 MeV/He-4 by Storms, 2007 and 2010) would result from any reaction that converts deuterium to helium, no matter what intermediates are involved. That conversion is called fusion. Fusion is the term for a whole class of reactions, not just one. However, interesting speculation, perhaps: This type fusion does not produce energy in fusing to boron8 atoms. But all boron isotopes under B11 will decay by fission. There are two conceivable ways in which the excited state in boron-8 could decay by emitting one proton, making a brief pit stop at beryllium-7. However, one of these ways is energy forbidden and the other does not conserve isospin. While conserving isospin is not a hard and fast rule, if there is any other way for the nucleus to decay, it will jump at that alternative. In this case the alternative, one that is both energy and isospin allowed, is to decay by emitting two protons in one step to an excited state in lithium-6, which is itself an isobaric-analog of the ground state of helium-6. Recently, this decay mode was observed for the first time by emitting two protons at the same time between isobaric analog states. To make a long story short, the fusion of 2 He atoms will possibly end up with a number of sub atomic particles and one helium atom. Another energetic path (the triple proton chain) is as follows: 1. B8 - Be8 + positron + neutrino (followed by spontaneous decay...) 2. Be8 - 2He4(18.074 MeV) There is some unknowns involving boron 8 decay as follows: For example, nuclei of boron-8 in the sun decay by spitting out an
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
At 01:17 PM 8/17/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 10:24 PM 8/16/2012, you wrote: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SOA7Z4aIGnT_HrshnzNF6vTsgj4PULTBceDyUINIZG8/edit They quietly endorse Widom-Larsen : A Hamiltonian with ⥠782keV can cause a proton to capture an electron to yield an ultra cold neutron. p + ⥠782KeV + e- » n + νe Unreadable for me. Krivit is making a Big Deal out of this presentation, and McKubre's co-authorship. I rather doubt that McKubre has reversed his position on neutrons. It is not clear at all that co-authorship represents endorsement of all of a presentation's conclusions or speculations. They just state it as a fact (in a couple of places ... for p+e and d+e ) Haven't been to Krivit's yet. But Coulomb shielding and hydrinos are still in play : see [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg69419.html http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
Q.E.D. At 01:54 AM 8/17/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: So, you admit to having NOT read CE web site and a more thorough explanation of his theory. Yes. Generally, I admit the truth, regardless of how it might look. Basically, I trust the truth more than I trust myself. So, you do not really understand what his theory is; That does not follow. He's explained his theory on this list and elsewhere. I have a general understanding of it. It's not clear to me that even he has a *specific* understanding of it. He has indicated as much. It's an *idea*. He's now been gathering support for the idea, finding this or that. He'll learn something and maybe some others will. YET, you mouth off as if you're the expert. No, I say what I see and understand, and sometimes what I don't understand. As if you're the expert is a projection, made up by Jojo. I am, relative to some, *an* expert on cold fusion. What CE is proposing might or might not be cold fusion, and CE's theory seems to have been proposed in a bit of a vacuum, as far as experimental evidence is concerned. Others have pointed out problems, on a private list where subscribers are far more knowledgeable than the norm here. Your verbal diarrhea is full of irrelevancy and useless comments that make you feel you know it know. Shallow waters are indeed noisy. Don't dive into shallow waters, then, Jojo. You might damage your brain, not that this is much of a real risk for you. You know, you may learn a little insight and wisdom if you heed the following ancient (and modern) wisdom. Great stuff. Cast the beam out of your own eye, first, Jojo. You gain nothing by ranting as you do, except regret, later. He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. - Solomon Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance. -Albert Einstein There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer Jojo, here, imagines that I'm in contempt of CE. On the contrary, I consider him a friend, and wrote to -- and about -- him as such. Jojo doesn't understand this, yet he is *full* of contempt, it drips from his posts here. The term for this is hypocrite. It's the greatest danger we face, it's how we can harm ourselves where nobody else could harm us. You claim to be a man of science and yet you act like the quintessential bigot. The audacity you carry and use to condemn a new idea is mind-boggling. Remember, CE isn't complaining, Jojo is. CE wants reaction to his idea, advice, consideration, and he's gotten it. Are we supposed to be impressed that you studied Physics under Feynman? Well, that's up to you. I was on a train with a young man, and started talking with him and when he found out that I'd been with Feynman, he practically started levitating, he was so excited. Technically, I did study physics with Feynman, though only as part of a class consisting of every freshman at Cal Tech, Fall, 1961, plus the next year when we were sophomores. Feynman also visited Page House, where I lived those two years, and I heard his famous stories from him. It might be more accurate that I studied *Feynman*, and his approach to life, rather than physics. Yes, I am impressed with Feynman, but am I supposed to be impressed by you? Tell us, do you even have a Physics degree; undergraduate or otherwise? No. None. Not in any field. I thought I'd made that clear. I never went back to college after leaving Cal Tech the first term of my third year there. You could say that I was bored, that's as valid as any other explanation. What you see is what you get. Look, when I've studied a field, I can talk with experts, ask them meaningful questions, and, once in a while, bring up something they haven't thought of. That's why *experts* generally accept me. And that's why *non-experts* sometimes don't. This has to do with many fields, not just cold fusion. That's why I can ask questions of the best-known scientists in the field and they answer them. They may not always agree with me, but they trust me. It was gratifying, after leaving formal science almost fifty years ago, to have my name appear in Naturwissenschaften, as a credit in the Storms review (2010), just before the references. It's been gratifying to be invited to conferences, and, just out, I'm likely to be at ICCF 18. Presentation to be determined, I have some ideas, or I might just be there as a reporter. People like Jojo have always had a hard time with me. I need to look at that. My goal, generally, is to communicate, and I'm obviously failing to communicate with Jojo. Maybe that's because I'm not always writing for him, I'm sometimes writing for everyone else here. Of course he's not going to like that. However, I have written
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation - Krivit link
At 01:17 PM 8/17/2012, you wrote: They quietly endorse Widom-Larsen : Unreadable for me. Krivit is making a Big Deal out of this presentation, and McKubre's co-authorship. I rather doubt that McKubre has reversed his position on neutrons. It is not clear at all that co-authorship represents endorsement of all of a presentation's conclusions or speculations. ICCF-17 Update and News http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/08/17/iccf-17-update-and-news/
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin ICCF17 Presentation
At 01:17 PM 8/17/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Unreadable for me. Full paper : http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-Capture-Paper.pdf Appendix A just lists a bunch of reactions ... with NO direct reference to WL (may be in the other Godes papers).
Re: [Vo]:Re: ProdEngAssemble.avi
If you just sell plans for poppers, electronic circuit boards and licenses for the technology, then all of the liability rests with the OEM's they drag in. They probably give them a short demo in the shop before the thing malfunctions. I notice everytime I see a demo it is behind explosion proof glass. Oddity and UNCERTAINTY Stewart On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 11:17 PM 8/16/2012, Axil Axil wrote: I am putting two and two together here. The Papp engine ash was a brown powder. Thanks for letting us know that this was your speculation, not a conclusion from strong evidence. J Ronner talks about a two helium atom fusion process. And what J Rohner (I presume that was a mispelling) says about the process has as much -- or does it have more -- reliability than an angry monkey typiing would have? Rohner has said a lot that quite simply is not true when investigated. It starts with simple things, such as the availability of videos. But it continues with many examples of stuff that was, ah, a tad exaggerated. If we can call claiming to have a running test engines is an exaggeration if you only have test engines that may not have run at all. He's admitted to that whopper (last year, to PESN). Or claiming to have 2 MIT PhDs, but, when challenged, apparently, says they are secret and his resume now claims his education is irrelevant. Fine. It might be irrelevant, but why then did he claim the PhDs? Why did he claim the running test engines? He says why. He had to say *something* or investors would bail. That's called fraud. Saying what you think an investor wants to hear, when it isn't the truth, to induce them to maintain or make investments. Someone will nail him on this, I suspect, eventually. (However, he might be adequately covered by various agreements. We have to remember that it isn't illegal to lie, under some conditions. I'm just saying that we can't rely on what the man says for anything. If he says it's 3 PM, look at the clock before agreeing.) Basically, J Rohner's company, Inteligentry, is offering a popper kit, which, if it's real, would actually be an engine, albeit a single-stroke one. $350 for the electronics package, including coils and spark plugs, and the kit includes plans for the piston assembly, and the fuel formula (taken from the patent). He claims this device is what they used to test fuel and the electronic protocol to fire the thing, and that is sensible and believable. However, unlike the competing Bob Rohner, John hasn't shown even a single firing of the Popper. Caveat emptor. I consider that we would need to be aware of the possibility that the John Rohner kit is actually a Bob Rohner killer, aimed at discrediting his brother when the kit fails. Crazy? Sure. *But these people are crazy. At least John is, that's obvious. That has nothing to do with whether or not his various claims are true. Some of them might be. Indeed, he might be responding to long-standing family dysfunction. Lots of crazy people are. I still don't see any significant evidence for nuclear. The level of energy released is sometimes cited as evidence for nuclear, but really all that, if established, would show is not chemical. Some brown powder isn't evidence for nuclear unless we actually know what the powder is. Cold fusion was not actually established as nuclear until helium was identified as the predominant ash. Then we could say it was nuclear, and we could even go further because of the specific value of the correlation between anomalous heat and helium production. It was fusion. Because I'm being watched (they are under every rock), I'll point out that fusion does not just refer to d-d fusion, and the correlation value (estimated at 25+/-5 MeV/He-4 by Storms, 2007 and 2010) would result from any reaction that converts deuterium to helium, no matter what intermediates are involved. That conversion is called fusion. Fusion is the term for a whole class of reactions, not just one. However, interesting speculation, perhaps: This type fusion does not produce energy in fusing to boron8 atoms. But all boron isotopes under B11 will decay by fission. There are two conceivable ways in which the excited state in boron-8 could decay by emitting one proton, making a brief pit stop at beryllium-7. However, one of these ways is energy forbidden and the other does not conserve isospin. While conserving isospin is not a hard and fast rule, if there is any other way for the nucleus to decay, it will jump at that alternative. In this case the alternative, one that is both energy and isospin allowed, is to decay by emitting two protons in one step to an excited state in lithium-6, which is itself an isobaric-analog of the ground state of helium-6. Recently, this decay mode was observed for the first time by emitting two protons at the same time between isobaric analog states. To
Re: [Vo]:Re: ProdEngAssemble.avi
In a post today integral sited a death of a LENR developer in an explosion. The take away, LENR is dangerous when the power is high. It is best to be as safe as you can. Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:11 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: If you just sell plans for poppers, electronic circuit boards and licenses for the technology, then all of the liability rests with the OEM's they drag in. They probably give them a short demo in the shop before the thing malfunctions. I notice everytime I see a demo it is behind explosion proof glass. Oddity and UNCERTAINTY Stewart On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 11:17 PM 8/16/2012, Axil Axil wrote: I am putting two and two together here. The Papp engine ash was a brown powder. Thanks for letting us know that this was your speculation, not a conclusion from strong evidence. J Ronner talks about a two helium atom fusion process. And what J Rohner (I presume that was a mispelling) says about the process has as much -- or does it have more -- reliability than an angry monkey typiing would have? Rohner has said a lot that quite simply is not true when investigated. It starts with simple things, such as the availability of videos. But it continues with many examples of stuff that was, ah, a tad exaggerated. If we can call claiming to have a running test engines is an exaggeration if you only have test engines that may not have run at all. He's admitted to that whopper (last year, to PESN). Or claiming to have 2 MIT PhDs, but, when challenged, apparently, says they are secret and his resume now claims his education is irrelevant. Fine. It might be irrelevant, but why then did he claim the PhDs? Why did he claim the running test engines? He says why. He had to say *something* or investors would bail. That's called fraud. Saying what you think an investor wants to hear, when it isn't the truth, to induce them to maintain or make investments. Someone will nail him on this, I suspect, eventually. (However, he might be adequately covered by various agreements. We have to remember that it isn't illegal to lie, under some conditions. I'm just saying that we can't rely on what the man says for anything. If he says it's 3 PM, look at the clock before agreeing.) Basically, J Rohner's company, Inteligentry, is offering a popper kit, which, if it's real, would actually be an engine, albeit a single-stroke one. $350 for the electronics package, including coils and spark plugs, and the kit includes plans for the piston assembly, and the fuel formula (taken from the patent). He claims this device is what they used to test fuel and the electronic protocol to fire the thing, and that is sensible and believable. However, unlike the competing Bob Rohner, John hasn't shown even a single firing of the Popper. Caveat emptor. I consider that we would need to be aware of the possibility that the John Rohner kit is actually a Bob Rohner killer, aimed at discrediting his brother when the kit fails. Crazy? Sure. *But these people are crazy. At least John is, that's obvious. That has nothing to do with whether or not his various claims are true. Some of them might be. Indeed, he might be responding to long-standing family dysfunction. Lots of crazy people are. I still don't see any significant evidence for nuclear. The level of energy released is sometimes cited as evidence for nuclear, but really all that, if established, would show is not chemical. Some brown powder isn't evidence for nuclear unless we actually know what the powder is. Cold fusion was not actually established as nuclear until helium was identified as the predominant ash. Then we could say it was nuclear, and we could even go further because of the specific value of the correlation between anomalous heat and helium production. It was fusion. Because I'm being watched (they are under every rock), I'll point out that fusion does not just refer to d-d fusion, and the correlation value (estimated at 25+/-5 MeV/He-4 by Storms, 2007 and 2010) would result from any reaction that converts deuterium to helium, no matter what intermediates are involved. That conversion is called fusion. Fusion is the term for a whole class of reactions, not just one. However, interesting speculation, perhaps: This type fusion does not produce energy in fusing to boron8 atoms. But all boron isotopes under B11 will decay by fission. There are two conceivable ways in which the excited state in boron-8 could decay by emitting one proton, making a brief pit stop at beryllium-7. However, one of these ways is energy forbidden and the other does not conserve isospin. While conserving isospin is not a hard and fast rule, if there is any other way for the nucleus to decay, it will jump at that alternative. In this case the alternative, one that is both energy and isospin allowed, is to decay by emitting two
Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus
LOL... This made my day. The self proclaimed LENR/Cold Fusion expert does not even have a degree in the sciences, let alone in physics, where he proclaims himself to be an expert. Why do you consider yourself to be an expert without a degree? So taking one freshman class under Feynman makes you an expert in your eyes. Funny how that is true in your eyes. Oh, that's right, shallow waters are too noisy to hear the truth. And don't you dare lie to our colleages here that you are trying to communicate with me, or give me advice. That's a blatant lie. What does allah say about lying? Oh, that's right, he does not condemn lying. You are not interested in communicating with me; your intent is to take swipes at me and throw insults even after I have unsubsribed and let you have the last word. You took not one, not two swipes at me after I had unsubscribed to get away from your neurosis. You continued the insults after I was gone. When others who had a conflict with me took their last word, as I said I would allow, the conflict ended and that's water under the bridge. Yet, It seems that a continued conflict is what you want, therefore, a continued conflict is what you will get. I would sooner unsubscribe from this list again but it seems like I may have to postpone those plans to address many of your disinformation directed towards me. I have always said I will not initiate any attacks but I will finish one. I am sick of bullies like you, and frankly, I don't have to put up with it, so I am responding. And remember, an insult from you directed at me is what prompted my re-subscribing to this forum. And I will stay in this list until such time as you stop your lies and insults. Bill is free to ban me but I will come back everytime to answer each and every one of your insults. So, forget about any communication, it's too late for that. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 4:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Theory Panel Dissensus Q.E.D. At 01:54 AM 8/17/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: So, you admit to having NOT read CE web site and a more thorough explanation of his theory. Yes. Generally, I admit the truth, regardless of how it might look. Basically, I trust the truth more than I trust myself. So, you do not really understand what his theory is; That does not follow. He's explained his theory on this list and elsewhere. I have a general understanding of it. It's not clear to me that even he has a *specific* understanding of it. He has indicated as much. It's an *idea*. He's now been gathering support for the idea, finding this or that. He'll learn something and maybe some others will. YET, you mouth off as if you're the expert. No, I say what I see and understand, and sometimes what I don't understand. As if you're the expert is a projection, made up by Jojo. I am, relative to some, *an* expert on cold fusion. What CE is proposing might or might not be cold fusion, and CE's theory seems to have been proposed in a bit of a vacuum, as far as experimental evidence is concerned. Others have pointed out problems, on a private list where subscribers are far more knowledgeable than the norm here. Your verbal diarrhea is full of irrelevancy and useless comments that make you feel you know it know. Shallow waters are indeed noisy. Don't dive into shallow waters, then, Jojo. You might damage your brain, not that this is much of a real risk for you. You know, you may learn a little insight and wisdom if you heed the following ancient (and modern) wisdom. Great stuff. Cast the beam out of your own eye, first, Jojo. You gain nothing by ranting as you do, except regret, later. He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. - Solomon Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance. -Albert Einstein There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer Jojo, here, imagines that I'm in contempt of CE. On the contrary, I consider him a friend, and wrote to -- and about -- him as such. Jojo doesn't understand this, yet he is *full* of contempt, it drips from his posts here. The term for this is hypocrite. It's the greatest danger we face, it's how we can harm ourselves where nobody else could harm us. You claim to be a man of science and yet you act like the quintessential bigot. The audacity you carry and use to condemn a new idea is mind-boggling. Remember, CE isn't complaining, Jojo is. CE wants reaction to his idea, advice, consideration, and he's gotten it. Are we supposed to be impressed that you studied Physics under Feynman? Well, that's up to you. I was on a train
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
Yes, singularities may belch out radiation like x-rays and gammas, but will it pruduce neutrons? I don't believe so. Can your theory explain this flux of neutrons? Neutrons has got to be coming from some sort of fusion going on. Being not an expert, someone correct me if I'm wrong on this. Jojo - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 3:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible Any upset to the thermodynamic or spatial equilibrium of a micro singularity(collapsed matter), once formed, will trigger an instant response Once a singularity is present within matter, they take in matter and energy in and return radiation out. The collapse of matter and/or radiation can trigger a secondary fission or fusion event. They are a nuclear furnace. You can kick them, drop them, wave them around, yell at them, cool them, heat them, radiate them and they return radiation as well as expand and contract. Gremlins. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Pardon if I missed this in the deluge of recent postings ICCF-17 Presentation - Surface Effect for Gas Loading Micrograin Palladium for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR - Heinrich Hora1, George H Miley, Mark Prelas, Kyu Jung Kim, Xiaoling Yang http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf (Slide 2) Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible It sounds like LENR appears in many guises. Does anyone have the accompanying paper? -- Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:A123 Systems rescued by China's Wanxiang
wasn't A123 the builder of efficient LiFePO4 accumulators, good candidate for rough accumulators, less dangerous (don't explode, or burn), near as efficient, especially on duration... I don't understand why LiFePO4 does not get success. it is easy technology, easier to use than LiPoly or LiIon+Co 2012/8/17 MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net I heard about the Chinese bailout of A123 from a business man I know… ** ** On another note, I stopped by his office late morning to chat, and I brought my watts-up energy meter to verify a new type of light that he showed me last time I visited him. It is some kind of semiconductor-based ‘chip’, ~1 inch square, puts out a blinding 500W-equivalent of light, yet on the watt meter, it started out at 40W, and settled to about 35.8W after an hour – only gets a bit warm, and if you put your hand in front of the light-square, ~6 inches away, you feel pretty much nothing. Briefly chatted with inventor by phone a few weeks ago and he claims it is not LED… OK, I’m intrigued! Then when he claims that he can change the wavelength by simply adjusting a ‘chip’ inside, I had some additional questions…. Like, you mean, after the thing is assembled, you can adjust the wavelength? Anyone hear of something like that? Yeah, there are all different colors of LEDs, but the wavelength is set, immutable when they ‘come out of the oven’… I can’t take a green LED and by tweaking the driving circuit, change its color… or am I missing something here? ** ** -Mark ** **
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't this *not* predicted by the W-L theory? Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
Neutrons are hard to shield and when absorbed can produce radioactive materials. Could this be a potentially killer blow to otherwise safe LENR? Fission reactors typically create up to 10^13 neutrons per cm² per second, and this experiment was only making about 20 per s, over (I assume) the full 4Pi sphere but was also probably only a few watts of power. If this is a standard feature of LENR and is scaled up to 10's or 100's of kW for transport applications maybe we are looking at more like 10^10 per s will it be ultimately be dangerous? The oil industry will be looking for exactly this sort of flaw to keep themselves in business. Why haven't other researchers seen Neutrons, were they not looking or are they at too low an energy or flux to be easily detected? On 17 August 2012 22:10, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't this *not* predicted by the W-L theory? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
Jojo, My singularity will rip matter apart in the near vacinity. Any neutrons that escape it will be very low momentum, since the singularities quantum gravity pull sucked all of the energy out of them. It also devours them. I am thinking about a new newsgroup for Evaporative Matter Nuclear Science. On Friday, August 17, 2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't this *not* predicted by the W-L theory? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
Feed yor gremlin a steady diet of hydrogen without any powder and you will
not get neutrons. This thing is ripping atoms apart
On Friday, August 17, 2012, Robert Lynn wrote:
Neutrons are hard to shield and when absorbed can produce radioactive
materials. Could this be a potentially killer blow to otherwise safe LENR?
Fission reactors typically create up to 10^13 neutrons per cm² per second,
and this experiment was only making about 20 per s, over (I assume) the
full 4Pi sphere but was also probably only a few watts of power. If this
is a standard feature of LENR and is scaled up to 10's or 100's of kW for
transport applications maybe we are looking at more like 10^10 per s will
it be ultimately be dangerous? The oil industry will be looking for
exactly this sort of flaw to keep themselves in business.
Why haven't other researchers seen Neutrons, were they not looking or are
they at too low an energy or flux to be easily detected?
On 17 August 2012 22:10, Akira Shirakawa
shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com');
wrote:
On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'pagnu...@htdconnect.com'); wrote:
Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using
shock
procedure
- Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't
this *not* predicted by the W-L theory?
Cheers,
S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
I am pleased to draw your attention to this opinion from the experimenter. The presentation states: Based on solid experiment of neutron emission and LENR-element generation: hypothetical models: Reactions in 2 pm distance due to *Coulomb screening* by factor 13 (5 for hot plasmas). Coulomb screening is confirmed; no gremlins here. *It is Coulomb screening that is ripping atoms apart.* ** *Cheers: Axil* On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:44 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Jojo, My singularity will rip matter apart in the near vacinity. Any neutrons that escape it will be very low momentum, since the singularities quantum gravity pull sucked all of the energy out of them. It also devours them. I am thinking about a new newsgroup for Evaporative Matter Nuclear Science. On Friday, August 17, 2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't this *not* predicted by the W-L theory? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
It gets even better. Many of my most favored words are in the description.asfollows: *Clusters* of 156 deuterons (10pm diameter) in *non-localized Bose-Einstein* * *state react with Pd nucleus (or as *inverted Rydberg state*) for element production via *compound nucleus *element with A = 306 (or 310) having two *magic numbers*. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I am pleased to draw your attention to this opinion from the experimenter. The presentation states: Based on solid experiment of neutron emission and LENR-element generation: hypothetical models: Reactions in 2 pm distance due to *Coulomb screening* by factor 13 (5 for hot plasmas). Coulomb screening is confirmed; no gremlins here. *It is Coulomb screening that is ripping atoms apart.* ** *Cheers: Axil* On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:44 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Jojo, My singularity will rip matter apart in the near vacinity. Any neutrons that escape it will be very low momentum, since the singularities quantum gravity pull sucked all of the energy out of them. It also devours them. I am thinking about a new newsgroup for Evaporative Matter Nuclear Science. On Friday, August 17, 2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't this *not* predicted by the W-L theory? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
Somebody correct me, but wouldn't Very Low Momemtum Neutrons be undetectable? I guess we need to see this paper to ascertain what energy neutrons they detected. Jojo - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 5:44 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible Jojo, My singularity will rip matter apart in the near vacinity. Any neutrons that escape it will be very low momentum, since the singularities quantum gravity pull sucked all of the energy out of them. It also devours them. I am thinking about a new newsgroup for Evaporative Matter Nuclear Science. On Friday, August 17, 2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't this *not* predicted by the W-L theory? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
Axil, where's the paper? Did you forget to link it? I'd be interested in looking at this more closely. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 6:27 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible I am pleased to draw your attention to this opinion from the experimenter. The presentation states: Based on solid experiment of neutron emission and LENR-element generation: hypothetical models: Reactions in 2 pm distance due to Coulomb screening by factor 13 (5 for hot plasmas). Coulomb screening is confirmed; no gremlins here. It is Coulomb screening that is ripping atoms apart. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:44 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Jojo, My singularity will rip matter apart in the near vacinity. Any neutrons that escape it will be very low momentum, since the singularities quantum gravity pull sucked all of the energy out of them. It also devours them. I am thinking about a new newsgroup for Evaporative Matter Nuclear Science. On Friday, August 17, 2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't this *not* predicted by the W-L theory? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
Hello Akira, It's important that the results are reported to be reproducible. If they are correct, they are very complex multibody reactions, e.g., slide #12 - Clusters of 156 deuterons (10pm diameter) in non-localized Bose-Einstein state react with Pd nucleus (or as inverted Rydberg state) for element production via compound nucleus element with A = 306 (or 310) having two magic numbers. Slides 7-8 show that a great variety of heavy nuclei are synthesized. Hard to classify the reaction(s). It would be interesting to know what the neutron energies were. W-L surmise that electroweak reactions in lightning (and other arcing phenomena) can produce neutrons also. Since Ruby Carat at Coldfusionnow.org reads Vortex, maybe she could interview Miley, or a coauthor, and ask Ed Storms for an analysis. Prelas, Miley, et al, have seen similar results before. A Review of Transmutation and Clustering in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/Prelas.ppt I hope this actually is reproducible - that would dispel any doubts on LENR. -- Lou Pagnucco Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't this *not* predicted by the W-L theory? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
6.2*10^7 neutrons per 5 min means 200 thousand neutrons per second. If each one carries 1MeV, that means 3*10^-10^-8J. There's about 3*10^7s every year, which means about 1Joule of radiation emitted per year. According to wikipedia: The International Commission on Radiological Protectionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Radiological_Protection (ICRP) recommends limiting artificial irradiation of the public to an average of 1 mSv (0.001 Sv) of effective dose per year, not including medical and occupational exposures.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millisievert#cite_note-ICRP103-0 Where 1 Sv = 1 J http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule/kghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram =1Gy If those 62 million mean the total estimated from the source, given an isotropic distribution, it means 1000x above maximum background levels. According to this entries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation-induced_cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning It is hard to figure out the effects, at least for me, of such exposure for a long time. But, they are surely deadly. 2012/8/17 pagnu...@htdconnect.com Pardon if I missed this in the deluge of recent postings ICCF-17 Presentation - Surface Effect for Gas Loading Micrograin Palladium for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR - Heinrich Hora1, George H Miley, Mark Prelas, Kyu Jung Kim, Xiaoling Yang http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf (Slide 2) Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible It sounds like LENR appears in many guises. Does anyone have the accompanying paper? -- Lou Pagnucco -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
Hi JoJo It is found at the top of this thread, but here it is for you. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Axil, where's the paper? Did you forget to link it? I'd be interested in looking at this more closely. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, August 18, 2012 6:27 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible I am pleased to draw your attention to this opinion from the experimenter. The presentation states: Based on solid experiment of neutron emission and LENR-element generation: hypothetical models: Reactions in 2 pm distance due to *Coulomb screening* by factor 13 (5 for hot plasmas). Coulomb screening is confirmed; no gremlins here. *It is Coulomb screening that is ripping atoms apart.* ** *Cheers: Axil* On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:44 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Jojo, My singularity will rip matter apart in the near vacinity. Any neutrons that escape it will be very low momentum, since the singularities quantum gravity pull sucked all of the energy out of them. It also devours them. I am thinking about a new newsgroup for Evaporative Matter Nuclear Science. On Friday, August 17, 2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't this *not* predicted by the W-L theory? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
Well, Daniel If those neutrons are real, they would still be welcome news. Hopefully, the reaction could be modulated to reduce emissions, or their energies. -- LP Daniel Rocha wrote; 6.2*10^7 neutrons per 5 min means 200 thousand neutrons per second. If each one carries 1MeV, that means 3*10^-10^-8J. There's about 3*10^7s every year, which means about 1Joule of radiation emitted per year. According to wikipedia: The International Commission on Radiological Protectionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Radiological_Protection (ICRP) recommends limiting artificial irradiation of the public to an average of 1 mSv (0.001 Sv) of effective dose per year, not including medical and occupational exposures.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millisievert#cite_note-ICRP103-0 Where 1 Sv = 1 J http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule/kghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram =1Gy If those 62 million mean the total estimated from the source, given an isotropic distribution, it means 1000x above maximum background levels. According to this entries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation-induced_cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning It is hard to figure out the effects, at least for me, of such exposure for a long time. But, they are surely deadly. 2012/8/17 pagnu...@htdconnect.com Pardon if I missed this in the deluge of recent postings ICCF-17 Presentation - Surface Effect for Gas Loading Micrograin Palladium for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR - Heinrich Hora1, George H Miley, Mark Prelas, Kyu Jung Kim, Xiaoling Yang http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf (Slide 2) Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible It sounds like LENR appears in many guises. Does anyone have the accompanying paper? -- Lou Pagnucco -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
It is interesting that they claim element generation up to lead. That also happened in defkalion's data. Check that out. 2012/8/17 pagnu...@htdconnect.com Well, Daniel If those neutrons are real, they would still be welcome news. Hopefully, the reaction could be modulated to reduce emissions, or their energies. -- LP Daniel Rocha wrote; 6.2*10^7 neutrons per 5 min means 200 thousand neutrons per second. If each one carries 1MeV, that means 3*10^-10^-8J. There's about 3*10^7s every year, which means about 1Joule of radiation emitted per year. According to wikipedia: The International Commission on Radiological Protection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Radiological_Protection (ICRP) recommends limiting artificial irradiation of the public to an average of 1 mSv (0.001 Sv) of effective dose per year, not including medical and occupational exposures.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millisievert#cite_note-ICRP103-0 Where 1 Sv = 1 J http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule/kg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram =1Gy If those 62 million mean the total estimated from the source, given an isotropic distribution, it means 1000x above maximum background levels. According to this entries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation-induced_cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning It is hard to figure out the effects, at least for me, of such exposure for a long time. But, they are surely deadly. 2012/8/17 pagnu...@htdconnect.com Pardon if I missed this in the deluge of recent postings ICCF-17 Presentation - Surface Effect for Gas Loading Micrograin Palladium for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR - Heinrich Hora1, George H Miley, Mark Prelas, Kyu Jung Kim, Xiaoling Yang http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf (Slide 2) Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible It sounds like LENR appears in many guises. Does anyone have the accompanying paper? -- Lou Pagnucco -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
The hot fusion people and the nuclear physicist crowd will not believe that LENR is real unless they see lots of neutrons; this is a good political type experiment. Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:06 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Well, Daniel If those neutrons are real, they would still be welcome news. Hopefully, the reaction could be modulated to reduce emissions, or their energies. -- LP Daniel Rocha wrote; 6.2*10^7 neutrons per 5 min means 200 thousand neutrons per second. If each one carries 1MeV, that means 3*10^-10^-8J. There's about 3*10^7s every year, which means about 1Joule of radiation emitted per year. According to wikipedia: The International Commission on Radiological Protection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Radiological_Protection (ICRP) recommends limiting artificial irradiation of the public to an average of 1 mSv (0.001 Sv) of effective dose per year, not including medical and occupational exposures.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millisievert#cite_note-ICRP103-0 Where 1 Sv = 1 J http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule/kg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram =1Gy If those 62 million mean the total estimated from the source, given an isotropic distribution, it means 1000x above maximum background levels. According to this entries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation-induced_cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning It is hard to figure out the effects, at least for me, of such exposure for a long time. But, they are surely deadly. 2012/8/17 pagnu...@htdconnect.com Pardon if I missed this in the deluge of recent postings ICCF-17 Presentation - Surface Effect for Gas Loading Micrograin Palladium for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR - Heinrich Hora1, George H Miley, Mark Prelas, Kyu Jung Kim, Xiaoling Yang http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf (Slide 2) Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible It sounds like LENR appears in many guises. Does anyone have the accompanying paper? -- Lou Pagnucco -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
But that is sort of bad news too. People won't be able to have these devices at home. It seems that there are bursts of high activity 1000x above the high limit level is way too dangerous. 2012/8/17 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com The hot fusion people and the nuclear physicist crowd will not believe that LENR is real unless they see lots of neutrons; this is a good political type experiment. Axil -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
On 2012-08-18 01:11, Axil Axil wrote: The hot fusion people and the nuclear physicist crowd will not believe that LENR is real unless they see lots of neutrons; this is a good political type experiment. I have to bring some potentially bad news. I've just been told that this Ti-D neutron claim is for a hot fusion reaction based on fractofusion that was discovered and replicated years ago. See the following bibliography (I'm copying and pasting from a private email, I haven't found these for myself): 1. Menlove, H.O., et al. Reproducible neutron emission measurements from Ti metal in pressurized D2 gas. in Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, AIP Conference Proceedings 228. 1990. Brigham Young Univ., Provo, UT: American Institute of Physics, New York. p. 287. 2. Menlove, H.O. High-sensitivity measurements of neutron emission from Ti metal in pressurized D2 gas. in The First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion. 1990. University of Utah Research Park, Salt Lake City, Utah: National Cold Fusion Institute. p. 250. 3. Menlove, H.O. and M.C. Miller, Neutron-burst detectors for cold-fusion experiments. Nucl. Instr. Methods Phys. Res. A, 1990. 299: p. 10. 4. Menlove, H.O., et al., Measurement of neutron emission from Ti and Pd in pressurized D2 gas and D2O electrolysis cells. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(4): p. 495. 5. Menlove, H.O., et al., The measurement of neutron emission from Ti plus D2 gas. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9: p. 215. 6. Mengoli, G., et al. Tritium and neutron emission in conventional and contact glow discharge electrolysis of D2O at Pd and Ti cathodes. in Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, The Science of Cold Fusion. 1991. Como, Italy: Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy. p. 65. 7. Seeliger, D., et al. Evidence of neutron emission from a titanium deuterium system. in Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, The Science of Cold Fusion. 1991. Como, Italy: Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy. p. 175. Is this really related to LENR? Why and how was it presented during ICCF-17? Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:Additional paper have been posted on Krivet's site
Within the last few hours. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17.shtml Jeff
Re: [Vo]:Additional paper have been posted on Krivet's site
Krivit, sorry. Sheesh. On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Within the last few hours. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17.shtml Jeff
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
Not really bad news. Ed Storms came up with a theory that fusion happen in cracks of the lattice. Summing that, with what I see in the slides, they are thinking that a BEC of D is forced to be fused by the fractures. So, LENR is a kind of variation of fractofusion. 2012/8/17 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com On 2012-08-18 01:11, Axil Axil wrote: The hot fusion people and the nuclear physicist crowd will not believe that LENR is real unless they see lots of neutrons; this is a good political type experiment. I have to bring some potentially bad news. I've just been told that this Ti-D neutron claim is for a hot fusion reaction based on fractofusion that was discovered and replicated years ago. See the following bibliography (I'm copying and pasting from a private email, I haven't found these for myself): 1. Menlove, H.O., et al. Reproducible neutron emission measurements from Ti metal in pressurized D2 gas. in Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, AIP Conference Proceedings 228. 1990. Brigham Young Univ., Provo, UT: American Institute of Physics, New York. p. 287. 2. Menlove, H.O. High-sensitivity measurements of neutron emission from Ti metal in pressurized D2 gas. in The First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion. 1990. University of Utah Research Park, Salt Lake City, Utah: National Cold Fusion Institute. p. 250. 3. Menlove, H.O. and M.C. Miller, Neutron-burst detectors for cold-fusion experiments. Nucl. Instr. Methods Phys. Res. A, 1990. 299: p. 10. 4. Menlove, H.O., et al., Measurement of neutron emission from Ti and Pd in pressurized D2 gas and D2O electrolysis cells. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(4): p. 495. 5. Menlove, H.O., et al., The measurement of neutron emission from Ti plus D2 gas. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9: p. 215. 6. Mengoli, G., et al. Tritium and neutron emission in conventional and contact glow discharge electrolysis of D2O at Pd and Ti cathodes. in Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, The Science of Cold Fusion. 1991. Como, Italy: Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy. p. 65. 7. Seeliger, D., et al. Evidence of neutron emission from a titanium deuterium system. in Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, The Science of Cold Fusion. 1991. Como, Italy: Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy. p. 175. Is this really related to LENR? Why and how was it presented during ICCF-17? Cheers, S.A. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
The production of neutrons may well be avoidable if the reaction is properly designed. As a model, Rossi has been purifying his reaction for more than a year. My guess is that the use of Deuterium is conducive to neutron production. If the deuterium ion enters into the nucleus of the substrate lattice atom, the resultant combined nucleus will expel any excess neutrons if many excess neutrons are introduced into the nucleus. However, if a very low neutron carrying isotope is used as a substrate in the supporting lattice, then the added neutron from deuterium would be accepted in the final nuclear product because no excess neutrons would have been assembled. It is easier all the way around to use hydrogen and stay strictly with proton fusion. Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2012-08-18 01:11, Axil Axil wrote: The hot fusion people and the nuclear physicist crowd will not believe that LENR is real unless they see lots of neutrons; this is a good political type experiment. I have to bring some potentially bad news. I've just been told that this Ti-D neutron claim is for a hot fusion reaction based on fractofusion that was discovered and replicated years ago. See the following bibliography (I'm copying and pasting from a private email, I haven't found these for myself): 1. Menlove, H.O., et al. Reproducible neutron emission measurements from Ti metal in pressurized D2 gas. in Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems, AIP Conference Proceedings 228. 1990. Brigham Young Univ., Provo, UT: American Institute of Physics, New York. p. 287. 2. Menlove, H.O. High-sensitivity measurements of neutron emission from Ti metal in pressurized D2 gas. in The First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion. 1990. University of Utah Research Park, Salt Lake City, Utah: National Cold Fusion Institute. p. 250. 3. Menlove, H.O. and M.C. Miller, Neutron-burst detectors for cold-fusion experiments. Nucl. Instr. Methods Phys. Res. A, 1990. 299: p. 10. 4. Menlove, H.O., et al., Measurement of neutron emission from Ti and Pd in pressurized D2 gas and D2O electrolysis cells. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9(4): p. 495. 5. Menlove, H.O., et al., The measurement of neutron emission from Ti plus D2 gas. J. Fusion Energy, 1990. 9: p. 215. 6. Mengoli, G., et al. Tritium and neutron emission in conventional and contact glow discharge electrolysis of D2O at Pd and Ti cathodes. in Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, The Science of Cold Fusion. 1991. Como, Italy: Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy. p. 65. 7. Seeliger, D., et al. Evidence of neutron emission from a titanium deuterium system. in Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, The Science of Cold Fusion. 1991. Como, Italy: Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy. p. 175. Is this really related to LENR? Why and how was it presented during ICCF-17? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
On 8/17/12 4:32 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Not really bad news. Ed Storms came up with a theory that fusion happen in cracks of the lattice. Summing that, with what I see in the slides, they are thinking that a BEC of D is forced to be fused by the fractures. So, LENR is a kind of variation of fractofusion. D, I happen to be right now editing a video interview with Ed Storms conducted after his NPA talk - 47 minutes long! I'm quite sure that he distinguishes fracto-fusion from LENR. They are not at all related in his mind. He believes, by definition, any process that emits this type of radiation is not LENR. If a process releases this type of radiation, then it is by definition, related to hot fusion. In *An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion)*published in JCMNS #9 and which you can find here http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Storms-JCMNS-published.pdf, he writes: 2.2. Additional requirements for evaluating an explanation Behavior initiated by hot fusion needs to be identified and not used to explain LENR. Because both hot fusion and LENR can occur in the same materials and sometimes at the same time, the results of these two independent reactions need to be separated. Crack formation is known to initiate nuclear reactions in material containing deuterium. This process, called fractofusion [42--45], creates brief high voltage in the crack that can cause fusion by the hot fusion process with the expected energetic nuclear products. Because neutrons result, they are frequently detected as brief pulses, which must be carefully evaluated before they are attributed to LENR. Another example of potential hot fusion is obtained when solid materials are bombarded by energetic deuterons [46--48]. The resulting hot fusion-like reaction is sensitive to the electron concentration in the material when applied energy is low. This is not an example of LENR because the reaction products are very energetic and are the ones expected to result from conventional hot fusion, not LENR.A clear separation between how LENR and hot fusion are caused to happen must be maintained because entirely different mechanisms are apparently operating. Holy moly, what's happening to me? Ruby -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
You are believing in all he says. He may only be partially right since LENR could well have several different stages. So, he could be right up to a point, but not right about everything. 2012/8/17 Ruby r...@hush.com Holy moly, what's happening to me? Ruby -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
On 8/17/12 4:59 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: You are believing in all he says. He may only be partially right since LENR could well have several different stages. So, he could be right up to a point, but not right about everything. I had hoped I was describing faithfully what *his* claims are. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
You asked what was happening to you... 2012/8/17 Ruby r...@hush.com On 8/17/12 4:59 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: You are believing in all he says. He may only be partially right since LENR could well have several different stages. So, he could be right up to a point, but not right about everything. I had hoped I was describing faithfully what *his* claims are. -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
Widom Larsen postulate that the neutrons are produced when a proton captures an electron. The process is endothermic (energy must be supplied or it will not occur) so the neutrons initially have extremely low energy (cold). As a result they are nearly stationary and don't leave the material. Also the reaction cross-section with nearby nuclei is high leading to a cascade of nuclear effects that product the observed energy. ymmv Jeff On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Neutrons are hard to shield and when absorbed can produce radioactive materials. Could this be a potentially killer blow to otherwise safe LENR? Fission reactors typically create up to 10^13 neutrons per cm² per second, and this experiment was only making about 20 per s, over (I assume) the full 4Pi sphere but was also probably only a few watts of power. If this is a standard feature of LENR and is scaled up to 10's or 100's of kW for transport applications maybe we are looking at more like 10^10 per s will it be ultimately be dangerous? The oil industry will be looking for exactly this sort of flaw to keep themselves in business. Why haven't other researchers seen Neutrons, were they not looking or are they at too low an energy or flux to be easily detected? On 17 August 2012 22:10, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't this *not* predicted by the W-L theory? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
In the other thread there is a comment to the effect that this is a small-scale hot fusion effect (fractofusion). My comments would not apply. Part of the complexity of the field is that there isn't just one LENR; there are apparently a whole bunch of different phenomena requiring distinct explanations. The underlying physics of the Ni/light water systems may have nothing to do with the physics of Pd/Deu systems and so on. Jeff On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Widom Larsen postulate that the neutrons are produced when a proton captures an electron. The process is endothermic (energy must be supplied or it will not occur) so the neutrons initially have extremely low energy (cold). As a result they are nearly stationary and don't leave the material. Also the reaction cross-section with nearby nuclei is high leading to a cascade of nuclear effects that product the observed energy. ymmv Jeff On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Neutrons are hard to shield and when absorbed can produce radioactive materials. Could this be a potentially killer blow to otherwise safe LENR? Fission reactors typically create up to 10^13 neutrons per cm² per second, and this experiment was only making about 20 per s, over (I assume) the full 4Pi sphere but was also probably only a few watts of power. If this is a standard feature of LENR and is scaled up to 10's or 100's of kW for transport applications maybe we are looking at more like 10^10 per s will it be ultimately be dangerous? The oil industry will be looking for exactly this sort of flaw to keep themselves in business. Why haven't other researchers seen Neutrons, were they not looking or are they at too low an energy or flux to be easily detected? On 17 August 2012 22:10, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't this *not* predicted by the W-L theory? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Additional paper have been posted on Krivet's site
All of the pre-prints were distributed on a flash card. I will upload them when I return. Krivit has already done so, I see. I don't see why you say sheesh about him. He is being helpful. Krivit did not attend the conference. This was a well organized conference. The organizers demanded that authors turn in a preprint before the conference. I have never seen them do that. I approve of the idea. In the past some have been a year or two late. They gave the authors another month to write a final version. I was the only one who failed to turn in a pre-print, because they only asked me a week or two before the conference. They included me on Friday in the commercialization section. The other papers presented then were pretty good. A lot more technical, detailed and less speculative than previous presentations on this subject. I quibbled with Kleehous because they did not take into account the dollar value of embedded energy, which exceeds the direct cost. I.e.; it takes 1 or 2 liters of gasoline to produce 500 g of meat (depending on the type of meat). - Jed
[Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
Several experts in calorimetry expressed doubts about the Celani demonstration at ICCF17. Mike McKubre in particular feels that it is impossible to judge whether it really produced heat or not, because the method is poor. He does not say he is sure there was no heat; he simply does not know. Others feel that he exaggerates the problem. There were concerns because Celani has programmed in the Stephan-Boltzmann law which multiplies things to the a 4-th power. Srinivasan worried that he makes a mountain out of a molehill. The temperature is measured at one point on the surface of the tube. I asked Brian of NI to give me the actual temperature readings. With 48 W of input power only, before excess heat or with the Ar calibration, in a room with 30 deg C ambient temperature, the temperature rose to 120 deg C. When the excess heat appeared it rose to 140 deg C. Celani says that equals 14 W excess, and that is what was displayed by the instrument. McKubre and others worry this may be caused by decreased pressure in the cell. However, the pressure fell only gradually, and stabilized in the last 2 days. They also worried about changes in conduction within the tube, and uneven heat on the surface. I do not think that such effects can account for a 20 deg C temperature rise, especially given the smooth line produced when there is no heat, with H or Ar. The temperature returned to the same level with 48 W, in Italy, Texas and Korea, after the gas had been changed out twice. Anyway, I would like to note that these people have doubts. Others agree with me that the method is crude but unlikely to produce such a large error. Celani hopes to run it in self-sustaining mode with better insulation. That will put to rest all questions about calorimetry. He hopes to do this as quickly as 2 weeks from now! More power to him. He has run it for as long as a month, so a 1 or 2 week self-sustaining run should not be a problem. Given the mass of wire, even 10 minutes would be convincing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Fermi Acceleration
In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:11:31 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] Pardon for this very late postscript, time is hard to find. I believe you assume a wave function totally confined in all 3-dimensions. This is probably not what was intended. It is easy to find papers describing crystal/lattice channel conduction of much higher energy particles (electrons, protons, ...). These are extended states - only confined in one or two dimensions. High energy particles do not necessarily break the lattice structure. -- LP What I meant to do was calculate the momentum (assuming a kinetic energy of 0.782 MeV for the proton), and divide it into h-bar/2. However it appears I got something slightly wrong the first time around. The value I get now is 2.57 fm for a proton, and 0.93 fm for the deuteron. However I don't really stand behind the entire concept. I don't think the energy of particles magically increases when they are confined. I do think the measurement uncertainty increases, but that's not the same thing as their actual energy. Instead, I see it as a limitation on our ability to measure, not a change in the actual properties of the particle itself. IOW the restriction applies to us, not to the particles. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
In reply to Jeff Berkowitz's message of Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:28:04 -0700: Hi, [snip] Widom Larsen postulate that the neutrons are produced when a proton captures an electron. The process is endothermic (energy must be supplied or it will not occur) so the neutrons initially have extremely low energy (cold). As a result they are nearly stationary and don't leave the material. Also the reaction cross-section with nearby nuclei is high leading to a cascade of nuclear effects that product the observed energy. [snip] The essential difference between WL and the Hydrino approach is that Hydrino production is *exothermic* while neutron production is *endothermic* (to the tune of at least 782 keV). IMO that makes the Hydrino approach far more likely to be correct. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Life Imitating Science
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:35 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Are you certain or uncertain? I can't decide. certainly undecided harry
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
10x gasoline. 1 or 2 weeks would be 10,000. The upper limit for fusion in general is around 200.000. 6 months of operation (sounds like Rossi...). 2012/8/17 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com He has run it for as long as a month, so a 1 or 2 week self-sustaining run should not be a problem. Given the mass of wire, even 10 minutes would be convincing. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
If it involves a shock procedure it sounds similiar to the piezonuclear systems studied by Cardone et al and they too obeserved neutrons. Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0903/0903.3104.pdf (This was published in Physics Letters A) Harry On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Neutrons are hard to shield and when absorbed can produce radioactive materials. Could this be a potentially killer blow to otherwise safe LENR? Fission reactors typically create up to 10^13 neutrons per cm² per second, and this experiment was only making about 20 per s, over (I assume) the full 4Pi sphere but was also probably only a few watts of power. If this is a standard feature of LENR and is scaled up to 10's or 100's of kW for transport applications maybe we are looking at more like 10^10 per s will it be ultimately be dangerous? The oil industry will be looking for exactly this sort of flaw to keep themselves in business. Why haven't other researchers seen Neutrons, were they not looking or are they at too low an energy or flux to be easily detected? On 17 August 2012 22:10, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't this *not* predicted by the W-L theory? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
On 2012-08-18 02:53, Jed Rothwell wrote: Celani hopes to run it in self-sustaining mode with better insulation. That will put to rest all questions about calorimetry. He hopes to do this as quickly as 2 weeks from now! More power to him. Given the interest this device generated it would be great if data about one or two self-sustaining runs were publicly released before the next major cold fusion event. Has Celani said anything as to when he eventually plans releasing them? By the way, about the same observations made by McKubre and others at ICCF-17 have been already discussed by skeptics on discussion boards around on the Web. I think these are valid concerns which a more accurate and reliable calorimetry (maybe not possible for a portable clear cell?) or a significantly increased output/input ratio could easily dispel. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
If the neutrons could be collimated they could be used in neutron scattering experiments. Harry On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:06 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Well, Daniel If those neutrons are real, they would still be welcome news. Hopefully, the reaction could be modulated to reduce emissions, or their energies. -- LP Daniel Rocha wrote; 6.2*10^7 neutrons per 5 min means 200 thousand neutrons per second. If each one carries 1MeV, that means 3*10^-10^-8J. There's about 3*10^7s every year, which means about 1Joule of radiation emitted per year. According to wikipedia: The International Commission on Radiological Protectionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Radiological_Protection (ICRP) recommends limiting artificial irradiation of the public to an average of 1 mSv (0.001 Sv) of effective dose per year, not including medical and occupational exposures.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millisievert#cite_note-ICRP103-0 Where 1 Sv = 1 J http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule/kghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram =1Gy If those 62 million mean the total estimated from the source, given an isotropic distribution, it means 1000x above maximum background levels. According to this entries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation-induced_cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning It is hard to figure out the effects, at least for me, of such exposure for a long time. But, they are surely deadly. 2012/8/17 pagnu...@htdconnect.com Pardon if I missed this in the deluge of recent postings ICCF-17 Presentation - Surface Effect for Gas Loading Micrograin Palladium for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR - Heinrich Hora1, George H Miley, Mark Prelas, Kyu Jung Kim, Xiaoling Yang http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf (Slide 2) Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible It sounds like LENR appears in many guises. Does anyone have the accompanying paper? -- Lou Pagnucco -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Additional paper have been posted on Krivet's site
He told something nice. ICCF 18 will be in Missouri... Well, I didn't know that... 2012/8/17 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com All of the pre-prints were distributed on a flash card. I will upload them when I return. Krivit has already done so, I see. I don't see why you say sheesh about him. He is being helpful. Krivit did not attend the conference. This was a well organized conference. The organizers demanded that authors turn in a preprint before the conference. I have never seen them do that. I approve of the idea. In the past some have been a year or two late. They gave the authors another month to write a final version. I was the only one who failed to turn in a pre-print, because they only asked me a week or two before the conference. They included me on Friday in the commercialization section. The other papers presented then were pretty good. A lot more technical, detailed and less speculative than previous presentations on this subject. I quibbled with Kleehous because they did not take into account the dollar value of embedded energy, which exceeds the direct cost. I.e.; it takes 1 or 2 liters of gasoline to produce 500 g of meat (depending on the type of meat). - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Fermi Acceleration
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:57 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:11:31 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] Pardon for this very late postscript, time is hard to find. I believe you assume a wave function totally confined in all 3-dimensions. This is probably not what was intended. It is easy to find papers describing crystal/lattice channel conduction of much higher energy particles (electrons, protons, ...). These are extended states - only confined in one or two dimensions. High energy particles do not necessarily break the lattice structure. -- LP What I meant to do was calculate the momentum (assuming a kinetic energy of 0.782 MeV for the proton), and divide it into h-bar/2. However it appears I got something slightly wrong the first time around. The value I get now is 2.57 fm for a proton, and 0.93 fm for the deuteron. However I don't really stand behind the entire concept. I don't think the energy of particles magically increases when they are confined. I do think the measurement uncertainty increases, but that's not the same thing as their actual energy. Instead, I see it as a limitation on our ability to measure, not a change in the actual properties of the particle itself. IOW the restriction applies to us, not to the particles. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html So, the measuring instrument itself will produce energy, if it is used to precisely measure the energy of a particle? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
From those numbers (30°C room, 120°C at 48W and 140°C when LENR active) I calculate 16W excess if you assume all radiative heat transfer. But it will actually be slightly less than that because the hotter tube surface will convect heat away at a rate that is roughly proportional to the air to tube temperature difference. The next level of complication is that the natural convection air flow will also be slightly faster due to the increased buoyancy, so the heat transfer coefficient will increase as temperature increases too, typically at a rate proportional to the temperature differential to the power of 0.25. I'll do the calculation assuming constant heat transfer coefficient and then with variable heat transfer coefficient caused by increased temperature, shouldn't be much difference due to relatively small relative temperature increase. From his paper he says that the tube dimensions are Ø40mm OD and 280mm long, I will use the full length assume that the temperature is the same everywhere due to internal convection of that most magical of heat transfer fluids hydrogen. Borosilicate glass has emissivity of about 0.9 so the tube is radiating about 27.4W at 120°C and 36.7W at 140°C in a 30°C environment. So 48-27.4=20.6W convected at 120°C and 20.6x(140-30)/(120-30)=25.2W at 140°C. Add that 25.2 to the 36.7 and subtract 48 input and you get 14W excess. Assuming that the heat transfer coefficient increases in proportion to the temperature differential to the power of 0.25 then the convected and therefore excess heat rises by about 1.2W to 15.2W All the same calculations repeated for a 25°C ambient temperature instead of 30°C drop the excess heat from 15.2W to 14.6W, again not much difference There might be a little more complication with the end caps etc, but I think you can pretty confidently state that it is over 10W. Also perhaps someone did a check on the temperature at the top and bottom of the outside of the tube to see if there was a significant temperature difference? I think it is pretty unlikely but you never know. On 18 August 2012 01:53, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Several experts in calorimetry expressed doubts about the Celani demonstration at ICCF17. Mike McKubre in particular feels that it is impossible to judge whether it really produced heat or not, because the method is poor. He does not say he is sure there was no heat; he simply does not know. Others feel that he exaggerates the problem. There were concerns because Celani has programmed in the Stephan-Boltzmann law which multiplies things to the a 4-th power. Srinivasan worried that he makes a mountain out of a molehill. The temperature is measured at one point on the surface of the tube. I asked Brian of NI to give me the actual temperature readings. With 48 W of input power only, before excess heat or with the Ar calibration, in a room with 30 deg C ambient temperature, the temperature rose to 120 deg C. When the excess heat appeared it rose to 140 deg C. Celani says that equals 14 W excess, and that is what was displayed by the instrument. McKubre and others worry this may be caused by decreased pressure in the cell. However, the pressure fell only gradually, and stabilized in the last 2 days. They also worried about changes in conduction within the tube, and uneven heat on the surface. I do not think that such effects can account for a 20 deg C temperature rise, especially given the smooth line produced when there is no heat, with H or Ar. The temperature returned to the same level with 48 W, in Italy, Texas and Korea, after the gas had been changed out twice. Anyway, I would like to note that these people have doubts. Others agree with me that the method is crude but unlikely to produce such a large error. Celani hopes to run it in self-sustaining mode with better insulation. That will put to rest all questions about calorimetry. He hopes to do this as quickly as 2 weeks from now! More power to him. He has run it for as long as a month, so a 1 or 2 week self-sustaining run should not be a problem. Given the mass of wire, even 10 minutes would be convincing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR and Fermi Acceleration
Hello Harry, You asked -- So, the measuring instrument itself will produce energy, if it is used to precisely measure the energy of a particle? Probably not. But maybe there are subtleties that obey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but allow for some counterintuitive effects. For example, refer to -- Concentrating Energy by Measurement http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5868 -- LP Harry Veeder wrote: On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:57 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:11:31 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] Pardon for this very late postscript, time is hard to find. I believe you assume a wave function totally confined in all 3-dimensions. This is probably not what was intended. It is easy to find papers describing crystal/lattice channel conduction of much higher energy particles (electrons, protons, ...). These are extended states - only confined in one or two dimensions. High energy particles do not necessarily break the lattice structure. -- LP What I meant to do was calculate the momentum (assuming a kinetic energy of 0.782 MeV for the proton), and divide it into h-bar/2. However it appears I got something slightly wrong the first time around. The value I get now is 2.57 fm for a proton, and 0.93 fm for the deuteron. However I don't really stand behind the entire concept. I don't think the energy of particles magically increases when they are confined. I do think the measurement uncertainty increases, but that's not the same thing as their actual energy. Instead, I see it as a limitation on our ability to measure, not a change in the actual properties of the particle itself. IOW the restriction applies to us, not to the particles. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html So, the measuring instrument itself will produce energy, if it is used to precisely measure the energy of a particle? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
Isn't 23 years of torture enough? On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Several experts in calorimetry expressed doubts about the Celani demonstration at ICCF17. Mike McKubre in particular feels that it is impossible to judge whether it really produced heat or not, because the method is poor. He does not say he is sure there was no heat; he simply does not know. Others feel that he exaggerates the problem. There were concerns because Celani has programmed in the Stephan-Boltzmann law which multiplies things to the a 4-th power. Srinivasan worried that he makes a mountain out of a molehill. The temperature is measured at one point on the surface of the tube. I asked Brian of NI to give me the actual temperature readings. With 48 W of input power only, before excess heat or with the Ar calibration, in a room with 30 deg C ambient temperature, the temperature rose to 120 deg C. When the excess heat appeared it rose to 140 deg C. Celani says that equals 14 W excess, and that is what was displayed by the instrument. McKubre and others worry this may be caused by decreased pressure in the cell. However, the pressure fell only gradually, and stabilized in the last 2 days. They also worried about changes in conduction within the tube, and uneven heat on the surface. I do not think that such effects can account for a 20 deg C temperature rise, especially given the smooth line produced when there is no heat, with H or Ar. The temperature returned to the same level with 48 W, in Italy, Texas and Korea, after the gas had been changed out twice. Anyway, I would like to note that these people have doubts. Others agree with me that the method is crude but unlikely to produce such a large error. Celani hopes to run it in self-sustaining mode with better insulation. That will put to rest all questions about calorimetry. He hopes to do this as quickly as 2 weeks from now! More power to him. He has run it for as long as a month, so a 1 or 2 week self-sustaining run should not be a problem. Given the mass of wire, even 10 minutes would be convincing. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
From: Robert Lynn [snip] Add that 25.2 to the 36.7 and subtract 48 input and you get 14W excess.. I think you can pretty confidently state that it is over 10W. Nice work. Thanks. Is there any way to guesstimate - assuming the best reasonable kind of insulation is added to retain heat, something like aerogel, etc - how much more mass of active wire (if any) would be necessary to get close to a nominally self-sustaining system? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible
Ruby, More important than whether there is a difference between LENR and fractofusion are the questions - - Have Miley, et al, produced more energy than other fractofusion results? - Can the effect be scaled up beyond what fractofusion attained to date? - Are the transmutations real and reproducible? - Have previous fractofusion experiments produced these new elements? Maybe there are several phenomena. Establishing to skeptics that either exists is more important right now. -- LP Ruby wrote: On 8/17/12 4:32 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Not really bad news. Ed Storms came up with a theory that fusion happen in cracks of the lattice. Summing that, with what I see in the slides, they are thinking that a BEC of D is forced to be fused by the fractures. So, LENR is a kind of variation of fractofusion. D, I happen to be right now editing a video interview with Ed Storms conducted after his NPA talk - 47 minutes long! I'm quite sure that he distinguishes fracto-fusion from LENR. They are not at all related in his mind. He believes, by definition, any process that emits this type of radiation is not LENR. If a process releases this type of radiation, then it is by definition, related to hot fusion. In *An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion)*published in JCMNS #9 and which you can find here http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Storms-JCMNS-published.pdf, [...]
Re: [Vo]:Re: ProdEngAssemble.avi
That death was from a chemical explosion. SRI, recombiner gunked up, researcher picked up the cell, gunk fell off, fast recomb,. Bang! He died, McKubre still has glass in him. As I recall reading. Closed cells are dangerous. LENR *could* be dangerous. Unreliable can cut both ways. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 17, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In a post today integral sited a death of a LENR developer in an explosion. The take away, LENR is dangerous when the power is high. It is best to be as safe as you can. Axil On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:11 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: If you just sell plans for poppers, electronic circuit boards and licenses for the technology, then all of the liability rests with the OEM's they drag in. They probably give them a short demo in the shop before the thing malfunctions. I notice everytime I see a demo it is behind explosion proof glass. Oddity and UNCERTAINTY Stewart On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 11:17 PM 8/16/2012, Axil Axil wrote: I am putting two and two together here. The Papp engine ash was a brown powder. Thanks for letting us know that this was your speculation, not a conclusion from strong evidence. J Ronner talks about a two helium atom fusion process. And what J Rohner (I presume that was a mispelling) says about the process has as much -- or does it have more -- reliability than an angry monkey typiing would have? Rohner has said a lot that quite simply is not true when investigated. It starts with simple things, such as the availability of videos. But it continues with many examples of stuff that was, ah, a tad exaggerated. If we can call claiming to have a running test engines is an exaggeration if you only have test engines that may not have run at all. He's admitted to that whopper (last year, to PESN). Or claiming to have 2 MIT PhDs, but, when challenged, apparently, says they are secret and his resume now claims his education is irrelevant. Fine. It might be irrelevant, but why then did he claim the PhDs? Why did he claim the running test engines? He says why. He had to say *something* or investors would bail. That's called fraud. Saying what you think an investor wants to hear, when it isn't the truth, to induce them to maintain or make investments. Someone will nail him on this, I suspect, eventually. (However, he might be adequately covered by various agreements. We have to remember that it isn't illegal to lie, under some conditions. I'm just saying that we can't rely on what the man says for anything. If he says it's 3 PM, look at the clock before agreeing.) Basically, J Rohner's company, Inteligentry, is offering a popper kit, which, if it's real, would actually be an engine, albeit a single-stroke one. $350 for the electronics package, including coils and spark plugs, and the kit includes plans for the piston assembly, and the fuel formula (taken from the patent). He claims this device is what they used to test fuel and the electronic protocol to fire the thing, and that is sensible and believable. However, unlike the competing Bob Rohner, John hasn't shown even a single firing of the Popper. Caveat emptor. I consider that we would need to be aware of the possibility that the John Rohner kit is actually a Bob Rohner killer, aimed at discrediting his brother when the kit fails. Crazy? Sure. *But these people are crazy. At least John is, that's obvious. That has nothing to do with whether or not his various claims are true. Some of them might be. Indeed, he might be responding to long-standing family dysfunction. Lots of crazy people are. I still don't see any significant evidence for nuclear. The level of energy released is sometimes cited as evidence for nuclear, but really all that, if established, would show is not chemical. Some brown powder isn't evidence for nuclear unless we actually know what the powder is. Cold fusion was not actually established as nuclear until helium was identified as the predominant ash. Then we could say it was nuclear, and we could even go further because of the specific value of the correlation between anomalous heat and helium production. It was fusion. Because I'm being watched (they are under every rock), I'll point out that fusion does not just refer to d-d fusion, and the correlation value (estimated at 25+/-5 MeV/He-4 by Storms, 2007 and 2010) would result from any reaction that converts deuterium to helium, no matter what intermediates are involved. That conversion is called fusion. Fusion is the term for a whole class of reactions, not just one. However, interesting speculation, perhaps: This type fusion does not produce energy in fusing to boron8 atoms. But all boron isotopes under B11 will decay by fission. There are two conceivable ways in which the
[Vo]:Updated Miley Nuclear Battery Presentation
NUCLEAR BATTERY USING D-CLUSTERS IN NANO-MATERIALS --- PLUS SOME COMMENTS ABOUT PRIOR ABOUT PRIOR H2-Ni POWER CELL STUDIES - George H. Miley, Xiaoling. Yang, Heinrich Hora http://www.slideshare.net/ssusereeef70/nuclear-battery-using-clusters-in-nanomaterials
Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous?
This comment has apparently turned out to be astute ... On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: If it involves a shock procedure it sounds similiar to the piezonuclear systems studied by Cardone et al and they too obeserved neutrons. Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0903/0903.3104.pdf (This was published in Physics Letters A) Harry On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Neutrons are hard to shield and when absorbed can produce radioactive materials. Could this be a potentially killer blow to otherwise safe LENR? Fission reactors typically create up to 10^13 neutrons per cm² per second, and this experiment was only making about 20 per s, over (I assume) the full 4Pi sphere but was also probably only a few watts of power. If this is a standard feature of LENR and is scaled up to 10's or 100's of kW for transport applications maybe we are looking at more like 10^10 per s will it be ultimately be dangerous? The oil industry will be looking for exactly this sort of flaw to keep themselves in business. Why haven't other researchers seen Neutrons, were they not looking or are they at too low an energy or flux to be easily detected? On 17 August 2012 22:10, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-08-17 20:39, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Absolute confirmation of Nuclear Fusion from deuterated titanium using shock procedure - Mark Prelas: 62Million Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible I'm not a theoretician (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't this *not* predicted by the W-L theory? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Additional paper have been posted on Krivet's site
The sheesh was because in my original mail, I spelled his name wrong. Which seemed rude when I realized I had done it. I was not intending to say anything about content with the sheesh. Jeff On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: All of the pre-prints were distributed on a flash card. I will upload them when I return. Krivit has already done so, I see. I don't see why you say sheesh about him. He is being helpful. Krivit did not attend the conference. This was a well organized conference. The organizers demanded that authors turn in a preprint before the conference. I have never seen them do that. I approve of the idea. In the past some have been a year or two late. They gave the authors another month to write a final version. I was the only one who failed to turn in a pre-print, because they only asked me a week or two before the conference. They included me on Friday in the commercialization section. The other papers presented then were pretty good. A lot more technical, detailed and less speculative than previous presentations on this subject. I quibbled with Kleehous because they did not take into account the dollar value of embedded energy, which exceeds the direct cost. I.e.; it takes 1 or 2 liters of gasoline to produce 500 g of meat (depending on the type of meat). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
Good calorimetry is difficult, but comparisons are not. Wouldn't it be sufficient to demonstrate two parallel implementations, one with an unprocessed CONSTANTAN wire and no H2, one with a processed wire and H2, and measure the difference using the same approach? Why do I even have to pose this question? Questions like this are what cause the rest of the world to doubt the whole discipline. How hard is this? What am I missing? Help me out here. Jeff On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** *From:* Robert Lynn ** ** [snip] Add that 25.2 to the 36.7 and subtract 48 input and you get 14W excess…. I think you can pretty confidently state that it is over 10W. ** ** ** ** Nice work. Thanks. ** ** Is there any way to guesstimate – assuming the best reasonable kind of insulation is added to retain heat, something like aerogel, etc – how much more mass of active wire (if any) would be necessary to get close to a nominally self-sustaining system? ** ** Jones
